Real, or a scam? Can we trust them to tell the truth?

[Oddball]

We've already covered this ground awhile back, when it was asked what evidence he'd accept that the AGW hoax is a hoax.

His answer boiled down to; "I'll change my mind when they change theirs".

OldRocksinthehead is a parrot and follower, not an analytical thinker.

I think global warming deniers are equally hyperbolic and unreasonable. I watched a Glenn Beck clip about global warming and it was among the least rational screeds I have ever heard.

And the guy who helped found the weather channel...I read his arguments against AGW and it was so fallacious as to be laughable.

AGW is real. The question is how much of a threat it is.

Thew term "denier" is itself hyperbolic.

Insubstantial ad homs against skeptics and debunkers adds nothing.

AGW, if it is in fact real (a dubious notion at best), is inconsequential to natural forces that are completely beyond anyone's control.

 

[Dr.Traveler]

That was caused by cooling. Warming has usually been quite beneficial for humanity. Frankly we are about fifty years late for a minor ice age. I'd prefer that we get no more of them. The Medieval Warm period which was warmer world wide than what we are experiencing now was a time of great prosperity nearly world wide.

Any reasonable sized change can have very unexpected problems. If things warm enough, then you will trigger a cool down. Polar ice caps melt, then dump in newly thawed fresh water, then the global convection current break down and WHAM! Cooling.

Again, I'm not sure we're the primary cause or source of global warming. However, just because you didn't cause the tornado doesn't mean you can ignore it with impunity.

 

[Oddball]

That was caused by cooling. Warming has usually been quite beneficial for humanity. Frankly we are about fifty years late for a minor ice age. I'd prefer that we get no more of them. The Medieval Warm period which was warmer world wide than what we are experiencing now was a time of great prosperity nearly world wide.

Any reasonable sized change can have very unexpected problems. If things warm enough, then you will trigger a cool down. Polar ice caps melt, then dump in newly thawed fresh water, then the global convection current break down and WHAM! Cooling.

Again, I'm not sure we're the primary cause or source of global warming. However, just because you didn't cause the tornado doesn't mean you can ignore it with impunity.

Recognizing the tornado and getting the hell out of the way is one thing, saying you can stop tornadoes through new taxes and bureaucracies goes beyond the absurd.

 

[Old Rocks]

I cannot fail to think that a nearly 40% increase in the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.......

That's because you fail to think at all, seeing as you've already admitted that the only way your mind will be changed on this, is by the minds of those who've been doing your thinking for you being changed.

Or perhaps his opinion was formed on the same information that causes a result like this.

When asked:

Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?

My first contact with the idea of global warming and GHGs came in the mid-60s in a Geology class. The professor introduced a post grad student, and said he had some interesting information for us. The student then outlined the basic ideas of global warming, and the "greenhouse" effect worked. He made some predictions for 2100. The professor then stated that it was too bad that none of us would be around to see how accurate the predictions were. And he stated that while he found some of the hypothesis presented by the student pretty radical, there was evidence that backed them up.

Today, as we speak, virtually all of the predictions for 2100 have already come to pass. The predictions were far too consevative. Even the predictions of the last decade are proving to be far too conservative concerning the speed of the change.

No, even if the methane clathrates outgas, it will not exterminate life on earth. It will not even exterminate the species that I am most concerned about, that which we are members of. But it will end civilization as we know it, and the Earth will be a very differant place, and a less pleasant one, for those of our children and grandchildren that survive. Consider the implications in this abstract about riverine flow in the PETM;

http://meetingorganizer.copernicus.org/EGU2009/EGU2009-6710.pdf

 

[Big Black Dog]

No doubt that in the course of the Earth's history there have been many changes in it's temperature. Why is it so hard for people to accept that this is just another one of those temperature changes and at some point in the future it will get cooler again, if in fact the Earth really is heating up for whatever the reason. People get so worked up over crap they can't do anything meaningful about. It makes me lmao. Don't people have anything better to do with their time than to sit around and wonder just when it is that the Earth is going to melt away like butter and we'll all be screwed? Be real for a change and quit thinking that anything you are going to do or say will make some sort of difference. If you hang around, say for another 100 to 150 years you can tell everybody how much cooler the Earth is - that is, if you don't worry yourself to death first. The fine people that are feeding you all of this horseshit is laughing their asses off all the way to the bank. Do you think for a minute Al Gore would give a rats ass about the environment if he couldn't make any money off of his antics? For somebody that's so worried about the environment, why doesn't he fly a commercial plane around instead of a private jet? Why do he have such a large electric bill every month? Why doesn't he follow the things he preaches to everybody else? Why doesn't he do it? Because it's all bullshit.

 

[Oddball]

That's because you fail to think at all, seeing as you've already admitted that the only way your mind will be changed on this, is by the minds of those who've been doing your thinking for you being changed.

Or perhaps his opinion was formed on the same information that causes a result like this.

When asked:

Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?

My first contact with the idea of global warming and GHGs came in the mid-60s in a Geology class. The professor introduced a post grad student, and said he had some interesting information for us. The student then outlined the basic ideas of global warming, and the "greenhouse" effect worked. He made some predictions for 2100. The professor then stated that it was too bad that none of us would be around to see how accurate the predictions were. And he stated that while he found some of the hypothesis presented by the student pretty radical, there was evidence that backed them up.

Today, as we speak, virtually all of the predictions for 2100 have already come to pass. The predictions were far too consevative. Even the predictions of the last decade are proving to be far too conservative concerning the speed of the change.

No, even if the methane clathrates outgas, it will not exterminate life on earth. It will not even exterminate the species that I am most concerned about, that which we are members of. But it will end civilization as we know it, and the Earth will be a very differant place, and a less pleasant one, for those of our children and grandchildren that survive. Consider the implications in this abstract about riverine flow in the PETM;

http://meetingorganizer.copernicus.org/EGU2009/EGU2009-6710.pdf

Bullshit.

I've been exposed to this neo-Luddite garbage since the '60s, too....First it was warming, then the next ice age, then it was warming again......And all the dire predictions have been changed, except for one: "We have to do something now or we're all doooooooooooooooomed".

Yet, Maimi and London remain above sea level.

 

[N4mddissent]

We've already covered this ground awhile back, when it was asked what evidence he'd accept that the AGW hoax is a hoax.

His answer boiled down to; "I'll change my mind when they change theirs".

OldRocksinthehead is a parrot and follower, not an analytical thinker.

I think global warming deniers are equally hyperbolic and unreasonable. I watched a Glenn Beck clip about global warming and it was among the least rational screeds I have ever heard.

And the guy who helped found the weather channel...I read his arguments against AGW and it was so fallacious as to be laughable.

AGW is real. The question is how much of a threat it is.

Thew term "denier" is itself hyperbolic.

Insubstantial ad homs against skeptics and debunkers adds nothing.

AGW, if it is in fact real (a dubious notion at best), is inconsequential to natural forces that are completely beyond anyone's control.

This is my point. Saying AGW is dubious and that it is inconsequential to natural forces is as irrational as saying we're all doomed. Which part do you think is wrong? Do you not believe that CO^2 acts as an insulator? Do you not believe that humans release CO^2? If you accept these two facts, then AGW is real. The question is one of how significant the impact is. And just as there is uncertainty in the models about how dangerous it is, it is stupidly dismissive to say it is inconsequential. Perhaps it is, but there is no where near enough certainty to make such a statement.

And until those ideologically committed to dismiss AGW started putting up some numbers and facts, I think their arguments here seem based not on science, but on a vague sense of how they think things should be. The chart I posted demonstrated that among active climate scientists who regularly publish in scholarly journals 97% say humans are contributing significantly to climate change.

Most people wouldn't let some Ivy League professor of atmospheric science rebuild the transmission in their car, lay the foundation of their house, install their plumbing, or run their business. This is because their experience and education do not qualify them for these tasks. So why is it that people without experience or education in atmospheric science feel they can tell scientists how to do their job?

The climate is changing. The question is whether it will change significantly to threaten us. Another question would be when is the point of no return.

 

[N4mddissent]

That's the real question. Life is pretty hardy. I doubt seriously that we can cause the extermination of life on Earth by Greenhouse Gas.

There is the historical question though. Climate change throughout history always leads to cultural collapse. Even if we are not causing (and I lead towards that camp), it IS happening and we need to be ready. If it continues, serious changes in how we produce food and run our civilization will occur.

Note I said: "Will occur." Its not a matter of we'll have to decide to change, its a matter of we'll be forced to change if we want to keep our civilization around on this planet.

Has someone been reading their Jared Diamond?

Who?

I've been studying Europe about the 14th Century. An unusually long and rainy period led to years where Summer was no longer dependable (sometimes called the Little Ice Age). That led to famine and a massive die out in Europe due to starvation, which was followed up by the 100 Year War, various peasant revolts against feudalism, and the Bubonic Plague (made that MUCH worse due to rampant malnutrition).

If you read up on that period of time, you really start to believe that the Four Horsemen were up and running. Folks of the time certainly thought (with good reason) they were in the End of Days.

Folks don't realize it doesn't take a lot in the way of climate change to kick off famine, which often leads into war, which can set you up for pandemic. If something like that starts, it takes a VERY hardy civilization to survive it.

Check out a book by Jared Diamond (author of Guns, Germs, and Steel) called Collapse.

 

[Intense]

Expert challenged on authenticity!



[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GKRFmpWLTwg&feature=related]YouTube - Soap - Bob in the fridge[/ame]

 

[Old Rocks]

No doubt that in the course of the Earth's history there have been many changes in it's temperature.

Of course there have. And our present change exceeds the rate of change that just preceded the Permian-Triassic event, or the PETM.


Why is it so hard for people to accept that this is just another one of those temperature changes and at some point in the future it will get cooler again, if in fact the Earth really is heating up for whatever the reason.

Rapid rates of change in the past has resulted in significant extinction events. There is absolutely no reason to believe that just because this change is manmade that the results will be any differant.


People get so worked up over crap they can't do anything meaningful about. It makes me lmao.

Well, we can cease to make things even worse. I am sure that your grand-children will appreciate you laughing at the remenants of a world that your nihilist attitude will hand them.


Don't people have anything better to do with their time than to sit around and wonder just when it is that the Earth is going to melt away like butter and we'll all be screwed? Be real for a change and quit thinking that anything you are going to do or say will make some sort of difference.

Don't you have in intellect, curiosity, or honesty to even look at what the scientists are really saying?

If you hang around, say for another 100 to 150 years you can tell everybody how much cooler the Earth is - that is, if you don't worry yourself to death first.

And that nonsense is based on what?


The fine people that are feeding you all of this horseshit is laughing their asses off all the way to the bank.

Really? You really think scientists get paid more than oil company lobbyists?

Do you think for a minute Al Gore would give a rats ass about the environment if he couldn't make any money off of his antics?

Virtually all the money that Gore has made has come from his investments in high tech stocks.

For somebody that's so worried about the environment, why doesn't he fly a commercial plane around instead of a private jet? Why do he have such a large electric bill every month? Why doesn't he follow the things he preaches to everybody else? Why doesn't he do it? Because it's all bullshit.

What is bullshit is someone with the net in front of them ceaselessly repeating political talking points in a scientific conversation.

USGS: Science Topics: global warming

 

[mkwrk2]

Computing everythinig itself is rather a fiction than panacea (more topic-ralated articles by M. Kerjman on the climate change / carbon tax in the Web).

Scientists are only now putting together meaningful computer models of the worlds climate. Is it too little too late? Will the models be accurate? Will we finally get proof that global warming is real or a scam?

 

[deaddude]

Even if you put the global warming controversy aside, there still huge issues involving rising CO2 levels... ocean acidification comes to mind.

 

[Intense]

Even if you put the global warming controversy aside, there still huge issues involving rising CO2 levels... ocean acidification comes to mind.

You seem to be confusing cause with symptom.