Thread: Climate Change is real!!!!!!!!!

Originally Posted by gunnut

This website was refered to me so I can "open my mind" to the reality of "global climate change."

Climate change: A guide for the perplexed - earth - 16 May 2007 - New Scientist Environment

It debunks all the myths of the debunking of the global warming myth....

Wow. A news site that links to its own 'press releases' as proof that what it says is true.


It's true because i say its true and here's me saying it as proof.

Essays: “The scientific consensus on climate change” by N. Oreskes (3 Dec. 2004, p. 1686).

'Tis from Science.

Basic Information | Climate Change | U.S. EPA

An extract(All the various emphasis tools all mine) :

If greenhouse gases continue to increase, climate models predict that the average temperature at the Earth's surface could increase from 2.5 to 10.4ºF above 1990 levels by the end of this century. Scientists are certain that human activities are changing the composition of the atmosphere, and that increasing the concentration of greenhouse gases will change the planet's climate. But they are not sure by how much it will change, at what rate it will change, or what the exact effects will be.

Of course they could be lying too. It's all a big conspiracy.

As an addendum to the Science article above and in the interests of completeness, the page of related links to the article:

BEYOND THE IVORY TOWER: The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change -- Oreskes 306 (5702): 1686 -- Science

Originally Posted by chankya

Essays: “The scientific consensus on climate change” by N. Oreskes (3 Dec. 2004, p. 1686).

'Tis from Science.

Good heavens, Miss Yakamoto - you're beautiful!

-dale

Originally Posted by chankya

As an addendum to the Science article above and in the interests of completeness, the page of related links to the article:

BEYOND THE IVORY TOWER: The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change -- Oreskes 306 (5702): 1686 -- Science

When are genuinely smart people going to realize the utter uselessness of "scientific consensus" as a valid buttress for their theory?

Does "theologic consensus" convince them that a guy died and rose from the dead 2,000 years ago?

Does "literary consensus" convince those who think that "The Last of the Really Great Whangdoodles" is twaddle, that it's a good book?

Etc.

It's unbelievable to me, the utter failure of their core tenets, these guys. As I have pointed out before, they are building the exact kind of case for "Global Warming" that the Flying Spaghetti Monster was created to ridicule, and yet I bet that half of the people who believe in "global warming" think the FSM is a hoot and a great way to illustrate the non-science of Intelligent Design.

So you think that industrial emissions might have an effect on the heat trapping and radiating mechanics of the planet - fine.

Prove it.

Don't pose the question and then beat me with a broom until I agree that it's true.

Just prove it. You know, like science.

Dumbasses.

-dale

Originally Posted by dalem

Good heavens, Miss Yakamoto - you're beautiful!

-dale

Ooh! A comeback! Did it take you long?

Originally Posted by chankya

Ooh! A comeback! Did it take you long?

I let Thomas Dolby do most of the heavy lifting on that one.

-dale

Originally Posted by dalem

I let Thomas Dolby do most of the heavy lifting on that one.

-dale

Nice.

Dirty snow warms Arctic more than greenhouse gases: study
Coral reveals increased hurricanes may be the norm - 06 June 2007 - New Scientist
USATODAY.com
BBC NEWS | Business | HSBC in $100m climate initiative
ScienceDaily: Permafrost thaw study gives good prognosis
Climate Science: Roger Pielke Sr. Research Group Weblog » WG1 IPCC Chapter 1 - More Scientifically Erroneous Statements
Associate State Climatologist Fired for Exposing Warming Myths - by James M. Taylor - The Heartland Institute
BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | Climate messages are 'off target'
24 Hour News 8 Blogs » Tropical Cyclone Numbers


I could go on all day, just as you could chankya. Hardly the fait accompli that the high priests of GlobalClimateChange (PBUT) would have us believe, but then their enormous funding depends on invoking their "there is no alternative" mantra as often as possible.
Sure the weather is changing, it always does.
Sure our reliance on hydrocarbons is short sighted and we need to diversify.
But, the current wildly bandied hysteria that is OurBabyJesusAlGores (PBUH) and minions gift to the world is a waste of resources and time, a mere ideology with no basis in fact.


The matrix has you chankya.

Knock knock.

Originally Posted by dalem

When are genuinely smart people going to realize the utter uselessness of "scientific consensus" as a valid buttress for their theory?

Does "theologic consensus" convince them that a guy died and rose from the dead 2,000 years ago?

Does "literary consensus" convince those who think that "The Last of the Really Great Whangdoodles" is twaddle, that it's a good book?

Scientific Consensus is about peer reviewed articles talking about scientific studies.

Theoligical Consensus is men agreeing about the dream they had when they
were hopped up.

So you think that industrial emissions might have an effect on the heat trapping and radiating mechanics of the planet - fine.

Prove it.

Lots of papers have with the caveat of being "with reasonably certain".
Like the Essay points out those studies aren't infalliable but given "reasonable
certainity" it seems smarter to act now.

Don't pose the question and then beat me with a broom until I agree that it's true.

Just prove it. You know, like science.

Dumbasses.

-dale

Don't really care whether you agree or not. I was pointing out to Parihaka and gunnut that "Global Warming" isn't some kind of cause for nutjobs by pointing out more reliable sources.

Originally Posted by Parihaka

The matrix has you chankya.

Knock knock.

Any of these from peer-reviewed scientific journals? I think not.

Thanks for the articles but I think I'll stick with real science for now.

Edit:
Now that I'm home and have some food inside me let me try and be a little less rude. I just mean that those are news articles and not science journals(The ones referenced for the essay were reportedly those from peer reviewed jpournals). Why would you trust them over the scientific ones?

Originally Posted by chankya

Any of these from peer-reviewed scientific journals? I think not.

Thanks for the articles but I think I'll stick with real science for now.

Edit:
Now that I'm home and have some food inside me let me try and be a little less rude. I just mean that those are news articles and not science journals(The ones referenced for the essay were reportedly those from peer reviewed jpournals). Why would you trust them over the scientific ones?

I don't trust them. Any more than the ones you've posted. That's my point, I've read the IPCC reports, in fact I used to quote them to Dale ad infinitum.
When you actually look at them they're vague, make huge assumptions without validation, and exclude any number of other perfectly valid theories on both the micro and macro level. In other words, they're a religion relying on repetitive invocation to bring them their money and power.

Yes I'm cynical, and in an era when I see drug companies fund research into 'bird flu' in Asia, then make billions from the resultant drug sale panics, I think I have every right to be.
There is just as much data, and better understood data, that correlates solar radiation as a cause of climate change as there is for anthropomorphic carbon.

Originally Posted by chankya

Scientific Consensus is about peer reviewed articles talking about scientific studies.

Theoligical Consensus is men agreeing about the dream they had when they
were hopped up.

First of all, scientific consensus is merely a bunch of scientists who all agree on a conclusion - it has nothing to do with peer review or scientific journals. And it has nothing to do with being right.

For the last couple of decades you could have said that the "scientific consensus" is that a deep space object striking the Earth was responsible for the mass extinction event at the end of the Cretacious Period. And that scientific consensus would be wrong, because that's not an accurate assessment of the Alvarez evidence and never has been. But you sure had a whole bunch of peer-reviewed scientists jawing on about it as if it were true.

So scientific consensus is useless with respect to actual science.

Lots of papers have with the caveat of being "with reasonably certain".
Like the Essay points out those studies aren't infalliable but given "reasonable
certainity" it seems smarter to act now.

Why? The doomsturbation scenarios are not even remotely proven to be possible - why waste an erg of energy or a penny of money on something that has no real chance of happening?

Don't really care whether you agree or not. I was pointing out to Parihaka and gunnut that "Global Warming" isn't some kind of cause for nutjobs by pointing out more reliable sources.

It's not for nutjobs, no - it's just another religion complete with clergy, sacraments, holy relics, gods, demons, and infidels.

-dale

Right or wrong will it hurt us to assume its right and act to become better stweards of our one and only home?

Possible benifits of Gorebal warming

1- Push to develope new clean technologies maybe even Fusion

2- industrial and technological stimulation

3- better air quality

4- Energy indipendance

5- economically isolate and strangle the Sheiks and Russia's cash cow.

6- Hopefully less "superfund" sites in the future

7- ecomonic growth via using the situation to stimulate change, not stop it by locking us into a fossil fuel economy.

8- military dominance

9- new technologies that might help us in space and help get us to Mars.

10- It might just save the world