Very interesting 80~minute film on the science and politics of climate change. It decidedly puts forward the sceptical case, that global warming is a real phenomenon but has nothing to do with human activity and CO2, that the Sun is actually responsible for it, that there's a ~conspiracy~ to keep developing countries shitty and dependent and all sorts of other exciting things... I am currently watching part 6 of 8.
Youtube Link:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=u6IPHmJWmDk&mode=related&search=
It was shown on (I think) Channel 4 (UK) last week, and is being shown again on More4 at 22:00, tonight.
I am Al Gore and I disapprove of the ideas put forth in the post above.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=Whwgq3Y59WE&mode=related&search=
They talk about Al Gore and his film in this bit.
The effects of the sun on the atmosphere are well known and are taken into account by climate scientists.
Sure, global warming might be a natural process that has nothing to do with us, and it might not affect our continued existence on Earth at all.
But do you want to take that chance?
Better safe then sorry, I say.
>>5
Your assessment should also take into account the risks of stopping the use of fossil fuels etc.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/03/swindled/
A comment on the above:
> I haven't seen the show, but if it's true that they present the cooling from the 1940s-1970s as a mysterious flaw in the anthropogenic-global-warming hypothesis, that's remarkably dishonest. It's also remarkable that they're still pushing the supposed discrepancy between surface and tropospheric warming not long after the last major piece of evidence for that was explained away as a math error.
To steal somebody else's line, that's probably about as risky as when we stopped using child labour in industries.
And >>5, there's no scientific debate about whether "global warming might be a natural process that has nothing to do with us". Everybody who actually knows about climate and studies it know that this is not the case.
The "controversy" exists only in the media, not in the science.
>>6, those risks are only economic, no?
Suppose a worst-case scenario where the world economy takes hundreds of years to recover; isn't that better than making ourselves extinct?
>>8, I understand there actually are a few climate scientists who don't agree as to the extent of global warming's effects. Keep in mind, the majority is not always right, especially not in science, and it can be hard to get funding for politically unpopular research. That said, I think it's definitely these skeptics who have the burden of proof.
I haven't watched this video yet, but will next time I get 80 minutes.
"Few" being the operative word. Those who disagree are simply very loud, and tend to seek out the media who like to report controversies.
Among the vast, vast majority, the question is not whether global warming exists, because it is well known that it does, nor whether it is caused by man, because it is well known that it is, but rather whether it is already too late to do anything about it. At least this is what actual climate scientists tell me (as opposed to the media circus).
And remember, it is hard to get funding for research into the geocentric model of the universe too. This does not mean we need to keep an "open mind" about it.
>>11 Among the vast, vast majority, the question is not whether global warming exists, because it is well known that it does, nor whether it is caused by man, because it is well known that it is,
Bullshit.
Which part is bullshit? Can you point me to a sizable group of climatologists who would disagree with my statement?
> if there is no debate, it's not science.
Now, this is the bullshit. How much debate is there that the Earth orbits the Sun? Is it "not science" because nobody is "debating" this?
Science is not about opinions or debate. Science is about facts.
Does anyone else find it odd that these climatologists can't tell me whether it will rain a month from today, but they know that the Earth's temperature will rise by 2.3 degrees over the next 100 years?
Here are some other predictions of O NOES IMMINENT DISASTER, TEH END IS NIGH, REPENT! from the usual suspects:
-----
The continued rapid cooling of the earth since WWII is in accord with the increase in global air pollution associated with industrialization, mechanization, urbanization and exploding population. -- Reid Bryson, "Global Ecology; Readings towards a rational strategy for Man", (1971)
The battle to feed humanity is over. In the 1970s, the world will undergo famines. Hundreds of millions of people are going to starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now. Population control is the only answer -- Paul Ehrlich - The Population Bomb (1968)
I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000 -- Paul Ehrlich in (1969)
In ten years all important animal life in the sea will be extinct. Large areas of coastline will have to be evacuated because of the stench of dead fish. -- Paul Ehrlich, Earth Day (1970)
Before 1985, mankind will enter a genuine age of scarcity . . . in which the accessible supplies of many key minerals will be facing depletion -- Paul Ehrlich in (1976)
This [cooling] trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century -- Peter Gwynne, Newsweek 1976
There are ominous signs that the earth's weather patterns have begun to change dramatically and that these changes may portend a drastic decline in food production - with serious political implications for just about every nation on earth. The drop in food production could begin quite soon... The evidence in support of these predictions has now begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologist are hard-pressed to keep up with it. -- Newsweek, April 28, (1975)
This cooling has already killed hundreds of thousands of people. If it continues and no strong action is taken, it will cause world famine, world chaos and world war, and this could all come about before the year 2000. -- Lowell Ponte "The Cooling", 1976
If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder by the year 2000...This is about twice what it would take to put us in an ice age. -- Kenneth E.F. Watt on air pollution and global cooling, Earth Day (1970)
Here's an environmentalist quote that I find absolutely fascinating:
"...we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people, we'd like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climate change. To do that, we need to get some broad-based support, to capture the public's imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This 'double ethical bind' we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest..." --Steven Schneider of the so-called "National Center for Atmospheric Research," which is a political lobbying organziation that does no actual research
Envirowackos have absolutely zero regard for objective truth. Everything that comes out of their mouths is to push their radical reactionary political agenda, to bring society back to some idyllic pre-electricity, pre-technology past that never was, where everybody stood around and sung "Kumbaya" and no one interfered with the habitat of the Endangered Farting Lousefly by tilling the soil to grow food.
I believe NOTHING they say. Not one word, not even "a," "an," or "the." They LIE.
> Does anyone else find it odd that these climatologists can't tell me whether it will rain a month from today, but they know that the Earth's temperature will rise by 2.3 degrees over the next 100 years?
Not at all. I can't tell you the exact speed and direction of every little eddy in a river, but that doesn't stop me from knowing that all the water in the river is going to end up in the sea.
This is only odd if you're trying hard to blind yourself to reality.
> from the usual suspects:
Please elaborate why the people quoted are relevant when talking about the opinions of the entire scientific field of climatology.
If you just dig hard enough, you can find people saying any dumb thing. What makes these people "the usual suspects"?
> Envirowackos
You should not be listening to them in the first place. You should be listening to scientists. And they all say global warming is real and very dangerous.
>>>> Does anyone else find it odd that these climatologists can't tell me whether it will rain a month from today, but they know that the Earth's temperature will rise by 2.3 degrees over the next 100 years?
>>Not at all. I can't tell you the exact speed and direction of every little eddy in a river, but that doesn't stop me from knowing that all the water in the river is going to end up in the sea.
>>This is only odd if you're trying hard to blind yourself to reality.
Bullshit. I'm not asking about every little eddy. I'm asking whether it's GOING TO FUCKING RAIN. Yes or no. If they can't predict climate one month in advance, how is it that they can predict climate a century in advance? Someone's in denial here. Someone's got a religious faith in DOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOM, we're all DOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOMED. A hundred years ago you would have been one of those nuts with a sandwich board sign strapped to your chest that says "REPENT, THE END OF THE WORLD IS NIGH," ringing a bell and annoying people on street corners.
Remember, kiddies. Any evidence, apocryphal, anecdotal, or made-up that supports the "global warming idea," supports it.
Any data that has no bearing on it, supports it.
Any objective, empirically derived scientific data which contradicts it is a test of faith, which means that more studies and more funding are needed. (Cha-ching!) Quick, "renormalize" the data!
And anyone who disagrees is "trying to blind himself to reality" and therefore unfit to have an opinion.
>>You should not be listening to them in the first place. You should be listening to scientists. And they all say global warming is real and very dangerous.
"Scientists" like Steven Schneider, amirite?
This isn't science because there is no data, and there is no way to test these DOOOOOOOOOOOOM claims empirically. If it can't be empirically tested, it doesn't even rise to the level of being a hypothesis. There's only speculation, and it's completely politicized. When you can tell me daily global and local average temperatures for the last 10,000 years down to 1/10 degree, then maybe we can speculate about climate trends. Until then, we have nothing but a bunch of loud kooks spouting pseudoscience and pushing a radical political agenda.
> Bullshit. I'm not asking about every little eddy. I'm asking whether it's GOING TO FUCKING RAIN.
Whether it rains or not is exactly one little chaotic eddy in the bigger system of the atmosphere. It doesn't matter how much you yell about it, this basic fact is not going to change.
Let me ask you, if we can't predict if it's going to rain next month, does this mean we absolutely can't say whether it's going to snow next winter in the north?
> "Scientists" like Steven Schneider, amirite?
Scientists like scientists. This is not some personal cult, and I have no idea who the hell that is you're talking about. You seem to be terribly worked up into some kind of us-versus-them attitude here, which is frankly pretty ridiculous. You're not showing any sign of being interested in facts, just personal attacks and your own superiority.
So let's keep it to the science here, and leave the personal issues out of it, OK?
> This isn't science because there is no data, and there is no way to test these DOOOOOOOOOOOOM claims empirically.
We aren't testing it right now?
>>18
...so, you can't answer my points, then?
They have been answered again and again, and I see no reason to do so one more time, as you're showing no sign that you will accept any criticism of them. You're far too wrapped up in name calling and grandstanding to listen. If you were ready to listen, you would most likely have listened already.
If I am wrong and you are actually willing to learn something, I suggest doing some reading on the subject somewhere other than political websites. http://realclimate.org/ is generally considered a very good resource.
I could also show you a simple mathematical example of how a chaotic system can be entirely unpredictable in the short term, but have easily predicatble long-term trends, but that would actually take some work to prepare, and before I do that, I'd really like to have some indication that you are actually interested in learning something from that and that I would not be wasting my time. Can you give me that?
More specifically: Look through ttp://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/index/ for things that seem to be of interest, and read them.
A quick glance finds this, which seems very relevant to your arguments: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/01/is-climate-modelling-science/
Also, it looks like there's no need for me to do what I suggested in >>21, as realcliamte has done it for us here, much better than I could:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/11/chaos-and-climate/
Was that all? No more snarky comebacks? No more personal attacks?
So, you have nothing at all except more DOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOM propaganda from the SAME FUCKING PEOPLE who were fearmongering about an impending Ice Age thirty years ago?
Well, I've observed global warming in my area. We had about a month of cold weather in st. louis. December averaged 70 degrees, and two months later we're back at 70 degree weather.
There's no way that this is a normal weather pattern. I'm not saying doomed, I like warmer weather. I'm just saying the 70' in december in the midwest ain't normal.
> Now, this is the bullshit. How much debate is there that the Earth orbits the Sun? Is it "not science" because nobody is "debating" this?
actually, according to general relativity, it's just as valid to say that the sun orbits the earth as it is to say that the earth orbits the sun.
> Science is not about opinions or debate. Science is about facts.
science is about determining what is fact through research and debate, not simply asserting opinions as fact and claiming that any ideas that don't agree with your opinions are "bullshit".
> actually, according to general relativity, it's just as valid to say that the sun orbits the earth as it is to say that the earth orbits the sun.
That is a completely irrelevant argument.
> science is about determining what is fact through research and debate, not simply asserting opinions as fact and claiming that any ideas that don't agree with your opinions are "bullshit".
Through research, yes, but not through "debate". Theories are suggested, tested, and falsified (or not). Rhethoric never enters into it, and neither do opinions.
> Well, I've observed global warming in my area.
That's not really the case. Extreme weather conditions like this warm winter can't really be attributed directly to global warming as such. To once again get back to realclimate.org:
As we are fond of reminding our readers, one cannot attribute a specific meteorological event, an anomalous season, or even (as seems may be the case here, depending on the next 2 months) two anomalous seasons in a row, to climate change. Moreover, not even the most extreme scenario for the next century predicts temperature changes over North America as large as the anomalies witnessed this past month.
So did you actually read any of the provided links yet?
> That is a completely irrelevant argument.
then why did you bring it up?
and actually it's not all that irrelevant. you presented your opinion as fact, just like you're doing with global warming.
> Through research, yes, but not through "debate". Theories are suggested, tested, and falsified (or not). Rhethoric never enters into it, and neither do opinions.
and just how are we supposed to determine whether or not a theory has been falsified, if not through debate?
also, how do you explain things like http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=20073 and http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=851?
> then why did you bring it up?
I did not. I was speaking of the geocentric vs. heliocentric view of the universe, and I was hoping that people would understand the context. The fact that general relativity can be constructed in rotational reference frames really has no bearing whatsoever on that argument, and certainly does not in any way confirm the geocentric view of the universe, which you would have to imply for your argument to make any sense.
> and just how are we supposed to determine whether or not a theory has been falsified, if not through debate?
By performing experiments that show that the predictions of a theory do not hold? This is not "debate".
> also, how do you explain things like http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=20073 and http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=851?
First, I do not bother reading about science on political websites.
As for the articles, I see nothing whatsoever about science in the first one. It's just complaining about the media circus, which it might be confusing with actual science. It's hard to tell, because it's obviously pushing an agenda itself.
The second one names a few papers, but without knowing the context of those I have no idea if their conclusions are at all reasonable (and one is led to suspect that they aren't, because once again they are pushing their own agenda). A quick search through realclimate finds no obvious references to that, so barring a statement by an actual scientist I have no opinions on that.
It also talks about satellite records, but the only source for this is a person at a "conservative think-tank", so that is not exactly science.
> if their conclusions are at all reasonable
how exactly would you determine that scientifically?
i don't think the conclusion that global warming is occurring is reasonable based on the evidence that i've seen.
> It also talks about satellite records, but the only source for this is a person at a "conservative think-tank",
http://science.nasa.gov/newhome/headlines/essd06oct97_1.htm
"Unlike the surface-based temperatures, global temperature measurements of the Earth's lower atmosphere obtained from satellites reveal no definitive warming trend over the past two decades. The slight trend that is in the data actually appears to be downward."
> how exactly would you determine that scientifically?
I would not, I do not have the competence. I would go with what the actual scientists say, as I have been doing so far.
> i don't think the conclusion that global warming is occurring is reasonable based on the evidence that i've seen.
And you haven't seen even a tiny sliver of the evidence, because you are not a climate scientist. So? How much evidence have you seen that general relativity is correct? Plate tectonics? Evolution? Do you not believe those either?
> http://science.nasa.gov/newhome/headlines/essd06oct97_1.htm
Note that that webpage is ten years old. The science has not been standing still for all that time. And from what I can tell from current discussions, the lack of warming was a misinterpretation of the data. Some related discussion here:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=170
To highlight the conclusion:
Since the satellites now clearly show that the atmosphere is warming at around the rate predicted by the models...
> And you haven't seen even a tiny sliver of the evidence, because you are not a climate scientist.
actually i am, but that's completely irrelevant.
> How much evidence have you seen that general relativity is correct? Plate tectonics?
quite a bit, actually.
> Evolution?
i'm reserving judgment on that one until i see some real scientific evidence for or against it.
> http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=170
so a liberal think-tank claims that nasa misinterpreted the data and i should just believe them?
also, i notice that they don't say exactly what the problem was or how it was fixed and the only reliable sources they refer to are 404'd.
> liberal think-tank
Where are you seeing a liberal think-tank, now?
PS:
>> because you are not a climate scientist.
> actually i am
In that case, what have you published?
> realclimate.org
I'd be interested in seeing any argument that makes the slightest bit of sense for why it is either "liberal" or a "think-tank".
Here, let me quote the site introduction for you:
RealClimate is a commentary site on climate science by working climate scientists for the interested public and journalists. We aim to provide a quick response to developing stories and provide the context sometimes missing in mainstream commentary. The discussion here is restricted to scientific topics and will not get involved in any political or economic implications of the science.
If you are going to claim they are lying when they write this, please provide some proof.
> i prefer to remain anonymous on anonymous boards.
> and like i said before, it's completely irrelevant.
Than you should not have mentioned it. As it stands now, I will assume you are lying.
>i'm reserving judgment on that one until i see some real scientific evidence for or against it.
Okay this is going to be a little off topic, but how can you be on the fence about evolution? Evolution, on the micro scale is a fact. If evolution did not occur, then we would have eradicated disease a long time ago, because the bacteria that are responsible for the diarrhea which causes mortality in children, would have become extinct as our immune systems learned to recognize the surface protein markers of bacteria and eradicated them before they could infect us. We would only catch the rhinovirus and influenza once in our lives. Outside of the microscopic world this still applies. DDT was not just phased out of use because of environmental debate, but also, most pest insects, including mosquitoes, have developed a resistance to DDT. Our modern pyrethroid insecticides as well, are also becoming more and more ineffective as the insects' immune systems evolve to defeat synthetic chemicals.
In addition, we have observed human artificial selection. People have bred the wold into the hundred of breeds recognized by the AKC, and Darwin created his theory of evolution partly based on observations of pidgeon breeders who bred the birds into different forms. This part is undeniable fact.
The part that is debated, is whether a new species can be created by evolution, that is speciation. This is highly implicated. Japanese snails have been observed with varying chirality of their shells, making it easier for right shelled snails to mate with right shelled females, and the same for left-shelled snails. In addition, separate "species" of Hawaiian drosophila, or fruit flies, are capable of making viable offspring, but strong behavioral barriers prevent interbreeding. In both these cases, it fairly clearly demonstrates that barriers to interbreeding can indeed evolve without making a species extinct, high implicating speciation as being of evolutionary origin.
> I'd be interested in seeing any argument that makes the slightest bit of sense for why it is either "liberal" or a "think-tank".
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=think%20tank
> think tank
> n. A group or an institution organized for intensive research and solving of problems, especially in the areas of technology, social or political strategy, or armament.
i'd be interested in seeing any argument that makes the slightest bit of sense that says that the purpose of that site is not "intensive research and solving of problems".
and "liberal" is obvious from the content of the articles.
> Than you should not have mentioned it. As it stands now, I will assume you are lying.
i only mentioned it because you claimed that i wasn't.
you're free to assume whatever you want. just don't expect anyone else to accept your incorrect assumptions.
> Okay this is going to be a little off topic, but how can you be on the fence about evolution?
i know several biologists who are skeptical of what you call speciation. the reasons they give for their skepticism seem valid to me, but i'm not a biologist.
Although it is true that global climate change is the result of eccentricity, obliquity and variation in the tilt of the earth's poles, the thing is, so-called greenhouse gases are of concern, because we know that gases in the atmosphere cause energy to be "trapped". The earth tilting to absorb more radiation in a concentrated area from the sun (the cosine law), as well as an orbit which places the earth closer to the sun leads to a rise in temperature. However, to deny that gases in the atmosphere have any effect on earth's climate is silly.
Gases like all matter, react differently to radioactive energy. For example, if a gas appears dark, we know it is absorbing a lot of the light spectra. If you ever harvested salt using seawater and black construction paper on a hot day, you know that dark colors tend to absorb light, and transmit it as heat (as there is always energy "loss" emission as various other em waves) Gases, like all matter can also reflect or transmit em waves as well. Ozone is probably one well accepted gas that has the effect of reflecting much of the harmful radiation in the atmosphere, as well as absorbing the earth's reflected rays. Greenhouse gases work similarly; they absorb even more of the earth's reflected rays. Because of the laws of thermodynamics energy in must be equal to energy out, as energy and matter are neither created nor destroyed. So, the CO2 molecules must re-emit the radiation in some form, usually lower energy, and at the low energy end, below the light spectra (which is the spectra the sun primarily emits) is infared, or heat. In essence, the greenhouse gases tend to trap energy in the atmosphere longer, leading to a rise in temperature. (The energy does eventually escape) The most damning proof of this is to simply take a spectral image of the earth's emitted spectra, and compare it to that of a perfect black body of equivalent size. You will notice a spike at 10^3 micrometers, followed by a deep trough. This could not be caused by simple orbital patterns. Something is trapping the spectra above 10^3 micrometers.
Like what, exactly? If not speciation, there's really only one choice. God. And God, if anything is an even more difficult point to prove, let alone scientifically.
> i'd be interested in seeing any argument that makes the slightest bit of sense that says that the purpose of that site is not "intensive research and solving of problems".
> and "liberal" is obvious from the content of the articles.
Let me just quote the description of the site again, with some highlighting for the reading-impaired:
> RealClimate is a commentary site on climate science by working climate scientists for the interested public and journalists. We aim to provide a quick response to developing stories and provide the context sometimes missing in mainstream commentary. The discussion here is restricted to scientific topics and will not get involved in any political or economic implications of the science.
There is no research going on. No solving of problems. It's all commentary. Or are you claiming news agencies are engaged in politics, economics and sports when they report on these matters?
As for calling the content "liberal", are you seriously suggesting that reporting on science has a political slant? What is this, The Colbert Report? Does reality have a well known liberal bias? Or is it just that anybody who disagrees with you is automatically painted as a political opponent in your mind? This is why I doubt you are a scientist of any kind: You are mixing up science and politics, and that is something your average scientist is very wary of.
> i only mentioned it because you claimed that i wasn't.
And then you immediately claimed it was "irrelevant" just so that you wouldn't have to back it up. Obviously it was not irrelevant enough that you could just let it slide, huh?
So it's time for the good old line: Post proof or retract the claim.
To continue this train of thought, CO2 is only a small part of our atmosphere, even at projected levels, I believe estimates put CO2 level at .023% of the atmosphere. However, the thing is, CO2 is not the only greenhouse gas. Methane, CH4, Nitrous Oxide N2O are also greenhouse gases, both primarily produced by ranching and farming, respectively. Given the population increase and increased needs of food, in addition to expansion of industry which produces CO2. However, if the absorbed reflected spectra is affected quite significantly by current levels, it should be reasonable to see that such effects might increase. Of course the question is, exactly, how much.
I thought this was a great program. I wish more people would see it. I've been sceptical of the global warming scare for a while now, and I clear and well-researched scientifically-sober explanation of the data is extremely refreshing.
It's funny how hysteria like this breaks out. And we consider ourselves a well-educated public. Hah!
Thanks for posting this!
>>46
if you actually look at the content of the site, you'll see that the description is hilariously inaccurate.
Unfortunately, the program is neither well-researched nor scientificall sober. I'll just repost the link:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/03/swindled/
I've look at the contents of the site, and it seems quite accurate. Or were you trying to say "if you look at the contents of the site, it disagrees with my opinions"?
Also, since you are not posting proof, should I take it you are retracting your claim of being a climate scientist?
> I've look at the contents of the site, and it seems quite accurate.
there's a lot more on that site than just "commentary".
>>52
links?
You're grasping at straws. Give it up, Mr. "Climate scientist".
Hey!!
I'm angry, I just read that this film uses all kinds of distorted, obsolete, and omitted data. What a let-down. This is totally dishonest and hypocritical. I wish the media would LEARN TO FACT-CHECK!!!!!
http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/climate_change/article2355956.ece
http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/climate_change/article2326210.ece
http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/climate_change/article2347526.ece
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,2032575,00.html
> "The original Nasa data was very wiggly-lined and we wanted the simplest line we could find," Mr Durkin said.
i lol'd
Well, if nothing else, the movie has been a good lesson in the kind of dishonesty involved in this debate, hasn't it?
>>41 Okay this is going to be a little off topic, but how can you be on the fence about evolution?
Surely you can't be shocked that a global warming zealot is scientifically illiterate.
http://www.earth4man.com/ has many very good articles about "acid rain," "global warming," "the hole in the ozone layer," and all the other phony doomsday fearmongering and propaganda we're being spoon-fed by the left-wing media on a daily basis.
Uh, the person who doesn't believe in evolution was an ANTI-global warming zealot, you know?
> http://www.earth4man.com/ has many very good articles
Very good they may be, but they're a bunch of op-ed without a single citation. This is the science board. Please post scientific articles.
I know, I know, but hey, might as well crush his ego on two different fronts.
>>60
Global Warming is junk science in the first place. It belongs on /politics/ rather than /science/ anyway.
Where you wish to attack it without the inconvenience of having to back up your claimns, no doubt.
Funny, you're going to have to back up that claim that it's junk science as well. Not easy, as the term "junk science" has no agreed-upon definition. Did you mean "research that does not meet the Daubert standard for science that can be used in United States federal courts?"
I'm pretty sure his definition of "junk science" is "in disagreement with my political prejudices".
Dude, those links are totally exaggerating. That only applies to the most radical environmental activists (who I agree are totally dangerous). Your average environmentalist on the other hand is just concerned with getting humans to live prosperously without doing irreparable damage to their environment. The mass industrialization is a young technology, if handled badly, it can do a lot of damage. We know this.
Just cause you believe in a sustainable means of exploiting your environment doesn't mean you're an anti-capitalist commie.
I'll repost that relevant quote:
"...we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people, we'd like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climate change. To do that, we need to get some broad-based support, to capture the public's imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This 'double ethical bind' we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest..." --Steven Schneider
These are people who, thirty years ago, decided that the WORLD was COMING TO AN END, man! Because of CAPITALISM and POLLUTION, can you dig it? Down with AmeriKKKa, man!
What I'm saying here is that these people are fanatics who latched onto an idea decades ago, that America is the Devil and the world is doomed by our sin--and if objective empirical truth makes them laughingstocks, they will just come up with another ad-hoc hypothesis, and another, and another, and another, and another, as many as are needed to keep pushing their lunatic-fringe political agenda.
Thirty years ago they were claiming that pollution was causing another Ice Age. They were wrong, and perhaps did not get the mockery they deserved. Now the very same people are claiming that something called "global warming" is taking place, still due to industrialization, still the fault of the evil, unspeakable West.
They are demonstrably unable to predict climate two weeks in advance, but they claim to be perfectly capable of predicting climate a century in advance. That this is preposterous on its face does not shame them a bit.
And if you want to get down to data, well, there's not a whole lot of data to be had here. The Earth is at least four and a half billion years old. We have detailed climate data (for tiny urbanized areas) going back, maybe, to World War I. There is additional information--not even data, really--derived from core drilling in glaciers and fossilized tree rings, which require a great many unsupported assumptions and ad-hoc hypotheses to give any information at all about what the Earth's climate was like, say, two thousand years ago. (Quick! Renormalize the data again!)
(continued in next post)
(continued from previous post)
Here's some more data. To the miniscule extent that any accurate climate data at all exists for the 19th Century, there seems to have been a slight warming trend from 1800 to 1900. There is slightly more data for a slightly greater warming trend from 1900 to 1940, then more data for a rapid, measurable, significant drop in global temperatures until around 1975, then, depending upon who "renormalizes" the climate data, there may or may not be a barely-measurable rise in temperatures between then and the present day. Does any of this correlate at all with global industrialization? Well, no. Does any of this correlate at all with carbon dioxide emissions? Well, no.
More data yet: the single most significant absorber of infrared radiation in the Earth's atmosphere isn't carbon dioxide, which in fact absorbs very, very weakly, but water vapor, which not only absorbs infrared radiation far more strongly, but is also present in vastly higher concentrations, measured in multiple whole percentage points (varying considerably with local weather conditions, of course; Wikipedia suggests 3% as a reasonable ballpark figure), as compared to CO2 at four one hundredths of one percent. Quick, someone put tarps over the oceans!
The idea that we even know what is normal for the Earth is laughable. The idea that humanity's insignificant efforts are capable of affecting it are doubly so. No doubt when and as contradictory data piles up so high that the Steven Schneiders of the world can no longer ignore it, they'll next make the claim that building cities is changing the Earth's orbit, and we're all DOOOOOOOOOOOOOMED to a fiery decaying orbit into the Sun unless we go back to the caves. More studies are needed!
Finally, to be more serious, none of this fearmongering even rises to the level of being a hypothesis, because none of it makes any predictions that are empirically testable. Occam's Razor cuts anthropogenic climate change away and the null hypothesis holds until and unless there is empirical evidence that is not interpretable any other way.
> These are people who, thirty years ago, decided that the WORLD was COMING TO AN END, man!
Please provide quote of any significant portion of the entire field of cliamte science saying this thirty years ago.
> What I'm saying here is that these people are fanatics who latched onto an idea decades ago
Are you saying an entire field of science is "fanatics who latched onto an idea decades ago"?
> More data yet: the single most significant absorber of infrared radiation in the Earth's atmosphere isn't carbon dioxide, which in fact absorbs very, very weakly, but water vapor
Ok. By this same logic, a ten-meter rise in sea levels is totally insignificant, because the sea is over ten kilometers deep! A ten-meter rise is less than a tenth of a percent, and totally insignificant!
> The idea that we even know what is normal for the Earth is laughable.
You are projecting your own ignorance. Just because you don't know doesn't mean nobody else does.
If anyone has latched onto an idea here, it's you. You're simply parroting old, old arguments that have been debunked again and again, but you refuse to listen to anything that doesn't support your own pre-conceived notion. And just what is your hangup with this "Steven Schneider" character?