What Can I Give My Dog For Tooth Pain?
Animals & Nature1 min ago
Arguments Against Climate Change Science
Back in 2011 the skeptics claimed the sea level was falling. They are not as keen to discuss it now.
http://
Some claim that the temperature hasn't risen since 1998. Of course they looked only at atmospheric temperature and abused the statistics by picking a severe El Nino year when heat comes out of the ocean into the atmosphere.
The upwards trend in atmospheric temperature is unmistakable.
http://
The ocean heat content is steadily rising.
http://
Have they got anything left to support their case?
http://
Some claim that the temperature hasn't risen since 1998. Of course they looked only at atmospheric temperature and abused the statistics by picking a severe El Nino year when heat comes out of the ocean into the atmosphere.
The upwards trend in atmospheric temperature is unmistakable.
http://
The ocean heat content is steadily rising.
http://
Have they got anything left to support their case?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by beso. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Yes, what to do about it is something of a separate issue. Again, sometimes I think the Green Lobby shoots itself in the foot by insisting on all sorts of contradictory measures; and indeed in the long term any savings made in the UK will be more than countered by growth in emissions from China and the developing world.
The Science is, by definition, never done, so yes I'd agree with you on that. I suppose the difference here if there is one is that we can argue that the basic idea (that we're *** everything up) has been done and therefore we should work to stop *** things up as much regardless of doubt over the consequences.
Returning to the Green Lobby, I don't even know what they want. Local power plants, I think, small-scale projects -- but then you can't run industries on the odd tiny turbine in a small woodland stream, so it's a non-starter. And then they rally against coal/ oil/ gas (rightly), but also against wind turbines sometimes (ugly and noisy, and perhaps even not much use?) and Nuclear power (dangerous? Not really, IMO), and tidal power, and HEP, and so on...
Every reasonable solution can get slammed by one section of the Green Lobby or another, leaving very little left apart from, presumably, returning to some sort of cave lifestyle. Which is clearly unreasonable.
As a first point of call we should work to invest in the next generation of Nuclear Power stations, which in this country at least will be safe from just about anything -- safer than Coal stations, in fact. Then let's just hope that Fusion gets off the ground...
The Science is, by definition, never done, so yes I'd agree with you on that. I suppose the difference here if there is one is that we can argue that the basic idea (that we're *** everything up) has been done and therefore we should work to stop *** things up as much regardless of doubt over the consequences.
Returning to the Green Lobby, I don't even know what they want. Local power plants, I think, small-scale projects -- but then you can't run industries on the odd tiny turbine in a small woodland stream, so it's a non-starter. And then they rally against coal/ oil/ gas (rightly), but also against wind turbines sometimes (ugly and noisy, and perhaps even not much use?) and Nuclear power (dangerous? Not really, IMO), and tidal power, and HEP, and so on...
Every reasonable solution can get slammed by one section of the Green Lobby or another, leaving very little left apart from, presumably, returning to some sort of cave lifestyle. Which is clearly unreasonable.
As a first point of call we should work to invest in the next generation of Nuclear Power stations, which in this country at least will be safe from just about anything -- safer than Coal stations, in fact. Then let's just hope that Fusion gets off the ground...
ToraToraTora
//Mankind has control of 4% of the Carbon the rest is in the LCC, the oceans are the biggest emitter of carbon. //
Jim exlained this.
//Volcanoes are constantly errupting. The last Icelandic one wiped out all Human efforts for at least a decade, not too mention "son of krakatoa" that has been errupting since the nineteenth century.//
This is a persistent myth. In fact the human emissions are in the order of 100 times the output of all volcanoes.
Few people fully appreciate the size of our immense fire, the biggest fire earth has known since the Chixilub impact. We are burning about two cubic miles of coal per year, even more oil along with countless piles of vegetation as vast tracts of forests are destroyed.
Those who claim that the effect of humans is trivial really have no idea.
//Mankind has control of 4% of the Carbon the rest is in the LCC, the oceans are the biggest emitter of carbon. //
Jim exlained this.
//Volcanoes are constantly errupting. The last Icelandic one wiped out all Human efforts for at least a decade, not too mention "son of krakatoa" that has been errupting since the nineteenth century.//
This is a persistent myth. In fact the human emissions are in the order of 100 times the output of all volcanoes.
Few people fully appreciate the size of our immense fire, the biggest fire earth has known since the Chixilub impact. We are burning about two cubic miles of coal per year, even more oil along with countless piles of vegetation as vast tracts of forests are destroyed.
Those who claim that the effect of humans is trivial really have no idea.
New Judge As I have said before, I have lived through many alarmist scares, all of which were forecast by "experts" to wipe out half or more of the human race. Every one of them was supported by the sort of evidence presented here. Every one of them has turned out to be alarmist claptrap. //
Please name these "many alarmist scares"
Please name these "many alarmist scares"
Deskdiary
//As I am ignorant of the science I feel in a reasonably strong position to cast an objective vote based on the arguments of each side,//
No. It puts you in a position of having no idea how to work out the facts.
// and I find Slapshot's to be more compelling than beso. //
That adjudication is the clear evidence that you have no idea. You have accepted Slapshot's reference to Roy Spencer who has declared that "God wouldn't do it".
Leaving this aside, Spencer's model (yes skeptics use models too) has been shown to be incredibly simplistic.
Here is a summary of the worst anomalies in his model.
http://
Unfortunately most of you will have no idea what the reviewer is talking about.
This is the problem. Most people have no idea of the science. Many are easily persuaded that it is all a scam because, like DeskDiary, that is what they would rather believe.
Politician respond to such whims. In Australia we have the most inept manever to hold the position of Prime Minister getting elected by the clueless who have fallen for the fossil fuels company propaganda and systematically demolishing every sustainable energy scheme he can find.
//As I am ignorant of the science I feel in a reasonably strong position to cast an objective vote based on the arguments of each side,//
No. It puts you in a position of having no idea how to work out the facts.
// and I find Slapshot's to be more compelling than beso. //
That adjudication is the clear evidence that you have no idea. You have accepted Slapshot's reference to Roy Spencer who has declared that "God wouldn't do it".
Leaving this aside, Spencer's model (yes skeptics use models too) has been shown to be incredibly simplistic.
Here is a summary of the worst anomalies in his model.
http://
Unfortunately most of you will have no idea what the reviewer is talking about.
This is the problem. Most people have no idea of the science. Many are easily persuaded that it is all a scam because, like DeskDiary, that is what they would rather believe.
Politician respond to such whims. In Australia we have the most inept manever to hold the position of Prime Minister getting elected by the clueless who have fallen for the fossil fuels company propaganda and systematically demolishing every sustainable energy scheme he can find.
New Judge
//"The science is done" attitude which prevails (and this questioner is a prime example of this arrogance). The science very clearly isn't done.//
The science is done. There will always be a small number who continue to oppose and they would like you to believe there is still room for vacillation. Many of them are paid by fossil fuel companies.
In EVERY case their analysis has been easily shown to faulty. How much longer are you going to pretend?
What bar do you set for the science to be "done"?
//"The science is done" attitude which prevails (and this questioner is a prime example of this arrogance). The science very clearly isn't done.//
The science is done. There will always be a small number who continue to oppose and they would like you to believe there is still room for vacillation. Many of them are paid by fossil fuel companies.
In EVERY case their analysis has been easily shown to faulty. How much longer are you going to pretend?
What bar do you set for the science to be "done"?
ToraToraTora
//well one of them ["Green Lobby"] was advocating cutting down trees and shipping them half way round the world and burning them in wood fired power stations the other day!
So you classify them as green do you? You will find the vast majority of the "Green" are appalled by this suggestion. But you lump them in with Green when they really belong in the fossil fuel camp. Fossil fuel advocates probably wind up and point these people.
Moreover this is not about green politics but about science. The scientists are telling us that we are heading into deep sheit.
//well one of them ["Green Lobby"] was advocating cutting down trees and shipping them half way round the world and burning them in wood fired power stations the other day!
So you classify them as green do you? You will find the vast majority of the "Green" are appalled by this suggestion. But you lump them in with Green when they really belong in the fossil fuel camp. Fossil fuel advocates probably wind up and point these people.
Moreover this is not about green politics but about science. The scientists are telling us that we are heading into deep sheit.
I'm guessing you've never read "How to Win Friends and Influence People"?
-- While granted Science isn't won by the persuasiveness of the arguer but by the facts and the evidence presented, I'm not sure that being so rude about that helps anyone. It's obviously frustrating if people say "I have no idea about the science but X is a better speaker so I'm going with him" -- but then the response should be to present your arguments better, and hope that eventually people will see that the evidence supports your position rather than the other guy's.
-- "The science is done"... perhaps this depends a bit on what Science we're talking about. Like I've said the basic idea is pretty much established beyond any reasonable doubt, but while there is a general trend in models it's also true that there is a long way to go before we understand how the Climate works. From a purely scientific viewpoint even if after all the planet can cope with this battering, we'll have pushed back the boundaries of computing and modelling massively, so that there's a lot to gain from Climate Science regardless of the outcome. But that implies that we don't have perfect modelling yet, or a perfect understanding of what will happen. Scientists should be more open about this, and rather than use definitive language such as "the planet will warm up by 2 degrees by 2050" (or whatever, why not emphasise the conditional nature of it? I don't think enough people believe the models anyway, so there's not much to lose by being a little more honest that there's a lot we still don't know about how things will look in 100 years' time -- but, rather like we should emphasise elsewhere, the *risks* of significant change to the world's climate and weather systems are greatly increased because of recent human activity.
The problem in this case in particular is that Science has got too entangled with Politics. The resulting mess is even harder to sort through, if anything, that the Climate Science in question. But those calling for change, while have far greater evidentiary support on their side, seem to lack that persuasiveness needed. I'm not sure this thread has done anything to change that picture.
-- While granted Science isn't won by the persuasiveness of the arguer but by the facts and the evidence presented, I'm not sure that being so rude about that helps anyone. It's obviously frustrating if people say "I have no idea about the science but X is a better speaker so I'm going with him" -- but then the response should be to present your arguments better, and hope that eventually people will see that the evidence supports your position rather than the other guy's.
-- "The science is done"... perhaps this depends a bit on what Science we're talking about. Like I've said the basic idea is pretty much established beyond any reasonable doubt, but while there is a general trend in models it's also true that there is a long way to go before we understand how the Climate works. From a purely scientific viewpoint even if after all the planet can cope with this battering, we'll have pushed back the boundaries of computing and modelling massively, so that there's a lot to gain from Climate Science regardless of the outcome. But that implies that we don't have perfect modelling yet, or a perfect understanding of what will happen. Scientists should be more open about this, and rather than use definitive language such as "the planet will warm up by 2 degrees by 2050" (or whatever, why not emphasise the conditional nature of it? I don't think enough people believe the models anyway, so there's not much to lose by being a little more honest that there's a lot we still don't know about how things will look in 100 years' time -- but, rather like we should emphasise elsewhere, the *risks* of significant change to the world's climate and weather systems are greatly increased because of recent human activity.
The problem in this case in particular is that Science has got too entangled with Politics. The resulting mess is even harder to sort through, if anything, that the Climate Science in question. But those calling for change, while have far greater evidentiary support on their side, seem to lack that persuasiveness needed. I'm not sure this thread has done anything to change that picture.
Good question. There are better and clearer ways to present it, anyway. There are, or ought to be, more powerful arguments for change. There should be a bit more openness about what is known, and what isn't yet, and the occasional data-hiding scandal is just unhelpful (even though it doesn't really affect the case objectively, it's clearly a massive distraction). And so on.
'Human activities emit roughly 135 times as much climate-warming carbon dioxide as volcanoes each year.
Volcanoes emit less than cars and trucks, and less, even, than cement production.
Despite statements made by climate change deniers, volcanoes release a tiny fraction of the amount of carbon dioxide emitted by human activities every year.
In fact, humans release roughly 135 times more carbon dioxide annually than volcanoes do, on average, according a new analysis. Put another way, humans emit in under three days the amount that volcanoes typically release in a year, according to the best estimates of volcanic emissions.'
http://
Volcanoes emit less than cars and trucks, and less, even, than cement production.
Despite statements made by climate change deniers, volcanoes release a tiny fraction of the amount of carbon dioxide emitted by human activities every year.
In fact, humans release roughly 135 times more carbon dioxide annually than volcanoes do, on average, according a new analysis. Put another way, humans emit in under three days the amount that volcanoes typically release in a year, according to the best estimates of volcanic emissions.'
http://
Isn't it simply a fact that climate change is the price we have to pay for industrialisation, and the modern standard of living it brings?
We are never going to give that up and go back to a pre 1750s existence, even if it were possible. Furthermore, even if we did, it's doubtful it would change anything. Furthermore, the Chinese have only really just got started on that process, got a taste of the wealth and way of life it brings, and aren't going to do a damn thing to change course.
My point is that as soon as Arkwright invented the spinning Jenny (or whatever it was), the environment was screwed, so instead of trying to stop the tanker hitting the rocks by re-arranging the deckchairs, we should be thinking more about how we're going to survive the collision.
We are never going to give that up and go back to a pre 1750s existence, even if it were possible. Furthermore, even if we did, it's doubtful it would change anything. Furthermore, the Chinese have only really just got started on that process, got a taste of the wealth and way of life it brings, and aren't going to do a damn thing to change course.
My point is that as soon as Arkwright invented the spinning Jenny (or whatever it was), the environment was screwed, so instead of trying to stop the tanker hitting the rocks by re-arranging the deckchairs, we should be thinking more about how we're going to survive the collision.
//we should be thinking more about how we're going to survive the collision//
We ain't! how could we? why should we? Any creature fouling its own nest perishes. Regarding complaints about low-energy light bulbs; many people on this planet don't even have electricity. Isaac newton worked by candle light, as did Beethoven and everyone else more than a century ago and didn't feel restricted by it.
We ain't! how could we? why should we? Any creature fouling its own nest perishes. Regarding complaints about low-energy light bulbs; many people on this planet don't even have electricity. Isaac newton worked by candle light, as did Beethoven and everyone else more than a century ago and didn't feel restricted by it.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.