Jump to content

Who here is a global warming skeptic?


Recommended Posts

  • 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

 

You might find the following interesting reading.

 

...The Skeptical Environmentalist.

>

I see that the book was made into the documentary, Cool It. I've added the book to my TBR list!

...but also:
Too much uncertainty. [#811 Posted by Shelagh, 24 December 2015 - 01:54 PM]

 

You put the taint in certainty! It sounds like you’re saying how, just because a doctor can’t predict your exact date and cause of death, nobody should listen to a doctor’s advice …since there is, y’know, uncertainty.

===

 

But regarding studiot's odd suggestion, if you legitimately want to know whether or not the carbon problem is really serious, please listen to reputable journalistic sources such as the Columbia Journalism Review (and/or summaries from the actual science community, such as Yale’s climate-review dot org), rather than the so-called common-sense reasoning of any individual author; especially if that author is already well known for loading his ‘common-sense’ speeches with optimistically-slanted and emotionally-persuasive language that promote “unfairly warped truths,” and who also has a “record of persistent and consistent misrepresentation” and has based his conclusions on “incomplete calculations.” There are lists of these Lomborgisms, and “books and websites devoted to enumerating his errors,” which fairly critique this “strategic communicator” “who systematically spins a complex topic,” but who also seems capable of happily marketing his ‘take on things’ to an audience anxious for easy solutions.

 

However, if you’re going to read that book, you should read his other book too, so you can see how he just repeats his same, lame and commonsensically oversimplified sort of perspective and solutions. Though, as Wikipedia suggests, “if you are going to read only one book on climate, don’t read this one. But if you are going to read ten, reading Lomborg may be worthwhile.” [...my added emphasis]

 

If you are only reading this one book, beware that, “unless you are an expert, you will never know which facts are correct and appropriately used and which are not. You might not be aware that large (and crucial) chunks of the story are skipped altogether.”

 

But if you are going to read ten, make sure one of them is also “The Lomborg Deception, by Howard Friel,” which documents various lomborgasms such as "misrepresentation of academic research, misquotation of data, reliance on studies irrelevant to the author’s claims, and citation of sources that seem not to exist."

 

~

Link to post
Share on other sites

Land management of the British Isles has been an essential activity for thousands of years. When the Romans left Britain at the beginning of the fifth century A.D., the country was left with an infrastructure of Roman roads, viaducts and aquaducts, parts of which exist to this day. Since that time, the land has been managed by landowners, who ran vast estates employing thousands of low paid workers. Cheap labour produced a highly efficient, sustainable countryside with managed forests, rivers, lakes and resevoirs.

 

Today, people work in town and cities, and many of the country estates have been split into small, privately owned farms and small holdings. Those who work in the countryside no longer work for meagre wages. The cost of managing our waterways, and sewerage and drainage system is many times greater than it was just one hundred years ago.

 

If you couple this lack of investment in the infrastructure of the country with the amount of asphalt laid, the tremendous rise in the number of new homes being built, and torrential rain, the outcome is more predictable than global warming. You don't need to be a scientist to understand that, if rivers cannot cope with a deluge of rainfall, banks will overflow and cause widespread flooding.

 

When your home is under three feet of water, scientists explaining to you that it's because of global warming is of little consolation. What people want to understand is how much government funding will be spent on dredging or diverting rivers, and replacing old, worn-out drainage systems. They want the country to be the way it was years ago through affirmative action at grassroots. They do not want to be told that everything will be okay in fifty years time if they lower their carbon footprint!

 

The people in Britain know what needs to be done; they want the government to spend money preventing flooding, not pouring in billions of pounds to pay for the tremendous damage to property and the environment after the rain has fallen.

 

Scientists can continue to collect their data and build their mathematical models; just stop ramming it down everyone's throats.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is akin to a strawman. Or just moving the goalposts. Or even a non-sequitur.

 

No one is denying those things are important. If you want a discussion on flood management policies and technology (and the use of models to help with that) then start another thread.

 

Although climate change is, potentially, very relevant to flood management (in the long term), flood management has no bearing on whether the science of climate change is correct or not.

 

Why are you totally unwilling to discuss the topic you raised: that climate science is wrong because the models are too innaccurate?

Edited by Strange
Link to post
Share on other sites

Scientists can continue to collect their data and build their mathematical models; just stop ramming it down everyone's throats.

 

 

They only ram it down the throats of those that continue to ignore the facts; maybe you should try too not cough up ignorance.

Edited by dimreepr
Link to post
Share on other sites

Britain's most senior meteorologist, Professor Dame Julia Slingo, Met Office chief scientist, trying to blame it on her favourite topic, global warming: "Just as with the stormy winter of two years ago, all the evidence from fundamental physics, and our understanding of our weather systems, suggest there may be a link between climate change and record-breaking winter rainfall."

This is not journalism at work. Dame Julia Slingo said this a few hours ago on the BBC news. Suggesting that there's a link between global warming and winter rainfall, without offering a practical solution is insensitive and unnecessary. Research is all well and good, but this particular area of climate research appears to have no practical use at present, and dubious practical help in the future. Enough already.
Link to post
Share on other sites

This is not journalism at work. Dame Julia Slingo said this a few hours ago on the BBC news. Suggesting that there's a link between global warming and winter rainfall, without offering a practical solution is insensitive and unnecessary. Research is all well and good, but this particular area of climate research appears to have no practical use at present, and dubious practical help in the future. Enough already.

 

I'm sorry but that is totally illogical. It is like blaming a diagnostic tool such as X-ray machines for not repairing the broken leg.

 

Suggesting that there's a link between global warming and [record-breaking] winter rainfall may help ensure that adequate flood defences are put in place.

 

You won't even admit that having better models of the climate is useful for improving our understanding of the probability of these extreme weather conditions. That is insensitive: "don't do the research that might help these people because it offends my Mail-reading ideologies".

Link to post
Share on other sites

"Ah," said the doctor as he looked at the X-ray. "The femur is fractured, but there are no instructions about treatment with the X-ray, so I can't help you. But I do know the problem, and I'm almost certain that if you continue to walk on it, you will experience a lot of pain. I would recommend complete rest until it mends itself. Oh, and try to avoid whatever it was that caused the break."

 

Patients with broken legs want immediate treatment and a speedy revovery, not advice to reduce their activity for a very long time so that the leg can heal itself!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, FFS. What the patient wants has zero bearing on the fact that the leg is broken. Global average annual temperatures are increasing. Vast agreement exists that this is due to the massive amounts of CO2 humans are digging up from the ground, burning, and releasing into the atmosphere every single day. No natural forcing agent, nor multiple agents in aggregate, can account for either the magnitude nor rate of change were experiencing. No level of model uncertainty changes this core fact and no rational reason exists for people to continue ignoring and/or denying the obvious well-supported, well-established, and well-validated truth of the human role in climate change.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Suggesting that there's a link between global warming and winter rainfall, without offering a practical solution is insensitive and unnecessary. Research is all well and good, but this particular area of climate research appears to have no practical use at present, and dubious practical help in the future. Enough already.

These statements are astounding.

These statements are profoundly ignorant.

These statements completely ignore the facts.

These statements show no concern whatsoever for the future we leave our children and grandchildren.

These statements are delusional.

These statements may not be criminal, but they damn well ought to be.

 

I shall be dead before the consequences of climate change reach their peak, but I am more than willing to accept a lower standard of living now to protect the future. I am disgusted by those individuals who care not a whit for what we are doing to the environment and are indifferent to the resultant savaging of biodiversity. Ignorance is some excuse for such an attitude, self imposed ignorance is not.

 

In an earlier post you said that the discussion had turned to one about your intelligence. That was not, then, the case. It has now turned into one in which your intelligence is very much on display. Magnifying glasses will be issued on request.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Patients with broken legs want immediate treatment and a speedy revovery, not advice to reduce their activity for a very long time so that the leg can heal itself!

 

So your recommendation is that we should immediately stop using fossil fuels, rather than taking time over it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

These statements may not be criminal, but they damn well ought to be.

 

 

I understand where this sentiment comes from but i must strongly disagree. Free speech must allow for people of all perspectives to voice an opinion. In this context it has the added benefit of allowing neutral spectators to see how poorly constructed many arguments denying AGW are.

 

 

I don't reject climate science, but supporters of AGW are making claims that are not bring met, which leads to scepticism.

 

Shelagh. Will you please answer the question myself and Ophiolite have posed in various forms several times.

 

Are you equally sceptical of our models of any of cancer, planetary formation, geomagnetism, abiogenesis and whatever has been mentioned? There is as much or more uncertainty in these fields within the scientific community as there is in climate science.

 

And just so there is no ambiguity, avoiding answering direct questions is one of those tactics some arguments employ which display a paucity of reason.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand where this sentiment comes from but i must strongly disagree. Free speech must allow for people of all perspectives to voice an opinion. In this context it has the added benefit of allowing neutral spectators to see how poorly constructed many arguments denying AGW are.

While I also understand your position and support free speech, I think you will concede that there are some situations where it may justifiably (or at least arguably) be excluded. The standard example given is that of crying "Fire" in a crowded theatre.

 

I ask you to consider that the maximum number who might perish in such a case would be a few thousands. The number who will die as a consequence of the delays in taking appropriate action to minimise climate change will number in the tens, possibly hundreds, of millions. Stubbornly refusing to acknowledge the facts, refusing to study the evidence, insisting upon misinterpretation of evidence gleaned from sound sources and reveling in biased propaganda, pushes the boundaries of free speech well into the area headlined "abuse". But, I will concede there were elements of hyperbole in my statement and I also, foolishly, think stupidity should be outlawed.

 

And just so there is no ambiguity, avoiding answering direct questions is one of those tactics some arguments employ which display a paucity of reason.

It is also against the forum rules. I have chosen not to report it thus far partly because, like you I believe "it has the added benefit of allowing neutral spectators to see how poorly constructed many arguments denying AGW are". However, if Shelagh fails to respond to your recent request, then enough is enough.

Edited by Ophiolite
Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes. The ideal solution.

 

But why would we do that if, as you claim, climate change has nothing to do with us burning fossil fuels?

(I only suggested it as a sarcastic response to your frankly idiotic analogy.)

Link to post
Share on other sites

But why would we do that if, as you claim, climate change has nothing to do with us burning fossil fuels?

(I only suggested it as a sarcastic response to your frankly idiotic analogy.)

Did I say that burning fossil fuels was a good thing?
Link to post
Share on other sites

There isn't always an answer for every question. I don't know everything.

Are you claiming that you don't know why you accept the models of planetary formation, evolution, cancer spread, plate tectonics, and countless others (despite their uncertainties), yet refuse to accept the uncertainties in climate change models?

 

Are you using these uncertainties as a rationalization for dismissing the obvious anthropogenic role in the increase in average annual global temperatures and associated downstream consequences?

 

Are you going to further demonstrate the weakness of your stance by once again ignoring these simple and direct questions?

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's late in the UK, so I'll say goodnight. This video might explain my stance better than I can:

Tim Ball is not exactly considered an expert in climate science.

 

He is known for lying about credentials and the number of papers he has published. He is not exactly a supporter of evolution and claims that many of the claims in the bible are just as well supported as scientific claims. There seems very little reason to listen to this man.

 

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Tim_Ball

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's late in the UK, so I'll say goodnight. This video might explain my stance better than I can:

 

I rarely watch videos, but did search this guy’s name to see what he might be speaking about. Looking for a reputable journalistic source, or a scientific/educational source, for something like a book review or peer review of this Dr. Bell’s work, I thought “Principia Scientific International” sounded like the best candidate, from my first page of search results, for being a fair and reliable source.

 

Wow, I was surprised at how wrong “fair and reliable” was, as an assumption, which I’d made partially because it was a ‘dot org’ site, and especially because of the name. At first glance, the site seemed to do a good job of describing this guy’s baseless ideas, revealing the idiocy of his logic, and exposing his agenda. But as I read closer, I realized they were extolling these as valid notions and facts! So by researching that site’s name, this came up first in the search results:

 

“Principia Scientific International universal principle is that good science journals should be free of propaganda, subterfuge and corruption.”

 

What?!? Well, of course, technically that is true; but how paranoid do you have to be, to see the need to make that your mission statement?

 

The rest of the results were along the lines of:

 

“…an organization based in the United Kingdom which promotes fringe views and material to claim that carbon dioxide is…”

“O'Sullivan has been promoting this book and himself, his other writings, his fascade company called Principia Scientific International, and soliciting public…”

“Jul 25, 2012 - John O'Sullivan is a principle founder and pusher of "Principia Scientific International" a group of AGW deniers intent on spreading…”

“Most Recent Commentaries: The Myth of Scientific Neutrality (April 18, 2015); The Last Battle of Climate Alarmism? (March…”

 

…hmmmmm. Once again, these ‘commentaries’ are sounding a bit paranoid, it seems to me. At the bottom of the first page of search results, was the first “mainstream” website.

 

Answers.Yahoo.com seems to have some reality-based webpages on topics about “global warming,” and they had this information:

“Jul 26, 2011 - The paper was written for Principia Scientific International (PSI) which tries to pass itself off as a scientific organisation. It isn't. It's a UK based publicity business owned by shareholders.”

“The book was written by oil industry funded Dr Timothy Ball, who also happens to be the Chair of PSI.”

...and

The PSI’s Principles of Association statement declare that it is a profit making business, it’s main commercial interest being the book “Slaying the Sky Dragon: Death of the Greenhouse Gas Theory”. PSI was founded by the science and law teacher John O’Sullivan, who is acting as a paid consultant to Dr Ball in defending him against lawsuits brought against him by Dr Michael Mann and Dr Andrew Weaver.

which Michael Mann won, iirc.

 

Anyway, I was surprised to see the wide extent of this conspiracy theory, about the hoax of AGW, based on these notions that Bell is promulgating:

 

“Today we may see for ourselves why Ball correctly adjudged that Mann (and others) should be in ‘the state pen, not Penn. State’.”

“…identifying the serious damage to climate science – and government-funded science in general – that the University of East Anglia’s Climate Change Unit (CRU) has brought upon the entire issue of so-called man-made climate change. The damage the UN’s 30-year “green agenda” has done to modern industrial progress cannot be underestimated, says Ball. Much of the science is fudged, if not outright faked.”

 

“Dr Ball tells his audience that today’s anti-industrialists are the latest incarnation of a misguided cause that goes back to the 19th century writings of Thomas Malthus.”

...and

“If you can shut off the flow of fossil fuels, that will stop the engine of those industrialized nations, but people would scream immediately if that happened,” explains the mild-mannered expert. “But if you could show that the by-product of the combustion of that fossil fuel, carbon dioxide, was causing runaway global warming and climate change, then you could use that for a vehicle to introduce legislation to shut down those industrialized nations.”

 

Ball was the underdog made into the accidental hero of the climate wars story. He helped pave the way towards a new open platform for principled scientists on the Internet so that independent, unpaid researchers debunking the so-called ‘greenhouse gas theory’, the cornerstone of the pseudo-science of all global warming alarmism are finally being heard. Today, more scientists are coming to the realisation that the only effect that atmospheric carbon dioxide can have is one of increased cooling – never any warming – and, at last, the journey back to empiricism is under way.

 

For his efforts Dr Ball will be regarded as the climatologist who was at the forefront of the paradigm shift away from the post-normalism that poisoned much government science in recent generations. Ball stood beside those who championed the traditional scientific method out to prove that an innocent – and life-giving – gas (carbon dioxide) cannot precipitate a “man-made” climate disaster. This important new book needs to be compulsory reading for all policymakers so as to bring an end to the ongoing waste of government funds tackling a non-existent threat.

 

So writes John O'Sullivan, quoting Ball I assume in …ahem, ‘reviewing’ “this mind-blowing book” on the PSI website.

===

 

OMG!!!

And there’s even more of ‘em! An AirCrap dot org, (yes, really!) is another of these looney conspiracist websites, which goes on about HAARP and chemtrails, and as they say: “The abuse and corruption of science to manipulate and control society for the New World Order Agenda.”

...and

In addition the article that has created a worldwide firestorm of controversy [Dr. Ball’s] ‘People Starting to Ask About Motives for Massive IPCC Deception’.

 

…an appropriately named website, istm.

 

It’s no wonder so many folks seem to have such a world view, and these contrary or low opinions, if these are the sorts of easily found sources being relied upon for their information.

 

~ :unsure:

 

p.s. The best part is how PSI describes the IPCC, as "nothing more and nothing less than a politically contrived organisation."

They make that sound like such a bad thing....

 

But isn't that precisely why it is called ...the InterGOVERNMENTAL Panel on CC?

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's late in the UK, so I'll say goodnight. This video might explain my stance better than I can:

 

So your stance is that of a deluded conspiracy theorist. At least we know what we are dealing with.

 

You will be telling us next that you think "Holy Blood, Holy Grail" is a work of serious scholarship.

 

And what about those so-called Apollo landings ...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Since there is a question that has been asked repeatedly and has not been answered , I will attempt to provide one off the top of my head.

 

There is uncertainty in many/all areas of science . The uncertainty in climate science is of a different order in that it is founded on the chaotic system that is inbuilt into climate forecasting.

 

There is an additional factor in that the experiment we are conducting is on ourselves and our fellow passengers on the planet (a bit like cutting down the branch we are sitting on?).

 

We do not seem to have a "reproducible experiment" here. We are talking about "tipping points" and the like so that we cannot go back to the start- we are going down a one way street.

 

I do see uncertainty in the area as a whole but a terrifying uncertainty -not a comforting one.

 

I may be wrong but I fail to see any downside to attempting to build a non carbon and sustainable economy. It should be done on its own merits and the push provided by the dangers of global warming is a "happy" coincidence.

 

To actually answer the OP, I would like to think I would be sceptical in all things scientific but only in proportion to my own knowledge and input and in the area of Global Warming I would not afford myself the luxury of scepticism (there is no time for it).

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.