Global Warming - running out of time to prevent ECONOMIC disaster

[Arthur]

Video

Yeah, yeah. Anyone who doesn't get with the AGW program is to be derided as ridiculous or loony. It's sooo obvious, eh. She's a witch. Burn! Burn! Mockery. Scorn. Derision. Satire. Irony. Sarcasm. These are all useful tools, as long as one doesn't actually have to do any thinking that challenges the orthodoxy of the High Church of Global Warming.

 

[Unhappy438]

Yeah, yeah. Anyone who doesn't get with the AGW program is to be derided as ridiculous or loony. It's sooo obvious, eh. She's a witch. Burn! Burn! Mockery. Scorn. Derision. Satire. Irony. Sarcasm. These are all useful tools, as long as one doesn't actually have to do any thinking that challenges the orthodoxy of the High Church of Global Warming.

Of course you question your religion in the same manner?

 

[Nod]

From: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/07/10/global_warming_undermined_by_study_of_climate_change/
And: http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate1589.html

A large team of scientists making a comprehensive study of data from tree rings say that in fact global temperatures have been on a falling trend for the past 2,000 years and they have often been noticeably higher than they are today - despite the absence of any significant amounts of human-released carbon dioxide in the atmosphere back then.

"We found that previous estimates of historical temperatures during the Roman era and the Middle Ages were too low," says Professor-Doktor Jan Esper of the Johannes Gutenberg-Universität Mainz, one of the scientists leading the study. "Such findings are also significant with regard to climate policy."

They certainly are, as it is a central plank of climate policy worldwide that the current temperatures are the highest ever seen for many millennia, and that this results from rising levels of atmospheric CO2 emitted by human activities such as industry, transport etc.

If it is the case that actually the climate has often been warmer without any significant CO2 emissions having taken place - suggesting that CO2 emissions simply aren't that important - the case for huge efforts to cut those emissions largely disappears.

"This figure we calculated may not seem particularly significant," says Esper. "However, it is also not negligible when compared to global warming, which up to now has been less than 1°C. Our results suggest that the large-scale climate reconstruction shown by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) likely underestimate this long-term cooling trend over the past few millennia."

According to the scientists' new paper, published in hefty climate journal Nature Climate Change, the cooling effect of orbital shifting on the climate has been up to four times as powerful as anthropogenic (human-caused) warming pressures.

 

[w1z4rd]

Yeah, yeah. Anyone who doesn't get with the AGW program is to be derided as ridiculous or loony. It's sooo obvious, eh. She's a witch. Burn! Burn! Mockery. Scorn. Derision. Satire. Irony. Sarcasm. These are all useful tools, as long as one doesn't actually have to do any thinking that challenges the orthodoxy of the High Church of Global Warming.

You fit my perception of what an science denialist is like... to the T! You already think you know more than most of the worlds economic professionals in our libertarian ideology, and you already think you know more than the combined intelligence of the worlds scientific community ... Who am I to question such a vaunted ego?

Just outta curiosity, do you know who that black dude in the previous video is?

[video=youtube;ReNUJ3c1k68]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ReNUJ3c1k68[/video]

I love the quote in this video, "Climate change denialists are so stupid they even have me questioning evolution" and, "you cant change some ones mind if they dont have one"

 

[Techne]

From: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/07/10/global_warming_undermined_by_study_of_climate_change/
And: http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate1589.html

Make a new thread for this. Fascinating data!

 

[w1z4rd]

[video=youtube;0OwFSLm4pII]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0OwFSLm4pII&feature=related[/video]

Loved the quote, "Al Gore should release a new film called, An Inconvenient Truth 2, Wtf is wrong with you people"

Another great quote, "People think there are two sides to every argument. On this side, we have every scientific body in the world, on the other side we have Mr Potato Head. There is no debate here. It is just scientists vs non-scientists and since the topic is science, the non-scientists dont get a vote"

 

[Techne]

Why is Bill Maher, champion of pseudoscience, so popular among some people?

As one science blogger put it:

Last week, I expressed my surprise and dismay that the Atheist Alliance International chose Bill Maher for the Richard Dawkins Award. I was dismayed because Maher has championed pseudoscience, including dangerous antivaccine nonsense , germ theory denialism complete with repeating myths about Louis Pasteur supposedly recanting on his deathbed, a hostility towards “Western medicine” and an affinity for “alternative medicine,” a history of sympathy to HIV/AIDS denialists, and the activities of PETA through his position on its board of directors, all facts that led me to liken his receiving the Richard Dawkins Award to giving an award for public health to Jenny McCarthy. I was not alone, either. Larry Moran , Matt D. , and Skepacabra agreed with me.

Maher should read up what a logical fallacy is, you too ghoti, I can't believe you fall for it every time!

 

[w1z4rd]

New Rule - "science is made by scientists not idiots" - Bill Mahr

Dr Richard Milne - Critical Thinking on Climate Change: separating skepticism from denial
[video=youtube;gh9kDCuPuU8]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gh9kDCuPuU8[/video]

 

[nakedpeanut]

Forgot about this thread :/

I think we need to make the distinction between global warming (topic of this thread) and climate change.
Global warming (how ever it is caused) will lead to climate change, BUT climate change is not a always a result of global warming, it could be global cooling.
So the way people use these two terms interchangeably is frankly BS.

I'm still waiting for scientific peer review papers that without a doubt prove that global warming is as a result of MAN, and his CO2 emissions alone (No sun involvement ), and does not present some half arsed model with lots of assumptions (you'll have to look at the models my peer review articles presented for examples of such assumptions).

Humans are but a spec in the greater scheme of things, and the Sun has a lot more influence on the world than we do. Again refer to my peer reviewed articles.

 

[Swa]

General scientific consensus says otherwise.

General scientific consensus have renamed it. Why if they were correct?

Nobody claimed the sun isn't playing a role.

Read ghoti's post a few back.

You fit my perception of what an science denialist is like... to the T! You already think you know more than most of the worlds economic professionals in our libertarian ideology, and you already think you know more than the combined intelligence of the worlds scientific community ... Who am I to question such a vaunted ego?

You also fit MY perception of what a fundamentalist is like to the T.

[video=youtube;0OwFSLm4pII]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0OwFSLm4pII&feature=related[/video]

Loved the quote, "Al Gore should release a new film called, An Inconvenient Truth 2, Wtf is wrong with you people"

Another great quote, "People think there are two sides to every argument. On this side, we have every scientific body in the world, on the other side we have Mr Potato Head. There is no debate here. It is just scientists vs non-scientists and since the topic is science, the non-scientists dont get a vote"

Actually there are scientists on both sides. And yes real scientists in case you start with the logical fallacies again.

Fact is you're looking at it selectively. Yes temperatures have risen in the past. Yes CO2 has risen in the past and is still rising. I also showed a report (which you conveniently ignore) showing no net rise in global temperatures for over a decade while CO2 has been rising. We showed graphs with correlations of solar levels to rising temperatures that fit even better than CO2. Solar flares and magnetic flares are a reality. We are going through a very energetic cycle lately, why has it been so warm during this time?

Simply for everyone who keeps going on about the peer reviewed studies please show us where those are for global warming. All we have are studies on CO2 and studies on temperatures. It's simply popular opinion that these are the only factors to consider. Popular opinion and scientific consensus have been wrong in the past, most recently about out sun having a bow shockwave. So either show clear undisputable evidence or stop with the derogatories because they just make you out as an idiot.

 

[Swa]

All climate change models are simply predictions based on in silico results. These models have failed to give accurate results. Bares a startling resemblance to this other guy selling snake oil through pseudo science.

 

[w1z4rd]

All climate change models are simply predictions based on in silico results. These models have failed to give accurate results. Bares a startling resemblance to this other guy selling snake oil through pseudo science.

[video=youtube;gh9kDCuPuU8]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gh9kDCuPuU8&feature=player_embedded[/video]

Let me know when you watched the above video Everyone here knows your science denialism (even in the evolution threads... why is it always the same dodgy people who deny science?) so I am not taking you seriously, but try watch the video. It will help you.

 

[Swa]

Let me know when you watched the above video Everyone here knows your science denialism (even in the evolution threads... why is it always the same dodgy people who deny science?) so I am not taking you seriously, but try watch the video. It will help you.

tl;dw
(why is it always the same dodgy people who proclaim something as truth/fact without any proof to support it?)

 

[Unhappy438]

tl;dw
(why is it always the same dodgy people who proclaim something as truth/fact without any proof to support it?)

I dont know Swa you tell us, why do religious people proclaim something as truth without any proof to support it?

 

[Arthur]

You fit my perception of what an science denialist is like... to the T! You already think you know more than most of the worlds economic professionals in our libertarian ideology, and you already think you know more than the combined intelligence of the worlds scientific community ... Who am I to question such a vaunted ego?

Just outta curiosity, do you know who that black dude in the previous video is?

I love the quote in this video, "Climate change denialists are so stupid they even have me questioning evolution" and, "you cant change some ones mind if they dont have one"

Hehe. Says a lot about your perceptions and your scientism (which is in fact a denial of the scientific method and the healthy scepticism and rigorous method that real science requires). We've been over this soo many times before, and you so typically revert to hurling deprecations. Frankly, you do damage to the cause of real science. This is a cause close to my heart, and I'm not in the least affected by your epithets (they're soo unscientific, after all). I don't hide behind an anonymous random pseudonym - and the hundreds or thousands that know me can vouch for my affirmation and defence of science and the scientific method.

 

[Swa]

Hehe. Says a lot about your perceptions and your scientism (which is in fact a denial of the scientific method and the healthy scepticism and rigorous method that real science requires). We've been over this soo many times before, and you so typically revert to hurling deprecations. Frankly, you do damage to the cause of real science. This is a cause close to my heart, and I'm not in the least affected by your epithets (they're soo unscientific, after all). I don't hide behind an anonymous random pseudonym - and the hundreds or thousands that know me can vouch for my affirmation and defence of science and the scientific method.

http://encyclozine.com/science/philosophy/ - He ignores almost everything. Pity we have such ignoramuses acting as the "ambassadors" of science.