Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

32,000 scientists dissent from global-warming “consensus”

"Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it.
Do not believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumored by many.
Do not believe in anything simply because it is found written in your religious books.
Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders.
Do not believe in traditions because they have been handed down for many generations.
But after observation and analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all, then accept it and live up to it".

--Gautama Buddha
 
The Antarctic Peninsula has in fact warmed......but the other 96% of Antarctica has cooled.

Interesting. Is that taken from this webpage?

http://www.coolantarctica.com/Antarctica fact file/science/global_warming.htm

I'm guessing it is, as it comes up among the first few webpages referenced by Google when one enters the obvious search terms 'antarctic+warming'.

The text on the Cool Antarctica webpage with the 96% figure reads: "The temperature of the rest of Antarctica - the other 96% - shows no current indications of rising."

'No current indications of rising' has a different meaning to 'cooled', as I am sure you are aware. ;) Nice Gautama Buddha quote btw.
 
His link says your claim is wrong, care to provide a link or are you going to keep snorting to yourself like a fat little child with a packet of pork rinds and a secret?
 
"Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it.
Do not believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumored by many.
Do not believe in anything simply because it is found written in your religious books.
Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders.
Do not believe in traditions because they have been handed down for many generations.
But after observation and analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all, then accept it and live up to it".

--Gautama Buddha

"You're wrong, and you're a grotesquely ugly freak."

--Chris Morris
 
The Antarctic Peninsula has in fact warmed......but the other 96% of Antarctica has cooled.

Leaving aside the uncertain provenance of this statement for the time being, I was reminded of seeing the exhibition last year put on by the British Antarctic Survey at Cambridge University.

Among many other duties and research programs, the BAS have their own conclusions on the Antarctic climate, namely:

Few continuous observations of Antarctic climate are available before the International Geophysical Year of 1957-58. Since this time, surface temperatures have remained fairly stable over much of Antarctica, although individual station records show a high level of year-to-year variability, which could mask any underlying long term-trend.

http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/bas_research/our_views/climate_change.php

The BAS also have a neat graphic showing temperature trend data from various stations in the Antarctic up to 2006. The peninsula does indeed show a clear warming trend, but it is impossible to discern any trend of either warming or cooling for the great mass of the continent:

http://www.nerc-bas.ac.uk/public/icd/gjma/trends2006.col.pdf

Leaving aside the stations on the peninsula and the South Orkney Islands (which all show annual warming, but the South Orkneys were not statistically significant), I count seven showing annual warming, four cooling, and one no change. Of these, only one (Novorevskaya) attains statistical significance of 5% or better.
 

Not bad, not bad. But it covers the years 1982-2004. (No mention of 96% either.) The British Antarctic Survey temperature records go from 1951 to 2006.

Which might be a better indicator of a long-term trend?

Addressing a longer timescale, there's this article dated 2006:

Despite recent indications that Antarctica cooled considerably during the 1990s, new research suggests that the world's iciest continent has been getting gradually warmer for the last 150 years, a trend not identifiable in the short meteorological records and masked at the end of the 20th century by large temperature variations.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/09/060905225912.htm
 
Right, back to that '96%' quote:

Johnny Canuck said:
The Antarctic Peninsula has in fact warmed......but the other 96% of Antarctica has cooled.

I guessed you'd taken it from the Cool Antarctica webpage. You told me to go back to the drawing board. So here's the drawing board:

Cool Antarctica said:
The Antarctic Peninsula is particularly sensitive to small rises in the annual average temperature, this has increased about 2.5?C in the region in the last 50 years, this is 2 or 3 times faster than the average in the rest of the world. This makes it an excellent study area.

The temperature of the rest of Antarctica - the other 96% - shows no current indications of rising.

Okay, you didn't take it . . . you adapted it shall we say. :D I keep forgetting you're a lawyer, must be more careful in my choice of words in future.
 
The problem, as I see it, was identified nicely by Al Gore. He talked about a 'generational mission'. Defeating climate change, was to become the raison d'etre of a whole generation.

A generational mission isn't a bad idea, and I think it's one that resonates with humans. I think humans like to, perhaps crave to, join into something bigger than themselves. They want and like an all encompassing cause that they can devote their time, energy, and emotion to. They like to belong, and they're happiest when they think the belonging is for something Good.

This craving to belong was satisified for the longest time by being a member of a tribe, or some other group whose goal was survival. Then, as survival became a bit easier, and structure developed, we got religion, and that satisfied many people for a long time. Still does, for some people.

But one of the outcomes of the modern world, had been the stripping away of many of the old belief structures that we used to cling to. Lots of people don't have religion, they have tenuous family ties, etc. There's nothing but themselves, but inside, they want something more.

So along comes this new Crusade: the defeat of climate change. This has a lot of appeal: it appears to be a worthy good cause, it is appealing to those who don't like capitalism and the modern world of consumerism, because it apparently means a curbing of those things, and maybe there is a touch of atonement in it, a bit of suffering for all the wrongs we've done in the name of consumerism and individualism.

So people line up to join. Oh, I forgot to mention another factor in their desire to join: fear. Not only does it seem a good idea, but the media generated fear, via wild overstatements etc, has made it seem like joining immediately, and going great guns, is an imperative.


Which brings us to the difficulty. When people buy into a belief system like this, it is done on more than an intellectual level. It is done on an emotional and visceral level as well. It stops just being something they believe in: they internalize it. It becomes them, in part, and they become it. They identify with it.

And so, when you question this theory that they believe in, you aren't just questioning the theory. In their minds, in their hearts, you are questioning part of their very identity. You are questioning the thing that gets them out of bed in the morning.

And so the response isn't a measured, scientific one: it's a hysterical one, with yelling and screaming, and demonizing the evil ones who are calling into question all that is sacred.


Does this sound like an exaggeration? Just look at those quotes of mine above, from people who compare those who have questions about climate change, with pedophiles and holocaust deniers. People who call for Nuremburg trials for questioners.

These aren't the responses of individuals involved in a scientific debate. These are the responses of acolytes faced with the abomination of heresy.

For me this is the most interesting JC post on the thread (and isn't it sad how the quality of his posts has deteriorated?)

If I read this right, he's really upset at the idea of a mass movement, based on sound scientific evidence, that wants to see climate change addressed, not least because he can see that doing so calls capitalism into question.

Rather than say people staying home and doing what Jeebus and the government tell them to do.
 
Back
Top Bottom