Jump to content

Who here is a global warming skeptic?


Recommended Posts

An error in calculations, you say? And an adjustment is necessary?

 

You're the only one to say "error". (on this page, anyway, dating back to 4 Feb)

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 942
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I am a global warming skeptic. I think it is not only plausible to have doubts, but essential, especially if we wish to honour the memories of Bacon and Galileo and Newton. We should doubt the data ga

Lots of things.   I am pretty well convinced that there is a problem with CO2 levels and decreasing Ph of the oceans. This could be serious indeed.   I am also convinced, based on isotope abundan

Can you please post some kind of evidence - preferably new evidence - which made you come to this conclusion? And FOX News does not count. Instead of forcing the climate sciences to "prove" that clim

Posted Images

If there is any validity to claims that significant warming has occurred, the case that the dreaded CO2 is responsible in any major way has yet to be established.

 

Then of course we must determine if longer growing seasons in a warmer and wetter world would in fact be disastrous.

 

The problem with CO2 is that it impacts both the atmospheric and ocean composition. Just me, but I don't want our descendents to end up on a Venus-like Earth with oceans of carbonic acid. Our machines utilize oxygen without having to deal with the typical downsides faced by us organics.

 

It isn't the fact that the world would be different that is a problem(at least until things get really bad). The issue lies in the fact that our civilization is arranged around the world as it is. Over half of the US lives within 50 miles of the coast. Farming is based on existing weather patterns, etc.

 

Sure the Arctic Ocean being ice free will finally give us a Northwest passage. On the downside, there are a whole lot of downsides.

 

 

Oh, and sea level rise? Sort of depends on where you measure it. Up in Alaska the weight of whacking great loads of ice melting has caused the earth beneath to actually rise in response, that is a longer trip to the beach, not a shorter one.

 

and does it look so great if you live in Florida?

 

Even Northern states see hurricanes and related storm surges(expected to be worse in a warmer world). Take Hurricane Sandy. Now consider the fact that it was only a Category 3. Not as bad as it could have been, for all that it caused billions in damages and over two hundred deaths(if anyone was impacted by this you have my sympathies).

 

We can deal with the simple coastlines movement. What we can't easily deal with are the knock on impacts. Going to take mass evacuation and/or considerable infrastructure in the future. Both necessarily have a detrimental cost for society as a whole.

Edited by Endy0816
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

You're the only one to say "error". (on this page, anyway, dating back to 4 Feb)

If I understand Inow's position, the record of 18 years of observation are defective, or "erroneous", and must be adjusted to fit the theory.

 

It is common for hoaxters to tailor the data to the theory rather than the other way around. Fortunately this cannot continue forever or people would still be looking for phlogiston.

 

The problem with CO2 is that it impacts both the atmospheric and ocean composition. Just me, but I don't want our descendents to end up on a Venus-like Earth with oceans of carbonic acid. Our machines utilize oxygen without having to deal with the typical downsides faced by us organics.

 

It isn't the fact that the world would be different that is a problem(at least until things get really bad). The issue lies in the fact that our civilization is arranged around the world as it is. Over half of the US lives within 50 miles of the coast. Farming is based on existing weather patterns, etc.

 

Sure the Arctic Ocean being ice free will finally give us a Northwest passage. On the downside, there are a whole lot of downsides.

 

 

 

and does it look so great if you live in Florida?

 

Even Northern states see hurricanes and related storm surges(expected to be worse in a warmer world). Take Hurricane Sandy. Now consider the fact that it was only a Category 3. Not as bad as it could have been, for all that it caused billions in damages and over two hundred deaths(if anyone was impacted by this you have my sympathies).

 

We can deal with the simple coastlines movement. What we can't easily deal with are the knock on impacts. Going to take mass evacuation and/or considerable infrastructure in the future. Both necessarily have a detrimental cost for society as a whole.

The Netherlands are managing their infrastructure pretty damned well for some decades now in spite of war and famine. Where I live subsidence is the cause of marine encroachment, from oil, gas and water withdrawal. If I lived in Florida I would worry more about sinkholes than hurricanes.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Humans are irrelevant.

 

Hardly. If it weren't for humans, we wouldn't be experiencing the current rapid increase in CO2 and associated warming.

 

Of course, you can say that this doesn't matter at all, as far as the Earth itself is concerned.

 

On the other hand, you could be a decent person and actually care about what happens your fellow human beings.

Edited by Strange
Link to post
Share on other sites

If I understand Inow's position, the record of 18 years of observation are defective, or "erroneous", and must be adjusted to fit the theory.

 

It is common for hoaxters to tailor the data to the theory rather than the other way around. Fortunately this cannot continue forever or people would still be looking for phlogiston.

 

I don't see how the data is being fit with the theory when the trend is obvious, unless you have an explanation that has evidence supporting it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

And your implication that India has had no such incidents prior to the Industrial Revolution is based on what data? What's that? Nothing?

 

There have been droughts and heatwaves not only in India but around the globe well before the IPCC came along, FACT.

 

AGW has to date harmed NOBODY, also FACT.

Clearly, you don't.

 

karl1hr.jpg

I most certainly do. I also understand that if the data happened to actually support the (discredited) theory, no such "correction" would be necessary.

 

"The Apocalypse has been rescheduled, but it is still coming, repent ye sinners repent..."...I almost miss the Y2K and 2012 wackjobs, at least they know how to STFU.

Edited by Harold Squared
Link to post
Share on other sites

There have been droughts and heatwaves not only in India but around the globe well before the IPCC came along, FACT.

Yes, that is a fact, but an irrelevant one. Your argument is equivalent to saying that humans cannot start forest fires because forest fires happened before humans existed, which is clearly nonsensical.

 

AGW has to date harmed NOBODY, also FACT.

I don't think that word means what you think it means.

 

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_global_warming_on_human_health

http://www.nrdc.org/globalwarming/fcons/fcons2.asp

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/impacts-adaptation/health.html

 

If you have to continually lie and misrepresent others in order to make your argument, then your argument is clearly bullshit and should be dismissed as such.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sometimes even irrationality can reach a new low.

A new "consensus", it appears. Ad hominem attacks more suited to a schoolyard. If you colleagues would note the topic it should hardly surprise you to see views contrary to your own. If you are trying to convince me of your noble support of impartial science, you are failing conspicuously.

Yes, that is a fact, but an irrelevant one. Your argument is equivalent to saying that humans cannot start forest fires because forest fires happened before humans existed, which is clearly nonsensical.

 

I don't think that word means what you think it means.

 

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_global_warming_on_human_health

http://www.nrdc.org/globalwarming/fcons/fcons2.asp

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/impacts-adaptation/health.html

 

If you have to continually lie and misrepresent others in order to make your argument, then your argument is clearly bullshit and should be dismissed as such.

Not at all, my position is that such calamities can and do have origins in the natural world. If you wish to prove AGW is responsible, you must do so, and back up the allegation. Not every fire is arson, or would you argue so?

 

Identify the culprit beyond a reasonable doubt if you are able. Keep in mind that episodes of warmer weather in a given region do not necessarily imply CO2 is responsible for said conditions.

 

Good luck.

 

Speaking of lying and distortion of the truth, let us examine your cited NRDC article. Asthma, and allergies are caused by defective immune systems, infectious diseases are caused by microorganisms, and adverse weather events, among them the Indian seasonal variation previously alluded to, are caused by any number of factors. Trace atmosphere gases, not so much, except to the TRUE BELIEVERS, of course.

Edited by Harold Squared
Link to post
Share on other sites

A new "consensus", it appears. Ad hominem attacks more suited to a schoolyard. If you colleagues would note the topic it should hardly surprise you to see views contrary to your own. If you are trying to convince me of your noble support of impartial science, you are failing conspicuously.

Not at all, my position is that such calamities can and do have origins in the natural world. If you wish to prove AGW is responsible, you must do so, and back up the allegation. Not every fire is arson, or would you argue so?

It is not an attack on character, rather an proclamation of how far irrationality has reached into the debate, considering rationality is based on logic and reasoning, implication of evidence.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It is not an attack on character, rather an proclamation of how far irrationality has reached into the debate, considering rationality is based on logic and reasoning, implication of evidence.

Oh, you have evidence? Put up or shut up.

 

Is that a reasonable request? Hell yes, and logical too. I will concede that irrationality has invaded the subject as so many of the Faithful cling to AGW with messianic zeal.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, you have evidence? Put up or shut up.

 

Is that a reasonable request? Hell yes, and logical too. I will concede that irrationality has invaded the subject as so many of the Faithful cling to AGW with messianic zeal.

There is evidence. However, evidence that you will accept is a different discussion.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, you have evidence? Put up or shut up.

 

Is that a reasonable request? Hell yes, and logical too. I will concede that irrationality has invaded the subject as so many of the Faithful cling to AGW with messianic zeal.

There's solid evidence that the debate isn't being progressed rationally.

The evidence is that you keep using strawmen.

You say "And your implication that India has had no such incidents prior to the Industrial Revolution is based on what data? "

when there was no such implication.

Using logical fallacies like that makes it clear that your argument is not rational.

Why do you keep doing it (unless, as has been suggested, you are trolling)?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am still waiting for you to produce your evidence. Something credible would be nice.

 

Returning to the NRDC article, for example, there is no link between CO2 levels and infectious disease. Even the alleged link between warmer temperatures and infectious disease is weaker than most laypeople realize since public health measures in the developed world have been so effective. Many are ignorant of the effects of malaria and yellow fever in the United States, for example.

 

Effective public health measures to date have not included CO2 regulation and there is no reason to expect this to change in spite of what claims are made by the NRDC.

There's solid evidence that the debate isn't being progressed rationally.

The evidence is that you keep using strawmen.

You say "And your implication that India has had no such incidents prior to the Industrial Revolution is based on what data? "

when there was no such implication.

Using logical fallacies like that makes it clear that your argument is not rational.

Why do you keep doing it (unless, as has been suggested, you are trolling)?

The recent weather in India was cited as an example that AGW is having an adverse effect on people. The IMPLICATION is that CO2 levels are somehow causing exacerbation of this traditionally observed weather pattern. The EVIDENCE for said claim is ABSENT.

 

In all probability, local records, if such have been kept, will disclose both more and less severe such periods. Naturally, the claim that current conditions are unprecedented in severity will be supported by those who can demonstrate the alleged cause and effects.

 

Can any of you put up or shut up?

 

Calling me a troll is not evidence, incidentally, how the hell would you like it? Carrying another's argument to its ultimate logical conclusion is a perfectly valid tactic, not a "straw man" as many here seem to think.

Edited by Harold Squared
Link to post
Share on other sites

Can any of you put up or shut up?

 

 

Can YOU?

 

This thread is packed full of evidence that AGW is real; the only evidence that’s missing is that which supports your claim. If you want to avoid being thought of as a troll, your next post had better include some evidence; unless of course you’re going for the coveted “resident troll” position. :unsure:

Link to post
Share on other sites

To date I have seen no conclusive proof that significant warming has been going on for the past 18 years. AGW advocates have floundered for years trying to explain why the increasing CO2 levels have not been matched by temperature observations and have finally doctored the evidence since denial and excuses have been unsatisfactory. It is fishy to say the least that a problem in data analysis should be "discovered" at this late date.

 

IF a significant warming trend exists there are a number of plausible causes unrelated to CO2 concentration in the atmosphere.

 

Finally, IF CO2 levels are(most improbably) responsible for increased global temperatures, there is no reason to think this trend must be catastrophic.

 

O Dim One, the responsibility for proof falls upon those who make the accusations. I see no reason to abandon my reasonable doubts so far.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not every fire is arson, or would you argue so?

 

That's not a good analogy, though. You are basically arguing that since non-arson fires exist, no fires can be arson. Which is fallacious reasoning.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.