the real story of global warming

[cool hand]

P0pjm40RxEw&feature=related

[DarrinS]

Computer models are a good thing to bank on.


Sincerely,


AIG-backed Credit Default Swaps

[ClingingMars]

shhh don't tell them that global warming is false! al gore says so therefore it MUST be true!

-Mars

[RandomGuy]

AE6Kdo1AQmY

[kwhitegocubs]

Having recently read (but daring not to tread upon) the previous GW thread, I must say that the adversarial tone involving the GW topic seems counter-productive. While I agree with RG's risk mitigation strategy argument and have used it as my primary argument for quite some time, I understand (to a certain extent) the objections raised by the GW-is-BS movement. The science is disputable, I am no scientist, and my understanding of the full nature of the crisis is represented by those two facts.

That being said, Al Gore is not the sole Global Warming King, and I think you would be hard pressed to find a significant number of people who simply use the old argumentum ad verecundiam in deference to him.

[RuffnReadyOzStyle]

I enjoyed that puppet taking the piss out of those lobby-bought fatcats... why the fuck would anyone listen to a politician talking about SCIENCE. Those guys don't know shit. :lol

All science is "disputable" - that is the scientific method. However, I'm yet to see rigorous science in any reputable journal that contradicts the theory.

Let's forget modeling for a moment. Please explain to me the empirical observations from across the globe re record ice and glacial melts, plant flowering patterns, species migrations, changes to high-altitude ecosystems, changes to rainfall and temperature patterns occurring 10-100x faster than recorded anywhere in the temperature record, etc. Also, please explain to me how you change the concentration of a gas in a closed system and don't change the equilibrium state of the system. Modeling is not the primary evidence here, but it supports all the empirical evidence.

Enhanced global warming theory is not a conspiracy, nor does it have anything to do with Mr Gore, who really should STFU for the good of all - he is a politician, not a scientist, and his participation in the debate only polarises people along political lines without regard for the science.

I'll believe the climatologists, and I'm yet to meet even ONE who disbelieves that human-induced changes to atmospheric GHGs combined with land-clearing isn't changing the climate.

Want to know more, go here:

http://www.realclimate.org/

That is climatologists from all over the world conducting open, unmoderated debate on THE SCIENCE, not some industry-bought politician's uninformed view.

[Wild Cobra]

Here we go again. Should I point out the fallacies that the alarmists keep bringing up? Quite frankly, I'm tired of these same old arguments being raised with 2004 and older data. The models were made to project an agenda.

RG's quoted/linked argument is ludicrous. I have ignored the thread he revived because he is just a broken record. The chances are maybe a million to one that he is correct. The facts of the sun's effect clearly show that at best, 1/3rd of the amount of warming attributed by man is real. The sun directly accounts for at least 2/3rds of the warning we have seen over the last few centuries. That small amount of warming, at least 0.45 C, only takes an average increase of 0.2% increase of solar radiation. Science shows it has increased by that much. The 1/3rd is the worse case scenario. The cost of mitigating global warming however is atrocious. There are small things we can and should do, but we shouldn't go overboard. Keep in mind also, the 11 year solar cycle makes short term changes. We have not yet started any significant sun spot activity. Many scientists think the sun is cooling again. We can only wait and let time tell.

Think about this as a life insurance policy. Let's assume you would have to pay 20% of your income to provide for your family if you die early. Would you do that? Life insurance policies are under 1% of most peoples income. That’s a bit more reasonable. I don’t know how much the alarmists want us to spend on warming mitigation, but the price is too high for the facts at hand.

Now RealClimate is mentioned too. Their material is so easily disputed. They are not a fair site, but a pundit of anthropogenic global warming. The problem is that very few people have enough understanding of the sciences to follow, and their explanations sound good to the amateurs. The truth lies beyond simple explanations.

In the past, I have laid out several clear points and data. I don't wish to repeat in detail what is in threads of the past. It is obvious that you alarmists will believe global warming is man made no matter how much proof is shown otherwise.

For those of you who see the "scientific consensus" and say that many scientists cannot be wrong should keep in mind that once upon a time, the world was flat. Everyone believed it. Those who said otherwise were heretics and often treated very inhumane. With that in mind, watch the movie Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1091617/) and keep in mind, it doesn't matter if you believe in ID or not, apply the way the ID promoters are treated to the "Deniers" and keep in mind that is a good reason for so many scientists to remain silent who are Deniers.

[MannyIsGod]

:lmao

[Viva Las Espuelas]

shhh don't tell them that global warming is false! al gore says so therefore it MUST be true!

-Mars
he made an "award winning" slide show off of it, so it must be true.

[RandomGuy]

Here we go again. Should I point out the fallacies that the alarmists keep bringing up? Quite frankly, I'm tired of these same old arguments being raised with 2004 and older data. The models were made to project an agenda.

RG's quoted/linked argument is ludicrous. I have ignored the thread he revived because he is just a broken record.

Translation:

"Buk buk buk buk BAGAWK!"

You're just pissy because I don't let you lie and twist things. I force you to stay on things germane to the topic, and consistantly show how and why you are full of shit, your own chest-thumping notwithstanding.

[RandomGuy]

Here we go again. Should I point out the fallacies that the alarmists keep bringing up? Quite frankly, I'm tired of these same old arguments being raised with 2004 and older data. The models were made to project an agenda.

RG's quoted/linked argument is ludicrous. I have ignored the thread he revived because he is just a broken record. The chances are maybe a million to one that he is correct. The facts of the sun's effect clearly show that at best, 1/3rd of the amount of warming attributed by man is real. The sun directly accounts for at least 2/3rds of the warning we have seen over the last few centuries. That small amount of warming, at least 0.45 C, only takes an average increase of 0.2% increase of solar radiation. Science shows it has increased by that much. The 1/3rd is the worse case scenario. The cost of mitigating global warming however is atrocious. There are small things we can and should do, but we shouldn't go overboard. Keep in mind also, the 11 year solar cycle makes short term changes. We have not yet started any significant sun spot activity. Many scientists think the sun is cooling again. We can only wait and let time tell.

Think about this as a life insurance policy. Let's assume you would have to pay 20% of your income to provide for your family if you die early. Would you do that? Life insurance policies are under 1% of most peoples income. That’s a bit more reasonable. I don’t know how much the alarmists want us to spend on warming mitigation, but the price is too high for the facts at hand.

Now RealClimate is mentioned too. Their material is so easily disputed. They are not a fair site, but a pundit of anthropogenic global warming. The problem is that very few people have enough understanding of the sciences to follow, and their explanations sound good to the amateurs. The truth lies beyond simple explanations.

In the past, I have laid out several clear points and data. I don't wish to repeat in detail what is in threads of the past. It is obvious that you alarmists will believe global warming is man made no matter how much proof is shown otherwise.

For those of you who see the "scientific consensus" and say that many scientists cannot be wrong should keep in mind that once upon a time, the world was flat. Everyone believed it. Those who said otherwise were heretics and often treated very inhumane. With that in mind, watch the movie Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1091617/) and keep in mind, it doesn't matter if you believe in ID or not, apply the way the ID promoters are treated to the "Deniers" and keep in mind that is a good reason for so many scientists to remain silent who are Deniers.


In fact, the controversy has almost vanished over the past several years, based on an enormity of evidence that has converged to establish the near certainty of anthropogenic warming (recognizing that science never reaches absolute certainties). Within the science literature, the warming is universally recognized with no exceptions, and all challenges come from outside the journals - from blogs, videos, retired scientists, media sources (particularly those with an ideological agenda), and so forth.

It's for this reason that the science literature currently addresses global climate change on two fronts, neither of which poses a challenge to the existence of significant anthropogenic warming. The first involves specific details that remain unsettled - a prime example is the effect of continued CO2-driven warming on hurricane intensity. The second involves the optimal means of reducing CO2 emissions in time to avert the most catastrophic warming effects. If you begin to acquire a science background to the point where you can read the journals yourself rather than relying on descriptions provided by others, you'll get a sense of why science now sees some urgency in the need for CO2 mitigation.

--Fred Wooten and friends.

The reason that Intelligent Design is treated with such disdain is that it is pseudoscience, masquerading as science.

The 9-11 truthers use the same bad logic and pseudoscience to "support" their ideas and, unsurprisingly, I see many of the same tactics and bad critical thinking coming out of the AGW deniers.

The fact that you can't admit even the slim possibility that you are wrong about this puts you squarely in the same corner as those who are convinced that the twin towers were brought down with explosives.

[ratm1221]

:lmao @ republicans pointing someone out that is making claims with no real evidence! :toast

[Wild Cobra]

The fact that you can't admit even the slim possibility that you are wrong about this puts you squarely in the same corner as those who are convinced that the twin towers were brought down with explosives.

You are so full of shit all the time, and you expect me to continue to counter?

I have said I could be wrong about things on several situations. I acknowledge ther is antropogenic warming. Just not the same degree that you alarmists say. There is sound mathmatical facts about cause and effect that account for the sun and warming. How much is left to antropogenic warming is debatable. I will spend little time on flat earth believers like yourself who will not acknowledge clear facts.

Are you quoting the same Fred Wooten that died in 2004? Remember, that's the last year that data supports the anthropogenic global warming models!

[DarrinS]

The 9-11 truthers use the same bad logic and pseudoscience to "support" their ideas and, unsurprisingly, I see many of the same tactics and bad critical thinking coming out of the AGW deniers.


I wouldn't expect this from you.

[RandomGuy]

Are you quoting the same Fred Wooten that died in 2004?

Nah. "Fred Wooten and friends" is the nom dem plume of a guy in the myspace science forum. I imagine the person behind the profile knew Fred in some respect.

I can tick off about a few people I see on posting in various forums that are very obviously smarter than I am, Extra Stout for one here, and "Fred Wooten and friends" is one on myspace.

[RandomGuy]

The 9-11 truthers use the same bad logic and pseudoscience to "support" their ideas and, unsurprisingly, I see many of the same tactics and bad critical thinking coming out of the AGW deniers.



I wouldn't expect this from you.

I see people like WC arguing for the controlled demolition theory or some such nonsense often.

The traits I find in common:

1) A conclusion has been reached beforehand about the topic. i.e. total slaves to confirmation bias.
2) A "crusader" mentality
3) A total inability to admit ANY part of their argument might be weak, or to ever admit any factual mistakes.
4) Little or no respect given to anybody who disagrees with their crusade

There are others, but I have to get going.

[ElNono]

The whole global warming premise is not that different from afterlife in religion. It's unsubstantiated, difficult, if not impossible to prove at this time, and eventually gets to the same old redux: "Well, if we can do something, we should do it. It wouldn't hurt now, would it?".
Which is not that much different from "Well, if I can be religious and be a good boy, why not do it? If I'm wrong I'm not going anywhere, and if I'm right, I'm going to heaven".
The thing is, it takes time and money to suit the global warming agenda, as much as it takes time and personal sacrifice to suit the religion agenda. And in both cases, it's completely unfounded by any factual evidence.

[baseline bum]

The whole global warming premise is not that different from afterlife in religion. It's unsubstantiated, difficult, if not impossible to prove at this time, and eventually gets to the same old redux: "Well, if we can do something, we should do it. It wouldn't hurt now, would it?".
Which is not that much different from "Well, if I can be religious and be a good boy, why not do it? If I'm wrong I'm not going anywhere, and if I'm right, I'm going to heaven".
The thing is, it takes time and money to suit the global warming agenda, as much as it takes time and personal sacrifice to suit the religion agenda. And in both cases, it's completely unfounded by any factual evidence.

and money