For *real* information on global warming and how humans have caused it, from
real climate scientists (not economists or governments or whatever):
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/ar ... tart-here/
http://www.nerc.ac.uk/about/consult/deb ... ummary.asp
You claimed that many scientists reject anthropogenic global warming; but
that's simply not true.
"...58% of the general public in the US thinks that human activity is a
significant contributing factor in changing the mean global temperature, as
opposed to 97% of specialists surveyed. ... It seems that the debate on the
authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is
largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific
basis of long-term climate processes. The challenge, rather, appears to be
how to effectively communicate this fact to policy makers and to a public
that continues to mistakenly perceive debate among scientists."
"For instance, in April 2006, 60 "leading scientists" signed a letter urging
Canada's new prime minister to review his country's commitment to the Kyoto
This appears to be the biggest recent list of sceptics. Yet many, if not most,
of the 60 signatories are not actively engaged in studying climate change:
some are not scientists at all and at least 15 are retired.
Compare that with the dozens of statements on climate change from various
scientific organisations around the world representing tens of thousands of
scientists, the consensus position represented by the IPCC reports and the
11,000 signatories to a petition condemning the Bush administration's stance
on climate science."
You mentioned the Sun as responsible for the current climate change. This as
And *every* US professional science organization, without exception, now
explicitly accepts anthropogenic global warming as established science.
"Global heating deniers fall back on a variety of myths in order to buttress
their position. These myths vary from logical fallacies to pseudoscience to
poor math to scientifically valid but disproved hypotheses. Yet every single
claim against global heating I’ve found has been debunked at one time or
another, and at this point, the only hypothesis that fits all the data is that
human civilization is heating up the planet."
http://scholarsandrogues.wordpress.com/ ... ng-claims-
The point is this: certain global warming deniers have a strong political
motive for convincing the public that it isn't happening, and if it is, humans
didn't cause it. It's exactly the same debate as over whether smoking causes
cancer: the tobacco industry poured billions of dollars into grossly biased
phoney research and fake public-interest groups to create the impression of a
debate, when there was none.
The same thing is happening now with global warming. The science is
MustangGT wrote:I could be mistaken, but I believe that Dil is trying to say that man-made global warming is bullshit.
> "realclimate", I've been on their website before. I'd prefer you make your
> own arguments instead of just link dropping as if I have never read
> about the topic. I also refuse to accept the label of 'denier' which is
> clearly a reference to holocaust denier, which I find stupid and offensive.
> Science is ABOUT disagreement, the foundation of modern science is built on
> something called falsification,
> and evidence. Scientists do not prove
> things by popular vote, scientists don't come together and go, "hey, most
> us agree with this, therefore it must be right."
> No, I will not be
> convinced by appeal to authority or popularity which are both logical
> When did disagreements in science turn into attacks of being a 'denier'.
> For example, if I had a disagreement with a friend about whether or not
> there was life on mars, I would not think to call them a denier just
> they disagreed with me or the majority of scientists (who believe there is
> no life on mars),
> I'd ask them to give me the evidence and I'd mull it over
> for a while and come to my own conclusion. This is what a discourse is
> supposed to be about. I'm extremely sick and tired of the accusations that
> the scientists who doubt global warming have some sort of vested interest
> doing so, I assure you, I don't get a cent from anyone for holding the
> opinion I do.
> And when you claim that the 'deniers' have a strong political
> motive for being that way, then I must remind you the sword cuts both ways.
> Environmentalists have a blatant political agenda for the results of this
> particular science. They WANT to regulate industry more, so they have an
> incentive to support this doomsday scenario, to scare us into agreeing with
> their point of view. I'm not scared of global warming, and I'm extremely
> leery of their fear tactics. The world is not ending.
> "The science is
> unmistakeably clear."
> That's completely dogma, especially for something like climate prediction.
> Meteorologists can't even predict the weather from week to week,
> and you're
> declaring complete certainty for trends that last up to 100 years.
> 1. Back in 2007, I noticed that the discourse around global warming was
> heading in way I could not support:
> "....Marlo. It is my intention to destroy your career as a liar. If you
> produce one more editorial against climate change, I will launch a campaign
> against your professional integrity. I will call you a liar and charlatan
> the Harvard community of which you and I are members...." - Letter from:
> Michael T. Eckhart (President of American Council On Renewable Energy
> 5. I froze my ass off in the winter and looked around and wondered wtf was
> happening with the warming. It's been the coldest march in 7 years for
> Canada: http://www.newstalk980.com/story/20090401/14335
> -I noticed it snowed here recently (april), which is weird.
> I realize that you don't even know what my claims are,
> and I don't even know what your claims are.
> I do not know how much of the party line you tow.
> The following are a list of claims:
> 1. CO2 is a greenhouse gas that increases the amount of heat trapped on the
> -anonymous support, nobody is against that idea, I am not against that idea
> 2. Humans contribute enough CO2 to increase the amount of heat trapped on
> the earth
> -some dispute this, and it is true that more CO2 is produced naturally than
> humans have contributed
> Side note: CO2 is NOT a pollutant, and that it's idiotic to claim it is.
> It's necessary for life
> 3. The temperature of the earth will increase cataclysmically and we must
> something to stop it
> 4. CO2 is the main driver of temperature
> I believe 3&4 are completely unsupported. #3 is bullshit because the
> earth's been warmer before (definitely in the last 12 thousands years).
> more controversially during the medieval warm period and we were fine and
> the polar bears survived that.
"I'll continue using the term, and hope you will not be
"Whatever they may SAY about it, science is in fact what the majority of
scientists believe it is. Science is a human activity, not some absolute un-
human thing outside us."
"There is considerable debate centered on the cause of 20th century climate change. Few people contest the idea that some of the recent climate changes are likely due to natural processes, such as volcanic eruptions, changes in solar luminosity, and variations generated by natural interactions between parts of the climate system (for example, oceans and the atmosphere). There were significant climate changes before humans were around and there will be non-human causes of climate change in the future. "
"Dogma is a stated belief without supporting evidence, and completely resistant
to contrary evidence. Show how the IPCC report is dogma. Do they burn
incense and chant prayers to Saint Svante Arrhenius? Do they have sacred
texts they force their kids to memorize? Bullshit.
You might as well say Einsteinian relativity is dogma.
It is in fact the conclusion drawn by VIRTUALLY ALL CLIMATE SCIENTISTS, as I
keep pointing out."
"Weather is not climate. You're confusing the issue.
What you said is exactly like claiming that since you can't predict any
particular coin toss, there's no way to know the probability is 0.5 of
flipping heads or tails."
"I have no party line. I have no party"
"This makes me angry, because it's a gross abuse of the facts.
Although more CO2 is naturally produced...
"...all of the recent CO2 increase in the atmosphere is due to human
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn1 ... e-gas.html"A simplified summary is that about 50% of the greenhouse effect is due to water vapour, 25% due to clouds, 20% to CO2, with other gases accounting for the remainder."
"And appeal to authority is quite acceptable as evidence that someone knows
what they're talking about (not about the validity of their argument, but
about the likelihood of the person knowing their subject well). A physicist
who speaks about neutrino mass very likely knows something about it. An
economist or a lawyer very likely does not. This of course doesn't mean
they're wrong; just that they're *probably* not worth listening to.
And science is NOT about logic. It's about discovery. Logic only rearranges
things you already know, in some order that makes what you know clearer.
Logic CANNOT tell you anything new."
- Richard Lindzen received his PhD in applied mathematics in 1964 from Harvard University. A professor of meteorology in the Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology"there is a more sinister side to this feeding frenzy. Scientists who dissent from the alarmism have seen their grant funds disappear, their work derided, and themselves libeled as industry stooges, scientific hacks or worse. Consequently, lies about climate change gain credence even when they fly in the face of the science that supposedly is their basis."
"There's a nonzero probability that the temperature of the earth will increase
catastrophically, causing severe ecological damage to the entire planet."
"And Naomi Oreskes: "The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change: How Do We
Know We’re Not Wrong?"
http://www.lpl.arizona.edu/resources/gl ... s-chapter-
"Medical researcher Dr. Klaus-Martin Schulte recently updated this research. Using the same database and search terms as Oreskes, he examined all papers published from 2004 to February 2007. The results have been submitted to the journal Energy and Environment, of which DailyTech has obtained a pre-publication copy. The figures are surprising.
Of 528 total papers on climate change, only 38 (7%) gave an explicit endorsement of the consensus. If one considers "implicit" endorsement (accepting the consensus without explicit statement), the figure rises to 45%. However, while only 32 papers (6%) reject the consensus outright, the largest category (48%) are neutral papers, refusing to either accept or reject the hypothesis. This is no "consensus."
The figures are even more shocking when one remembers the watered-down definition of consensus here. Not only does it not require supporting that man is the "primary" cause of warming, but it doesn't require any belief or support for "catastrophic" global warming. In fact of all papers published in this period (2004 to February 2007), only a single one makes any reference to climate change leading to catastrophic results."
"I say the debate is over. We know the science. We see the threat, and we know
the time for action is now."
-- Arnold Schwarzenegger, San Francisco, June 2, 2005
"All of the
claims you've made are based on tortured or cherry-picked data, or plain lies
(*not* by you, but by other people that you've tacitly accepted)."
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests