Global Warming

[Joe Bagadonuts]

That's funny, when I was reading the article it made me think about Al Gore.

You see I hear a lot of people who claim Global Warming doesn't exist, or it does but it's not out fault, or it is but it's not that big of a deal, complain about Alarmists politicizing the issue, not letting the science do the talking. Often times Al Gore is brought up, it's wonderful.

And here we have an article with a different perspective! in a science magazine!

Written by a politician and pundit.

Hmmm.

I don't understand what point you're trying to make, but I do know that Al Gore is a complete buffoon.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=14kNtnJgXXM
Is that the sort of wonderful stuff you like so much?

 

[Zombie]

I'm not sure if you're being ironic, but aren't you doing exactly what you're criticizing people of? I mean, skipping facts of the matter and focusing on personalities?

What I am doing is pointing out that when it comes to the facts of this matter we should take anything a politician or pundit says on the matter with a large grain of salt.

Why are we letting the AL Gores and Matt Ridleys of the world dominate the conversation.

 

[Zombie]

That's my whole point Joe. I would take an article by Al Gore just as seriously as the one you linked to. Which is to say, not at all.

 

[Joe Bagadonuts]

That's my whole point Joe. I would take an article by Al Gore just as seriously as the one you linked to. Which is to say, not at all.

Fair point (though I'm not the one who linked to the article you're talking about). Obviously there are ramifications of this discussion that go beyond the scientific. I certainly think Gore has had a platform to state his case. This is the first I've ever heard of Ridley.

I still feel that it's refreshing to hear an admission from a respected voice on this issue (Scientific American) that the data we are now measuring are showing a much smaller change than what the models told us would happen.

 

[LogGrad98]

That's my whole point Joe. I would take an article by Al Gore just as seriously as the one you linked to. Which is to say, not at all.

So can you actually point out the pieces of it you disagree with and why, or is your only argument "well that guy is wrong because reasons".

 

[One Brow]

I'm sure you'll have another explanation for that now that your previous explanation has been debunked. So who is transparent and pathetic now?

I don't need another explanation. There are still two different graphs, created at different times, using different scales, being presented by people who have a history of misrepresenting the truth. They are indeed of the same land mass. There is still no evidence that the data was doctored nor that the temperature record was corrupted. It is still a lie.

Here's something to ask yourself: when there were so many points in my post to look at, and one of which is sufficient to cast doubt on the claims of the OP, you chose one error on my part and declared the entire post invalid. Are you really so desperate to win this argument that you will take any excuse? What do you have to gain from falsifying global warming? What does it say about you that you are allowing tribalism to override the evidence in your position here?

 

[One Brow]

So can you actually point out the pieces of it you disagree with and why, or is your only argument "well that guy is wrong because reasons".

I disagree with the premise that warming has slowed. There used to be 60-years cycles of temperature increasing and decreasing, now the cycle is one of flattening and increasing quickly. We just finished a flat period.

I also disagree with the general notion that simply because there was a lull, we shouldn't deal with the problem urgently.

 

[♪alt13]

I don't need another explanation. There are still two different graphs, created at different times, using different scales, being presented by people who have a history of misrepresenting the truth. They are indeed of the same land mass. There is still no evidence that the data was doctored nor that the temperature record was corrupted. It is still a lie.

Here's something to ask yourself: when there were so many points in my post to look at, and one of which is sufficient to cast doubt on the claims of the OP, you chose one error on my part and declared the entire post invalid. Are you really so desperate to win this argument that you will take any excuse? What do you have to gain from falsifying global warming? What does it say about you that you are allowing tribalism to override the evidence in your position here?

Hi

 

[babe]

I disagree with the premise that warming has slowed. There used to be 60-years cycles of temperature increasing and decreasing, now the cycle is one of flattening and increasing quickly. We just finished a flat period.

I also disagree with the general notion that simply because there was a lull, we shouldn't deal with the problem urgently.

welcome home, OB

So here's something: https://qz.com/351797/scientists-no...has-slowed-down-and-its-not-good-news-for-us/

I've been following the data on Pacific Ocean temps, and the reports at depth as well as surface. Oh, we have some "diving buoys" that are recording temps at 10, 25, 50 100, ft or so. A lot of interesting data.

But this year, with practically minimal solar spot activity, it looks to me like the "hot sea" theory is disappearing. Somehow, all this "Science" doesn't get the big picture. . . .

https://www.wunderground.com/hurricane/?index=2

click on the "anomaly" pic in the lower right there.

 

[jimmy eat jazz]

Ridiculous. If the case is closed then it makes no sense that there isn't a resource where we can see the proof. The argument this guy laid out made sense to me. What is the counter-argument?

Joe, with all due respect, if you watched a video by big foot enthusiasts, loch ness monster believers, 911 truths, without at the same time understanding or knowing the contrary evidence, you'd find their videos and grasps of the 'facts' compelling too.

I just find it to be so interesting that there are so many people who have not studied and do not understand a scientific field feel so qualified to comment authoritatively on said science, to the point of pooh poohing existing scientific consensus.

Granted, this is not the case here, but Siro's point (I think it was him) is well taken. Consensus does not mean unanimity. When a very substantial majority of scientists in a field agree on something, is not the better course for us who do not understand the science, to defer to their conclusions?

I mean, when Boeing engineers are designing planes, do the same people who feel qualified to speak authoritatively on climate science feel equally so qualified to tell the Boeing engineers they don't know what their doing?

 

[Joe Bagadonuts]

I don't need another explanation. There are still two different graphs, created at different times, using different scales, being presented by people who have a history of misrepresenting the truth. They are indeed of the same land mass. There is still no evidence that the data was doctored nor that the temperature record was corrupted. It is still a lie.

Here's something to ask yourself: when there were so many points in my post to look at, and one of which is sufficient to cast doubt on the claims of the OP, you chose one error on my part and declared the entire post invalid. Are you really so desperate to win this argument that you will take any excuse? What do you have to gain from falsifying global warming? What does it say about you that you are allowing tribalism to override the evidence in your position here?

How long ago did I make the post you're responding to? I don't even recall what it was about. I'm not going to dig back through this thread to figure out what the hell you're talking about, but I will say that I don't see anything tribal about being on the opposite side of the GW argument as you.

My position, succinctly stated, is that I believe human activity has impact on the environment, but I do not believe the evidence is clear regarding the results of this impact In the 70's the same sorts of people who are now touting GW were talking about the coming human induced ice age, and more recently they've changed the name to Climate Change. I believe the leaders of this movement are ultimately more motivated by political power than any belief that we really can impact the climate with whatever changes we are able to make despite the massive increase in 3rd world polluters and other factors (environmental etc.)that are far outside of our control. When I see the people driving the GW movement burning up fossil fuels at volumes far beyond the average citizen it makes me even more suspicious of their real goals.

 

[Joe Bagadonuts]

Joe, with all due respect, if you watched a video by big foot enthusiasts, loch ness monster believers, 911 truths, without at the same time understanding or knowing the contrary evidence, you'd find their videos and grasps of the 'facts' compelling too.

I just find it to be so interesting that there are so many people who have not studied and do not understand a scientific field feel so qualified to comment authoritatively on said science, to the point of pooh poohing existing scientific consensus.

Granted, this is not the case here, but Siro's point (I think it was him) is well taken. Consensus does not mean unanimity. When a very substantial majority of scientists in a field agree on something, is not the better course for us who do not understand the science, to defer to their conclusions?

I mean, when Boeing engineers are designing planes, do the same people who feel qualified to speak authoritatively on climate science feel equally so qualified to tell the Boeing engineers they don't know what their doing?

Jimmy, with all due respect when the anti-fossil fuel crowd burns massive amounts of fossil fuel in order to hold yet another GW conference I tend to look at what the real results of this effort are. (Check out Al Gore's supposedly environmentally friendly houseboat for another example. Shouldn't guys like him be leaving as small a footprint from their leisure activities as they possibly can if they really believe what they are telling others to do.)

When you add to this the fact that the most aggressive carbon reduction program proposed for first world nations doesn't come anywhere near making up for the increasing carbon emissions of the emerging nations I can't help wondering why we are inflicting so much economic hardship on ourselves.

But I'm not going to continue beating my head against the wall in this conversation because it's become clear to me that these sorts of points don't even matter to the pro GW crowd.