Global Warming is a hoax?
Scroll to see replies
Original post by Yawn11
Don't hold back, tell them why you're mad bro.
Fact is, people far educated are on both sides, not denying that the vast majority are probably for it, but the people against aren't wild conspiracy theorists. In Science things are rarely conclusive, new discoveries are constantly being made that change our perception of old theories. Scepticism is necessary.
Sarcasm and patronizing aside, you make some educating points. Not enough scepticism, naturally. Anyway, running late for a lecture. Peace in the middle east.
Fact is, people far educated are on both sides, not denying that the vast majority are probably for it, but the people against aren't wild conspiracy theorists. In Science things are rarely conclusive, new discoveries are constantly being made that change our perception of old theories. Scepticism is necessary.
Sarcasm and patronizing aside, you make some educating points. Not enough scepticism, naturally. Anyway, running late for a lecture. Peace in the middle east.
Who are these well educated, non-conspiracy theorist nutters that you speak of?
Original post by Yawn11
Don't hold back, tell them why you're mad bro.
Fact is, people far educated are on both sides, not denying that the vast majority are probably for it, but the people against aren't wild conspiracy theorists. In Science things are rarely conclusive, new discoveries are constantly being made that change our perception of old theories. Scepticism is necessary.
Sarcasm and patronizing aside, you make some educating points. Not enough scepticism, naturally. Anyway, running late for a lecture. Peace in the middle east.
Fact is, people far educated are on both sides, not denying that the vast majority are probably for it, but the people against aren't wild conspiracy theorists. In Science things are rarely conclusive, new discoveries are constantly being made that change our perception of old theories. Scepticism is necessary.
Sarcasm and patronizing aside, you make some educating points. Not enough scepticism, naturally. Anyway, running late for a lecture. Peace in the middle east.
Things are rarely conclusive in science. Schneider sums up the situation better than I ever could, this video addresses exactly what you're talking about.
If there's one video you're going to watch today, make it this one.
[video="youtube;gDM3T0-o3r0"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gDM3T0-o3r0&t=1m43s[/video]
(edited 10 years ago)
Original post by FlavaFavourFruit
I have no idea tbh 
but science says we are contributing 
but science says we are contributing 
Science says, so it must be true.Original post by Yawn11
Pretty easy, it's based on the last 2 thousand years. The Earth has existed for 4.5Billion years. What you've displayed is a mere blip.
If you were to find a graph extending to let's say the last 50 million, you would also see far more dramatic fluctuations. You'd also find we're no near the Earth's peak temperatures in it's habitable state.
If you were to find a graph extending to let's say the last 50 million, you would also see far more dramatic fluctuations. You'd also find we're no near the Earth's peak temperatures in it's habitable state.
I've been reading through your posts on this thread and I feel some things need clarifying.
First off, it's not a question of basic planetary habitability. The global average temperature could rise or drop a dramatic 20 degrees C and the planet would still be habitable (and comfortably so for many organisms). However, human beings and other extant species are currently acclimatised to a particular band of conditions. Adjusting the average global temperature only a few degrees will have dramatic effects on ecological resources, agriculture, pollutants, flooding, drought, coastal erosion and even disease in many regions across the globe, most of which are populated. The environment, i.e. where we happen to live directly influences our well-being.
Secondly, the planet's surface temperature does fluctuate greatly under natural conditions, either due to changing solar cycles, planetary orbital cycles, volcanism, and ecological events, and there is much historical evidence of this (it's also worth noting that most of these past natural climate shifts are marked with an extinction event of some sort). However, the current rise in temperatures is not 'normal'. It has no known natural cause at this point and we can directly link it to human activity, namely our emissions (direct or indirect) of greenhouse gasses. For example, we know most of the CO2 concentrating in the atmosphere (which has now doubled in the past 100 years or so) is our doing due to the changing balance of C isotopes, where the proportion of 13C (released by combustion) is increasing at rates we would expect. We also know that greenhouse gases are likely inducing the warming because a.) there hasn't been an increased heat flux from outside sources, and b.) the stratosphere is cooling, suggesting more heat energy is being trapped in the troposphere, a function of greenhouse gasses. This is only a small part of the evidence we have, the sum of which has turned this issue into something that is no longer a debate in the scientific community.
The matter is pretty much settled, and has been for some time.
(edited 10 years ago)
The evidence is unequivocal: human activity is altering the climate. It's been clear for decades now that this is the case, and evidence continues to mount, but unfortunately what should have been a scientific question has been hijacked by polemicists and special interest groups and has been turned into a political debate which bears little relation to the evidence base.
We know that global warming is happening due to instrumental records of temperature, satellite records, and proxies for temperature such as sea level (which is rising) and glacial mass balance (which is falling globally). We know that concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere are increasing due to direct measurements, particularly for CO2 and CH4. We know that there is a causal link between increasing concentrations of GHGs and increasing temperature because of changes in outward and downward longwave radiation that can only be caused by changes in the atmospheric abundance of gases such as CO2 and CH4.
As if this wasn't enough, we can even rule out possible natural causes for the current change in climate (I won't go over this here for the sake of brevity but if anyone wants to know a bit more about this, quote me).
As someone who has spent far too many hours of my life rebutting arguments made against global warming, I'm not sure that I agree that "we never hear counter-arguments". I hear them all the time. The internet is drowning in them, repeated endlessly until they become true in the minds of many. The media is almost as bad: last week's Question Time was a beautiful example of why we need more scientists on TV, with the arch-denier Lord Lawson of Blaby leading the charge to nail AGW theory to the cross without a single climate scientist (or indeed scientists of any kind) on the panel to explain why dear old Nigel's a total ****wit. The media should report the state of the evidence, and that evidence is overwhelming. Fumbling around after the "balance" that you crave can only distort the true state of affairs almost beyond recognition.
We know that global warming is happening due to instrumental records of temperature, satellite records, and proxies for temperature such as sea level (which is rising) and glacial mass balance (which is falling globally). We know that concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere are increasing due to direct measurements, particularly for CO2 and CH4. We know that there is a causal link between increasing concentrations of GHGs and increasing temperature because of changes in outward and downward longwave radiation that can only be caused by changes in the atmospheric abundance of gases such as CO2 and CH4.
As if this wasn't enough, we can even rule out possible natural causes for the current change in climate (I won't go over this here for the sake of brevity but if anyone wants to know a bit more about this, quote me).
Original post by TheOriginalAng
Very thought-provoking documentary, presenting a good case against human responsibility. It's actually presents some really good, convincing arguments. In particular, the argument that CO2 concentration lags behind temperature increase really calls the whole thing into question.
I do enjoy seeing these sorts of videos just because global warming is always shoved down our throats and we never hear counter-arguments. It would be nice to have balanced arguments but, of course, an apocalypse is far more interesting.
Very thought-provoking documentary, presenting a good case against human responsibility. It's actually presents some really good, convincing arguments. In particular, the argument that CO2 concentration lags behind temperature increase really calls the whole thing into question.
I do enjoy seeing these sorts of videos just because global warming is always shoved down our throats and we never hear counter-arguments. It would be nice to have balanced arguments but, of course, an apocalypse is far more interesting.
As someone who has spent far too many hours of my life rebutting arguments made against global warming, I'm not sure that I agree that "we never hear counter-arguments". I hear them all the time. The internet is drowning in them, repeated endlessly until they become true in the minds of many. The media is almost as bad: last week's Question Time was a beautiful example of why we need more scientists on TV, with the arch-denier Lord Lawson of Blaby leading the charge to nail AGW theory to the cross without a single climate scientist (or indeed scientists of any kind) on the panel to explain why dear old Nigel's a total ****wit. The media should report the state of the evidence, and that evidence is overwhelming. Fumbling around after the "balance" that you crave can only distort the true state of affairs almost beyond recognition.
Original post by pjm600
Things are rarely conclusive in science. Schneider sums up the situation better than I ever could, this video addresses exactly what you're talking about.
If there's one video you're going to watch today, make it this one.
If there's one video you're going to watch today, make it this one.
I watched it, interesting to say the least.
Original post by Dandaman1
The matter is pretty much settled, and has been for some time.
The matter is pretty much settled, and has been for some time.
You've made the best case so far, my opinion is actually beginning to sway, that I didn't anticipate.
I suppose I'll have educate myself more on the matter and possibly re-evaluate.
Original post by Yawn11
I watched it, interesting to say the least.
You've made the best case so far, my opinion is actually beginning to sway, that I didn't anticipate.
I suppose I'll have educate myself more on the matter and possibly re-evaluate.
You've made the best case so far, my opinion is actually beginning to sway, that I didn't anticipate.
I suppose I'll have educate myself more on the matter and possibly re-evaluate.
Well, I'm happy to help that process along
Earlier, you posted a link to a video, perhaps without realising that Channel4 had to severely edit it afterwards because of its many factual errors, and because some participants were portrayed as being skeptics when the reverse was true (the producer had form, and legal problems, for misleading participants in programmes before this one, resulting in Channel4 being forced to apologise on air). Not that I'd discourage people from seeing it... on the contrary, it should be mandatory viewing (along with a debunking) because it pulls together many of the skeptics' favourite myths and gives a practical demonstration of how fraud is used in order to make them seem credible. But given that the frauds were so obvious to the scientific community, it was very easy to debunk.. see (eg) http://www.filmsforaction.org/watch/the_great_global_warming_swindle_debunked/. Don't worry, it's only 8 minutes long (and sorry for the Polish subtitles). Original post by Yawn11
Sarcasm and patronizing aside, you make some educating points. Not enough scepticism, naturally. [...]
Skepticism has its place (I actually do read the opinions of people like Judith Curry). But my advice is... be extremely skeptical of climate skeptics
(edited 10 years ago)
Man made global warming may or may not be a hoax. Personally, I don't see how our irresponsible activities could not be having an effect on the planet but there is no doubt that climate change is real and it is going to have an effect on us unless we take action whatever is causing it.
Original post by Yawn11
Earth has a history of varying temperatures that has been confirmed as cyclical, and we're still well within previous temperatures. Unless you mean the rise is more rapid in comparison to past increases temperature?
Earth has a history of varying temperatures that has been confirmed as cyclical, and we're still well within previous temperatures. Unless you mean the rise is more rapid in comparison to past increases temperature?
Original post by c_al
What rise in temperature is it you're talking about? The earths average temperature has remained the same for the last 15 years now.
Dear god, people need to stop being so serious. It was a JOKE! Lighten up, morons!
Original post by toxic09
Dear god, people need to stop being so serious. It was a JOKE! Lighten up, morons!
Fact: Global warming is hoax.
Reason: It cold outside.
Original post by SHallowvale
Fact: Global warming is hoax.
Reason: It cold outside.
Reason: It cold outside.
Haha! So true. I'm even cold inside
Original post by Extremotroph
Translation: I can't think for my self, I am dependent on mainstream media in order to have an opinion on matters.
But if you open your mind to much your brain will fall out, bro.
Climate Change is a (quite well documented) theory based on the fact that it is statistically unlikely that the recorded temperatures of the last 150 years are to be expected given what went before. It also coincides nicely with the Industrial Revolution, so there is some evidence to implicate humans as the main cause for this changing trend. If you want to go and produce your own data to see if it contradicts this theory then sure, go ahead. After all, that is how science works. If not, then I will assume you feel the same way about all theories, such as gravity, so will you please float the **** away.
A bit of a contradictory post, OP.
Wow. In my imagination a world of floating cities and incredible water based organisms seems a lot cooler than it probably would be.
Original post by Darien
Tut, tut, you must not use the phrase "global warming" any more, since it has been scientifically debunked.
You say "climate change" instead because nobody can deny that the climate DOES change .. especially in Britain.
You say "climate change" instead because nobody can deny that the climate DOES change .. especially in Britain.
For some reason, skeptics say that "global warming" has been renamed as "climate change", but it's just another of their myths. The terms are not synonymous - "global warming" is the best known consequence of CO2 increase, whereas "climate change" has wider scope, covering things like sea level rise (an inevitable consequence of global warming) and ocean acidification (another inevitable consequence of CO2 rise).
And about debunking... the science relating to CO2 and global warming is pretty much settled and has been for quite a while.
Original post by Pastaferian
For some reason, skeptics say that "global warming" has been renamed as "climate change", but it's just another of their myths. The terms are not synonymous - "global warming" is the best known consequence of CO2 increase, whereas "climate change" has wider scope, covering things like sea level rise (an inevitable consequence of global warming) and ocean acidification (another inevitable consequence of CO2 rise).
And about debunking... the science relating to CO2 and global warming is pretty much settled and has been for quite a while.
And about debunking... the science relating to CO2 and global warming is pretty much settled and has been for quite a while.
I prefer to use "climate change" as "global warming" implies everywhere's getting warmer in the globe when the UK is getting colder.
The fact is CO2 makes up something like 0.002% of atmospheric gases. Even if we are contributing to global CO2 (and I'm pretty sure it exists anyway) we're responsible for a tiny fraction of the gases that make up the atmosphere. Global warming isn't a hoax, but it's been widely used by a group of left-leaning ideologues to scare the population into submission while big business and bit government enrich themselves off the proceeds, case in point being David Cameron's father in law who earns £1000 per day from the wind-turbines sited on his land. Nice work of you can get it!
Original post by Pastaferian
For some reason, skeptics say that "global warming" has been renamed as "climate change", but it's just another of their myths. The terms are not synonymous - "global warming" is the best known consequence of CO2 increase, whereas "climate change" has wider scope, covering things like sea level rise (an inevitable consequence of global warming) and ocean acidification (another inevitable consequence of CO2 rise).
And about debunking... the science relating to CO2 and global warming is pretty much settled and has been for quite a while.
And about debunking... the science relating to CO2 and global warming is pretty much settled and has been for quite a while.
"The science has been settled"
Has it?
About 10 years a journalist who also believed 'the science had been settled' wrote an article in a well known newspaper claiming that by 2012 snow would be non-existent in Britain thanks to global warming. Suffice to say he was proved horribly wrong late last year.
It's quite amusing to see these predictions fall one by one as reality collides with the climate modelling that took place in the late 1990's.
Thank God we didn't waste £bns taking these guys seriously, eh?
Original post by David_Cook
"The science has been settled"
Has it?
About 10 years a journalist who also believed 'the science had been settled' wrote an article in a well known newspaper claiming that by 2012 snow would be non-existent in Britain thanks to global warming. Suffice to say he was proved horribly wrong late last year.
It's quite amusing to see these predictions fall one by one as reality collides with the climate modelling that took place in the late 1990's.
Thank God we didn't waste £bns taking these guys seriously, eh?
Has it?
About 10 years a journalist who also believed 'the science had been settled' wrote an article in a well known newspaper claiming that by 2012 snow would be non-existent in Britain thanks to global warming. Suffice to say he was proved horribly wrong late last year.
It's quite amusing to see these predictions fall one by one as reality collides with the climate modelling that took place in the late 1990's.
Thank God we didn't waste £bns taking these guys seriously, eh?
Note that this person is a journalist, not a scientist.
May you provide a link to the article this journalist wrote?
Quick Reply
Latest
Last reply 1 minute ago
Accenture Degree Apprenticeship 2024Last reply 3 minutes ago
The Official King's College London Applicants for 2024 Entry ThreadLast reply 6 minutes ago
Official University of Edinburgh Applicant Thread for 2024Last reply 7 minutes ago
HSBC Degree Apprenticeship 2024Last reply 9 minutes ago
Official London School of Economics and Political Science 2024 Applicant ThreadLast reply 12 minutes ago
Turner and Townsend Degree Apprenticeships 2024Trending
Last reply 7 hours ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 9 hours ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 12 hours ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 1 week 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 4 weeks ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 7 hours ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 9 hours ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 12 hours ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 1 week 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 4 weeks ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
