ChatterBank0 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.
And that is going to solve global warming - get real, the issue is industrial limitation and truly dirty countries like China, Korea, India, Indonesia and even Brazil, the latter also responsible for deforestation as well as the likes of certain African countries.
Take global warming off the table and tackle resource reduction and things follow on from that, warming or not.
Global warming and cooling has always gone on.....read geological works for that, especially on the Quarternary. For the layman, books like Danziger's 1215 will raise some interesting questions......such as why the average temp in the UK was over 3C higher than today with all the consequential effects on agriculture, industry and society.
Take global warming off the table and tackle resource reduction and things follow on from that, warming or not.
Global warming and cooling has always gone on.....read geological works for that, especially on the Quarternary. For the layman, books like Danziger's 1215 will raise some interesting questions......such as why the average temp in the UK was over 3C higher than today with all the consequential effects on agriculture, industry and society.
DTCwordfan //
Does there have to be [a mechanism that depletes Ozone]? Just be cause we don't know the plausibility doesn't mean that there is[n't] one.....Someone needs to study philosophy and logic before pontificating for nigh on 12 hours on here
When depletion of ozone is measured and the science demonstrates that chlorofluorocarbons break down ozone it is up to the deniers to present evidence that it is not caused by the fluorocarbons.
Same with climate change. Science shows that increasing CO2 in the atmosphere cause the Earth to retain more heat. CO2 is measured as increasing at a rate consistent with the combustion activities. The radiometric profile of the CO2 shows that the increase is mostly from ancient carbon. The temperature of the planet is observed to be increasing.
All this evidence is consistent. If the CO2 in the claimate models is reduced to preindustrial levels then the temperature of the planet does not rise.
If you want to claim otherwise you need to show a mechanism to explain the observations. It is not enough to say there could be some other reason without naming it.
Does there have to be [a mechanism that depletes Ozone]? Just be cause we don't know the plausibility doesn't mean that there is[n't] one.....Someone needs to study philosophy and logic before pontificating for nigh on 12 hours on here
When depletion of ozone is measured and the science demonstrates that chlorofluorocarbons break down ozone it is up to the deniers to present evidence that it is not caused by the fluorocarbons.
Same with climate change. Science shows that increasing CO2 in the atmosphere cause the Earth to retain more heat. CO2 is measured as increasing at a rate consistent with the combustion activities. The radiometric profile of the CO2 shows that the increase is mostly from ancient carbon. The temperature of the planet is observed to be increasing.
All this evidence is consistent. If the CO2 in the claimate models is reduced to preindustrial levels then the temperature of the planet does not rise.
If you want to claim otherwise you need to show a mechanism to explain the observations. It is not enough to say there could be some other reason without naming it.
DTCwordfan //And that is going to solve global warming - get real, the issue is industrial limitation and truly dirty countries like China, Korea, India, Indonesia and even Brazil, the latter also responsible for deforestation as well as the likes of certain African countries. //
No. Per capita, the developed world is currently producing far more carbon dioxide than the people of those countries. Moreover the historical emission from the developed world vastly exceed those of the developing world. We have more than done our share of pollution and it is up to us to be doing something about it.
Besides developing countries are investing more in sustainable energy than fossil fuels. China is a world leader.
It is such hypocrisy for the developed world to point the finger at Brazil over deforestation. The developed world already destroyed its forests long ago.
No. Per capita, the developed world is currently producing far more carbon dioxide than the people of those countries. Moreover the historical emission from the developed world vastly exceed those of the developing world. We have more than done our share of pollution and it is up to us to be doing something about it.
Besides developing countries are investing more in sustainable energy than fossil fuels. China is a world leader.
It is such hypocrisy for the developed world to point the finger at Brazil over deforestation. The developed world already destroyed its forests long ago.
No, the evidence is on your arguments to initiate change - without corruption of the data and going back to your OP scribing, don't try and pull the white saint with over here. All I say is look at the corruption of data in the U of East Anglia that has seriously undermined the climate change position and validity.
I take the position of take the subject off the table - it originated as a political movement over here, beso, to counter Scargill - I should know as I was part of the think-tank, chaired by Chris Patten. The issue is about conservation of the earth's resources with the benefits that flow on from that about lower emissions all around and quality of water/air/forests and all the rest. It is also science led too, partly in response to legislation,e.g. with the US lead on NOx which has pushed additive technology to innovative practices and surprising as the EU has a far, far higher mix of middle distillate consumption in its cut of the barrel. That has had a benefit on urban environments and is one part of the ozone equation as particulates have been considerably reduced alongside.
I take the position of take the subject off the table - it originated as a political movement over here, beso, to counter Scargill - I should know as I was part of the think-tank, chaired by Chris Patten. The issue is about conservation of the earth's resources with the benefits that flow on from that about lower emissions all around and quality of water/air/forests and all the rest. It is also science led too, partly in response to legislation,e.g. with the US lead on NOx which has pushed additive technology to innovative practices and surprising as the EU has a far, far higher mix of middle distillate consumption in its cut of the barrel. That has had a benefit on urban environments and is one part of the ozone equation as particulates have been considerably reduced alongside.
You risk bordering on being rabid, sir, and not a good advert for logical and reasoned debate, and therefore part of the problem in building a credible position for resource limitation action.
Such people as yourself exist on both sides of the debate and manipulate statistics as, say, politicians do with the economy. End of argument in my book as, at heart, I am a determinist, a geographical philosophical position that basically extols that the environment controls man's actions and not the other way around, which in terms of significant events in the history is fact.
Such people as yourself exist on both sides of the debate and manipulate statistics as, say, politicians do with the economy. End of argument in my book as, at heart, I am a determinist, a geographical philosophical position that basically extols that the environment controls man's actions and not the other way around, which in terms of significant events in the history is fact.
DTCwordfan
//End of argument in my book as, at heart, I am a determinist, a geographical philosophical position that basically extols that the environment controls man's actions and not the other way around, which in terms of significant events in the history is fact.//
DTCwordfan's departing post expresses their religious viewpoint.
//End of argument in my book as, at heart, I am a determinist, a geographical philosophical position that basically extols that the environment controls man's actions and not the other way around, which in terms of significant events in the history is fact.//
DTCwordfan's departing post expresses their religious viewpoint.
I don't see that geographical determinism really works. At the very least it ought to be obvious that we have some influence over the environment. We shape it, we create things that have never existed and will never exist in nature. We do these things on a massive scale. We have had measurable impacts in all sorts of ways. Some concept that nothing humans do matters to the planet is bizarre. Of course it will notice eventually if we pump it full of crap that had stayed locked away for hundreds of millions of years. Of course it will notice if we invent totally new chemicals that turn out to have severely destructive effects. Of course it will notice if we wipe out species and destroy entire ecosystems. And so on.
You should have a look at answer number 10 to this question DTC (23:02 last Thursday). You will note that I had gone through all this with beso before and I suggested that the rabidity that you referred to would not be at all surprising. He has an extraordinary attitude to this matter an absolutely refuses to accept that others may have a different viewpoint to his. He is absolutely convinced that he is right (and he may well be, who knows?).
Resistance is useless and the penalty for such heresy is to burn in hell (or more probably here on planet earth).
Resistance is useless and the penalty for such heresy is to burn in hell (or more probably here on planet earth).
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.