Official Global Warming thread (merged)

#5,151
#5,151
VolsNSkinsFan said:
prove me wrong.
Click to expand...
We've already been over this. See the link.
BartW said:
In 1996 the global surface temperature anomaly was +0.32. In 2014 it was +0.67. Since the new millenium we’ve experienced 14 of the 15 hottest years on record. The record was broken in 1998, 2002, 2005, 2010, and again in 2014. Since 1880, surface temperatures are up ~0.9 C. And to top it off, Surprise: The world just had its warmest winter on record

I rate your posts "pants on fire"
Click to expand...
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#5,152
#5,152
MercyPercy said:
It always amazes me that some people actually believe there's a global conspiracy among scientists about the nature of climate change. Or, if it isn't that, then it has to be global incompetence from the scientific community. I find either notion incredibly perplexing, because I am neither a conspiracy theorist, nor do I hold the scientific community in such contempt. I feel for the guys in here trying to convey reason to the Sandys of this thread, but I can't help but think now that some people cannot be helped once their mind is set on something.

:popcorn:
Click to expand...
That's what "they" want you to think
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#5,153
#5,153
BartW said:
That's what "they" want you to think
Click to expand...

It is very hard for me to accept that anyone would reject climate change if they had all of the facts. It is just hard to get people to distinguish between BS and fact when it is so much easier and more convenient to believe the BS.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#5,154
#5,154
Mtntrout said:
It is very hard for me to accept that anyone would reject climate change if they had all of the facts. It is just hard to get people to distinguish between BS and fact when it is so much easier and more convenient to believe the BS.
Click to expand...

Like the bs of you freaking out over .4 of a degree?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#5,155
#5,155
Mtntrout said:
It is very hard for me to accept that anyone would reject climate change if they had all of the facts. It is just hard to get people to distinguish between BS and fact when it is so much easier and more convenient to believe the BS.
Click to expand...

I do accept climate change and would prefer it continue to change in the warm direction.
 
#5,157
#5,157
Climate change?

Spring, Summer, Fall, Winter? Right?

Global warming?

My F250 is killing the planet? Right?
 
#5,164
#5,164
New Study Is A

A study by scientists at Germany’s Max Planck Institute for Meteorology found that man-made aerosols had a much smaller cooling effect on the atmosphere during the 20th Century than was previously thought. Why is this big news? It means increases in carbon dioxide emissions likely cause less warming than most climate models suggest.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#5,165
#5,165
Mtntrout said:
We literally hit on this a few weeks ago. The scale is +/- a few thousand years, so the current warming spike literally doesn't show up. If you draw it in, it dwarfs the previous interglacials.
Click to expand...

I posted it to show that yes climate does change. You either believe in recurring glacials followed by warming periods or you don't. And, as for the info from the little red box that is a different study. I don't know what their accuracy is. It is unimportant as to the purpose of my post.
 
#5,166
#5,166
Sandvol said:
I posted it to show that yes climate does change. You either believe in recurring glacials followed by warming periods or you don't. And, as for the info from the little red box that is a different study. I don't know what their accuracy is. It is unimportant as to the purpose of my post.
Click to expand...

Did someone argue that climate has never changed? The whole climate change issue is built off of paleoclimatological data. Your point is a non sequitur.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#5,168
#5,168
theFallGuy said:
And what data is that if no one was even around to collect data from that time period?
Click to expand...

Wait, so you are going to direct that at me, but not with the guy who posted the Vostok record? Seems totally rational and reasonable.

There are various forms of proxy records that inform us of past conditions. The one Sand is posting is the oldest and one of the best, and is made by analyzing isotopes in air bubbles trapped in Antarctic ice. Ice, sediment, sometimes rocks, tree rings, speleothems (those are like stagmites and stactites), and even rat middens can all record past climate and climate change.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#5,170
#5,170
OrangeWayOfLife said:
Trout, what's your take on the article I linked?
Click to expand...

I'm highly skeptical that they are interpreting the findings of the author the way he intended, but I can't access that journal article myself.

He's pretty much everything a person who doesn't accept climate change hates, which is what makes it so amusing that many blogs and contrarian outlets are now hoisting up this particular paper of his. No objectivity.

You can read an interview with him here:
http://www.hvonstorch.de/klima/Media/interviews/AS/stevens.1204.pdf

A part of interest:
What do you think about the presence of
people, who label themselves as skeptics, in the
scientific and in the public discourses?

Assuming that this question is meant to be
taken in the context of debates about our
understanding of the climate system, it is
probably useful to distinguish between skeptics
and those who deny that there is robust
evidence of an anthropogenic influence on
climate. The distinction is useful because the
latter, despite calling themselves skeptics, are
characterized by a profound lack of skepticism -
- particularly for their own ideas. The
disingenuous and self-serving nature of much
of what is passed on as skepticism has a
corrosive influence on the public discourse and
the scientific process. Through fear of
association this false skepticism makes the
broader scientific community more guarded in
its own application of criticism. It can also
divert the field away from the questions that
really require critical attention. This is
unfortunate, because constructive criticism is
the lifeblood of the scientific process, and there
is plenty to be critical about in climate science
Click to expand...
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#5,171
#5,171
Climate change denial seems to spring from a mix of two things: 1) conservative tendency to be knee-jerk anti-science about everything, since it does not fit their desired world view of evolution, abortion, and similar issues. There is a history of science repeatedly coming up on the side of the left on these issues, over many decades, if not longer, and I think the right, particularly the religious right, resents science, as an institution, because of it; and 2) for big business it means increased cost of abiding by regulation designed to arrest and reverse any man-made contribution.

We've seen this week the religious and big business sides of the GOP at odds with one another on the religious rights bill in Indiana. and you know that the business side of the party is constantly banging its collective head against the wall that the religious right keeps tethering the party to social issues that make it harder to get pro-business candidates elected.

Climate change denying, or at least climate change doubting, is the one issue where both sides of the party can seem to coalesce, albeit for different reasons.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#5,172
#5,172
lawgator1 said:
Climate change denial seems to spring from a mix of two things: 1) conservative tendency to be knee-jerk anti-science about everything, since it does not fit their desired world view of evolution, abortion, and similar issues. There is a history of science repeatedly coming up on the side of the left on these issues, over many decades, if not longer, and I think the right, particularly the religious right, resents science, as an institution, because of it; and 2) for big business it means increased cost of abiding by regulation designed to arrest and reverse any man-made contribution.

We've seen this week the religious and big business sides of the GOP at odds with one another on the religious rights bill in Indiana. and you know that the business side of the party is constantly banging its collective head against the wall that the religious right keeps tethering the party to social issues that make it harder to get pro-business candidates elected.

Climate change denying, or at least climate change doubting, is the one issue where both sides of the party can seem to coalesce, albeit for different reasons.
Click to expand...

Would you please get off the whole ****ing right wing science denier thing?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#5,173
#5,173
lawgator1 said:
Climate change denial seems to spring from a mix of two things: 1) conservative tendency to be knee-jerk anti-science about everything, since it does not fit their desired world view of evolution, abortion, and similar issues. There is a history of science repeatedly coming up on the side of the left on these issues, over many decades, if not longer, and I think the right, particularly the religious right, resents science, as an institution, because of it; and 2) for big business it means increased cost of abiding by regulation designed to arrest and reverse any man-made contribution.

We've seen this week the religious and big business sides of the GOP at odds with one another on the religious rights bill in Indiana. and you know that the business side of the party is constantly banging its collective head against the wall that the religious right keeps tethering the party to social issues that make it harder to get pro-business candidates elected.

Climate change denying, or at least climate change doubting, is the one issue where both sides of the party can seem to coalesce, albeit for different reasons.
Click to expand...

You should stop getting your talking points from Bart. No one here is denying climate change. No one here is denying science. The debate is whether or not man is having a significant, insignificant, or moderate impact on the earth's climate. The second part of the debate is what to do about it, if it is actually occurring at an unnatural pace.

In my opinion, climate change alarmists face a credibility problem when they willingly ally themselves with virulently anti-capitalist and anti-American groups. Another problem they face is that their peer-review process is little more than an echo chamber where dissent and skepticism aren't tolerated.

A third problem the alarmists have is that they don't offer solutions, other than prattle on about carbon reduction while advancing so-called green technologies that are as deleterious to the environment as fossil fuels.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#5,174
#5,174
MG1968 said:
You should stop getting your talking points from Bart. No one here is denying climate change. No one here is denying science. The debate is whether or not man is having a significant, insignificant, or moderate impact on the earth's climate. The second part of the debate is what to do about it, if it is actually occurring at an unnatural pace.

In my opinion, climate change alarmists face a credibility problem when they willingly ally themselves with virulently anti-capitalist and anti-American groups. Another problem they face is that their peer-review process is little more than an echo chamber where dissent and skepticism aren't tolerated.

A third problem the alarmists have is that they don't offer solutions, other than prattle on about carbon reduction while advancing so-called green technologies that are as deleterious to the environment as fossil fuels.
Click to expand...

Sir, you are denying science in the very post you are saying you don't. The debate within the scientific community is not whether there is anthropogenic warming or not. There is ample evidence that there is. If you think there is not, you are in fact denying science. Saying there is a "credibility" problem with 97 % of scientists in relevant fields and every major science body is denial.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#5,175
#5,175
Mtntrout said:
Sir, you are denying science in the very post you are saying you don't. The debate within the scientific community is not whether there is anthropogenic warming or not. There is ample evidence that there is. If you think there is not, you are in fact denying science. Saying there is a "credibility" problem with 97 % of scientists in relevant fields and every major science body is denial.
Click to expand...

Did you miss the man made part?
 
New Posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

Advertisement



Back
Top