View Full Version : Global Warming Alarmism.
Mystical Potato Head
06-Aug-11, 22:43
I'm not a scientist so wouldnt dare to interperate these latest NASA satelite findings which have been peer reviewed apparently.Its been doing the rounds on the astro forums
causing some very interesting comments and debates.Why they would come up with the seemingly ludicrous suggestion, that the earth is releasing far more heat into the atmosphere(something which i know nothing about,apparently)than the current climate change computer models are suggesting/predicting,or are made to "believe",totally bucking the current mainstream thinking on global warming.
http://news.yahoo.com/nasa-data-blow-gaping-hold-global-warming-alarmism-192334971.html
What was the question again?
Whilst I don't doubt the NASA data, nor its potential implications, the obvious bias of the article leads me to believe that it has not been produced to the same standards as any peer reviews.
The use of the word "alarmist" 13 times in 9 paragraphs (not including the word "alarmism" in the title) leaves me in no doubt of the authors 'leanings' on the subject. I wonder if his "Environment & Climate News" publication is held in much regard by unbiased professionals?
Metalattakk
07-Aug-11, 04:26
theone,
The article links to the original publication.
Read that, rather than the rather biased reporting of it.
theone,
The article links to the original publication.
Thanks MA, I did click the link but not being a climate change expert I'm afraid a lot of it went over my head.
What I did get out of it, particularly from the statement:
It is concluded that atmospheric feedback diagnosis of the climate system remains an unsolved problem, due primarily to the inability to distinguish between radiative forcing and radiative feedback in satellite radiative budget observations.
is that the models are incomplete due to insufficient data. I don't think it means an end to global warming.
Having done a bit of modelling in my time (not just airfix) I'm sure that's to be expected. Any model is only as good as the data available to form it.
Unfortunately the link in the article to the Authors "Environment & Climate News" does not work. The link to the "institute" he is a fellow of does work, and gives its mission as:
to discover, develop, and promote free-market solutions to social and economic problems. Such solutions include parental choice in education, choice and personal responsibility in health care, market-based approaches to environmental protection, privatization of public services, and deregulation in areas where property rights and markets do a better job than government bureaucracies.
Call me a sceptic, but it seems to me that Mr Taylors goals are a lot more political than scientific. Unfortunately, many will read that article and take out of it only what he intended.
I'm sure a couple of pseudo-climate scientists will be along shortly..
I'm not one :D but, it is obvious to anyone that can observe that Ice is receeding everywhere in the world.
If this is not due to higher overall temperature then what?
Mystical Potato Head
07-Aug-11, 09:11
I'm not one :D but, it is obvious to anyone that can observe that Ice is receeding everywhere in the world.
If this is not due to higher overall temperature then what?
It didnt state the ice wasnt receeding,it questioned the rate at which the heat was escaping into the atmoshpere,implying that the earth wont warm up as quickly as
computer models predict.
I'm not one :D but, it is obvious to anyone that can observe that Ice is receeding everywhere in the world.
If this is not due to higher overall temperature then what?Of course you're not duke, you're just like me; a bog-standard man in the street, with an interest...
Interesting article but I would also like to see the repost.
I would also like to see it written in terms that are understandable by the lay man and not littered with words that are created just to over emphasise that particular view.
Just a thought bekisman, if the climate is warming at the rates science is telling us, how much longer will you have a bog with or without a standard?
(Takes tongue out of cheek.)
Interesting article but I would also like to see the repost.
I would also like to see it written in terms that are understandable by the lay man and not littered with words that are created just to over emphasise that particular view.
Just a thought bekisman, if the climate is warming at the rates science is telling us, how much longer will you have a bog with or without a standard?
(Takes tongue out of cheek.)Well, if this marsh I'm standing in right now with me flag, continues to evaporate I expect I'll be fossilized - but my grandkids tell me I'm that already..;)
The real climate scientists have ripped it up for bottom paper.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/07/misdiagnosis-of-surface-temperature-feedback/
Makes interesting reading (is that real climate scientists or climate realists?):eek:
http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=3661
Climate surrealists get ripped up for bottom paper by real climate scientists.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/07/more-bubkes/
Metalattakk
07-Aug-11, 21:33
Climate surrealists get ripped up for bottom paper by real climate scientists.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/07/more-bubkes/
LOL! Does calling themselves 'real' climate scientists add some sort of credence to their work?
Does your reference of them as 'real' climate scientists validate them as always, omnisciently, correct in your mind?
And pray tell, when one knows that you have a vested financial interest in promoting Anthropogenic Global Warming (as do the whole of realclimate.org and almost all of their lick-spittle sycophants who leave little love-notes in their comments sections) as an undeniable fact, what makes you think we'll blindly believe anything you (or they) have to say on the matter?
Neil Howie
07-Aug-11, 23:47
The author belongs to the Heartland Institute, described at exxonsecrets Facsheet (http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=41) as
The Heartland Institute created a website in the Spring of 2007, www.globalwarmingheartland.org, which asserts there is no scientific consensus on global warming and features a list of experts and a list of like-minded think tanks, many of whom have received funding from ExxonMobil and other polluters.
The Heartland Institute formerly sponsored and hosted www.climatesearch.org, a web page ostensibly dedicated to objective research on global warming, but at the same time presenting heavily biased research by organizations such as the American Petroleum Institute as an FAQ section.
But then their biased too! Trust nothing!
Metalattakk
08-Aug-11, 01:03
Trust nothing!
. . . and question everything.
LOL! Does calling themselves 'real' climate scientists add some sort of credence to their work?
Does your reference of them as 'real' climate scientists validate them as always, omnisciently, correct in your mind?
And pray tell, when one knows that you have a vested financial interest in promoting Anthropogenic Global Warming (as do the whole of realclimate.org and almost all of their lick-spittle sycophants who leave little love-notes in their comments sections) as an undeniable fact, what makes you think we'll blindly believe anything you (or they) have to say on the matter?
They are real climatologists, they are the ones who are out there taking measurements, recording data etc etc and whose findings get verified by other real scientists, the Heartland Institute cherry pick data that others have recorded and skew any anomolies into propaganda that gets instant publicity which people blindly believe what they want and cannot find to verify their work who is actually a real climate scientist.
Metalattakk
08-Aug-11, 18:18
They are real climatologists, they are the ones who are out there taking measurements, recording data etc etc and whose findings get verified by other real scientists, the Heartland Institute cherry pick data that others have recorded and skew any anomolies into propaganda that gets instant publicity which people blindly believe what they want and cannot find to verify their work who is actually a real climate scientist.
Maybe think about editing that as it makes little sense. Maybe I don't have a scientific enough mind to comprehend badly written and poorly constructed sentences.
My point still stands: They all, and even you, have a vested interest in promoting AGW, and they are certainly not above cherry-picking findings for maximum publicity.
It makes little sense because you want it to make little sense, a similar effect happens when evidence which supports AGW warming is presented to you.
oldmarine
08-Aug-11, 23:38
It would appear that the world is going through a climate change, but I personally believe climate changes are cyclic aand are repeated during the course of history.
Metalattakk
09-Aug-11, 02:57
It makes little sense because you want it to make little sense, a similar effect happens when evidence which supports AGW warming is presented to you.
No, it makes little sense because it's constructed and written very, very badly. For a so called "scientist", did you not pay any attention during English classes at school?
I'd be perfectly happy to accept evidence of Anthropogenic Global Warming, if it were ever presented to me by someone without a vested interest in its promotion. Only then will I consider it, and make my judgement of it.
Until then, your propagandist statements of self-interest are worthless to me.
Metalattakk
09-Aug-11, 03:09
It would appear that the world is going through a climate change, but I personally believe climate changes are cyclic aand are repeated during the course of history.
Yep, I 100% agree. Sh*t happens, and we deal with it. We, as a species, have dealt with it before, and we'll deal with it again.
The unscrupulous will try to profit from it all, of course.
Yep, I 100% agree. Sh*t happens, and we deal with it. We, as a species, have dealt with it before, and we'll deal with it again.
The unscrupulous will try to profit from it all, of course.
I don't get your argument. Are you saying that pumping greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere for 100 years has had no effect and that the climate change we are seeing is a coincidence?
I don't get your argument. Are you saying that pumping greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere for 100 years has had no effect and that the climate change we are seeing is a coincidence?
Fair enough, but I would be a lot happier about the scientists who claim that humans are causing Global Warming if they present one piece of evidence to prove without doubt that we are doing so. So far they haven't. I am not sure that we are causing Global Warming..
Metalattakk
09-Aug-11, 10:45
I don't get your argument. Are you saying that pumping greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere for 100 years has had no effect and that the climate change we are seeing is a coincidence?
I would say in the grand scheme of things, the consequences of 'pumping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere for 100 years' are minimal.
The earth warms up, then it cools down, then it warms up again. It's done it plenty in the past, and on a shorter time-scale than it is currently doing so.
But, I'm no expert of course. If I were, I'd be looking to profit from it.
Until then, your propagandist statements of self-interest are worthless to me.
Why is it self interest?
Metalattakk
09-Aug-11, 11:55
Why is it self interest?
So you're now denying that you have a vested interest in the subject?
So you're now denying that you have a vested interest in the subject?
We all should have a self interest in this subject given that it is the biggest global disaster but I'm asking you why you think I have a self interest in promoting green issues.
Metalattakk
09-Aug-11, 12:35
We all should have a self interest in this subject given that it is the biggest global disaster but I'm asking you why you think I have a self interest in promoting green issues.
Why did you edit your post to make it more evocative than it needs to be? Baffling behaviour. :confused:
To answer your original, unedited question: ""Environmental consultant for Local Government"", as posted on (then subsequently removed from) your own profile page here on caithness.org. Or are you saying that that makes you an unbiased neutral on the issue? :roll:
I am all for 'green issues', I don't want to destroy the planet any more than anyone else. But I simply will not buy into the propaganda that you are so keen to promote. Like bekisman, I want proof - not just circumstantial evidence.
Why did you edit your post to make it more evocative than it needs to be? Baffling behaviour. :confused:
I didn't make it more evocative, I had an 'interest' where I put 'subject'
To answer your original, unedited question: ""Environmental consultant for Local Government"", as posted on (then subsequently removed from) your own profile page here on caithness.org. Or are you saying that that makes you an unbiased neutral on the issue? :roll:
Understandable thing I suppose but I'm not in reality. I put "Environmental consultant for Local Government" as a tongue in cheek gesture after reading the exact phrasing from a local councillor after I posted the exact phrase and line of argument in a thread on Caithness.org. I thought it perhaps just goes to show somebody is reading and understanding my posts. haha.
I am all for 'green issues', I don't want to destroy the planet any more than anyone else. But I simply will not buy into the propaganda that you are so keen to promote. Like bekisman, I want proof - not just circumstantial evidence.
On the same token, you must have to reject any propaganda from groups which have links to fossil fuel companies thus having a self interest of a different kind?
But all the evidence is there for you, rising sea levels, ice melting, increasing carbon dioxide levels, more extreme weather events, the photo-chemical effect of greenhouse gases which is demonstrable in laboratory conditions, 0.2C increases per decade by thermometer and the fact that last year was the hottest year yet the sun was at its calmest in decades must cut some ice even with the most sceptical of sceptics?
Metalattakk
09-Aug-11, 13:18
On the same token, you must have to reject any propaganda from groups which have links to fossil fuel companies thus having a self interest of a different kind?
Absolutely. It's nearly getting to the point now that I've no idea who's lying to me and why.
But all the evidence is there for you, rising sea levels, ice melting, increasing carbon dioxide levels, more extreme weather events, the photo-chemical effect of greenhouse gases which is demonstrable in laboratory conditions, 0.2C increases per decade by thermometer and the fact that last year was the hottest year yet the sun was at its calmest in decades must cut some ice even with the most sceptical of sceptics?
All of it circumstantial evidence. Definitive, undeniable proof, please.
All of it circumstantial evidence. Definitive, undeniable proof, please.
We can't afford the luxury of definitive proof, I think if we had to wait to gather the level of proof that you require then that is a recipe for inaction on tackling global warming. A doubling of CO2 is estimated to raise global temperatures by ~3C, we shouldn't wait to see if that is true before we do anything about it as it will be too late by then. I think that could happen by the end of this century, easily within the lifetimes of our children.
Metalattakk
09-Aug-11, 14:04
We can't afford the luxury of definitive proof
On the contrary, it is essential to enable the correct decisions to be made.
I think if we had to wait to gather the level of proof that you require then that is a recipe for inaction on tackling global warming. A doubling of CO2 is estimated to raise global temperatures by ~3C, we shouldn't wait to see if that is true before we do anything about it as it will be too late by then. I think that could happen by the end of this century, easily within the lifetimes of our children.
Is that more thinly-veiled alarmism from you Rheggy?
See, it's stuff like that that gets up my nose. No wonder you (and they) can't get me to believe in it.
Is that more thinly-veiled alarmism from you Rheggy?
See, it's stuff like that that gets up my nose. No wonder you (and they) can't get me to believe in it.
No it is just basic chemistry and physics as described by Svante Arrhenius in the 19th century and Callender before the advent of Big Oil companies.
Nobody was alarmed by it back then, but I agree it is alarming...
Whoops!
Silly me, sorry chaps to intervene on your discussions, but better point out I unfortunately put this: 'Fair enough, but I would be a lot happier about the scientists who claim that humans are causing Global Warming if they present one piece of evidence to prove without doubt that we are doing so. So far they haven't. I am not sure that we are causing Global Warming..'
My mistake.. I have so much data in drafts that I inadvertently posted Rhegheads post of a few years back.. so it's not mine (cringe in embarrassment) - sorry about that.. but it does look like 'someone' has changed their mind - wonder if us mere mortals are allowed to have differing points of view, without being belittled for our lack of climate science? :confused
Metalattakk
09-Aug-11, 14:41
No it is just basic chemistry and physics as described by Svante Arrhenius in the 19th century and Callender before the advent of Big Oil companies.
Nice one. Now we've thrown in the 'Big Oil companies' into the mix too, plus some references to obscure scientists (that most people know or care little about) from long ago.
Nice argument you're building. I'm still not swayed though. What else can you come up with? Maybe some puppies drowning because of the rising sea levels?
Nobody was alarmed by it back then, but I agree it is alarming...
Is it as alarming as the effect of oh, say, Nuclear Power stations on the environment?
Is it as alarming as the effect of oh, say, Nuclear Power stations on the environment?
It would be self interest for me to advocate nuclear power so I will not.
John Little
09-Aug-11, 16:51
But the implication there would be that you are 'green' on some issues but not on others???
But the implication there would be that you are 'green' on some issues but not on others???
I'm not concentrating on what individuals are doing, but rather focussing upon a long term strategy for the world to wean itself off fossil fuels. If we go around doing the blame game then we could be in serious risk of not acting on reducing our carbon footprint through sheer cynicism.
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.