We're entering a global ice age very soon now. --- We're heating up the planet and it won't be habitable - very soon now.
You'd think the WT is behind it all from the doomsday tone. Why can't we all just get along and "Have a Nice Age". It's all in the spin after all. Bumper stickers available soon. Very soon.
Global Warming Hysteria
by metatron 262 Replies latest jw friends
-
knock knock
-
Warlock
After the beatings I took for my stance on the theory of MAN- MADE global warming, I'm glad to hear some rational voices on this subject.
Warlock
-
Warlock
Capitolism is a bitch but when in rome do as the romans.
This 'bitch' of capitalism has allowed you to live a better life that 90% of the rest of the world.
I mean, it's such a 'bitch', that people are just falling over each other to come here, risking life and limb.
Get real, 5go.
Warlock
-
Abaddon
metatron
Firstly, my point regarding Christopher Landsea is NOT an ad hom. I actually show the blog author misrepresented things. Be careful with your sloppy accusations.
Secondly "He is wrong because he has a big nose" is an ad hom. "This is a lousy person to cite as he's hired out his opinion before and his credibility is questionable" is not an ad hom as long as it is factual, especially as I am virually pleading for people to discuss the science at the same time. My main interest is arguably discussing the science, so far the change-deniers et. al. seem to avoid it like the plauge.
So, where's your attempt to actually discuss the science?
zack
And why are they picking on carbon dioxide? We BREATHE it out, for crying out loud. Oh here's a solution the hypers of this "crisis" haven't put forward:
Yet another example of someone who has a strong opinion that nothing is happening, yet by their statements shows they don't begin to understand the scientific argument.
jaguarbass
Nice to see you use the adage 'efollow the money'. It is a good one.
Why don't you ALSO apply it to the fact all lobby groups against global warming being a fact are supported by vested interests who would lose money if we tried to limit further environmental damage?
It really is so like the tobacco industries support of 'scientists' and lobby groups who were aplogists for the damage smoking causes (which they supported as they stood to lose money if they didn't make a counter argument), but people seem unwilling to discuss the similarities.
Frank
The culprit for global warming and cooling seems primarily to be the sun.
A statement with enough science and exactness in it to respond to!
Yes, and the reason that the majority of sceintists are concerned is the current increase in temperature cannot be explained by the sun THIS TIME, even though it's role is pivotal and it has caused climsate change before.
As you seem to be interested in the science, let's cut to the chase.
- If my statement that there is no forcing from the sun to account for current climatic trends is incorect, please show me.
- If it is correct, please give me (with evidence) what forcing IS causing recent trends?
- If you are unable to do this, please speculate on likely forcings causing curerent climatic trends.
~~
In general this thread reads like regurgitated propoganda from the 'nothing happening' lobby. The references to the 70's ice age thing is a sure sign of it, as this is as over-used by that lobby as the little puffs of debris coming out the WTC windows a few stories below the collapse is over-used by the 911 conspiracists.I know this stuff already as I have dealt with this particular change-deniers argument before, but thought I would do a 'ground-up' approach in examining the claims that 'as scientists were saying there would be global cooling were wrong then the scientists saying there will be global warming arguement will be wrong too".
For a start, science gets stuff wrong. And?
Does anyone say "as scientists who predicted travel above 30mph in a train would tresult in aphixiation were wrong, any sttement made about scientists regarding the safety of various modes of ravel will be wrong too". No, they don't, and yes, that is a factual example. Whether you like it or not the argument is a mixture of an ad hom and a negative argument from authority. In other words, wrong, fallacious, whatever. It pretends to be a scientific argument but is not as it doesn't deal with the science that predicts further change linked to CO2 level.
Okay, but what about the specific claim; did 'scientists' make such a claim, and is it comparable to the current claims?
This popped up halfway down the page on Yahoo! wih the search string 'ice age scare global warming'. Really difficult to find reasned discusion... thus sometime my exasperation as I know how easy it is to find stuff out if you're bothered enough, or check out the veracity of claims.
To those not arsed enough to read it, the key points are;
"the results indicate that the long-term trend over the next 20,000 years is towards extensive Northern Hemisphere glaciation and cooler climate" is a fair example of the claims being made by real scientists in real science mags.
The main report into it concluded
- Establish National climatic research program
- Establish Climatic data analysis program, and new facilities, and studies of impact of climate on man
- Develope Climatic index monitoring program
- Establish Climatic modelling and applications program, and exploration of possible future climates using coupled GCMs
- Adoption and development of International climatic research program
- Development of International Palaeoclimatic data network
... i.e. a call for more research , not a prediction.
And that with modern science examining the additonal data now available it is fair to say;
- The cooling trend from the 40's to the 70's now looks more like a slight interruption of an upward trend (e.g. here). It turns out that the northern hemisphere cooling was larger than the southern (consistent with the nowadays accepted interpreation that the cooling was largely caused by sulphate aerosols); at first, only NH records were available.
- Sulphate aerosols have not increased as much as once feared (partly through efforts to combat acid rain); CO2 forcing is greater. Indeed IPCC projections of future temperature inceases went up from the 1995 SAR to the 2001 TAR because estimates of future sulphate aerosol levels were lowered (SPM).
- Interpretations of future changes in the Earth's orbit have changed somewhat. It now seems likely (Loutre and Berger, Climatic Change, 46: (1-2) 61-90 2000) that the current interglacial, based purely on natural forcing, would last for an exceptionally long time: perhaps 50,000 years.
So essentilly people using this argument are just like Creationists quoting from OriginoftheSpecies and using the fact ideas have changed somewhat and newe data is now available as an excuse to throw the baby out with the bathwater. You might not like that characterisation, in which case feel free to show my argument is at fault.
Note that so far, other than regurgitation of classic anti-change lobby arguments which are easily dismissed ( a bit like Creationists banging on about the 2nd Law), no anti-change supporter has really engaged in the science of the argument.
And that's the biggest clue in the book for me.
So, someone, anyone, talk to me about thescience. It seems a certain side in this discussion wants to swagger around declaiming their rightness and the foolishnehss of the other side of the argument, but aren't prepared to back it up in a proper scientific discussion.
Oh, and I'm away this weekend, so if anyonme does pick the gautlet up, me not replying until Tuesday or Wednesday is no indicator of anything other than spending time with my daughter is more interesting than this.
On my return I will gladly respond to anyone who actually talks about the sciencific arguments.
More reguritated nonsense thatasimple check online would reveal as nonsense will be treated appropriately.
-
Big Tex
Abaddon, correct me if I'm wrong, but I remember reading that one indication of global warming (or at least in the changing of the climate of the planet) is that the increase of intensity of storms, extended droughts or conversely flooding. My impression only from reading the article (CNN.com I think?) was that there was no way to accurately predict what exactly will happen in the future but that it seemed to me that the strength of say a winter storm would be stronger, or the intensity of a hurricane would be more and so on.
I just wish there had been more research into alternative fuels and/or energy sources to give the common man a choice.
-
metatron
"be careful with your sloppy accusations"
I'm sorry, you apparently enjoy speaking to a mirror.
metatron
-
-
Brother Apostate
Decoding Abbaddon-speak, lesson one:
1. my point regarding <insert name> is NOT an <insert logical fallacy> = Translation: I am the queen of denial
2. Be careful with your sloppy accusations = Translation: I’m too narcissistic to realize my own accusations are sloppy
3. I am virually(sic) pleading for people to discuss the science = Translation: I will disagree with all science that doesn’t suit my preconceived conclusion
4. My main interest is arguably discussing the science, so far the change-deniers et. al. seem to avoid it like the plague(sic). = Translation: Boo hoo, why won’t somebody argue with my preconceived conclusions (and citations that I just know are right because they agree with my preconceived conclusions) so I can continue my mindless ranting?
5. by their statements shows they don't begin to understand the scientific argument. = Translation: I refuse to look in the mirror
6. Why don't you ALSO apply it to the fact all lobby groups against global warming being a fact are supported by vested interests who would lose money if we tried to limit further environmental damage? =Translation: I have never considered the fact that the reverse is also true (Editors note: substitute against = for, and lose = make)
7. It really is so like the tobacco industries support of 'scientists' and lobby groups who were aplogists(sic) for the damage smoking causes (which they supported as they stood to lose money if they didn't make a counter argument), but people seem unwilling to discuss the similarities = Translation: I can’t see that this is a straw man, as well as an association fallacy, in that there is proof that smoking causes cancer, but no conclusive proof that human activity is responsible for other than a minute portion of the warming trend.
8. majority of scientists(sic) are concerned = Translation: I like to misuse words like "majority", that is, the majority of those that agree with my preconceived notions.
9. If my statement that there is no forcing from the sun to account for current climatic trends is incorrect(sic), please show me. (See Translation 3, above).
10. If it is correct, please give me (with evidence) what forcing IS causing recent trends? = Translation: I want you to post what you believe, with your citations that back up your belief, so I can then bash your sources, citations, and beliefs. In short, I just want to argue with you.
11. If it is correct, please give me (with evidence) what forcing IS causing recent trends? = Translation: I want to call you names and disagree with conclusions that don’t agree with my conclusion
12. regurgitated propaganda = Translation: doesn’t agree with my pet propaganda
13. as this is as over-used by that lobby as the little puffs of debris coming out the WTC windows a few stories below the collapse is over-used by the 911 conspiracists. = Translation: I enjoy arguing from fallacy, e.g,
"All dogs are animals. Blacky is an animal. This means Blacky is a dog."14.
science gets stuff wrong = Translation: I don’t apply this statement to the science and citations that agree with my conclusion, just science and citations that don’t agree with my conclusion.
15. Really difficult to find reasned(sic) discussion = Translation: Really difficult to find people to argue with and hurl insults at because they don’t agree with my conclusion, also, see Translation 4 above
16. thus sometime my exasperation as I know how easy it is to find stuff out if you're bothered enough, or check out the veracity of claims = Translation: I won’t take my blinders off and realize that others who disagree with my conclusion have come to their conclusions by doing thusly.
17. To those not arsed enough to read it, the key points are = Translation: these "key" points are the ones that agree with my conclusion
18. a call for more research , not a prediction = Translation: I’ll continue to spew my insults at all who don’t agree with my predictive conclusions, regardless
19. other than regurgitation of classic anti-change lobby arguments which are easily dismissed = Translation: I will continue to dismiss all science and citations that don’t agree with my conclusion
20. no anti-change supporter has really engaged in the science of the argument. = Translation: See Translation 4, above
22. It seems a certain side in this discussion wants to swagger around declaiming their rightness and the foolishnehss(sic) of the other side of the argument, but aren't prepared to back it up in a proper scientific discussion. = Translation: See Translation 5, above
23. More regurgitated(sic) nonsense thatasimple check online would reveal as nonsense will be treated appropriately. = Translation: See Translation 4 and 16, above
BA- this concludes our lesson, class dismissed.
-
Abaddon
Big Tex
We can only paint with a big paint brush; details and precision is rather difficult in climate prediction. It's hard enough with short-term weather forecasting.
But the 'big brush' we have give us more than enough etail to know what is happening with a ohigh order of confidence. In some areas it will be colder. In most warmer. Some places will get more precipitation (like East Antartica). Some less. If the Gulf Stream stops, Europe gets a Canadian climate, for example (in very rough terms). I've not researched predictions for specific geographical areas thoroughly though, so there may be more data out there.
What is 90% certain is current rapid increase in average global temperatures is caused by man, and that as CO2 rises, so too will average tempratures leading to modest sea-level rises in our life times, and changes in climate that (for exaple) will push the corn belt North and make producing Champagne in Southern England possible by the time Champagne in France has a climate too hot for it to produce the drink named after it..
For most Western Europeans it will mean no need to go to the South of France, as it's coming to you. I mean, what's the fuss over climate change? Warmer summers and the beach gets closer!
For 'Westerners' the impacts in our life time are not too bad in most places. Some developed countries will probably really get it in the neck though.
It is our actions that determine what impact climate change will have in our children's life times. Of course, it's just possible many of us will live well over 100 as medical technoloy gets better, so if compacency and denial steer the actions we'll probably suffer for inaction now.
Funny thing is the anti-lobby seem to have missed the fact that now the projections are showing it costs less to limit change than to pay for the impact of unchecked change, industry and governments are begining to take this far more seriously; only last week China and India agreed to get on board emission control for the frist time.
Metatron
So, you lie about me making an ad hom and then respond with a childish retort when I call you on it. LOL. You funny... and this makes you look good how exactly?
Then you post an article... oooo... yes.... I see...
"one scientist's controversial theory"
"His views are completely at odds with the mainstream scientific opinion," said Colin Wilson, a planetary physicist at England's Oxford University. "And they contradict the extensiveevidence presented in the most recent IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] report." (Related: "Global Warming 'Very Likely' Caused by Humans, World Climate Experts Say" [February 2, 2007].)"
Amato Evan, a climate scientist at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, added that "theideajustisn'tsupportedby the theory or by theobservations."
Perhaps the biggest stumbling block in Abdussamatov's theory is his dismissal of the greenhouse effect, in which atmospheric gases such as carbon dioxide help keep heat trapped near the planet's surface.
He claims that carbon dioxide has only a small influence on Earth's climate and virtually no influence on Mars.
But "without the greenhouse effect there would be very little, if any, life on Earth, since our planet would pretty much be a big ball of ice," said Evan, of the University of Wisconsin.
So, this is your level of 'research'? LOL. You cite a scientist that the article make it very clear refuses to accept that without the greenhouse effect the Earth would be frozen (when there's pretty well established equations measuring the heat capacity of various atmospheric components, and their accuracy is measurable) and who ignores the extensive evidence that solar forcing is not resposible.
Yes, well I am sure you'll now tell me about Abdussamatov's other linked theory, ya know the mini-ice age in 100 years? What, didn't you know?
See what happens when you don't check your sources! In insisting the consenus of qualified scientists is wrong about rapid climate change you actually support by citation someone who insists that there will be rapid climate change the other way!!!!
I couldn't make you look any more silly if I tried.
-
Abaddon
Bro Apo
Your continued evasion of issues, the lies and distortions of your perpetual ad homs might convince you. You might even be so contemptuous of others you think it'll fool them However your intent and your lack of substance are really quite noticable; the first post of yours I noticed was fallacious, why should this one be any different? E. coli has its place in nature and so apparently do you. It's about your level from what I see here.
You also seem to be under some mistaken impression that your opinion (which you have demonstrated the 'worth' of) about me is of any interest. Or that I am in any way intimidated by you posting your repetative evasions and fabrications about me. How can I be intimidated by something with all the substance of the hole in the middle of a doughnut?
So too craven to talk about the science?
That's all I need to know; Unless responding to further posts would be amusing (for me), or you actually have the balls to discuss the issues instead of attacking me, you can carry on your Onanistic relationship with your keyboard all you like.