Jump to content

Global Warming Scientific Consensus: Fact or Fiction.


Cicero
 Share

Recommended Posts

But thats my question, if global warming is bullshit in 50 years, Would you be willing to walk around with a shirt saying

"I cried about global warming for fifty years, and all that happen was an shorten life span, becuase of all the stress, and this lousy T-Shirt. While my friends lived happy lives and are retried, unlike me, I spent all my money on green shit, and I do fries Mon thru Fri."

:hysterical: They're ain't no freakin fries

jack_in_the_box.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But thats my question, if global warming is bullshit in 50 years, Would you be willing to walk around with a shirt saying

"I cried about global warming for fifty years, and all that happen was an shorten life span, becuase of all the stress, and this lousy T-Shirt. While my friends lived happy lives and are retried, unlike me, I spent all my money on green shit, and I do fries Mon thru Fri."

Yes, because nobody will care...If Global Warming, by some incredible miracle, doesn't happen, then nobody will care about the ones who predicted it would...

But if everything's fucked, and elements of it were preventable, they're going to coming after you guys...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Global warming might very well be a load of BS, but we should still do what we can to "stop it". The efforts trying to prevent it will only benefit the earth.

The usual things associated as causes of global warming damage the environment even if they don't actually contribute to the warming of the planet.

Ultimately, the "global warming prevention" way of living is an advancement that we will take eventually, so why not start doing it now?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The bottom line and one which the denialists don't get is this:

If we are wrong so what?

Oh because then you've denied the denialists some of their very precious money...

But other than that you're exactly right

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The intention of the original post was simple: is there or is there not a scientific consensus on global warming? The fact that 31,000 scientists signed a petition rejecting the theory of anthropocentric global warming, including the distinguished scientist Freeman Dyson, proves that there is no consensus. To not alter your assumptions in light of this fact is to beg the question, which a lot of commentators on this board are doing; in other words, to argue from a position that what is under contention is already true. It's either bad logic or bad faith. As John Maynard Keynes once said "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir."

On another note. The idea that environmentalists are pure of motive while "deniers" - as those who are not persuaded by the consensus view are called - are in the pay of big business or are in some way just lining their own pockets is nonsense. A whole worldwide industry has grown around this issue with thousands of environmental activists in academia, government departments, scientific institutions, and environmental organizations making a very good living from it.

Either way, whether global warming is true or not, people will die, as they are already dying from the global food shortage caused by the environmentally inspired change to ethanol production. Nobody on either side of this controversy holds the high moral ground.

In the end, what we are left with are two groups of scientists with opposing views. We have to evaluate the evidence not the scientists' politics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The intention of the original post was simple: is there or is there not a scientific consensus on global warming? The fact that 31,000 scientists signed a petition rejecting the theory of anthropocentric global warming, including the distinguished scientist Freeman Dyson, proves that there is no consensus. To not alter your assumptions in light of this fact is to beg the question, which a lot of commentators on this board are doing; in other words, to argue from a position that what is under contention is already true. It's either bad logic or bad faith. As John Maynard Keynes once said "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir."

On another note. The idea that environmentalists are pure of motive while "deniers" - as those who are not persuaded by the consensus view are called - are in the pay of big business or are in some way just lining their own pockets is nonsense. A whole worldwide industry has grown around this issue with thousands of environmental activists in academia, government departments, scientific institutions, and environmental organizations making a very good living from it.

Either way, whether global warming is true or not, people will die, as they are already dying from the global food shortage caused by the environmentally inspired change to ethanol

production. Nobody on either side of this controversy holds the high moral ground.

Thank you this the best post to this thread so far, logic with some common sense.

and welcome to the board.

In the end, what we are left with are two groups of scientists with opposing views. We have to evaluate the evidence not the scientists' politics.

Edited by Dzldoc
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, because nobody will care...If Global Warming, by some incredible miracle, doesn't happen, then nobody will care about the ones who predicted it would...

But if everything's fucked, and elements of it were preventable, they're going to coming after you guys...

Thats the problem though taking action agenst man made global warming isnt something that has no cost beyond a few juppies giving up there offroaders and buying some energy saving gadgets. We've seen already the effect biofuel has had on world food prices and further anti co2 measures will almost certainly have a negative effect on the devolpment of the poorest nations, the cost could be literally millions dead.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Except for the fact that I'm currently on antibiotics (tonsillitis, you know... <_< ), I'm fine. :D

You?

You'll get rid of the tonsillitis soon, I hope. :)

I'm not complaining, the winter was a bit difficult for me (cf. Depression thread), but good things coming up methinks. B)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Denialist"? That's a good one.... :lol:

I'm a sceptic on this issue, nothing more, nothing less.

I don't see anyone suggesting that we do nothing about being more "green" or discontinue searching for environmentally friendly sources of energy. The alarmist mentality is what bothers me. The opinion that people who don't believe that humans are responsible for global climate change are not concerned about man made pollutants is absurd. I hate our dependency on fossil fuels and their impact on our environment and economy. The argument is NOT ABOUT IF WE SHOULD BE BETTER STEWARDS OF OUR EARTH! I think that all of us agree that we should nuture and protect our planet, so why does this line of BS keep coming up?

After three separate threads about this issue, it is clear that intelligent, rational discussion is not going to occur, but rather mud-slinging and ridiculous, misguided one-sided rants seem to prevail.

Just because someone disagrees with a theory (and any respectable scientist will tell you that at this point that's all it is), doesn't mean they want to continue to trash the planet. If we can move past that, we might be able to discuss the issue.....but I'm sceptical. :whistling:

Edited by JimmyPage1977
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are clearly some "Denialists" who do so more monetary(funded by oil companies etc) or political reasons but I do find it very worrying how easily the term of used to dismiss any criticism of man made climate change/MMCC.

On the other side of the coin there seems to be a tremendous niaveity when it comes to the idea of pro MMCC groups having no vested interests. I see politicans, media companies and industies who have invested a massive amount of capital in MMCC as currently theorised being correct, do you really think there above not letting that get in the way searching for the scientific truth of the issue?

What worries me is that under this "climate" any solution is going to be based on political/economic needs and even if MMCC is real it will not be effective in combatting it.

Edited by greenman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are clearly some "Denialists" who do so more monetary(funded by oil companies etc) or political reasons but I do find it very worrying how easily the term of used to dismiss any criticism of man made climate change/MMCC.

On the other side of the coin there seems to be a tremendous niaveity when it comes to the idea of pro MMCC groups having no vested interests. I see politicans, media companies and industies who have invested a massive amount of capital in MMCC as currently theorised being correct, do you really think there above not letting that get in the way searching for the scientific truth of the issue?

What worries me is that under this "climate" any solution is going to be based on political/economic needs and even if MMCC is real it will not be effective in combatting it.

Valid points. I agree that both sides are tainted and reminded that some of those MMCC scientists are paid to find catastrphic situations. No emergency situation, no grants.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On another note. The idea that environmentalists are pure of motive while "deniers" - as those who are not persuaded by the consensus view are called - are in the pay of big business or are in some way just lining their own pockets is nonsense. A whole worldwide industry has grown around this issue with thousands of environmental activists in academia, government departments, scientific institutions, and environmental organizations making a very good living from it.

Nonsense...

There's no money in academia...why do you think Universities are always going cap-in-hand to Industry and Multinational Corporations? Take it from me, I used to work for a University, the penny-pinching that goes on is unbelievable, the only money is for business-orientated fields...

Nobody gets employed in Government Departments or Civil Service simply because they are pro-green...Do you honestly believe Politicians are that crash-hot about environmentalism? They're always worried about losing votes, they're not overly-keen to get everyone scared about Global warming...

There's no money whatsoever in Environmental Organisations. People are there because they believe in what they're doing. Whether or not they're right is another issue...

Scientific Institutions...who pays for scientific institutions? Mostly Industry and Corporations...

No, I'm sorry, you'll have to do better than that...

The alarmist mentality is what bothers me.

It's nothing wrong with it, it keeps society on its toes, more adaptable to change.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nonsense...

There's no money in academia...why do you think Universities are always going cap-in-hand to Industry and Multinational Corporations? Take it from me, I used to work for a University, the penny-pinching that goes on is unbelievable, the only money is for business-orientated fields...

Nobody gets employed in Government Departments or Civil Service simply because they are pro-green...Do you honestly believe Politicians are that crash-hot about environmentalism? They're always worried about losing votes, they're not overly-keen to get everyone scared about Global warming...

There's no money whatsoever in Environmental Organisations. People are there because they believe in what they're doing. Whether or not they're right is another issue...

Scientific Institutions...who pays for scientific institutions? Mostly Industry and Corporations...

No, I'm sorry, you'll have to do better than that...

I don't think it was talking about bribes but rather general funding, is it really that hard to believe that research thats PC is more likey to get either public or private funding than research that isnt?

Yes I do think politicans are that "crashed out" on enviromentalism, its a massive vote getter so why wouldnt they be? To openly decry MMCC in public is nigh on political suicide these days.

I'm sure 95% of people envolved with enviromentalism believe in what there doing but that doesnt mean someone at the top isnt getting some political capital or a good deal of money from there efforts.

Edited by greenman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's no money whatsoever in Environmental Organisations.

:hysterical: Gainsie I may not agree with all you're points but I think you're a fairly intellegent person.This must be a typo you don't really believe this do you? I have an E.P.A. License to handle large quantities of CFC's and I can tell you that there is huge! amounts of money to be made in the enviromental business.

I've fattened my own pockets with peoples hard earned funds due to compliances related to enviromental laws here in the United States. Yes I do believe we need to be better keepers of the enviroment, I mean really who would advocate intentional pollution. I am bound by these laws under the penalty of heavy fines and or a prison sentence to uphold those protections. You wouldn't believe the people that would like you to fudge their 4 gas analisys of their cars to pass inspections.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think it was talking about bribes but rather general funding, is it really that hard to believe that research thats PC is more likey to get either public or private funding than research that isnt?

Absolutely not

The vast majority of funding comes from the business sector, and government...

Business is not going to fund something that is detrimental to its profit margins

Goverment won't fund things unless there votes in it. A strict pro-environmental stand is not a major vote-winner

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 7 months later...

More Warming News:

Extreme Alaska cold grounds planes, disables cars

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090108/ap_on_...ka_extreme_cold

Thu Jan 8, 5:59 am ET JUNEAU, Alaska – Ted Johnson planned on using a set of logs to a build a cabin in Alaska's interior. Instead he'll burn some of them to stay warm.

Extreme temperatures — in Johnson's case about 60 below zero — call for extreme measures in a statewide cold snap so frigid that temperatures have grounded planes, disabled cars, frozen water pipes and even canceled several championship cross country ski races.

Alaskans are accustomed to subzero temperatures but the prolonged conditions have folks wondering what's going on with winter less than a month old.

National Weather Service meteorologist Andy Brown said high pressure over much of central Alaska has been keeping other weather patterns from moving through. New conditions get pushed north or south while the affected area faces daily extremes.

"When it first started almost two weeks ago, it wasn't anything abnormal," Brown said. "About once or twice every year, we get a good cold snap. But, in this case, you can call this an extreme event. This is rare. It doesn't happen every year."

Temperatures sit well below zero in the state's various regions, often without a wisp of wind pushing down the mercury further.

Johnson lives in Stevens Village, where residents have endured close to two weeks of temperatures pushing 60 below zero.

The cold has kept planes grounded, Johnson said. Food and fuel aren't coming in and they're starting to run low in the village, about 90 miles northwest of Fairbanks.

Johnson, whose home has no heater or running water, said he ventures outside only to get more logs for burning and to fetch water from a community facility. He's been saving the wood to build a cabin as a second home, but that will have to wait a few years now because the heat takes precedence.

"I've never seen it this cold for this long," he said. "I remember it 70 below one time, but not for a week and a half."

In Anchorage, Alaska's largest city, residents are used to lows of about 10-degree temperatures in January — not 19 below zero, which is what folks awoke to Wednesday morning.

Temperatures finally settled to about 10 below at midday, but that was cold enough to cancel races in the U.S. Cross Country Ski Championships.

Skiers won't compete unless it's warmer than 4 below zero, but the numbers have ranged between 10 below and 15 below.

That has led to four days of canceled or postponed competition with organizers hoping to get a set of races under way on Thursday, the event's final day.

Meanwhile, in Juneau, the state's capital is enjoying balmy weather by comparison with lows in the single digits.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

$280 Million NASA global warming satellite crashes after launch

610x.jpg

February 24, 2009

LOS ANGELES (AP) — A NASA mission to monitor global warming from space ended Tuesday when a satellite plunged into the ocean near Antarctica minutes after launch. An equipment malfunction was apparently to blame, officials said.

The loss of the $280 million mission came a month after Japan launched the world's first spacecraft to track global warming emissions. The failure dealt a blow to NASA, which had hoped to send up its own satellite to measure carbon dioxide, the main greenhouse gas behind human-caused global warming.

The crash came just after liftoff from the Vandenberg Air Force Base on California's central coast. A Taurus XL rocket carrying the Orbiting Carbon Observatory blasted off as scheduled shortly before 2 a.m.

Three minutes into the flight, the nose cone protecting the satellite failed to come off as designed, NASA officials said. The extra weight from the cover caused the rocket to dive back to Earth, splashing into the ocean near Antarctica, where a group of environment ministers from more than a dozen countries met Monday to get the latest science on global warming.

"Certainly for the science community it's a huge disappointment," said John Brunschwyler, Taurus project manager for Orbital Sciences Corp., which built the rocket and satellite. "It's taken so long to get here."

The 986-pound satellite was supposed to be placed into a polar orbit some 400 miles high. The project was nine years in the making, and the mission was supposed to last two years.

Tuesday's failure put on hold the summer launch of another NASA satellite Glory, which will measure soot and aerosols in the atmosphere, said launch manager Charles Dovale.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 7 years later...

100% Of US Warming Is Due To NOAA Data Tampering

http://realclimatescience.com/2016/12/100-of-us-warming-is-due-to-noaa-data-tampering/

Climate Central just ran this piece, which the Washington Post picked up on. They claimed the US was “overwhelmingly hot” in 2016, and temperatures have risen 1.5°F since the 19th century.

The problem with the NOAA climate graph is that it is fake data. NOAA creates the warming trend by altering the data. The NOAA raw data shows no warming over the past century.

The adjustments correlate almost perfectly with atmospheric CO2. NOAA is adjusting the data to match global warming theory. This is known as PBEM (Policy Based Evidence Making.)

The hockey stick of adjustments since 1970 is due almost entirely to NOAA fabricating missing station data. In 2016, more than 42% of their monthly station data was missing, so they simply made it up. This is easy to identify because they mark fabricated temperatures with an “E” in their database.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...