jenglish
Marquis de Carabas
That sort of depends on what you consider credible. I'm not saying it is a 100% consensus, but a vast majority interpret the data as pointing to a considerable contribution of man in climate change.
This was an eye opener - cont.
- Thread starter stugray
- Start date
- Status
That sort of depends on what you consider credible. I'm not saying it is a 100% consensus, but a vast majority interpret the data as pointing to a considerable contribution of man in climate change.
ReefBuddha
Member
If you MUST have a conspiracy it would be more pragmatic to channel that paranoia towards the statistical probability....the odds are its in the oil sector... And yes, there's probably much more money to be made by denying climate change and increasing production/industry/energy consumption as usual. Seems like a no-brainer.
this grows tiresome though... good luck with the conspiracy theory.
this grows tiresome though... good luck with the conspiracy theory.
Dingo44
New member
Yes it does, but not all of that data has been interpreted to mean the drastic consequences the IPCC is putting forth. They usually go overboard with there predictions.
Dingo44
New member
Here's one example of the IPCC's deception posted on page 3 of this thread.
Until you look at the other data....
MMGW, climate change, whatever. There is no, NOTHING, coming out and outright saying that X is the cause of Y because of Z. You have scientific theory, models, and opinions all rolled into one thing and SOME people calling it completely finished and now fact. Truth is that CO2 is a rarity when it comes to molecules in the atmosphere, the temperature probes are increasingly in areas that act as heat islands, and that there is no consensus on anything regarding climate change.
ReefBuddha
Member
Dingo,
You know about the author of that pdf you linked to? John Mclean... lol. Great source ya got there.
You know about the author of that pdf you linked to? John Mclean... lol. Great source ya got there.
ScooterTDI
New member
I don't think that is entirely true. I don't think that the position I have taken is extreme. Nor am I convinced that I am 100% correct. I don't think the positions taken by others are looney and I've every effort to explore and discuss the merits and drawbacks of my own and other's arguements.
I don't think this thread has been useless. I've learned some new things at least. I also think Greenbean, Stu, and I have had a good discussion of the issues associated with climate modeling.
Scott
Yes, it is a small percentage of the atmospheric gasses (as is methane), yet it has a rather large impact on heat retention. Without that small percentage of so called "greenhouse" gasses we would live on an ice covered rock. So it stands to reason that even a slight increase in a gas with such a disproportionately large impact on heat retention would be similar to adding extra insulation to your house
jenglish
Marquis de Carabas
Just because something isn't a perfect 1 correlation doesn't mean there is no connection. There is plenty coming out showing the correlation between CO2 and temp. Are the models flawless? no. But to say there is no consensus on climate change is similar to saying there is no consensus on whethor the world is round, evolution, or gravity.
Dingo44
New member
Yeah there's plenty of correlation, but like we have said before here, correlation does not denote causality. There are several examples in the historical record where CO2 raises after temperature. Yes CO2 is a greenhouse gas, but saying that pumping our share of it into our atmosphere is going to warm the world beyond repair is jumping the gun, and is being used to incite fear. The system is just too complex to say X causes Y.
ReefBuddah... I don't know anything about the author, if I posted some conspiracy nut's paper then I will go to the corner of the room and quietly remove my foot from my mouth. That was the first example of IPCC misconception that I cold think of and quickly get. The author may be bad, but the main gist of his article was well known around that time, the IPCC did fudge the numbers on that one.
Could you give me a heads up on the author?
ReefBuddah... I don't know anything about the author, if I posted some conspiracy nut's paper then I will go to the corner of the room and quietly remove my foot from my mouth. That was the first example of IPCC misconception that I cold think of and quickly get. The author may be bad, but the main gist of his article was well known around that time, the IPCC did fudge the numbers on that one.
Could you give me a heads up on the author?
Yes, it is a small percentage of the atmospheric gasses (as is methane), yet it has a rather large impact on heat retention. Without that small percentage of so called "greenhouse" gasses we would live on an ice covered rock. So it stands to reason that even a slight increase in a gas with such a disproportionately large impact on heat retention would be similar to adding extra insulation to your house
No, thats just garbage science thats been pushed within the past decade. Before that we had this thing called atmosphere comprised of gases, vapor, etc hich let us retain heat/humidity. In fact, our rather sedate temperature swings is mainly due to water. CO2 hold no specific property to retain heat. Water vapor retains magnitudes more then CO2 ever will.
There is no consensus on anything. Grab 2 scientists who even agree and they'll probably give you 3 different theories. Theres so many holes in everything from data collection to model creation to modalities that to say that this "consensus" is from scientific data would be preposterous. Try passing medications off with sloppy handling like that and you'd be laughed at at best.
jenglish
Marquis de Carabas
The human body is complex, and we cannot say that a high fat diet, no exercise, smoking and obesity cause heart disease. We have correlations, and experimental data of animal models to support this. We KNOW CO2 is a greenhouse gas, we can prove that easily in a small experiment. Can we prove that anthropomorphic CO2 is contributing to accelerated warming for sure? No, but I believe that is where the smart money is on.
jenglish
Marquis de Carabas
WE aren't talking about a 60/40 split here... we are probably talking at least 80/20. This is not certainty even if all the scientific community agreed, but again, it is where the smart money is. I am sure you look for dissent you can find plenty of it on the internet, but not much in peer reviewed journals. I think you are giving medication prescription a bit too much credit as well but that is another discussion altogethor.
Dingo44
New member
I hear what you're saying. But eating healthy, not smoking, exercising, and staying skinny do not have the drastic unintended consequences that some of these proposals do that various organizations (IPCC) are putting forth. Causing such a virtual panic over global warming from science that is not fully understood is not the way to go.
jenglish
Marquis de Carabas
I'm not proposing we all turn off the power and don't turn it back on until it is 0 impact, I don't want eat a turnip cooked over a brick of my own poop anymore than the next guy. I am not in favor of panic but I am in favor of action. Where the line between action and panic lies may be a matter of opinion.
Dingo44
New member
The sad thing is there are a lot of people out there who actually care and the action they are taking is misguided due to bad leadership and misconstrued science by the media. Global warming is a trendy thing right now, going green and advertising it sells. Remember those save the whales bumper stickers and the panic over nuclear energy? Those were trends too. Trends twist the science and the mob mentality takes hold fueled by money and the media. Hopefully the hoopla will calm down and we can finally figure out what exactly is going on before we put people out of work from unintended consequences due to action for action's sake.
Link? I have heard of no such studies.
Survey from Enviroment & Climate News 2007
According to the survey:
34 percent of environmental scientists and practitioners disagree that global warming is a serious problem facing the planet.
41 percent disagree that the planet's recent warmth "can be, in large part, attributed to human activity."
71 percent disagree that recent hurricane activity is significantly attributable to human activity.
33 percent disagree that the U.S. government is not doing enough to address global warming.
47 percent disagree that international agreements such as the Kyoto Protocol provide a solid framework for combating global climate change.
Also, in my line of work, when I look at a study I see who published it and who funded the study. How many of these pro-warming studies are funded directly because of global warming fears. Hard to take that seriously.
jenglish
Marquis de Carabas
Link to which studies? That CO2 is a greenhouse gas in experimental data? Or that Obesity, sedentary lifestyle and smoking are linked to heart disease?
If the Enviroment and Climate news you are referencing is the one put out by The Heartland Institute I have a colander that holds more water than that. You think THAT isn't a horribly biased economic organization rather than a scientific one?
Environment & Climate News 2007 is a bogus "study" put out by The Heartland Institute, an organization set up by ExxonMobil for the express purpose of countering climate change science. Most of the scientists they surveyed received grants from Exxon and other polluters. They are the same sort of scientists who took money from the tobacco industry and then said smoking causes no health risks.
Dingo44
New member
No they weren't set up by exxon mobile, that link you had is about as credible as the moon landing hoax websites. Heartland had a controversy involving exxon, they apparently were accused of employing exxon and phillip morris execs. It turned out to be bogus. The research they did on smoking was on second hand smoking, which is a bunch of bs too. They are a credible organization, just because they disagree with much of the popular stances out there doesn't mean they aren't credible. That site says they were founded in the early 1990's which isn't true either, it was 1984. That little tidbit of misinformation was in the first sentence of that link.
- Status
Similar threads
