Climate change denialists!!
Are those that deny climate change is happening, regardless of how much evidence you can show them to prove it is, simply stupid or even worse calculatingly selfish individuals benefiting from the sale of hydrocarbons and the destruction caused by the effects of climate change?
They also tend to deny (when they admit it is happening) that it is mostly caused by human consumption of hydrocarbons and the CO2 we pump into the atmosphere through that consumption.
They also tend to deny (when they admit it is happening) that it is mostly caused by human consumption of hydrocarbons and the CO2 we pump into the atmosphere through that consumption.
Scroll to see replies
Original post by MrEFeynman
Are those that deny climate change is happening, regardless of how much evidence you can show them to prove it is, simply stupid or even worse calculatingly selfish individuals benefiting from the sale of hydrocarbons and the destruction caused by the effects of climate change?
They also tend to deny (when they admit it is happening) that it is mostly caused by human consumption of hydrocarbons and the CO2 we pump into the atmosphere through that consumption.
They also tend to deny (when they admit it is happening) that it is mostly caused by human consumption of hydrocarbons and the CO2 we pump into the atmosphere through that consumption.
I've moved your thread down to the debate section, where more people might be wanting to engage in this topic.
I find it a difficult one. There is a lot of evidence for changing climates, so I struggle to see how someone could actually hold a strong view that its not happening to any extent. But equally, I find the idea that someone is calculated enough to pretend its not happening for their own short term gain very scary.
There is no reasonable debate that climate change is happening. It's the term global warming that raises eyebrows. The debate is wether human factors are causing these changes.
There are several pieces of evidence either way. For example we know that green house gasses are rising alarmingly and that we are actively damaging the ozone layer.
On the other hand there are natural fluctuations in the earths climate and there is no irrefutable proof of the link between human factors and climate change
I am undecided verging on the side that we are at least partly responsible. However there is one thing I am certain of.
If we do nothing and carry on with our potentially harming activities and then find out in 50 years time that we are causing climate change IT WILL BE TOO LATE. Surely the risks of doing nothing are far greater than the negatives of acting. I therefore belive that we should do everything in our power to stop climate change.
P.s. I dearly hope that we are causing it because if not there is nothing we can do to prevent major problems and that is a scary thought
Posted from TSR Mobile
There are several pieces of evidence either way. For example we know that green house gasses are rising alarmingly and that we are actively damaging the ozone layer.
On the other hand there are natural fluctuations in the earths climate and there is no irrefutable proof of the link between human factors and climate change
I am undecided verging on the side that we are at least partly responsible. However there is one thing I am certain of.
If we do nothing and carry on with our potentially harming activities and then find out in 50 years time that we are causing climate change IT WILL BE TOO LATE. Surely the risks of doing nothing are far greater than the negatives of acting. I therefore belive that we should do everything in our power to stop climate change.
P.s. I dearly hope that we are causing it because if not there is nothing we can do to prevent major problems and that is a scary thought
Posted from TSR Mobile
Nobody denies climate change isn't happening. It's happening all of the time. The question is whether or not and to what extent mankind is having an impact. So far, every projection about climate change hasn't come true though. The earths atmosphere hasn't warmed up recently, the arctic hasn't melted and we're not seeing any firm of weather patterns that we haven't seen before that aren't within natural variation.
I'm all for saving resources and energy, recycling and looking after the environment. People like the OP accusing people of being stupid/selfish etc for not following a belief is whats wrong with the debate.
I'm all for saving resources and energy, recycling and looking after the environment. People like the OP accusing people of being stupid/selfish etc for not following a belief is whats wrong with the debate.
It was called "global warming" a few years ago, I don't think there is any dispute that the climate changes, since it always has. You should include the word "anthropogenic" and stop calling people "deniers" like you're in a cult. The evidence is not convincing, the stalwarts change the facts to fit the data, and the billions of green/carbon taxes imposed all around the EU and Australia to "help" are literally stealing money under false pretences (whilst throttling business enterprises and forms of energy that is simply being rebuilt even faster in China, India etc.)
Original post by thesabbath
It was called "global warming" a few years ago, I don't think there is any dispute that the climate changes, since it always has. You should include the word "anthropogenic" and stop calling people "deniers" like you're in a cult. The evidence is not convincing, the stalwarts change the facts to fit the data, and the billions of green/carbon taxes imposed all around the EU and Australia to "help" are literally stealing money under false pretences (whilst throttling business enterprises and forms of energy that is simply being rebuilt even faster in China, India etc.)
You may be interested to see what the Ozzies have done.
They're turning their backs on it.
http://www.energylivenews.com/2013/09/18/new-aussie-pm-“we-will-scrap-the-carbon-tax”/
I predict the Australian economy will be given a boost on this one.
Original post by MatureStudent36
You may be interested to see what the Ozzies have done.
They're turning their backs on it.
http://www.energylivenews.com/2013/09/18/new-aussie-pm-“we-will-scrap-the-carbon-tax”/
I predict the Australian economy will be given a boost on this one.
They're turning their backs on it.
http://www.energylivenews.com/2013/09/18/new-aussie-pm-“we-will-scrap-the-carbon-tax”/
I predict the Australian economy will be given a boost on this one.
Indeed, a great step forward. I hope Abbott will prove able to implement his suggestions. Unfortunately the EU are taking a different, utterly shameless line to green taxes:
"EU policy on climate change is right even if science was wrong" says Commissioner Connie Hedegaard
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/10313261/EU-policy-on-climate-change-is-right-even-if-science-was-wrong-says-commissioner.html
(edited 10 years ago)
. The earths atmosphere hasn't warmed up recently, the arctic hasn't melted and we're not seeing any firm of weather patterns that we haven't seen before that aren't within natural variation.
Have to disagree. Last year was a record low for ice caps as were the 4 or five years before that. Furthermore this year is already showing signs of being worse.
Also this is one of the most active hurricane seasons on record. Extreme weather is on the increase
Posted from TSR Mobile
Have to disagree. Last year was a record low for ice caps as were the 4 or five years before that. Furthermore this year is already showing signs of being worse.
Also this is one of the most active hurricane seasons on record. Extreme weather is on the increase
Posted from TSR Mobile
. The earths atmosphere hasn't warmed up recently, the arctic hasn't melted and we're not seeing any firm of weather patterns that we haven't seen before that aren't within natural variation.
Have to disagree. Last year was a record low for ice caps as were the 4 or five years before that. Furthermore this year is already showing signs of being worse.
Also this is one of the most active hurricane seasons on record. Extreme weather is on the increase
Posted from TSR Mobile
Effective records for arctic ice coverage only go back to the 70s if you want to try and measure global tends spanning millennia on such a short time period, please fill your boots. You have forgotten to mention that there's 60% more ice this year than last year and now falls within the 2 standard deviation measurements of the existing records.
There is a news article knocking around in the Internet from 1921 reporting on unprecedented ice melt in the arctic.
I don't doubt we have more hurricanes now as we can finally see them with advances in technology.
I'd like to know how people can quantify the statement that extreme weather is in the increase. Our recent abnormally hot spell this summer was predicted by climate change skeptic piers Corbyn using his solar method of weather forecasting. We haven't had the wettest, driest, coldest etc those weather periods are from before global warming hit us pre 1960s.
Should we be investigating this. Most definitely, but the science, methodology, models, outcomes, impacts are far from concrete.
Have to disagree. Last year was a record low for ice caps as were the 4 or five years before that. Furthermore this year is already showing signs of being worse.
Also this is one of the most active hurricane seasons on record. Extreme weather is on the increase
Posted from TSR Mobile
Effective records for arctic ice coverage only go back to the 70s if you want to try and measure global tends spanning millennia on such a short time period, please fill your boots. You have forgotten to mention that there's 60% more ice this year than last year and now falls within the 2 standard deviation measurements of the existing records.
There is a news article knocking around in the Internet from 1921 reporting on unprecedented ice melt in the arctic.
I don't doubt we have more hurricanes now as we can finally see them with advances in technology.
I'd like to know how people can quantify the statement that extreme weather is in the increase. Our recent abnormally hot spell this summer was predicted by climate change skeptic piers Corbyn using his solar method of weather forecasting. We haven't had the wettest, driest, coldest etc those weather periods are from before global warming hit us pre 1960s.
Should we be investigating this. Most definitely, but the science, methodology, models, outcomes, impacts are far from concrete.
Original post by Sammy Lanka
There is no reasonable debate that climate change is happening. It's the term global warming that raises eyebrows. The debate is wether human factors are causing these changes.
Well, no. The debate in the climate science community is effectively over. There is some debate about how fast this might occur, but the main debate now is about what if anything we should do about it. Obviously, there is a lot of work still to do to educate the general population.
There are several pieces of evidence either way. For example we know that green house gasses are rising alarmingly and that we are actively damaging the ozone layer.
On the other hand there are natural fluctuations in the earths climate and there is no irrefutable proof of the link between human factors and climate change.
On the other hand there are natural fluctuations in the earths climate and there is no irrefutable proof of the link between human factors and climate change.
Again, no. The case for anthropomorphic climate change is really very simple:
•
CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere have risen by 30% above what nature intended (easily measurable increase from 280ppm to 400ppm)
•
most of the increase is from burning fossil fuels (easily verifiable by measuring atmospheric C14 ratios over time)
•
CO2 is a greenhouse gas (basic physics)
•
some of the radiation which would normally radiate from the earth's surface into space is reflected back to the surface by the extra greenhouse gases, causing the heat content of the oceans to rise slowly (basic physics)
•
The heat content of the ocean affects our weather and ultimately our climate (basic physics/meteorology)
What confuses many people is that natural fluctuations (eg, El Nino, La Nina) are larger than the warming from greenhouse gases, and this can cause surface temperatures to rise and fall from year to year. However, fluctuations go up and down, whereas the warming effect of greenhouse gases is relentlessly upwards. Climatologists typically use a 30-year rolling average to see through the natural fluctuations, and the measured trend is indeed upwards.
I am undecided verging on the side that we are at least partly responsible. However there is one thing I am certain of.
If we do nothing and carry on with our potentially harming activities and then find out in 50 years time that we are causing climate change IT WILL BE TOO LATE. Surely the risks of doing nothing are far greater than the negatives of acting. I therefore belive that we should do everything in our power to stop climate change.
P.s. I dearly hope that we are causing it because if not there is nothing we can do to prevent major problems and that is a scary thought
If we do nothing and carry on with our potentially harming activities and then find out in 50 years time that we are causing climate change IT WILL BE TOO LATE. Surely the risks of doing nothing are far greater than the negatives of acting. I therefore belive that we should do everything in our power to stop climate change.
P.s. I dearly hope that we are causing it because if not there is nothing we can do to prevent major problems and that is a scary thought
Absolutely right, imo - the precautionary principle is very important. If you're in a hole, stop digging.
Clearly you're thinking hard about this issue but like many people you're probably confused by the mass of 'evidence'. In reality, virtually all the peer-reviewed evidence points to anthropomorphic climate change, while the skeptic position is mainly based on a combination of urban myths, half-truths, ideology and even lies. Take a look at this article - it demolishes the commonest myths spread by skeptics... http://grist.org/series/skeptics/
The youtube videos by potholer54 are also good explanations about why the skeptics have got it wrong - this is a good example, addressing the skeptic myths surrounding the medieval warm period... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CY4Yecsx_-s
Skeptic dogma (quibbles about the hockey stick, "no warming since 1998", "800 year lag", "medieval warm period", etc) is actually very easy to address. It's mostly advocated by people who only understand half the problem (or, more likely, a lot less than half), or by ideologues who will be happy for us to live with the consequences of global warming and who use attacks on the basic science to delay effective action.
Ultimately, what we believe should be driven by the evidence, not by ideology, and all the scientific evidence points towards anthropomorphic climate change. However, our response to the change is a political decision, which is why I'm encouraged that all three UK parties have listened to experts and don't allow ideology to cloud their judgements. Obviously, that is what one would expect of responsible politicians.
Original post by Pastaferian
Well, no. The debate in the climate science community is effectively over.
No it's not. There's still a huge disagreement as to how it is impacting us, and to what extent mankind is impacting it. If it were over we'd have an ice free Arctic and noticeable warming. We haven't had warming since 1998 and all predictions have come under IPCC projections.
There is some debate about how fast this might occur, but the main debate now is about what if anything we should do about it. Obviously, there is a lot of work still to do to educate the general population.
There seems to be a lot more work required on the predictions
Again, no. The case for anthropomorphic climate change is really very simple:
So simple that the climate is refusing to do what the climatologists have told us it will do
What confuses many people is that natural fluctuations (eg, El Nino, La Nina) are larger than the warming from greenhouse gases, and this can cause surface temperatures to rise and fall from year to year. However, fluctuations go up and down, whereas the warming effect of greenhouse gases is relentlessly upwards. Yet it's stopped since 1998. Not really relentlessly upwards if over the last 60 years, we've seen no increaseing 1/6th of that time.Climatologists typically use a 30-year rolling average to see through the natural fluctuations, and the measured trend is indeed upwards. Yet it hasn't warmed up since 1998.
Absolutely right, imo - the precautionary principle is very important. If you're in a hole, stop digging.
Clearly you're thinking hard about this issue but like many people you're probably confused by the mass of 'evidence'. The only evidence I need is that it hasn't warmed up, the arctic hasn't all melted, polar bears haven't died and we've had worse weather prior to when climatologists said global warming started. In reality, virtually all the peer-reviewed evidence points to anthropomorphic climate change, There's been serious concerns raised about the peer review process in this situation. while the skeptic position is mainly based on a combination of urban myths, half-truths, ideology and even lies. They told me there's be relentless global warming and the ice case would melt, they haven't. Was that a myth, half truth, ideologically driven or a lie?Take a look at this article - it demolishes the commonest myths spread by skeptics... http://grist.org/series/skeptics/
Here's another website that debunks Global warming myths.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/
The youtube videos by potholer54 are also good explanations about why the skeptics have got it wrong - this is a good example, addressing the skeptic myths surrounding the medieval warm period... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CY4Yecsx_-s
I saw a great Youtube clip about Lizard people trying to take over the world.
Skeptic dogma (quibbles about the hockey stick, "no warming since 1998", "800 year lag", "medieval warm period", etc) is actually very easy to address. It's mostly advocated by people who only understand half the problem (or, more likely, a lot less than half), or by ideologues who will be happy for us to live with the consequences of global warming and who use attacks on the basic science to delay effective action.
Ultimately, what we believe should be driven by the evidence, Fully agree, and the evidence as of now is inconclusive.not by ideology, You're getting it. Science should be evidence based and backed up with data, not leaked emails showing that there was a high degree of fudging of data going on behind the scenes and all the scientific evidence Hypothesis's, but is yet to fully explain anthropomorphic climate change. However, our response to the change is a political decision, which is why I'm encouraged that all three UK parties have listened to experts and don't allow ideology to cloud their judgements. Are you encouraged that the Australians have turned their back on it? With increasing fuel prices and cost of living going up I doubt we'll be seeing political parties after support backing a stand that is increasing fuel prices and by the EUs own admission is damaging the economy.Obviously, that is what one would expect of responsible politicians.
No it's not. There's still a huge disagreement as to how it is impacting us, and to what extent mankind is impacting it. If it were over we'd have an ice free Arctic and noticeable warming. We haven't had warming since 1998 and all predictions have come under IPCC projections.
There is some debate about how fast this might occur, but the main debate now is about what if anything we should do about it. Obviously, there is a lot of work still to do to educate the general population.
There seems to be a lot more work required on the predictions
Again, no. The case for anthropomorphic climate change is really very simple:
So simple that the climate is refusing to do what the climatologists have told us it will do
•
CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere have risen by 30% above what nature intended (easily measurable increase from 280ppm to 400ppm) What did nature intend?We've had higher levels of CO2 in the environment before man was around.
•
most of the increase is from burning fossil fuels (easily verifiable by measuring atmospheric C14 ratios over time)
•
CO2 is a greenhouse gas (basic physics) Actually incorrect. Most of the CO2 is from natural sources.
•
some of the radiation which would normally radiate from the earth's surface into space is reflected back to the surface by the extra greenhouse gases, causing the heat content of the oceans to rise slowly (basic physics) Did you know that water vapour is a more powerful greenhouse gas than CO2?
•
The heat content of the ocean affects our weather and ultimately our climate (basic physics/meteorology) Yes, but as we haven't been studying heat content in the oceans for that long, we can only hypothesis what's goig on with the oceans.
What confuses many people is that natural fluctuations (eg, El Nino, La Nina) are larger than the warming from greenhouse gases, and this can cause surface temperatures to rise and fall from year to year. However, fluctuations go up and down, whereas the warming effect of greenhouse gases is relentlessly upwards. Yet it's stopped since 1998. Not really relentlessly upwards if over the last 60 years, we've seen no increaseing 1/6th of that time.Climatologists typically use a 30-year rolling average to see through the natural fluctuations, and the measured trend is indeed upwards. Yet it hasn't warmed up since 1998.
Absolutely right, imo - the precautionary principle is very important. If you're in a hole, stop digging.
Clearly you're thinking hard about this issue but like many people you're probably confused by the mass of 'evidence'. The only evidence I need is that it hasn't warmed up, the arctic hasn't all melted, polar bears haven't died and we've had worse weather prior to when climatologists said global warming started. In reality, virtually all the peer-reviewed evidence points to anthropomorphic climate change, There's been serious concerns raised about the peer review process in this situation. while the skeptic position is mainly based on a combination of urban myths, half-truths, ideology and even lies. They told me there's be relentless global warming and the ice case would melt, they haven't. Was that a myth, half truth, ideologically driven or a lie?Take a look at this article - it demolishes the commonest myths spread by skeptics... http://grist.org/series/skeptics/
Here's another website that debunks Global warming myths.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/
The youtube videos by potholer54 are also good explanations about why the skeptics have got it wrong - this is a good example, addressing the skeptic myths surrounding the medieval warm period... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CY4Yecsx_-s
I saw a great Youtube clip about Lizard people trying to take over the world.
Skeptic dogma (quibbles about the hockey stick, "no warming since 1998", "800 year lag", "medieval warm period", etc) is actually very easy to address. It's mostly advocated by people who only understand half the problem (or, more likely, a lot less than half), or by ideologues who will be happy for us to live with the consequences of global warming and who use attacks on the basic science to delay effective action.
Ultimately, what we believe should be driven by the evidence, Fully agree, and the evidence as of now is inconclusive.not by ideology, You're getting it. Science should be evidence based and backed up with data, not leaked emails showing that there was a high degree of fudging of data going on behind the scenes and all the scientific evidence Hypothesis's, but is yet to fully explain anthropomorphic climate change. However, our response to the change is a political decision, which is why I'm encouraged that all three UK parties have listened to experts and don't allow ideology to cloud their judgements. Are you encouraged that the Australians have turned their back on it? With increasing fuel prices and cost of living going up I doubt we'll be seeing political parties after support backing a stand that is increasing fuel prices and by the EUs own admission is damaging the economy.Obviously, that is what one would expect of responsible politicians.
There was a time that Science was pure and true. But throughout history people have jumped on Science and abused it to push another agenda.
I have no problem with making societymore sustainable, but this is getting ridiculous now with name calling and personal attacks. Climatologists have come up with a theory, that as of yet hasn't paned out. If people weren't making such huge amounts of money out of it I'd be inclined to be a little less skeptical.
I'm an Engineer by trade, so I like to see quantifiable results. Climate change models have pretty much failed at every point. The earth hasn't warmed up since 1998, the north pole hasn't melted and the IPCC seems to be subtly changing it;s opinion.
An interesting article.
http://m.phys.org/news/2013-05-global-chlorofluorocarbons-carbon-dioxide.html
Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) are to blame for global warming since the 1970s and not carbon dioxide, according to new research from the University of Waterloo published in the International Journal of Modern Physics B this week.
http://m.phys.org/news/2013-05-global-chlorofluorocarbons-carbon-dioxide.html
Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) are to blame for global warming since the 1970s and not carbon dioxide, according to new research from the University of Waterloo published in the International Journal of Modern Physics B this week.
Original post by Sammy Lanka
Have to disagree. Last year was a record low for ice caps as were the 4 or five years before that. Furthermore this year is already showing signs of being worse.
Also this is one of the most active hurricane seasons on record. Extreme weather is on the increase
. The earths atmosphere hasn't warmed up recently, the arctic hasn't melted and we're not seeing any firm of weather patterns that we haven't seen before that aren't within natural variation.
Have to disagree. Last year was a record low for ice caps as were the 4 or five years before that. Furthermore this year is already showing signs of being worse.
Also this is one of the most active hurricane seasons on record. Extreme weather is on the increase
I have to butt in to say that you and Mature?Student are both confusing weather with climate. Warming and cooling events like El Nino's and La Nina's are larger than the small but relentless warming effect of greenhouse gases. That's why temperatures, ice coverage, hurricane frequency, etc go up and down from year to year, and it's also why the overall trends are clearly in one direction. So he is wrong about... well pretty much everything really... but you shouldn't use one year's hurricane season to support the climate change argument - rolling averages over several decades are the only valid ways to interpret long-term data, and the jury is still out. Although warmer surface waters ought to increase the severity of hurricanes, climate change may also affect other factors which could affect hurricane formation, path and/or severity. However, you may appreciate this spoof video, about a proposal to name hurricanes after leading American skeptic politicians http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=efAUCG9oTb8
Btw, a tip and a warning about arguing with MatureStudent. He's a UKIP mouthpiece, so you won't shift his views using reason, evidence or science. However, it's always worth checking the links he provides to back up his statements, as they rarely if ever say what he think they say (or would like you to believe they say). The latest two are no exception - they support the climate change case, not his position
I've started to keep a count of such gaffs, and he's 0 for 8, including the latest two (*), which include these quotes:•
"Arctic sea ice shrinks to sixth-lowest extent on record"
•
"Sea ice cover in the Arctic has shrunk to one of its smallest extents on record"
•
"It certainly is continuing the long-term decline"
•
"Overall, the Arctic has lost about 40% of its sea ice cover since 1980"
•
"this year's ice cover is still tracking well below average - meaning ice in the Arctic still faces long term decline"
•
"There are a number of different ways of measuring sea ice, and they all agree there's a downward trend"
•
"satellite data indicates Arctic sea ice has been declining since at least the early 1950s"
As a debating opponent, he's great - he makes all the points for me
(*) I don't waste time reading his posts, so I may be underestimating the number of gaffs he makes. Historically the number is much larger, but I've only recently started keeping count
Original post by MatureStudent36
An interesting article.
http://m.phys.org/news/2013-05-global-chlorofluorocarbons-carbon-dioxide.html
Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) are to blame for global warming since the 1970s and not carbon dioxide, according to new research from the University of Waterloo published in the International Journal of Modern Physics B this week.
http://m.phys.org/news/2013-05-global-chlorofluorocarbons-carbon-dioxide.html
Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) are to blame for global warming since the 1970s and not carbon dioxide, according to new research from the University of Waterloo published in the International Journal of Modern Physics B this week.
I thought I should congratulate you on finally finding a link whose contents support your position - you're now 1 for 9. Well done!
However, Lu's hypothesis was easily rebutted... http://www.skepticalscience.com/CFCs-global-warming.htm
Original post by Pastaferian
I have to butt in to say that you and Mature?Student are both confusing weather with climate. Warming and cooling events like El Nino's and La Nina's are larger than the small but relentless warming effect of greenhouse gases. That's why temperatures, ice coverage, hurricane frequency, etc go up and down from year to year, and it's also why the overall trends are clearly in one direction. So he is wrong about... well pretty much everything really... but you shouldn't use one year's hurricane season to support the climate change argument - rolling averages over several decades are the only valid ways to interpret long-term data, and the jury is still out. Although warmer surface waters ought to increase the severity of hurricanes, climate change may also affect other factors which could affect hurricane formation, path and/or severity. However, you may appreciate this spoof video, about a proposal to name hurricanes after leading American skeptic politicians http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=efAUCG9oTb8
Btw, a tip and a warning about arguing with MatureStudent. He's a UKIP mouthpiece, so you won't shift his views using reason, evidence or science. However, it's always worth checking the links he provides to back up his statements, as they rarely if ever say what he think they say (or would like you to believe they say). The latest two are no exception - they support the climate change case, not his position I've started to keep a count of such gaffs, and he's 0 for 8, including the latest two (*), which include these quotes:
How far back to records go?
Average to what? It's gone up this year from last. So yes, you could argue that there's a general downward trend. But if it's a cyclic process downward trends level out and then become upward rends. Remember, I wasn't making claims a few years ago that the North pole would be Ice free in 2013
As a debating opponent, he's great - he makes all the points for me
(*) I don't waste time reading his posts, so I may be underestimating the number of gaffs he makes. Historically the number is much larger, but I've only recently started keeping count
Btw, a tip and a warning about arguing with MatureStudent. He's a UKIP mouthpiece, so you won't shift his views using reason, evidence or science. However, it's always worth checking the links he provides to back up his statements, as they rarely if ever say what he think they say (or would like you to believe they say). The latest two are no exception - they support the climate change case, not his position
I've started to keep a count of such gaffs, and he's 0 for 8, including the latest two (*), which include these quotes:•
"Arctic sea ice shrinks to sixth-lowest extent on record"
How far back to records go?
•
"Sea ice cover in the Arctic has shrunk to one of its smallest extents on record" When did accurate records start?
•
"It certainly is continuing the long-term decline" Is it? It's gone up this year from last. But once again, when did accurate records start?
•
"Overall, the Arctic has lost about 40% of its sea ice cover since 1980" Was 1980 a high amount of high, or a low amount of Ice. Who has decided that 1980 was normal? No mention of the Antarctic though.
•
"this year's ice cover is still tracking well below average - meaning ice in the Arctic still faces long term decline"
Average to what? It's gone up this year from last. So yes, you could argue that there's a general downward trend. But if it's a cyclic process downward trends level out and then become upward rends. Remember, I wasn't making claims a few years ago that the North pole would be Ice free in 2013
•
"There are a number of different ways of measuring sea ice, and they all agree there's a downward trend" When was the data collected. What's described as normal?
•
"satellite data indicates Arctic sea ice has been declining since at least the early 1950s" Satellite data since the 50s. I wasn't aware that Sputnik and the early Satellites were capable of such measurements.
As a debating opponent, he's great - he makes all the points for me
(*) I don't waste time reading his posts, so I may be underestimating the number of gaffs he makes. Historically the number is much larger, but I've only recently started keeping count
You may wish to ignore me and others. Do that at your peril. Australian environmentalists had the same approach but it looks like it back fired on them. They're out in the cold.
I don't doubt mankind is making some form of impact. But even you have to agree, that when all of the predictions being thrown out by Climatologists seem to be falling well short of observed trends then there's something wrong with the assumptions.
Original post by MatureStudent36
You may be interested to see what the Ozzies have done.
They're turning their backs on it.
http://www.energylivenews.com/2013/09/18/new-aussie-pm-“we-will-scrap-the-carbon-tax”/
I predict the Australian economy will be given a boost on this one.
They're turning their backs on it.
http://www.energylivenews.com/2013/09/18/new-aussie-pm-“we-will-scrap-the-carbon-tax”/
I predict the Australian economy will be given a boost on this one.
We should follow suit and abandon our climate change plans which only benefit rich land owners and continue to make the poorest in society even poorer through record energy bills.
Original post by dj1015
We should follow suit and abandon our climate change plans which only benefit rich land owners and continue to make the poorest in society even poorer through record energy bills.
I think that's one of the main reasons why skepticism is on the increase. That combined with every prediction made so far hasn't come true.
Ice free North Pole anyone? (Although I agree that one or two more years of data might help out)
How about Dramatically increasing Global Temperatures.
(edited 10 years ago)
Original post by Pastaferian
Well, no. The debate in the climate science community is effectively over. There is some debate about how fast this might occur, but the main debate now is about what if anything we should do about it. Obviously, there is a lot of work still to do to educate the general population.
Again, no. The case for anthropomorphic climate change is really very simple:
What confuses many people is that natural fluctuations (eg, El Nino, La Nina) are larger than the warming from greenhouse gases, and this can cause surface temperatures to rise and fall from year to year. However, fluctuations go up and down, whereas the warming effect of greenhouse gases is relentlessly upwards. Climatologists typically use a 30-year rolling average to see through the natural fluctuations, and the measured trend is indeed upwards.
Absolutely right, imo - the precautionary principle is very important. If you're in a hole, stop digging.
Clearly you're thinking hard about this issue but like many people you're probably confused by the mass of 'evidence'. In reality, virtually all the peer-reviewed evidence points to anthropomorphic climate change, while the skeptic position is mainly based on a combination of urban myths, half-truths, ideology and even lies. Take a look at this article - it demolishes the commonest myths spread by skeptics... http://grist.org/series/skeptics/
The youtube videos by potholer54 are also good explanations about why the skeptics have got it wrong - this is a good example, addressing the skeptic myths surrounding the medieval warm period... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CY4Yecsx_-s
Skeptic dogma (quibbles about the hockey stick, "no warming since 1998", "800 year lag", "medieval warm period", etc) is actually very easy to address. It's mostly advocated by people who only understand half the problem (or, more likely, a lot less than half), or by ideologues who will be happy for us to live with the consequences of global warming and who use attacks on the basic science to delay effective action.
Ultimately, what we believe should be driven by the evidence, not by ideology, and all the scientific evidence points towards anthropomorphic climate change. However, our response to the change is a political decision, which is why I'm encouraged that all three UK parties have listened to experts and don't allow ideology to cloud their judgements. Obviously, that is what one would expect of responsible politicians.
Again, no. The case for anthropomorphic climate change is really very simple:
•
CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere have risen by 30% above what nature intended (easily measurable increase from 280ppm to 400ppm)
•
most of the increase is from burning fossil fuels (easily verifiable by measuring atmospheric C14 ratios over time)
•
CO2 is a greenhouse gas (basic physics)
•
some of the radiation which would normally radiate from the earth's surface into space is reflected back to the surface by the extra greenhouse gases, causing the heat content of the oceans to rise slowly (basic physics)
•
The heat content of the ocean affects our weather and ultimately our climate (basic physics/meteorology)
What confuses many people is that natural fluctuations (eg, El Nino, La Nina) are larger than the warming from greenhouse gases, and this can cause surface temperatures to rise and fall from year to year. However, fluctuations go up and down, whereas the warming effect of greenhouse gases is relentlessly upwards. Climatologists typically use a 30-year rolling average to see through the natural fluctuations, and the measured trend is indeed upwards.
Absolutely right, imo - the precautionary principle is very important. If you're in a hole, stop digging.
Clearly you're thinking hard about this issue but like many people you're probably confused by the mass of 'evidence'. In reality, virtually all the peer-reviewed evidence points to anthropomorphic climate change, while the skeptic position is mainly based on a combination of urban myths, half-truths, ideology and even lies. Take a look at this article - it demolishes the commonest myths spread by skeptics... http://grist.org/series/skeptics/
The youtube videos by potholer54 are also good explanations about why the skeptics have got it wrong - this is a good example, addressing the skeptic myths surrounding the medieval warm period... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CY4Yecsx_-s
Skeptic dogma (quibbles about the hockey stick, "no warming since 1998", "800 year lag", "medieval warm period", etc) is actually very easy to address. It's mostly advocated by people who only understand half the problem (or, more likely, a lot less than half), or by ideologues who will be happy for us to live with the consequences of global warming and who use attacks on the basic science to delay effective action.
Ultimately, what we believe should be driven by the evidence, not by ideology, and all the scientific evidence points towards anthropomorphic climate change. However, our response to the change is a political decision, which is why I'm encouraged that all three UK parties have listened to experts and don't allow ideology to cloud their judgements. Obviously, that is what one would expect of responsible politicians.
Tbh I completely agree with you. I was just trying to put across both sides of the argument. As i said the most important thing now is that we begin to makes changes. We simply cannot wait any longer. Sea levels are rising and a 2 meter rise would flood much of the world especially in places such as Bangladesh. Over 500 million people are in direct danger. Already the Maldives and many other pacific islands are evacuating to Australia ect. Man people are not bothered about this as they do not believe it will effect them. I'd like to see that looks on the New Yorkers faces when they start waking up in the morning and seeing manhattan flooded.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by MatureStudent36
You may wish to ignore me and others. Do that at your peril. Australian environmentalists had the same approach but it looks like it back fired on them. They're out in the cold.
I don't doubt mankind is making some form of impact. But even you have to agree, that when all of the predictions being thrown out by Climatologists seem to be falling well short of observed trends then there's something wrong with the assumptions.
I don't doubt mankind is making some form of impact. But even you have to agree, that when all of the predictions being thrown out by Climatologists seem to be falling well short of observed trends then there's something wrong with the assumptions.
Don't you agree that when people are evacuating flood risk land as we speak there is something wrong with people's lax attitudes to climate change
Posted from TSR Mobile
I'm on the fence in this one. I don't know what's going on, but I always wonder about this:
that's data spanning hundreds of thousands of years. CO2 and temperatures seem to rise and fall on their own. Is there a reason why this doesn't suggest man-made climate change is false?
that's data spanning hundreds of thousands of years. CO2 and temperatures seem to rise and fall on their own. Is there a reason why this doesn't suggest man-made climate change is false?
(edited 10 years ago)
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- Ban on single-use plastic cutlery comes into force in England
- GCSE English speaking exam
- anxiety about climate crisis
- Geography NEA help
- Kallisto's Saturday Question: Inventions
- Desire for net zero referendum growing among public, poll finds
- Alevel geography hazard 20 marker
- anyone getting really scared about the future?
- geography natural hazards
- EPQ ideas
- Biology EPQ Ideas?
- aqa DT gcse nea themes 2024
- PPE Personal Statement Help?
- My EPQ Question
- TSR Goes Green: Careers in the Environmental Sector
- Rishi Sunak gives Net Zero speech: PM waters down key policy goals
- weather
- How about Global Creative and Cultural Industries programme of SOAS
- A Level Geography Edexcel 18/20/24 markers
- Reply to become a part of my DT GCSE NEA!! my hw is due today.
Latest
Trending
Last reply 1 day ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 1 day ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 1 day ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 1 day ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 1 day ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 1 day ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
