1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Global Warming - The New Fear?

Discussion in 'Speaker's Corner' started by mauron, 10 Apr 2007.

  1. WIBSBOT

    Hitman

    Joined: 26 Sep 2003

    Posts: 834

    Location: essex

    Why is it unreasonable to know the source of the data ? Why can it not be published so that we can all see it ?
    I am disingenious to climate science because so far it has NOT been proved that climate science is advanced enough to predict future events. It is a fairly young science that all of a sudden has the power to predict GLOBAL temperature rises of a point of a degree over a decade ?????

    You just have to look at other sciences, like Volcanology or Seismologyetc.. All of these sciences state that they cannot predict eruptions, earthquakes etc at the moment. Yet climatologists can predict something infinitely more complex from a couple of hundred temperature readings (*most* of which are highly inaccurate PROXY readings)
    I can only conclude that people who 'believe' in global warming have absolutely no knowledge of science and the limitations of it.

    Please don't overblow the significance of shoddy, incomplete temperature data compiled by a two or three people, and then attach worldwide economic policies to it. Please don't allow the fact that something has been 'peer-reviewed' to mean it has been accepted as fact especially when the vast majority of these scientists won't have seen the raw data.

    The whole thing is a house of cards waiting to be knocked down....
     
  2. cosmogenesis

    Mobster

    Joined: 15 Mar 2007

    Posts: 3,120

    How do you know that the Proxy data is inaccurate ? The scientific paradigm uses peer review to allow for independent analsysis by multiple groups of the data sets. Science is not a shame like politics can be etc, it is a good method of picking up errors and bad work.

    Volcanology and seismology are very different sciences in the predictive sense as the essential working of the earth are very complex and difficult to find the patterns required to make accurate predictions. Why did you use those sciences as oppossed to genetics or physics etc.

    Just another knocker aint ya with wild arguments.
     
  3. WIBSBOT

    Hitman

    Joined: 26 Sep 2003

    Posts: 834

    Location: essex

    I don't !!!! Only a handful of people know - Mann et al. That is the point I was making - I have to make the assumption that it is inaccurate otherwise why not publish the data ?

    They came to mind. Any science would have done. Why do you think the essential working of the earth is far harder to find patterns for than climate across a whole globe ? If anything the climate is infinitely more complex.
     
  4. cosmogenesis

    Mobster

    Joined: 15 Mar 2007

    Posts: 3,120

    Last edited: 22 Jun 2007
  5. v0n

    Sgarrista

    Joined: 18 Oct 2002

    Posts: 8,112

    Location: The Great Lines Of Defence

    You must be kidding me - memory lapses again - we discussed at least two such names already, you were pretending to know everything about their stance and were ready to knock their authority down, now all of sudden you don't remember them? Is there two of you typing your posts, if so, can we have the other one back? The wikipedia searching consogenesis. He would surely encounter this and this list while posting previous stuff.


    Existance of IPCC as a body depends on proving antropogenic climate change. Surely you can see, even through your bias, how it works - what do expect them to come up with - when was the last time you saw panel of specialists going "well, it's ocean's fault, really, completely normal thing, we can do jack es about it" instead of "we have 10 years or we'll peril! Throw money at it! Everyone throw money at it, quick!"? It doesn't happen. Ever.

    It's not v0n assertions - I didn't create it - climatologists did. Global cooling was rolled out to people as fact and sold to media as certainty of doom. Hurricanes, tornadoes, floods were blamed on it. Of course the scale was much smaller, but that was because noone had time to screw around with some doomsday bull back then - there was communism to fight, world was going AK47 crazy, people were being murdered in their dorms during Olypic games, miners were being shot at etc. James Hansen's work was used to prove effect of gases on climate back then just like they are used now. I posted you the source, why don't you go and read how it was presented back then.

    You still feel smarter than the rest of the world, don't you? You look around and you are surrounded by imbeciles that won't follow your way of thinking. There is just one truth and it's yours. Correct? Yeah.. fundamentalizm...

    Oh no, you didn't. "We have to work on general population"?? You as in.. who... surely you didn't just make a scientist that is forced to work on general public by definition out of your silly self?
     
    Last edited: 22 Jun 2007
  6. cosmogenesis

    Mobster

    Joined: 15 Mar 2007

    Posts: 3,120

    Lol, that link from wiipedia I have read and now I know that you are just trying to stir things with your contrarian views. That page lists all of the usual suspects that have been debunked many times by the climate science community.

    i do not need to say anymore, that wiki page is very good but the science in it is wrong and out of date just like the C4 program the TGGWS.
     
  7. v0n

    Sgarrista

    Joined: 18 Oct 2002

    Posts: 8,112

    Location: The Great Lines Of Defence

    Oh I see, the list of "usual suspects".. right.. let's call them.. "denialists" - they don't agree so they don't count - do they. That's ok, we are safe - the world will come to an end just as predicted.

    Dude, of course it's the list of "usual suspects" - what do you expect - a fresh list of names? You asked for peer reviewed names, so you got names that were around. Should we discount Mann and Hansen on the same basis - of being "usual suspects" and debunked propagandists? You know - it's "that dude who didn't want to part with data for the graph that will shape economical stability of the world in the next 50 years " and his " paranoid friend who thinks his employers, NASA, is trying to gag him by throwing more money into his research than on space exploration"? In simple terms - there are no names, no authorities and no researches you would accept. You are thereisnospooner, that's how you work. Any list of names, their PhDs, their research, opinions, books or whatever else simply do not count for you because they represent something you refuse to accept. Therefore they don't exist.

    For there is only one Truth. And it is yours. And as for the rest of us, the solution is simple - do not try to bend the spoon, that's impossible. Instead, only try to realize the truth. There is no spoon.
    :D
     
  8. mjs97

    Associate

    Joined: 5 Aug 2005

    Posts: 63

    Location: London, UK

    Interesting piece here: http://climatesci.colorado.edu/2007...in-trenberth-entitled-predictions-of-climate/

    For reference, Kevin Trenberth was one of the lead authors of the recent IPCC report. Among other things he states:

    So he admits, they're basically guessing.

    Among other things.

    This is a horribly flawed way of working. When you retain scientists and tell them the goal (in this case proving that mankind is significantly contributing to global warming) then you're going to get biased results - because the scientists who don't produce the results you want will not be retained.

    I do not think we have anywhere near enough information to adequately guess what changes (if any) we are making. What we need is money set aside for unbiased, independant research into this matter, and not knee-jerk legislation that will coincidentally stifle the growth of third world economy (leading to bigger profits for the first-world nations who polluted to their heart's content).

    Let's get some people looking at this who don't have a vested interest, and when they can accurately predict the future climate and weather patterns we can start to take them seriously.

    article found through: http://rantingstan.blogspot.com/2007/06/ipcc-lead-author-admits-models-are.html
     
  9. cosmogenesis

    Mobster

    Joined: 15 Mar 2007

    Posts: 3,120

    yer its really biased climate science :rolleyes:
     
  10. Glaucus

    Man of Honour

    Joined: 11 Mar 2004

    Posts: 76,643

    The IPCC certainly downplay, like the media they over hype it, this si why ever year, year in year out. They have had to change and reduce there predictions of the impact caused by co2. This si due to predictions consistently out weighing the data. As far as I know there prediction has outweighed actual figures every single year they have been going. This has lead to several downgrades of predictions. They Yet again downgraded there predictions this year.
     
  11. cosmogenesis

    Mobster

    Joined: 15 Mar 2007

    Posts: 3,120

    On the contrary Acidhell, things are more likely to be worse than stated by the IPCC, it is all a matter of probability and we have unti 2015 (400 ppm) for the most likely scenaarios for 2 degrees C. This is allegedly when +ve feedbacks kick in and almost certainly guarantee 3 degrees.
     
  12. Glaucus

    Man of Honour

    Joined: 11 Mar 2004

    Posts: 76,643

    every year so far there predictions have not been met by actual data taken, this has caused them to several times to reduce there predictions in there reports.

    If there short term forecasts are out, it makes it even more likely that there long term forecasts are way out.
     
  13. cosmogenesis

    Mobster

    Joined: 15 Mar 2007

    Posts: 3,120

    I disagree, the 20th century gave us 0.75 C rise and it is climbing by 0.2 C per decade as predicted by models and the science of Co2 warming.

    400 ppmv almost guarentees 2 C because Co2 hangs around by around 100 years in the atmosphere.
     
  14. clv101

    Capodecina

    Joined: 18 Oct 2002

    Posts: 10,796

    Location: Bristol

    This doesn't make sense... I thought one of the reasons why we should not address climate change we because it was going to wreck the economy? Why would our governments want to wreck our economy?

    Can't have it both ways - can't have action on climate change wrecking the economy and it being an artificial government construct. Government wants a strong economy.
     
  15. Glaucus

    Man of Honour

    Joined: 11 Mar 2004

    Posts: 76,643

    #

    you now that aint what i'm talking about.
    The most important data in any series is the recent data. Something the ICCP has failed to predict year in and year out, every single year since they have been established.

    This means there is errors, sorry not just errors but serious errors in there model. If they cant predict the near future with any accuracy any data that is extrapolated from it will have MASSIVE errors, simple statistics. That means if they can't predict close events any far off predictions will be out by massive error margins. Unless they've come up with something that negates this problem, this holds true with any statistics. If they have worked out how to correct this error margins, they would be trillionaires with every single bank, insurance companies and anything else related with maths begging for the equation.

    Right, ignoring the error in the current models, as you correctly stated its the PPM in the atmosphere which is the problem and not emmisions. How do you purpose we stabilise ppm?
    I've never seen any figures but I'm assuming to stabilise the PPM, you would need a cut off 90+% of human co2, with china bringing on hundreds of coal power stations and the decade needed to build a nuclear reactor, even if we gave the plans and paid for the build we wouldn't even stabilise the ppm in the next decade let alone start to lower them.

    So all we are achieving by bringing in any co2 reduction is de-stabilising are economy and supporting china and other emerging markets, putting us in a very unstable position in the future.
     
  16. Glaucus

    Man of Honour

    Joined: 11 Mar 2004

    Posts: 76,643

    Because they now they cannot reduce co2 levels., thus any tax they bring in is simply adding revenue whilst doing nothing to sort the problem out, thus not changing are economy.

    If they where worried about co2, they wouldn't increase tax on large capacity engines, but would increase fuel tax. as a 8litre engine doing two thousand miles is producing less co2 than a 1.1 litre engine doing fifteen thousand miles. So why add tax to road tax and not petrol?
    because it's revenue not saving the planet.
     
  17. cosmogenesis

    Mobster

    Joined: 15 Mar 2007

    Posts: 3,120

    Who said that resolving the issue of GW involved taxing everyone ? The solution if one exists that is may not simply imvolve taxation. You are being paranoid and irratioanal now.

    You do not know the ppm but you personally believe that cuts of 90% are in order. How do you know that ?
     
  18. Glaucus

    Man of Honour

    Joined: 11 Mar 2004

    Posts: 76,643

    I said that ppm is the cause of the problem and not emmisions, I speculated that 90% would be needed, but as I have not seen any figures I'm guessing, why aren't such figures available?

    no one said taxing is the solution apart from the Uk government which does nothing to solve the problem, hence we can deduce they don't want to solve the problem and there tax is to raise revenue and not lower co2.
     
  19. clv101

    Capodecina

    Joined: 18 Oct 2002

    Posts: 10,796

    Location: Bristol

    I agree increasing fuel tax would be better - however, any action Government does must be accepted by the public, if they tried to increase fuel significantly (+50p per litre, I mean something that would make people choose 70mpg cars over 40mpg ones) then the Government would have no chance at all of winning the next election. It's their job to use as much fiscal policy as they can to make us change our behaviour whilst at the same time not being voted out of office. Tax on engine size they can do - significant fuel tax increases they can't. Don't blame Government for inadequate response to climate change, blame V0n and the general public like him who would kick up a stink if Government did what needs to be done.

    Anyway - I should also add that I believe "demand side" responses in the oil market have no impact on climate change. They are a response to peak oil, not climate change.

    Urm - but it's the emissions that cause the ppm. :confused:
    I little more systemic thinking needed?
     
    Last edited: 23 Jun 2007
  20. Glaucus

    Man of Honour

    Joined: 11 Mar 2004

    Posts: 76,643


    your right, but saying we need to reduce emissions by 20% is a load of rubbish, unless you reduce v to what the Earth can absorb, then the co2 ppm will carry on rising. It's the ppm that is important, not the emissions. Of course there related, but there not the same.

    the earth produces most of the co2 and can absorb it. If the earth ids producing more co2 than it can absorb, ppm will increase even if we cut are emissions to zero. (not saying that's the case). But you have to realise it's the PPM that is the problem and unless you plan to stabilise or reduce that, no cut in emissions is going to change anything.
     
    Last edited: 23 Jun 2007