I Wonder Why This Number Is Rising So...
Politics0 min ago
Global Warming and Climate Change
54 Answers
According to NASA scientists in Maryland, the polar ice caps, far from shrinking, are actually increasing in size this year.
Some facts to prove the Global Warming myth is just another stealth tax increase tactic.
To the north of Canada, ice now covers two million square kilometres more than it did the past three winters and is between 10mm and 20mm thicker than last year.
In the Alps, they've just had their best snowfall for 20 years.
Climate Change?? regarding our own snowy Easter, I remember a rhyme we were taught at school that went like this, "March winds doth blow, and we shall have snow."
Some facts to prove the Global Warming myth is just another stealth tax increase tactic.
To the north of Canada, ice now covers two million square kilometres more than it did the past three winters and is between 10mm and 20mm thicker than last year.
In the Alps, they've just had their best snowfall for 20 years.
Climate Change?? regarding our own snowy Easter, I remember a rhyme we were taught at school that went like this, "March winds doth blow, and we shall have snow."
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by anotheoldgit. 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.
Whilst I can not understand the technical parts that support the argument for the impact of human behaviour on the climate, it seems to important to not just dismiss it on the grounds that this scaremongering has been made up by a group of demented scientists or tax revenue gathering politicians.
Even if there was a small group of mad scientists, how come they have enduring credibility and haven't been proved totally wrong by now? Also has there been a conspiracy of politicians across the world who have said well lets come up with new stealth tax!!!! ( with the exception of USA and China and we now why those two powers don't want to look at making changes to their vast wealth generating processes)
It seems that this denial is like any denial, which is a psychological process that allows people to avoid taking responsibility and making uncomfortable changes. Its far easier to pretend its not happening.
Bye the way can Waldo be awarded loads of stars because he enables such a complex subject be comprehendable.
Even if there was a small group of mad scientists, how come they have enduring credibility and haven't been proved totally wrong by now? Also has there been a conspiracy of politicians across the world who have said well lets come up with new stealth tax!!!! ( with the exception of USA and China and we now why those two powers don't want to look at making changes to their vast wealth generating processes)
It seems that this denial is like any denial, which is a psychological process that allows people to avoid taking responsibility and making uncomfortable changes. Its far easier to pretend its not happening.
Bye the way can Waldo be awarded loads of stars because he enables such a complex subject be comprehendable.
Ruby - read about Eugenics - the intervention of human heridatory traits.
This was agreed in the 1920s as mankinds biggest threat. Rockefeller Foundation, the Kellogg Foundation, the Carnegie Institution of Washington, and the Harriman family all backed the research.
Prominent people such as Alexander Graham Bell, George Bernard Shaw, HG Wells and even presidents such as Wilson all thought that this was a threat to mankind.
Some countries (America Canada, Sweden, Japan and more) even passed legislation to sterilise individuals.
In the 1930s, a gentleman called Hitler started experimentation and tried to make the German race 'pure'.
Now the theory is pretty much debunked and most agree that it is not a big threat.
Read more here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics
Ring any bells?
Just because famous people or scientists say something is true, does not make it so.
This was agreed in the 1920s as mankinds biggest threat. Rockefeller Foundation, the Kellogg Foundation, the Carnegie Institution of Washington, and the Harriman family all backed the research.
Prominent people such as Alexander Graham Bell, George Bernard Shaw, HG Wells and even presidents such as Wilson all thought that this was a threat to mankind.
Some countries (America Canada, Sweden, Japan and more) even passed legislation to sterilise individuals.
In the 1930s, a gentleman called Hitler started experimentation and tried to make the German race 'pure'.
Now the theory is pretty much debunked and most agree that it is not a big threat.
Read more here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics
Ring any bells?
Just because famous people or scientists say something is true, does not make it so.
Just because famous people or scientists say something is true, does not make it so.
Absolutely right. That's what evidence is needed for.
Even if it turns out to be wrong, the fact will still remain that the only credible explanation as of March 2008 of what is happening, based on the interpretation of the vast quantities of testible data from independant sources, is incontrovertibly that mankind's activities are causing global warming.
All other hypothesis are at this time incorrect and not supported by the data.
Are you going to believe on the basis of data or on the basis of what you hope is true?
I don't like the idea of global warming. I don't like the idea of being more responsible. I don't like the idea of vast swathes of humanity dying as pressure on resources grows as climate change renders environments uninhabitable. I'd be as happy as you to think it was all rubbish, but the evidence says otherwise.
Absolutely right. That's what evidence is needed for.
Even if it turns out to be wrong, the fact will still remain that the only credible explanation as of March 2008 of what is happening, based on the interpretation of the vast quantities of testible data from independant sources, is incontrovertibly that mankind's activities are causing global warming.
All other hypothesis are at this time incorrect and not supported by the data.
Are you going to believe on the basis of data or on the basis of what you hope is true?
I don't like the idea of global warming. I don't like the idea of being more responsible. I don't like the idea of vast swathes of humanity dying as pressure on resources grows as climate change renders environments uninhabitable. I'd be as happy as you to think it was all rubbish, but the evidence says otherwise.
"it seems to important to not just dismiss it on the grounds that this scaremongering has been made up by a group of demented scientists or tax revenue gathering politicians"
Mmmm Scientists predicted the following would end up pandemics
SARS
Bird Flu
and the mother of all money making scams
The Millenium Bug
Ok the latter was IT specialists but a hell of a lot of money was wasted on it cos the public were led to beleive that it was an impending disaster.
It is common knowledge that a lot of scientists will not get grants unless their studies include theories on global warming and those who dare disagree with the common concensus are in fear of being mocked and denied future funding.
Mmmm Scientists predicted the following would end up pandemics
SARS
Bird Flu
and the mother of all money making scams
The Millenium Bug
Ok the latter was IT specialists but a hell of a lot of money was wasted on it cos the public were led to beleive that it was an impending disaster.
It is common knowledge that a lot of scientists will not get grants unless their studies include theories on global warming and those who dare disagree with the common concensus are in fear of being mocked and denied future funding.
"Ok the latter was IT specialists but a hell of a lot of money was wasted on it cos the public were led to beleive that it was an impending disaster."
Um, not a case that a lot of money was spent on it, therefore as a consequence there was no a disaster, then?
It wasn't as if some IT specialists just claimed that there might be a problem, without bothering to see if one existed.
Extensive tests were done and computer systems did fail until the date issues were corrected. Yes, there was a lot of overcharging and exploitation, and yes there were a lot of systems where it wouldn't have mattered, but to claim or imply there was no issue because nothing happened is silly and illogical.
As for SARS, there was a near pandemic in 2003 with nearly 10,000 deaths. Intervention by authorities prevented it going full blown, so again, the fact that it was flagged and action was taken meant the potential disaster was averted, not the fact that there wasn't an issue.
With bird flu, scientists flagged up that if the bird virus combined with a human virus after cross infection, it could lead to a pandemic. Could not 'definitely will'. As a result, extensive monitoring has been put in place and vaccine stocks built up. There is still potential for a pandemic, but due to the intervention of scientists, we stand the best possible chance of beating it if it happens. Maybe it won't.
I think you've possibly confused 'scientists' with 'lazy and sensationalist journalists'.
Um, not a case that a lot of money was spent on it, therefore as a consequence there was no a disaster, then?
It wasn't as if some IT specialists just claimed that there might be a problem, without bothering to see if one existed.
Extensive tests were done and computer systems did fail until the date issues were corrected. Yes, there was a lot of overcharging and exploitation, and yes there were a lot of systems where it wouldn't have mattered, but to claim or imply there was no issue because nothing happened is silly and illogical.
As for SARS, there was a near pandemic in 2003 with nearly 10,000 deaths. Intervention by authorities prevented it going full blown, so again, the fact that it was flagged and action was taken meant the potential disaster was averted, not the fact that there wasn't an issue.
With bird flu, scientists flagged up that if the bird virus combined with a human virus after cross infection, it could lead to a pandemic. Could not 'definitely will'. As a result, extensive monitoring has been put in place and vaccine stocks built up. There is still potential for a pandemic, but due to the intervention of scientists, we stand the best possible chance of beating it if it happens. Maybe it won't.
I think you've possibly confused 'scientists' with 'lazy and sensationalist journalists'.
Waldo - the first paragraph of the summary of the surface temperature reconstructions states:
"Because widespread, reliable instrumental records are available only for the last 150 years or so, scientists estimate climatic conditions in the more distant past by analyzing proxy evidence from sources such as tree rings, corals, ocean and lake sediments, cave deposits, ice cores, boreholes, glaciers, and documentary evidence. For example, records of Alpine glacier length, some of which are derived from paintings and other documentary sources, have been used to reconstruct the time series of surface temperature variations in south-central Europe for the last several centuries. Studying past climates can help us put the 20th century warming into a broader context, better understand the climate system, and improve projections of future climate."
Firstly - do you think that records taken 150 years ago were accurate. Personally I don't think so.
In the next sentence, they are comparing a painting of a picture (from over 150 years ago) and comparing this to the known size of the glacier today. And this is counted as proxy evidence
In the surface temperature reconstructions, they go from a -1.0 degree to a +0.4 degree in the last 1100 years (but of course they deliberately do not have a graph going from -1 to +1 - they have a graph going from -1.2 to +0.6 - which gives a very deceptive look to it.
"Because widespread, reliable instrumental records are available only for the last 150 years or so, scientists estimate climatic conditions in the more distant past by analyzing proxy evidence from sources such as tree rings, corals, ocean and lake sediments, cave deposits, ice cores, boreholes, glaciers, and documentary evidence. For example, records of Alpine glacier length, some of which are derived from paintings and other documentary sources, have been used to reconstruct the time series of surface temperature variations in south-central Europe for the last several centuries. Studying past climates can help us put the 20th century warming into a broader context, better understand the climate system, and improve projections of future climate."
Firstly - do you think that records taken 150 years ago were accurate. Personally I don't think so.
In the next sentence, they are comparing a painting of a picture (from over 150 years ago) and comparing this to the known size of the glacier today. And this is counted as proxy evidence
In the surface temperature reconstructions, they go from a -1.0 degree to a +0.4 degree in the last 1100 years (but of course they deliberately do not have a graph going from -1 to +1 - they have a graph going from -1.2 to +0.6 - which gives a very deceptive look to it.
Now lets look at page 3 of the summary:
Less confidence can be placed in large-scale surface temperature reconstructions for the period from A.D. 900 to 1600. Presently available proxy evidence indicates that temperatures at many, but not all, individual locations were higher during the past 25 years than during any period of comparable length since A.D. 900. The uncertainties associated with reconstructing hemispheric mean or global mean temperatures from these data increase substantially backward in time through this period and are not yet fully quantified.
Very little confidence can be assigned to statements concerning the hemispheric mean or global mean surface temperature prior to about A.D. 900 because of sparse data coverage and because the uncertainties associated with proxy data and the methods used to analyze and combine them are larger than during more recent time periods.
hmm- seems your assertion earlier (20:19 last night): "The levels of carbon isotopes trapped in things like ice and tree trunks and corals is not controvertial and can be cross referenced against each other and tell us a great deal about temperatures and general conditions." may not be as simple as you make out.
Less confidence can be placed in large-scale surface temperature reconstructions for the period from A.D. 900 to 1600. Presently available proxy evidence indicates that temperatures at many, but not all, individual locations were higher during the past 25 years than during any period of comparable length since A.D. 900. The uncertainties associated with reconstructing hemispheric mean or global mean temperatures from these data increase substantially backward in time through this period and are not yet fully quantified.
Very little confidence can be assigned to statements concerning the hemispheric mean or global mean surface temperature prior to about A.D. 900 because of sparse data coverage and because the uncertainties associated with proxy data and the methods used to analyze and combine them are larger than during more recent time periods.
hmm- seems your assertion earlier (20:19 last night): "The levels of carbon isotopes trapped in things like ice and tree trunks and corals is not controvertial and can be cross referenced against each other and tell us a great deal about temperatures and general conditions." may not be as simple as you make out.
And from page 4 of the summary:
Not all individual proxy records indicate that the recent warmth is unprecedented, although a larger fraction of geographically diverse sites experienced exceptional warmth during the late 20th century than during any other extended period from A.D. 900 onward - so let me get this straight. Some evidence shows that it is unprecedented - and some shows it is not.
Sounds to me like this is not a clear case.
Sadly, many many people (yourself included I suspect) - state that this is am incontrovertible truth.
Not all individual proxy records indicate that the recent warmth is unprecedented, although a larger fraction of geographically diverse sites experienced exceptional warmth during the late 20th century than during any other extended period from A.D. 900 onward - so let me get this straight. Some evidence shows that it is unprecedented - and some shows it is not.
Sounds to me like this is not a clear case.
Sadly, many many people (yourself included I suspect) - state that this is am incontrovertible truth.
That document addresses your specific point about long term climate modelling. It's not the only, or even best, source of data to prove that anthropogenic climate change is a fact.
If you're going to selectively quote from the document, you can make it say pretty much what you want! The quote immediately before your last one from page 4 reads:
The basic conclusion of Mann et al. (1998, 1999) was that the late 20th century warmth in the Northern Hemisphere was unprecedented during at least the last 1,000 years. This conclusion has subsequently been supported by an array of evidence that includes both additional large-scale surface temperature reconstructions and pronounced changes in a variety of local proxy indicators, such as melting on ice caps and the retreat of glaciers around the world, which in many cases appear to be unprecedented during at least the last 2,000 years. (My bold)
Your quote then follows on from this and actually shows the scientists are being transparent by admitting where there are issues with the data set and being methodologically rigorous. Even a four page overview needs to be considered as a whole, Vic!
Some of those other proxy data sources - paintings of glaciers - are clearly less accurate, but the point is that multiple independant sources when considered together (of greater and lesser accuracy all point to the same conclusion). If your contention was correct, we would not see this.
If you're going to selectively quote from the document, you can make it say pretty much what you want! The quote immediately before your last one from page 4 reads:
The basic conclusion of Mann et al. (1998, 1999) was that the late 20th century warmth in the Northern Hemisphere was unprecedented during at least the last 1,000 years. This conclusion has subsequently been supported by an array of evidence that includes both additional large-scale surface temperature reconstructions and pronounced changes in a variety of local proxy indicators, such as melting on ice caps and the retreat of glaciers around the world, which in many cases appear to be unprecedented during at least the last 2,000 years. (My bold)
Your quote then follows on from this and actually shows the scientists are being transparent by admitting where there are issues with the data set and being methodologically rigorous. Even a four page overview needs to be considered as a whole, Vic!
Some of those other proxy data sources - paintings of glaciers - are clearly less accurate, but the point is that multiple independant sources when considered together (of greater and lesser accuracy all point to the same conclusion). If your contention was correct, we would not see this.
Waldo even your quote from above uses the term "appear to be unprecedented "
Not " is unprecedented".
This is not an art critic who says well I like it - it is a scientific community who generally deal with facts.
As I said - we are spending billions of pounds (trillions if you consider the whole world) on a possibility, maybe, apparently, should be, call it what you will, while there are factually many people dying due to starvation, disease, war etc.
Not " is unprecedented".
This is not an art critic who says well I like it - it is a scientific community who generally deal with facts.
As I said - we are spending billions of pounds (trillions if you consider the whole world) on a possibility, maybe, apparently, should be, call it what you will, while there are factually many people dying due to starvation, disease, war etc.
Oneeyedvic
I think your reference to eugenics on how mad/bad science can be is a good point.
But, that particular theory was only supporting a very dominant discourse that already had wide currency, that some people were lesser due to race disability etc. It certainly was a theory that served the dominant and powerful. I don't think global warming fulfils the same function as a method of bolstering inequality and injustice.
Also that was a time when theories couldn't be so widely accessed and easily critiqued. Scientific knowledge was less accessible and more elitist, so there was less ability to rigourously critique theories.
Mind you given most published research is peer reviewed, the critiquing may not be that independent after all.
I think your reference to eugenics on how mad/bad science can be is a good point.
But, that particular theory was only supporting a very dominant discourse that already had wide currency, that some people were lesser due to race disability etc. It certainly was a theory that served the dominant and powerful. I don't think global warming fulfils the same function as a method of bolstering inequality and injustice.
Also that was a time when theories couldn't be so widely accessed and easily critiqued. Scientific knowledge was less accessible and more elitist, so there was less ability to rigourously critique theories.
Mind you given most published research is peer reviewed, the critiquing may not be that independent after all.
Waldo even your quote from above uses the term "appear to be unprecedented "
Not " is unprecedented".
That's just semantics. Either models are our best interpretation of the evidence (which is what they are) or they're exact replicas of reality (which they're not and no one has ever suggested they are).
What do you think 'appears to be' means if not 'to the best of our ability to tell, this is what the available evidence tells us'?
Not " is unprecedented".
That's just semantics. Either models are our best interpretation of the evidence (which is what they are) or they're exact replicas of reality (which they're not and no one has ever suggested they are).
What do you think 'appears to be' means if not 'to the best of our ability to tell, this is what the available evidence tells us'?
Walso - You could say that "beyond all reasonable doubt" and "on the balance of probability" is just semantics.
Would you be happy to have them consider the same?
ruby - with regards domination of the class system, they are already making life more difficult for low income families to be able to travel in cars. Soon it will be difficult for them to travel abroad due to fuel surcharges. Raising taxes always does serve the purpose of bolstering inequality and injustice.
Regarding modern day research, we are trying to predict what will happen to the climate in 100 years - do you think that we can accurately predict what science will do in the next 100 years?
Do you think 100 years ago they could predict what is currently happening? Could they have predicted nuclear power, cars, aeroplanes etc?
Would you be happy to have them consider the same?
ruby - with regards domination of the class system, they are already making life more difficult for low income families to be able to travel in cars. Soon it will be difficult for them to travel abroad due to fuel surcharges. Raising taxes always does serve the purpose of bolstering inequality and injustice.
Regarding modern day research, we are trying to predict what will happen to the climate in 100 years - do you think that we can accurately predict what science will do in the next 100 years?
Do you think 100 years ago they could predict what is currently happening? Could they have predicted nuclear power, cars, aeroplanes etc?
Latest Posts
Crosswords2 mins ago
ChatterBank3 mins ago
Jobs & Education4 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles14 mins ago
