toldailytopic: Man made global warming crisis: is the hoax finally dead for good?
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
- Status
Adoration
New member
Not yet.
There are still too many government grants to be had. Scientists whose livelihoods depend on this scam will be reluctant to speak up.
DocJohnson
New member
I understand that Southern Baptist and Evangelical leaders, Rick Warren, Pat Robertson, and even the Pope have all signed on to the global warming conspiracy.
So you won't answer the question. Who would have thunk it...
You just don't get it. The data is grossly incomplete. That is the point.
And carbon dioxide is shown to not be a good green house gas. If the earth is warming, it isn't from us. The fact that we have been cooling since 1998, when you use accurate data, not climategate data, you don't have an ounce to stand on.
Wow Pat Robertson. The man who endorsed faggot lover Rudy Guilliani for Presidnt. There is a solid endorsement.
View attachment 15148
Last edited:
DocJohnson
New member
Yeah, Pat Robertson has been an idiot for a long time, and his endorsement of the global warming scam proves it. He still has followers, unfortunately.
Alate,
You can label me a denier all you like - the fact of the matter is that I haven't denied climate change at all. I've checked out the pro-man-made climate change sites as well - i've studied the statistical tweaking that both the pro and the anti sides apply to the data.
I've studied both sides and looked at the data - and guess what, mankind is not the driver of the current overall warming trend rather that trend is just the planet doing what the planet does.
You keep bleating at others to look at the science yet your hysterical name calling and assorted histrionics show that you are probably perfectly aware that the actual evidence is against mankind being the cause of the global warming.
Do I think we should take measures to mitigate the detrimental effect we have on the environment? Yes I do. Do I think that we should make this our main priority, no I do not - I no more worship gaia than I do mammon.
So I challenge you alate - I was perfectly willing to trawl both the pro and anti camps and examine the evidence - are you prepared to be scientific enough to do the same?
Regards
T.
You can label me a denier all you like - the fact of the matter is that I haven't denied climate change at all. I've checked out the pro-man-made climate change sites as well - i've studied the statistical tweaking that both the pro and the anti sides apply to the data.
I've studied both sides and looked at the data - and guess what, mankind is not the driver of the current overall warming trend rather that trend is just the planet doing what the planet does.
You keep bleating at others to look at the science yet your hysterical name calling and assorted histrionics show that you are probably perfectly aware that the actual evidence is against mankind being the cause of the global warming.
Do I think we should take measures to mitigate the detrimental effect we have on the environment? Yes I do. Do I think that we should make this our main priority, no I do not - I no more worship gaia than I do mammon.
So I challenge you alate - I was perfectly willing to trawl both the pro and anti camps and examine the evidence - are you prepared to be scientific enough to do the same?
Regards
T.
Alate_One
Well-known member
How about looking at the actual scientific reports rather than just websites? Have you read the IPCC documents? How about the most recent nature papers?
If it isn't mankind what is it? Be specific now, since we can study and quantify the factors that influence climate.
Bleating? Hystrionic? Hysterical name calling? . . . . Sir. I do not believe you are actually reading my posts, you are reading your own emotional bias to them.
Denialism is simply a factual statement, you deny scientific consensus on this and likely other issues. It isn't "name calling".
I look at it this way. Humankind has been given this planet as a home and to sustain us, we are not being good stewards if we let greed be the primary determiner of what we do.
The "anti" camps are not scientific at all as far as I can tell. They cherry pick data to show their point, while the "other side" sites will generally acknowledge points that disagree with their interpretation, but show them in the context of the entire climate picture.
Alate_One
Well-known member
Its like counting the number of rivers and creeks on earth. Is it not more important to pay attention to the major ones than count every tiny rivulet? 110 Glaciers have disappeared [ur;=]from glacier national park alone.[/url]
How is it grossly incomplete . . .because they didn't measure EVERY glacier on the face of the earth? so you're going to pretend that magically all the glaciers that haven't been measured are increasing? Or that we should weigh pure number of glaciers increasing vs. decreasing rather than a total mass balance of ice and snow?
We've known CO2 was a greenhouse gas since the 1800s, don't you think they would have figured out if it wasn't by now? It doesn't have as high of forcing as water vapor, but its certainly enough (along with methane and NOx to account for the warming we have)
I think we both need to do some. And, from what I have seen, China is taking this issue more seriously than us.
zoo22
Well-known member
Related, some of The Extreme Ice Survey is amazing to see. (see time-lapse video & photography).
James Balog used to be a climate change skeptic. In the video at this link, he explains the project and adds some size-references to the photos/videos to give an idea of how massive these glaciers are and how vast their recession has been... Difficult to tell from the pictures alone.
Not expecting any converts, but I think interesting to see either way.
I don't think anyone doubts that the climate changes. The question is... does man have anything to do with it?
Case in point...
Have you seen the headline...
Giant iceberg heading for Australia
A giant iceberg double the size of Sydney Harbour is on a slow but steady collision course with Australia, scientists have said.
And on the radio this morning the typical comments were being made about global warming causing things like this.
But, with stories like this there is almost always a line such as as the line in this story...
"Dr Young said an iceberg the size of B17B had not been seen so far north since the days when 19th century clipper ships plied the trade route between Britain and Australia. "
Well gee... if there was a bigger iceberg in the 19th century floating towards Australia color me skeptical that this iceberg is caused by man made global warming. I wonder what the biggest iceberg to ever float by Australia and when it occurred? :think:
I have no doubt that the climate goes through cyclical changes of warming and cooling. Forcing all of us to drive a Prius isn't going to change that.
zoo22
Well-known member
Well, I did specifically say "Not expecting any converts, but I think interesting to see either way."
I think James Balog's video here is very interesting to see.
One of the things he mentions specifically is that much of the general public still does dispute global warming... Man-made or otherwise.
It's been a little while since I've seen a "It's cold in Denver ... There's no global warming!!" here at TOL, but I know it's not an unpopular sentiment.
Alate_One
Well-known member
What then is causing those cyclical changes? The temperature of the planet as a whole is increased by:
Solar input - more sunspot activity can mean more heat input, sunspot activity has not changed significantly since the "warming trend" began.
Changes in the earth's orbit and tilt - Milkanovitch Cycles - Too slow to change to be responsible for the current warming
The greenhouse effect - the natural force that keeps solar radiation from escaping into space - it is re-radiated to the surface. We do see a rapid increase in greenhouse gases, which we know is the result of human activity.
So if it's a "natural cycle" you'll have to come up with something else that would increase the earth's temperature. Saying "natural cycle" and not naming it, is saying "I don't know" since I just eliminated all of the known natural cycles and sources of heat. Where's it coming from then? invisible lasers?
Lastly large Icebergs do break off of glaciers even during cold climates. But we can be certain that during the 18th and 19th centuries there was no northwest passage and well . . . there is now.
Who says the earth is getting warmer?? Many scientists say just the opposite.
Sozo again
New member
:denver: This is entirely our fault. If we hadn't invented fireman to put out forest fires that cause 20% of CO2 emissions, warmer temperatures would have naturally stabilized the environment. I hate fireman. :madmad:
Alate_One
Well-known member
"Many scientists" amounts to "botanist and broadcaster Prof David Bellamy " Wait while I get excited about this amazing scientific revelation . . . .
lain: You also just said you didn't doubt the world was getting warmer . . . .
And later in the article you linked
| He has been criticised repeatedly by the scientific community for his views. Prof William Reville, who writes in this newspaper, said changes in the sun had affected global temperatures in the past, but the correlation between the sun and climate ended in the 1970s while global warming continued. |
Alate,
Couple of points.
1) the various websites link to the relevant 'peer-reviewed' articles - as you would know if you bothered investigating.
2) In terms of climate-science I think we have good reason to believe that the 'peer-review' process is tainted quite badly (Which is actually what I feel is the most damaging bit to science as a whole)
3) Consensus is not part of the scientific process, rather it is generally part of the political process.
Here is one article that you can look at which is dealing with ice cores. http://www.foresight.org/nanodot/?p=3553
What does it tell us - wow, our current warming trend is simply business as usual.
So to reiterate my position for those who may believe Alate's unscientific name-calling and labelling.
1) I totally accept that while there has been a recent downward trend overall we are experiencing an upward trend of temperatures.
2) This upward trend is simply the planet doing what the planet does - when we actually look at the evidence this can be plainly seen.
3) CO2 rises in the atmosphere in reaction to temperatures rising, not the other way round. Again this can be plainly seen from the evidence.
4) The upward rise in temperatures will indeed cause changes - and preparing for those changes is what we should be spending money on - not 'dealing with' a gas that has very little, if anything to do with the upward rise in temperatures.
Regards
T.
Couple of points.
1) the various websites link to the relevant 'peer-reviewed' articles - as you would know if you bothered investigating.
2) In terms of climate-science I think we have good reason to believe that the 'peer-review' process is tainted quite badly (Which is actually what I feel is the most damaging bit to science as a whole)
3) Consensus is not part of the scientific process, rather it is generally part of the political process.
Here is one article that you can look at which is dealing with ice cores. http://www.foresight.org/nanodot/?p=3553
What does it tell us - wow, our current warming trend is simply business as usual.
So to reiterate my position for those who may believe Alate's unscientific name-calling and labelling.
1) I totally accept that while there has been a recent downward trend overall we are experiencing an upward trend of temperatures.
2) This upward trend is simply the planet doing what the planet does - when we actually look at the evidence this can be plainly seen.
3) CO2 rises in the atmosphere in reaction to temperatures rising, not the other way round. Again this can be plainly seen from the evidence.
4) The upward rise in temperatures will indeed cause changes - and preparing for those changes is what we should be spending money on - not 'dealing with' a gas that has very little, if anything to do with the upward rise in temperatures.
Regards
T.
- Status