Global Warming aka Atheism's Wrong Turn

[Larkinn]

Learn to read and to think mr Einstein. I ask for RAW data, since 1998 at least the supposed rising temperature has all been " adjusted" raw data does not support the supposed increase. That would be why a group of scientists can stand before the Bali Conference with a study showing NO temperature increase in the last 5 years.

Put up or shut up. Provide a link to your claims.

 

[Bern80]

Thats a reason to question it? AFAIK nobody has ever provided evidence for global warming by saying "this is the hottest its ever been, therefore we are causing it".

Never said they did. The point is is that people are afraid of it getting warmer despite historical records indicating warmer temps have been benificial for things like crop yields and the ability to grow in areas that were previously to cold to do so (i.e. Greenland in the 1300s).

Are you aware of the amount of infrastructure we have in low lying places? Are you aware of the populated islands around the world which will be under sea level if the sea continues rising? Its already happened. So we get what...a longer growing seasons and the ability to grow crops at higher latitutudes. Even if that were the case, please tell me how many crops would we need to grow to even out the economic impact of washing away Manhattan?

Well aware, which makes a truly excellent point. Look at the predominant argument for man made global warming. It is basically saying we are screwing up the climate, that mother earth has a fever. In a nutshell the idea is to stop what the harm we are causing and return earth to a more natural state.

Now I'm going to ask a favor. Just for the sake of argument, I want you, Larkinn (not me Larkinn as Vintij has dubbed me) to accept that this is part of a cycle and man has had very little influence on the warming trend. What does that say about your above statement? Quite simply, if this is a natural cycle then it is in fact the proponents of man made global warming that want to circumvent nature. They would be trying to add stability for convenience sake to something that simply isn't stable. Whether we're causing it or not, if it gets warmer, ocean levels are gonna go up. Are you suggesting that we circumvent mother nature and make it colder because we didn't account for the fact when we built our houses that the Earth changes over time? Have you thought of the ramifuications of makeing it colder? As I said before they are far more negatives with cooling trend then a warming trend (within an acceptable range of course).

Besides that there is worry that it will set off a chain reaction. We simply don't know what will happen. Maybe you'd like to play russian roulette with our species survival, but I'd really rather not.

And being we don't know why are we suggesting a course of action when we don't know what will happen?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Put up or shut up. Provide a link to your claims.

Read the board you dumb shit.

 

[Larkinn]

Read the board you dumb shit.

Link me to it. You are a proven liar and I don't have the time to go searching for every one of your asinine claims.

 

[Larkinn]

Never said they did. The point is is that people are afraid of it getting warmer despite historical records indicating warmer temps have been benificial for things like crop yields and the ability to grow in areas that were previously to cold to do so (i.e. Greenland in the 1300s).

Thats nice. Thats not a point refuting global warming, thats a claim that it won't negatively effect mankind.

Well aware, which makes a truly excellent point. Look at the predominant argument for man made global warming. It is basically saying we are screwing up the climate, that mother earth has a fever. In a nutshell the idea is to stop what the harm we are causing and return earth to a more natural state.

Yes it does. It would like to do this without creating tens of millions of refugees.

Now I'm going to ask a favor. Just for the sake of argument, I want you, Larkinn (not me Larkinn as Vintij has dubbed me) to accept that this is part of a cycle and man has had very little influence on the warming trend. What does that say about your above statement? Quite simply, if this is a natural cycle then it is in fact the proponents of man made global warming that want to circumvent nature. They would be trying to add stability for convenience sake to something that simply isn't stable. Whether we're causing it or not, if it gets warmer, ocean levels are gonna go up. Are you suggesting that we circumvent mother nature and make it colder because we didn't account for the fact when we built our houses that the Earth changes over time? Have you thought of the ramifuications of makeing it colder? As I said before they are far more negatives with cooling trend then a warming trend (within an acceptable range of course).

Considering most of the global warming activists are advocating reducing human made emissions, no its not that they are trying to circumvent nature. I've heard claims that some people want to do crazy shit to try to cool down the earth, but I've never heard them taken seriously.

And being we don't know why are we suggesting a course of action when we don't know what will happen?

Two choices. Either you:

1) Stop eating as much, stop living the American lifestyle (oh noes, we will all be oh so impoverished!), and try to live sustainably.

2) Pick up a gun with one bullet in it. Put it to your temple and press the trigger. See what happens.

Which one do you prefer? I prefer 1.

 

[Annie]

Link me to it. You are a proven liar and I don't have the time to go searching for every one of your asinine claims.

http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1878

Graphs of raw and adjusted.

http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1880#more-1880

Years by temps

 

[Diuretic]

This is what it's like right now - http://tinyurl.com/346wbl

The southern part of the nation, from Brisbane across to the west coast, experienced its warmest year on record -- the Murray Darling Basin region in particular.

The chief executive of the Murray Darling Basin Commission, Wendy Craik, said while inflows to the basin were slightly improved this year, most recent figures again showed they were heading in the wrong direction.

She said there was enough water to keep most permanent plantings along the river alive over summer, but warned the level of the Murray in the lower lakes could fall from its present level of 1cm above sea level to 60cm below by March next year.

"The way we are operating the river is like nothing in living memory," Dr Craik said.

"While there had been good rainfall in November, higher temperatures, evaporation and lower runoff kept inflows well below average. Inflows over the 2006-07 were just 55 per cent of the previous minimum on record. The two years to the end of November were the lowest two-year inflows on record."

Their comments came in response to the latest assessment of global climate conditions released yesterday by the World Meteorological Organisation. It said the decade between 1998 and 2007 was the warmest on record, with average temperatures rising by about 0.4C.

More at the link.

 

[tigerbob]

Perhaps YOU can answer the questions? Provide some scientific methodology to support the claims made, not by a majority of scientists but a majority of looney Tunes.

Millions and millions are waiting for actual scientific evidence that man has caused any heating of the globe on a permanent bases that effects the entire world and not local heat sinks like cities.

Nope, I can't answer them. I'm not a scientist. Nor do I have the time or inclination to go trawling through Google for hours on end trying to find material for you to disagree with.

We appear to be on different sides of the coin. You hear the opinions that support man-made warming and dismiss them as "looney tunes". I hear them and think "Maybe there is something to all this. I don't know." I tend to support efforts to reduce use of fossil fuels anyway on the basis that they pollute and we 'll have to find a way to do without them someday anyhow.

The majority of scientists do appear to support the man-made theory, but one has to be a bit sceptical about a lot of that since many in this group will be relying on research grants from sources who have a vested interest in promoting that sort of agenda.

So, basically, I'm keeping an open mind about it. You seem to like clear categories, so I'm sorry if this is inconvenient.

 

[tigerbob]

The temps have warmed up, the gist of the argument from my pov, is there certainly isn't a consensus on the cause of it. It may be man made, it's possible. Equally, perhaps indeed more likely is cyclical. I posted this earlier:

http://usmessageboard.com/showthread.php?p=629680#post629680

This was written by someone with much better credentials:

http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008220

Then there's this very jargon loaded discussion of models:

http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/What_Watt.html

Agree. I am concerned that the earth is heating up. Like all of us I want a world where my children and grandchildren can experience the same things we do, particularly the natural world.

I do have a concern that many of the people who are questioning the supposed evidence are effectively being silenced. It's one of the things that makes me somewhat sceptical about many of the claims being made. In general, I find that if people are certain of the point they are making then they tend to welcome questions from others, as they are sure that they have the answer to any question. When someone wants dissent silenced I usually wonder what they have to hide.

But at the same time, I also try to consider what the boot looks like on the other foot.

For example, there is little or no real evidence that 'second-hand' or 'passive' smoking is actually harmful, but anyone who questions this is automatically assumed to be in the pocket of 'big tobacco'.

One group of dissenting scientists are silenced and it's considered to be unjust and even a conspiracy, another group are silenced and nobody blinks an eye.

 

[Crick]

Who told you that?

LOL, provide some actual evidence, scientific evidence that man has caused any great warming. If you can, you can win the Nobel prize in science.

www.ipcc.ch

They did win the Nobel.

All they say is " it makes sense that man has effected it". The current supposed causer has been shown in times past to NOT behave in the manner they claim it behaves now. In relation to temperature.

No one in mainstream science has ever even suggested that CO2 will not increase in response to increased temperatures. That you think this precludes it also producing higher temperatures is simply your failing.

Further the supposed continued rise since 1998 is bogus, it is all "adjusted" temperatures. According to "gasp" scientists.

Temperatures have continued to rise. If you believe "scientists" have concluded that this is only due to adjusted temperature data, let's see the scientists' names and statements.

Hell your consensus agrees that they do NOT know what is causing or caused the rapid heat increase.

False. The consensus agrees with the findings of the IPCC and that is that our increased temperatures are primarily due to human activities: GHG emissions and deforestation.

Science has not been provided to link man to Global Warming. If you can do it, you will be a rich man indeed.

Go to the link provided above and look up AR5, Working Group I: The Physical Science Basis. It might make you rich in knowledge (at least compared to your current state).

Politics has linked man to Global Warming. BAD politics.

Let's look at the political side of this. As we all know, there is a tendency for liberals to side with mainstream science on this question and conservatives to side with the fossil fuel industries. Which do you think more likely to be telling the truth? Which has a greater personal motivation? Which has ADMITTED running a disinformation campaign? Which has been forced to take extremist, minority view science and insane, paranoid conspiracy fantasies in order to try to maintain their positions?

 

[RollingThunder]

Reading this thread is a hoot! The OP is insane, and the denier cultists' responses to the scientific facts that the sane people post are ludicrous...and very pathetic.

As I have said before.....In the delusional world of the gullible denier cult retards, in their own pitiful excuses for minds, they are all, in spite of being ignorant, uneducated idiots, more than competent to critique and dismiss the scientific research on global warming and its consequent climate changes performed by the tens of thousands of PhD level climate scientists around the planet, who are generally in a high degree of agreement. RetiredGunnySack is a good example of these Dunning-Kruger Effect afflicted, pseudo-science clowns.

 

[Crick]

There are faithful believers in non "religious" topics of all kinds.

Science has rabid faithful believers. Take Global MAN MADE warming. Absolutely no proof man is causing any noticable increase, no evidence that any of the supposed triggers are responsible but we have rabid "believers".

They are on par with those that rabidly believe Elvis Presley is alive and well.

What does this have to do with atheists Gunny?