[Closed] Global warming again...........

To be fair, this just confirms that climate change is happening, it doesn't make any statement about what proportion of it is man-made versus natural.

To be fair, this just confirms that climate change is happening, it doesn't make any statement about what proportion of it is man-made versus natural.

Spot on, i don't think anyone disagrees that it is happening, the question is what proportion is man-made and can the planet cope?

Sadly, following the Climategate nonsense, the hardcore sceptics were denying that any climate change was happening at all, saying that the studies were all flawed due to badly placed weather stations and that all global warming stopped ten years ago.

This study aimed to address some of that misdirection and regain some confidence after Climategate.

So this gives the all-clear for proliferation of nuclear energy, yes?

😉

I don't think this study matters very much. There is nothing you can say to the deniers that will change their minds. That's why their deniers and not sceptics.

Again?

can the planet cope

of course the planet can cope - it has been through much wider swings than this before.

the question is how will it affect humans and how many will die as a result of the changing geomorphological landscapes and weather events that climate change will bring

There is nothing you can say to the deniers that will change their minds. That's why their deniers and not sceptics.

Good point and so many of them can't even imagine that the way we live since the industrial revolution is anything other than the natural state of affairs.

The planet will survive, and humans are the last species that needs to worry about being wiped out. It's every other poor bloody species that will have to deal with our unplanned side effects.

The question that no one can answer is that if humans weren't here, would the planet be going through a natural cycle anyway? Based on the data we should, within the next few thousand years see a global reduction in temperatures in line with the natural cycles of the planet. The big question is, will this happen, or will mans impact upset this?

Nope, just yet one more "truthful" report stating the same scaremongering tosh that's been dealt out and debunked year after year, after year.. ad nausium..

"dozes off"

The Berkeley team has chosen to release the findings initially on its own website.

They are asking for comments and feedback [b]before preparing the manuscripts for formal scientific publication[/b].

So, a non peer reviewed study, using essentially the same dataset, comes out with a result that supports the consensus... can you imagine how much credence it would be given if the result was otherwise?

Just saying like 🙂

z11 youre taking the typical climate denier stance

in an effort to please a main grumble of theirs theyve opened their data up to review before publication
now they are getting flak for not having put it through the hated peer review process

and yes i think it would have been reported in the bbc if theyd found a -ve change (unlike the torygraph which seems to have ignored the story)

Zulu-Eleven - Member
So, a non peer reviewed study, using essentially the same dataset, comes out with a result that supports the consensus... can you imagine how much credence it would be given if the result was otherwise?

Just saying like

From what I gather it was rather carefully picked selection of data.

Here's a graph showing data from a different selection of trees which as I understand it are from broadly the same area:
[img] ?w=420&h=360[/img]

Yep they specifically kept this report as open as possible to avoid the Climategate criticisms and now the sceptics are flaming them for that too.

And they specifically tried to tackle the other main criticisms that the sceptics have made.

That's not bias or "ad nausium"... that's science. Do work, have it criticised, do more work.

ransos - Member
I don't think this study matters very much. There is nothing you can say to the deniers that will change their minds. That's why their deniers and not sceptics.

Yup, when you feed people enough lies they stop believing anything you say, and deny the truth of it.

A lot of sceptics have been turned into deniers thanks to the climategate scandals.

Deniers share an opinion with James Delingpole.

😆

What is the big deal here? I have only read the BBC link but there really seems to be only one "new" point. Berkeley are presenting the same point but with an argument that rejects the link between urban heat and overall temperatures. Interesting but hardly devasting news, or am I missing something?

I don't think this study matters very much. There is nothing you can say to the deniers that will change their minds. That's why their deniers and not sceptics.

Ransos - agree with you first point but aren't the second and third sentences merely truisms?

Yup, when you feed people enough lies they stop believing anything you say, and deny the truth of it.

Yup. Interesting that this work was actually partly funded by deniers:

"Funding came from a number of sources, including charitable foundations maintained by the Koch brothers, the billionaire US industrialists, who have also donated large sums to organisations lobbying against acceptance of man-made global warming."

But now the deniers here want to dismiss it because it didn't produce the results they want.

But it was all right, everything was all right, the struggle was finished. He had won the victory over himself. He loved Big Brother.

This chart from TFA...
[img] [/img]
...stops sometime around 2004.

Using the same method, I predict a golden age for the stockmarket and pension holders. One that will never end!
[img] [/img]

z11 youre taking the typical climate denier stance

You see - there you go, I point out a simple, unbiased, categorical fact, that its not a peer reviewed paper - which is a perfectly reasonable thing to point out, and suddenly I'm a "denier" 🙄

and you wonder why people are unwilling to debate reasonably.

I don't think this study matters very much. There is nothing you can say to the deniers that will change their minds. That's why their deniers and not sceptics

They rarely understand science never mind the actual discipline.
I like the way they massively cheery pick data whilst saying that is what the government funded cabal do in order to just tax us etc

Z-11 you are on very shaky ground if you want to complain about debating reasonably. You accept many of your posts are just scribbling across the forum - did i get your phrase right?
You just want a reaction you dont actually care about debate

"This , it is like trying to use facts to defeat a conspiracy theorist..it is futile"
should read
This , it is trying to use facts to defeat a conspiracy theorist..it is futile but funny

Using the same method, I predict a golden age for the stockmarket and pension holders. One that will never end!

You don't seem to have included 200 years worth of data there - so [i]exactly[/i] the same method eh?

aye you are right I like to just ask them how C02 works as a green house gas - most dont get that far as they fail to answer the starter for 10 of can you tell me the difference between weather and climate

I like the its all natural we have had this before to which they seem to think that burning fossil fuels is somehow natural...it is funny but it often just mocking the stupid.

You don't seem to have included 200 years worth of data there - so exactly the same method eh?

Yes, but Google's FTSE data only goes back as far as about 1980, and the stuff between then and 2002 doesn't really tie in with the point I'm tying to make.

stuff between then and 2002 doesn't really tie in with the point I'm tying to make.

😆

I like the its all natural we have had this before to which they seem to think that burning fossil fuels is somehow natural...it is funny but it often just mocking the stupid.

Funny thing is that many sceptics I've talked to are quite happy with "natural cycles" and will readily agree that the earth's climate can be influenced by "natural" things like volcanoes.

But for some reason they can't see the link when I point out that [url= http://hvo.wr.usgs.gov/volcanowatch/2007/07_02_15.html ]ALL the volcanoes in world, on land and in sea, produce around 200 million tonnes of CO2[/url] a year. Which is a lot, but it's less than 1% of man-made CO2 emissions (26.8 billion tonnes a year).

Yes good point but graham man made c02 is only a tiny fraction of al the C02 ther eis so we cant be making much difference 😉
I also like the way they tell us about the natural cycles - as if this knowledge does not come from the same government funded cabal of scientist who are lying to us.
A little knowledge is a dangerous thing

The onus must surely now be on the deniers to prove that burning fossil fuels has no effect on climate.

I'd like to think Brunel, Watt and Edison did this years ago before we started to fuel their developments by burning anything we could get our hands on, but I have this nagging feeling that they didn't.

Now whilst I keep my eyes well and truelly open on this matter and don't lean towards any side, the whole shouting of denier thing is rather immature way of debating, its the whole calling someone a Daily Mail reader approach to constructive debate, to essentially try and make them come of as a lesser person.

There is still just one fundamental thing for me that still requires attention:

I have never seen any evidence that the current additional output of CO2 from man is going to have a drastic affect on climate change above that of a natural cycle.

I have seen plenty of graphs and data manipulated by both sides trying to prove it one way or the other, but no one actually can prove anything.

I for one am a strong advocate of reducing our dependence and use on fossil fuels, it goes without saying, but the worlds political believes, taxation and energy policies are being based currently, on nothing but an unproven theory.

but the worlds political believes, taxation and energy policies are being based currently, on nothing but an unproven theory.

Bit like religion then. Which doesn't influence any country's policies...

The onus must surely now be on the deniers to prove that burning fossil fuels has no effect on climate.

I think the onus is actually on science to have a true debate on the issue. I think terms like deniers are far too emotive and tend to be used to quash debate rather than further it. There are so many levels to the debate that it becomes almost too difficult to follow. Plus this is another area where the impact of lobbyists clouds the debate on both sides.

Personally, I think that the sceptics are in the best position. The history of climate change is riddled with contradictory views (remember the 1970s and climate cooling or the greenhouse gas versus aersol (?) debate - one caused warming, the other cooling if I recall correctly.) and mis-information.

I think there is a lot more work that is required on both sides before we can genuinely reach a conclusion on the magnitude of man-made activities on climate change. And that does not make me a denier BTW!!

I have never seen any evidence that the current additional output of CO2 from man is going to have a drastic affect on climate change above that of a natural cycle.

Two points: firstly, should we wait another couple of decades till we can be absolutely sure that it is [i]definitely[/i] us altering the climate?

Secondly, currently we see changes in global temperature, with a "steep" rise that doesn't fit the normal cycles we know about. And over the same period mankind has gone from the pre-industrial age with hardly any emissions, to a post-industrial age with a couple of billions of tonnes of CO2 being pumped out every month.

That's not evidence and could well be coincidental, but I agree that it should really be up to the sceptics to show that there is no link, because on first glance it looks pretty damning.

Junky - I've been more than consistent on this one whenever we've debated the issue, and I approach this from a fairly scientific background.

I think that:

i) the data set is garbage, and in any other field of science would be binned.

ii) Man has, since time immemorial, looked for patterns in chaos.

The latter has been evident throughout pretty much all forms of human society in the way that they have looked to analyse and and then sought to blame, predict and control the sources of nature, or used the threat of impending doom to impose fear and control on society - be that the treat of volcano gods punishing us for our behaviour, or the sacrifice of virgins on the altar to ensure the return of the sun and a good harvest.

The two factors cause me to be skeptical of the reliability of the scientific data, and the morals of [b]any [/b]group of scientists who seek to predict the future, whatever their aim.

Personally, I think that the sceptics are in the best position. The history of climate change is riddled with contradictory views (remember the 1970s and climate cooling or the greenhouse gas versus aersol (?) debate - one caused warming, the other cooling if I recall correctly.) and mis-information.

Sceptisism is good science. That's why the small minority of people who believed in the global cooling thing were shown to be incorrect.

Ignoring the opinion and evidence of the overwhelming majority of people qualified in a subject area is not sceptisism.

should we wait another couple of decades till we can be absolutely sure that it is definitely us altering the climate?

we can wait and see and then just dump iron into the seas to fix it:

http://www.palomar.edu/oceanography/iron.htm

Ignoring the opinion and evidence of the overwhelming majority of people qualified in a subject area is not sceptisism.

Geocentric universe?
Tectonic Plates?
Neutrino's and the speed of light?

Neutrino's and the speed of light?

Erm... the overwhelming majority said that was bollocks. And funnily enough it turned out to be bollocks. What's your point?

Erm... the overwhelming majority said that was bollocks. And funnily enough it turned out to be bollocks. What's your point?

Including the scientists performing the experiment. A perfect example of sceptisism...

Ransos - again I agree and disagree.

Sceptisism is good science.

Agree

Ignoring the opinion and evidence of the overwhelming majority of people qualified in a subject area is not sceptisism.

Time will tell on this one. The same argument was presented to me by Europhiles who held a dogmatic view on the benefits of the single currency.

I will reserve the right to maintain a healthy scepticism with the science here. I fear the heavy hand of money and lobbying all over this area and too much dogma.

I will reserve the right to maintain a healthy scepticism with the science here. I fear the heavy hand of money and lobbying all over this area and too much dogma.

The Euro has nothing to do with science, so isn't relevant to this discussion. And if you're worried about power and corruption, you'd be better off looking at who funds the denialists. Remember that climate scientists have been consistently saying the same thing for decades now, well before anyone listened, and despite an openly hostile US government (GW Bush).

The problem with some deniers is they draw on past climatic events which in their eyes don't fit the anthropogenic climate change argument. Don't they stop to think that perhaps scientists may have actually studied and tried to explain such events, let alone encorporated them into their climatic modelling?

I still think this is funny if you agree with the guy or not.

Ransos - I am not looking for an argument on this!! Of course the Euro has something to do with science!! Economics is a science?? But that's not the point. This was merely an example against accepting the fact that "the opinion and evidence of the overwhelming (however that is defined?) majority or people qualified (again however this is defined?) in a subject area" is not necessarily a concluding factor. I'm sure the majority of people thought that the world was flat at the time.

I have no doubt that there is aggressive funding on both sides of the debate - hence my preference to remain open to further analysis coupled with scepticism. I am neither a denier or an accepter at the moment.

By the time time tells us it will be too late. That's like saying keep smoking lets see what happens. That also scientists dangerously predicting the future as well zulu -11 . I assume your animal experiments predicted what would happen in the future if you took x for example. why not take some radiation or some arsenic after all who knows what will happen.
Obviously science cannot and should not make any "prediction " so who know what will happen.
+ 1 for dragging economics into a science debate.

Economics is a science

"the opinion and evidence of the overwhelming (however that is defined?) majority or people qualified in a subject area" is not necessarily a concluding factor.