04 Aug 07
Originally posted by scottishinnzSimilarly for the current theory, with many scientists changing their minds because of lack of solid evidence for human-induced climate change. As for there being a "consensus" on agw, it is merely a cliche in the popular media and does not reflect reality. I had a phone conversation the other night with a paleoclimatologist who believes it's the other way around., ie., there are more skeptics than believers. But unfortunately they don't get the same air time or press space because of the current media bias. So everyone THINKS there's a consensus in favour of the theory, but in reality there isn't and I tend to agree.
It was mentioned in the popular press quite a bit, but I think only 1 scientific paper was ever published which suggested it to be a possibility. The authors of that paper later re-evaluated their position, and abandoned the idea, if my memory serves correctly.
One paper hardly represents "consensus".
04 Aug 07
Originally posted by SpastiGovSo what about the recent "Science" paper which randomly evaluated 924 recent climate related papers and found that none f them questioned the basic tenants of climate change?
Similarly for the current theory, with many scientists changing their minds because of lack of solid evidence for human-induced climate change. As for there being a "consensus" on agw, it is merely a cliche in the popular media and does not reflect reality. I had a phone conversation the other night with a paleoclimatologist who believes it's the other way ...[text shortened]... ere's a consensus in favour of the theory, but in reality there isn't and I tend to agree.
04 Aug 07
Originally posted by WajomaAnd there are mistakes, anomalies and outright lies in his pdf.
David Evans spent 6 years building models for the Aussie gummint, he's having second thoughts now.
http://nzclimatescience.net/images/PDFs/d-evans2007.pdf
Hat tip to: http://pc.blogspot.com/
For example; he explicitly states that we didn't know about the global dimming (caused by particulates in the atmosphere) until 2000. This is rubbish. Particulates and global dimming were known about in the 1970's and where the basis of the scare the media tried to put on people about an imminent ice age.
Also, he notes the dis-synchrony between measured CO2 and inferred temperature. THIS IS WELL KNOWN AND FULLY EXPLAINED BY CURRENT THEORY. It is nothing new, and definitely not a deal breaker.
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/11/20/21248/499
He states that between 1940 and 1975 the temperature decreased. THIS IS A LIE. The temperature decreased between 1940 and 1950, then increased thereafter. It's worth pointing out that 1940 was an anomalously high peak in temperature, rather than part of the longer term trend.
That'll do for now, and that's only the first half.
Address those points, and I'll address the rest of his report (from what I suspect to be a website that Spastigov administers).
04 Aug 07
Originally posted by scottishinnz"He states that between 1940 and 1975 the temperature decreased. THIS IS A LIE. The temperature decreased between 1940 and 1950, then increased thereafter. It's worth pointing out that 1940 was an anomalously high peak in temperature, rather than part of the longer term trend.
And there are mistakes, anomalies and outright lies in his pdf.
For example; he explicitly states that we didn't know about the global dimming (caused by particulates in the atmosphere) until 2000. This is rubbish. Particulates and global dimming were known about in the 1970's and where the basis of the scare the media tried to put on people abou ...[text shortened]... s the rest of his report (from what I suspect to be a website that Spastigov administers).
This raises an interesting point, people select the period of climate change depending on which side of the argument they're on, are you any less guilty of being selective.
- Joined
- 21 Jul 06
- Moves
- 94201
04 Aug 07
What I can understand is this.
The concept of Global Warming is not like morality. It should not depend on point of view. Global Warming either is, or isn't being effected by man.
Why does everyone seem to take a side and stick to it? For heavens sake there shouldn't be any sides. This world that we live on is pretty unique... to be honest, I actually quite like living here.
Until it is conclusively proven that Global Warming is a myth, then I am going to assume the worst, and do my best to help out any way I can.
The Cold War didn't go nuclear, but that didn't stop people from thinking the worst and preparing for it (and rightly so).
All I see in threads like these are little children arguing about that which they don't understand. If you are going to say anything, state facts, or at least say why you believe what you believe rather than telling people what they should believe.
Let people make up their own minds based on evidence. It is the only way that anything will ever change.
04 Aug 07
1 edit
Originally posted by scottishinnzHe states that between 1940 and 1975 the temperature decreased. THIS IS A LIE. The temperature decreased between 1940 and 1950, then increased thereafter. It's worth pointing out that 1940 was an anomalously high peak in temperature, rather than part of the longer term trend.
For example; he explicitly states that we didn't know about the global dimming (caused by particulates in the atmosphere) until 2000. This is rubbish. Particulates and global dimming were known about in the 1970's and where the basis of the scare the media tried to put on people about an imminent ice age.
Also, he notes the dis-synchrony betwee s the rest of his report (from what I suspect to be a website that Spastigov administers).
Accusing someone of lying, and all in capitals no less, strong words. I googled GW graphs the first hit was this;
http://geology.com/news/2006/01/global-warming-graph-and-map.html
Edit: wiki has a similar graph showing the 40 - 75 cooling. Liars also?
04 Aug 07
Originally posted by HumeABecause this argument isn't about whether Global Warming is or isn't happening. It's about who will have to give up what to achieve a stable environment and the fear that creates when the selfish realise they won't be able to drive their 15km to the gallon cars, guzzle down cheeseburgers, protect their exploitative business interests or other such decadences.
What I can understand is this.
The concept of Global Warming is not like morality. It should not depend on point of view. Global Warming either is, or isn't being effected by man.
Why does everyone seem to take a side and stick to it? For heavens sake there shouldn't be any sides. This world that we live on is pretty unique... to be honest, I actually q ...[text shortened]... ke up their own minds based on evidence. It is the only way that anything will ever change.
04 Aug 07
Originally posted by HumeAThumbs up.
What I can understand is this.
The concept of Global Warming is not like morality. It should not depend on point of view. Global Warming either is, or isn't being effected by man.
Why does everyone seem to take a side and stick to it? For heavens sake there shouldn't be any sides. This world that we live on is pretty unique... to be honest, I actually q ...[text shortened]... ke up their own minds based on evidence. It is the only way that anything will ever change.
Objective data is all we have to go on. It's all we should be going on.
Recc'ed
05 Aug 07
Originally posted by scottishinnzOn the subject of selectively selecting periods of time to suit ones agenda.
And there are mistakes, anomalies and outright lies in his pdf.
For example; he explicitly states that we didn't know about the global dimming (caused by particulates in the atmosphere) until 2000. This is rubbish. Particulates and global dimming were known about in the 1970's and where the basis of the scare the media tried to put on people abou ...[text shortened]... s the rest of his report (from what I suspect to be a website that Spastigov administers).
scottish rather conveniently explains away the 1940 high point (he refuses to recognise the 1940 -1975 cooling period) as an anamoly but then selects a slightly longer period and alleges this is sign of a trend, yet on the scale of the earths history we could just as easily say the magic word 'anomaly' for this relatively short period of time.
05 Aug 07
Originally posted by WajomaThat graph doesn't show cooling over a 25 year period. It shows cooling over about a 5 year period, followed by a period of relatively stability, followed by warming.
He states that between 1940 and 1975 the temperature decreased. THIS IS A LIE. The temperature decreased between 1940 and 1950, then increased thereafter. It's worth pointing out that 1940 was an anomalously high peak in temperature, rather than part of the longer term trend.
Accusing someone of lying, and all in capitals no less, strong words. ...[text shortened]... g-graph-and-map.html
Edit: wiki has a similar graph showing the 40 - 75 cooling. Liars also?
05 Aug 07
Originally posted by WajomaWell, on the graph (a) in the "How fast can climate change" section it shows 3 years pre-1930 as being warmer than the long term average, and 16 lower than the mean between then and 1990.
On the subject of selectively selecting periods of time to suit ones agenda.
scottish rather conveniently explains away the 1940 high point (he refuses to recognise the 1940 -1975 cooling period) as an anamoly but then selects a slightly longer period and alleges this is sign of a trend, yet on the scale of the earths history we could just as easily say the magic word 'anomaly' for this relatively short period of time.
I'd say that constitutes a strong positive correlation.