In the UK every major political party accepts that human activity is a factor in climate change, and that in government they bear a responsibility to do something about it (or at least appear to do something about it). 79% of British people believe that it is their government's responsibility to do something about global warming, 74% believe it is also there personal responsibility. 85% would make personal changes to their lifestyle if it would help the situation. I wonder what the situation is in other countries? Are any like the US, or is this US politicization of climate change unique?
Global warming and scientists.
by Forscher 82 Replies latest members politics
-
-
Satanus
Uk humanist
The popular belief of the time is no guarantee of reality, unless it is something that is plainly visible. Global warming causes are not plainly visible. You may remember the popular religious beiefs of days gone by, and how they matched reality.
S
-
Terry
The popular belief of the time is no guarantee of reality, unless it is something that is plainly visible. Global warming causes are not plainly visible. You may remember the popular religious beiefs of days gone by, and how they matched reality.
Excellent analogy!
-
uk humanist
The popular belief of the time is no guarantee of reality
Granted. It would be inane of me to offer these statistics as evidence for human-induced climate change, but you'll see I didn't do that. I thought they might prove (if only mildly) interesting to some members.
-
DanTheMan
Models are rooted in data but the projections are pure speculation. PURE speculation. They are 100% representative of the bias of the modeler.
I'm stuck on trying to understand the dichotomy you speak of between scientists who base their conclusions on models vs. scientists who base their conclusion on data. Aren't they both using the same data to assess whether or not a correlation exists between increased C02 levels and GW?
-
AuldSoul
Dan,
Dr. Patterson looks back at historical temperatures and climates. In doing so, he finds tremendously elevated levels of CO2 during periods of coldest temperatures earthwide. He finds moderate levels of CO2 during periods of greatly elevated temperatures. He finds greatly elevated CO2 during periods of greatly elevated temperatures. He finds very modest CO2 levels during very cold periods. Historically, CO2 provably does not predict climate shifts.
If the projection models are based on false assumptions the results will produce false information. They represent the bias of the reseachers, they do not represent actual effects. Their premise is biased, they will interpret recent data with bias, the model will be arranged so their bias can be proven correct, and voila! their prejudice will be confirmed by a model.
However, the fluctuations in temperature consistently match solar activity impacts throughout history. As Terry mentioned, we are overdue for an ice age. I am sure you realize how badly our cities would fare should we enter another one right now. Fortunately, the sun, not CO2, is preventing such a climate shift.
Dr. Pattersons work demonstrates that historically (over the course of many millennia) the sun's activity shows a direct correlation to the earth's temperature shifts, whereas historically concentrations of greenhouse gasses shows no correlation whatsoever to global temperature shifts. And he has nothing to gain or lose by the outcome of his findings.
Scientists who project from models establish the parameters the models consider. If they use faulty data, or even accurate data that does not accurately represent real correlations, the results will be skewed to confirm their prejudice. Since I can't seem to find better specifics than "the majority of scientists" I will need to ask for your help. Either research the methodology of your favorite GW expert to determine whether they consider "historic" to be 100-200 years, or whether they consider "historic" in terms of geologic climate to span much longer time frame. Geologically speaking, a couple of centuries is less than the blink of an eye. Making gloom and doom predictions from such a short time frame is, frankly, silly.
Respectfully,
AuldSoul -
SixofNine
Auldsoul, one would almost get the idea from reading your post that you don't believe that ghg's effects warm the earth. Is that true?
-
DanTheMan
whereas historically concentrations of greenhouse gasses shows no correlation whatsoever to global temperature shifts[...] Either research the methodology of your favorite GW expert to determine whether they consider "historic" to be 100-200 years, or whether they consider "historic" in terms of geologic climate to span much longer time frame. Geologically speaking, a couple of centuries is less than the blink of an eye. Making gloom and doom predictions from such a short time frame is, frankly, silly.
Is 160,000 years far back enough? I find the following to be compelling evidence of a very definite correlation between C02 concentrations and temperatures:
-
SixofNine
whereas historically concentrations of greenhouse gasses shows no correlation whatsoever to global temperature shifts...
I know Dan. It's stunning, the amount of conviction that comes thru in a sentence like that; a sentence that, if it was true, would effectively put an end to all debate about anthropogenic global warming.
-
Turd Burgler
It is unfathomable to me that people are still doubting that human's are changing the climate. I guess due to the limited education of many JW's this shouldn't surprise me, but wow people, pull your heads out of your rears and LEARN something. There IS NOT a bunch of well respected scientists doubting this phenomenom. Check out the Pew Institute. http://www.pewclimate.org/docUploads/Pew%20Center%5FGlobal%20Fingerprints%5F3%2E06%2Epdf
So many of the Bush supporters have now admitted, "Doh! I was wrong. My bad. So sorry." Well guess what? You were wrong about Bush. You are wrong about global warming not being casued by human activity. We can't afford you being stupid and wrong about the environment. So smarten up. I guess being a JW and taught scientists didn't know as much as the WTBS made you dismiss them entirely. Ooops. You were wrong about the JW's too. Admit it. You just aren't very smart, and should just not butt your noses into things you have a bad track record on determining.
Just my $ .02.