Global Warming is a hoax? Watch

Pastaferian
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#101
Report 5 years ago
#101
(Original post by David_Cook)
I don't believe he was guilty of hyperbole, I believe he's guilty of allowing this particular brand of group-think to cloud his judgement to the point where he seriously thought that in a few short years snow would be a dim and distant memory. This isn't some anonymous internet blogger we're talking about: it's Dr David Viner from the supposedly world renowned Climate Research Unit. If he can make such dreadful predictions with all the access to The Science he has what makes you think that you, or anybody else for that matter is in a position to predict what the climate is going to be like in 10 or 20 years from now?
Vinter, not Viner. To paraphrase your final sentence, if you cannot even get the name right, what makes you think that you, or anybody else for that matter is in a position to give a worthwhile opinion on the subject?

As I helpfully informed you before CO2 IS a trace gas that forms ~ 0.04% of the atmosphere, i.e it's hardly present. These claims about the global warming bogeyman are nothing but scare stories designed to empty our bank accounts with Green levies and eco-taxes.
And as I helpfully explained, that argument is easily dismissed - read back a page or so.

Perhaps you'll post a new myth next time? There is little point is posting the same myths over and over again.
0
reply
David_Cook
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#102
Report 5 years ago
#102
(Original post by betaglucowhat)
What I do know is that when you were asked for evidence for a trend of climate researchers (particularly those from the CRU) predominantly publishing now-falsified predictions in scientific journals, you replied with "this isn't and has never been about the science". I'm glad that one of you has finally admitted it.
What I know is that despite all this global warming and Dr David Viner's predictions last December we experienced a record amount of snowfall.



Even if they weren't deliberately misleading the public they've still proven themselves to be hopelessly inept when it comes to predicting climate trends, they've effectively discredited themselves by talking a lot of hot air. Who can take a climate researcher seriously when his predictions turn out to 100% inaccurate? Lol.
0
reply
David_Cook
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#103
Report 5 years ago
#103
(Original post by Pastaferian)
Vinter, not Viner. To paraphrase your final sentence, if you cannot even get the name right, what makes you think that you, or anybody else for that matter is in a position to give a worthwhile opinion on the subject?


And as I helpfully explained, that argument is easily dismissed - read back a page or so.

Perhaps you'll post a new myth next time? There is little point is posting the same myths over and over again.
No, it's Viner not Vinter. Look him up.
0
reply
natninja
  • Careers Forum Helper
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#104
Report 5 years ago
#104
(Original post by Yawn11)
Always amazes me that to this day with the number of non-bias studies available that people still genuinely believe in this whole facade. While hypocrites like Al Gore that perpetuated this nonsense is laughing on his private jet with no concern for his carbon footprint, only concerned about taxing yours.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying Global Warming isn't true, just saying i think it's bull.

What do you think, and why? Discuss.

Peace and love in the middle east.
While it isn't bull, it isn't even as close to as severe as certain people would like us to believe...
0
reply
danny111
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#105
Report 5 years ago
#105
Anyone who thinks we do not have an impact of global geology is an idiot. Just look at data on forests around the world and then consider the role of trees.

What I might agree with is a debate on what this means, i.e. does it really 100% imply bad effects?
0
reply
hamijack
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#106
Report 5 years ago
#106
I think this image sums up my thoughts on people who deny global warming.

0
reply
tory88
  • Study Helper
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#107
Report 5 years ago
#107
The climate is undoubtedly changing, and it's almost certainly anthropogenic. I disagree with the green lobby on how best to deal with this, however.
0
reply
Architecture-er
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#108
Report 5 years ago
#108
(Original post by David_Cook)
What I know is that despite all this global warming and Dr David Viner's predictions last December we experienced a record amount of snowfall.



Even if they weren't deliberately misleading the public they've still proven themselves to be hopelessly inept when it comes to predicting climate trends, they've effectively discredited themselves by talking a lot of hot air. Who can take a climate researcher seriously when his predictions turn out to 100% inaccurate? Lol.
Global warming is largely accepted as a redundant term now, climate change is better.
Initially it was thought that wrapping the world in a blanket would make it warmer, but actually it's influenced weather systems such that we're getting different air flows which has brought colder weather to northern climes (though probably only temporarily)

It's not an offense to admit that you've taken factual data and drawn incorrect conclusions from it, the fact still remains that our activities are having a significant impact on our planet's weather systems.
0
reply
David_Cook
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#109
Report 5 years ago
#109
(Original post by hamijack)
I think this image sums up my thoughts on people who deny global warming.


Environmentalism isn't creating a better world though. It drives up energy prices with Green levies, it actively harms domestic energy security by incentivising wind farm production at the expense of conventional oil, gas and nuclear and it kills off real jobs before offshoring them to places like India and China.
0
reply
David_Cook
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#110
Report 5 years ago
#110
(Original post by Architecture-er)
Global warming is largely accepted as a redundant term now, climate change is better.
Initially it was thought that wrapping the world in a blanket would make it warmer, but actually it's influenced weather systems such that we're getting different air flows which has brought colder weather to northern climes (though probably only temporarily)

It's not an offense to admit that you've taken factual data and drawn incorrect conclusions from it, the fact still remains that our activities are having a significant impact on our planet's weather systems.
We havn't wrapped ourselves up in a blanket, as I pointed out earlier CO2 makes up roughly 0.04% of the atmosphere i.e it barely registers on the scale of atmospheric gases so I don't quite know what all the fuss is about. It's not an offense to admit you didn't know that CO2 is only a trace gas btw
0
reply
Kaiser MacCleg
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#111
Report 5 years ago
#111
(Original post by Architecture-er)
Global warming is largely accepted as a redundant term now, climate change is better.
Global warming isn't a redundant term, it just doesn't mean the same thing as climate change. The meaning of "global warming" is very specific: the term refers to the increase in global average (surface) temperatures seen since the middle of the nineteenth century. Climate change means just that: any change to the climate system, of which surface temperatures are just one aspect.
0
reply
Architecture-er
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#112
Report 5 years ago
#112
(Original post by David_Cook)
We havn't wrapped ourselves up in a blanket, as I pointed out earlier CO2 makes up roughly 0.04% of the atmosphere i.e it barely registers on the scale of atmospheric gases so I don't quite know what all the fuss is about. It's not an offense to admit you didn't know that CO2 is only a trace gas btw
Hmm, you don't know your science I'm afraid

Normally our atmosphere composition allows for light to radiate in, and then lower- wavelength heat energy to radiate out. This emitted radiation occupies a very specific band of the energy spectrum. Unfortunately CO2 and methane reflect a very specific band of the energy spectrum which almost identically correlates with the wavelengths of radiant energy. So whilst the gases make up a small proportion of our atmospheric composition, it actually has a significant impact on the heat retained, which would otherwise radiate out into space.

We had a great lecture from a man called Doug King, who's one of the leading figures of the UK's sustainable construction industry - he likened it to dropping a few drops of ink in a big beaker of water. It's only a small amount, but because the ink is very effective at absorbing visible light it turns the water completely opaque
1
reply
username521617
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#113
Report 5 years ago
#113
(Original post by David_Cook)
We havn't wrapped ourselves up in a blanket, as I pointed out earlier CO2 makes up roughly 0.04% of the atmosphere i.e it barely registers on the scale of atmospheric gases so I don't quite know what all the fuss is about. It's not an offense to admit you didn't know that CO2 is only a trace gas btw
And a glass of water laced with trace amounts of cyanide isn't much of a worry either, I suppose?

CO2 is at very small concentration compared to other gasses, yes, but it plays a very important role in our atmosphere. Ozone, for example, is present in an even smaller concentration in the atmosphere (two orders of magnitude lower, in fact) but it is fundamentally important for the survival of life on this planet.

Note that without the greenhouse effect (of which CO2 is a key contributor), the planet would be so cold it would be near uninhabitable.Overall, CO2 is on its own responsible for about 15-20% of the greenhouse effect. Water vapour accounts for about 75-80%, but the concentration of CO2 will control the amount of water vapour in the air as evaporation and humidity are temperature dependant. For a trace gas, it really is that influential.
0
reply
Pastaferian
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#114
Report 5 years ago
#114
(Original post by David_Cook)
What I know is that despite all this global warming and Dr David Viner's predictions last December we experienced a record amount of snowfall.
Even if they weren't deliberately misleading the public they've still proven themselves to be hopelessly inept when it comes to predicting climate trends, they've effectively discredited themselves by talking a lot of hot air. Who can take a climate researcher seriously when his predictions turn out to 100% inaccurate? Lol.
"Last December"? You're confusing weather and climate, and cherry-picking data - common mistakes that no scientist would make. You also copied a graph without checking whether it supported your claim (hint: check your geography next time).

Climate scientists are not interested in the weather in a given month - they study long-term trends. The scientific approach is to compare a metric (eg, the number of days that snow is lying on the ground) with an average taken over the past N years (climate scientists have traditionally used N=30). You can use this tool...
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate/...aries/anomacts
You'll find that 2013 and 2010 have positive snow anomalies (ie, more snow than the average for a 30-year reference period), and 2012, 2011, 2008, 2007, 2006, 2005, 2004, 2003, 2002 and 2001 have negative anomalies (less snow than the average for the reference period). I could nitpick about features of the MetOffice tool, but I think you get the idea.

Any more myths you want to talk about?
0
reply
David_Cook
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#115
Report 5 years ago
#115
(Original post by Architecture-er)
Hmm, you don't know your science I'm afraid

Normally our atmosphere composition allows for light to radiate in, and then lower- wavelength heat energy to radiate out. This emitted radiation occupies a very specific band of the energy spectrum. Unfortunately CO2 and methane reflect a very specific band of the energy spectrum which almost identically correlates with the wavelengths of radiant energy. So whilst the gases make up a small proportion of our atmospheric composition, it actually has a significant impact on the heat retained, which would otherwise radiate out into space.

We had a great lecture from a man called Doug King, who's one of the leading figures of the UK's sustainable construction industry - he likened it to dropping a few drops of ink in a big beaker of water. It's only a small amount, but because the ink is very effective at absorbing visible light it turns the water completely opaque
I don't know my science, eh? That sounds like a personal insult to me.

Your description of the Greenhouse effect is incorrect anyway. The earth's atmosphere allows the sun's shortwave radiant energy to pass through it and it's re-emitted as longer length radiation after it's warmed the earth's surface. This radiation is then absorbed by the greenhouse gases that are essential for our survival.

What amatuer climatologists hardly ever mention is that the 'greenhouse effect' is a entirely natural phenomenon that has allowed the earth to flourish with life while other planets are desolate wastelands by comparison. Greenhouse gases are nothing to be scared of.


0
reply
David_Cook
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#116
Report 5 years ago
#116
(Original post by Pastaferian)
"Last December"? You're confusing weather and climate, and cherry-picking data - common mistakes that no scientist would make. You also copied a graph without checking whether it supported your claim (hint: check your geography next time).

Climate scientists are not interested in the weather in a given month - they study long-term trends. The scientific approach is to compare a metric (eg, the number of days that snow is lying on the ground) with an average taken over the past N years (climate scientists have traditionally used N=30). You can use this tool...
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate/...aries/anomacts
You'll find that 2013 and 2010 have positive snow anomalies (ie, more snow than the average for a 30-year reference period), and 2012, 2011, 2008, 2007, 2006, 2005, 2004, 2003, 2002 and 2001 have negative anomalies (less snow than the average for the reference period). I could nitpick about features of the MetOffice tool, but I think you get the idea.

Any more myths you want to talk about?
"To paraphrase your final sentence, if you cannot even get the name right, what makes you think that you, or anybody else for that matter is in a position to give a worthwhile opinion on the subject?"
0
reply
Pastaferian
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#117
Report 5 years ago
#117
(Original post by David_Cook)
"To paraphrase your final sentence, if you cannot even get the name right, what makes you think that you, or anybody else for that matter is in a position to give a worthwhile opinion on the subject?"
Touche. But do you have an actual response to the science?
0
reply
David_Cook
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#118
Report 5 years ago
#118
(Original post by Pastaferian)
Touche. But do you have an actual response to the science?
If you believe The Science proves we're able to increase annual snowfall by substituting gas fired power stations with windfarms then imo you've lost touch with reality.
0
reply
Architecture-er
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#119
Report 5 years ago
#119
(Original post by David_Cook)
I don't know my science, eh? That sounds like a personal insult to me.

Your description of the Greenhouse effect is incorrect anyway. The earth's atmosphere allows the sun's shortwave radiant energy to pass through it and it's re-emitted as longer length radiation after it's warmed the earth's surface. This radiation is then absorbed by the greenhouse gases that are essential for our survival.

What amatuer climatologists hardly ever mention is that the 'greenhouse effect' is a entirely natural phenomenon that has allowed the earth to flourish with life while other planets are desolate wastelands by comparison. Greenhouse gases are nothing to be scared of.


Well since you were inferring that low ratios of greenhouse gases meant that they were inconsequential, my saying that you didn't know your science was correct, if you want to be insulted by that then that's your issue, not mine

You've just described the greenhouse effect in exactly the same way I did :confused: - though my emphasis was on how there's a reduction in the amount of energy that escapes, whereas you're talking about the gases absorbing more.

Everyone accepts that greenhouse gases make our planet habitable.. that's the entire principle of theoretical terraforming. The issue is that these gas balances are actually very fragile, and small changes can create large swings in climate, despite their relatively trace quantities. Plus there's the whole issue of self-propelling climate change, where the climate runs the risk of being pushed into an imbalance which can only recover as natural processes later react to compensate a drastically different climate.
0
reply
Pastaferian
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#120
Report 5 years ago
#120
(Original post by David_Cook)
If you believe The Science proves we're able to increase annual snowfall by substituting gas fired power stations with windfarms then imo you've lost touch with reality.
Huh? Again, do you have a response to the science? For example, I would be interested to see your proof that traces (0.04%) of CO2 don't cause warming. There is probably a Nobel Prize in it for you if you succeed.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

How did your AQA A-level Business Paper 1 go?

Loved the paper - Feeling positive (200)
22.57%
The paper was reasonable (402)
45.37%
Not feeling great about that exam... (165)
18.62%
It was TERRIBLE (119)
13.43%

Watched Threads

View All