Global Warming Denial.

[revol68]

Any climate /global warming boffs want to head over to these tech forums and lay some smack down?

It's mental nearly half the people polled think Global Warming is no big deal or is a myth, absolutely bonkers, though being a nerdy tech forum it is filled with right wing muppets of pseudo right wing libertarian bent, so not really that suprising. What is it with techy nerds and retarded politics?

The global warming thread

Also is anyone else from Urban on those forums already?

 

[Bernie Gunther]

The thing is, Exxon and allied industries do their propaganda against science they find inconvenient through the same PR front-groups the US right uses, the same people who worked to hard to convince everybody that invading Iraq was a smart idea. They've done very well with the libertarian/techies too, by means of front sites like Tech Central Station (owned by a key figure in right-wing PR)

 

[free spirit]

I think I'll just stick to this little corner of the interweb... though I may get bored later and come play.

 

[Signal 11]

Good on ya revol.

I probably won't have time to join in, but if you need some help debunking their arguments, these links should help.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php
http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/dn11462

 

[Divisive Cotton]

fuck me, the antis are popping up everywhere... jesus, this is becoming a pivotal debate to get involved with...

I'm gonna have to read up my science me thinks to become prepared for all arguments from the antis...

 

[max_freakout]

Al Gore will save us.....

 

[kyser_soze]

What is it with techy nerds and retarded politics?

Ask Gosrski, he's an expert.

 

[cliche guevara]

Al Gore will save us.....

Aren't you a denier?

 

[FridgeMagnet]

Ask Gosrski, he's an expert.

Gorski's not a techy nerd though surely.

 

[kyser_soze]

Nah, but he's an expert on why science and techy types have retarded politics, mainly because they haven't studied philosophy enough...

Aren't you a denier?

In fairness, Max probably denies there's such a thing as 'weather' or 'climate', hence his denial of CC is completely logical...

 

[FridgeMagnet]

it was a joke

 

[david dissadent]

Mars has a minimum euqitorial surface temperature of about -87C or 186K. That is about 182K warmer than it ought to be. Its atmosphere is 95% CO2 at 1% the pressure of earths. So it looks like CO2 certainly has some merit as a greenhouse gas on Mars.

 

[888]

Surely the temperature of space at Mars's distance from the sun isn't only 4K? For a body that can absorb the sun's light I mean.

 

[david dissadent]

Surely the temperature of space at Mars's distance from the sun isn't only 4K? For a body that can absorb the sun's light I mean.

I fugured in the planets shadow at night it would be. However reading around further I find the numbers I have used are for the surface of mars not its ambient atmopheric temperature.

 

[bigfish]

Human green house produced gases are responsible for at least 75% of global warming...
http://forums.hexus.net/general-dis...-warming-something-nothing-4.html#post1492323

LOL!

And the scientific evidence supporting this assertion is where exactly?

Human produced gases are NOT a primary source of heat. All they can do is transport the energy load from one system to another system. If we increase the concentration of CO2 molecules in the atmosphere without increasing the load of energy from the surface, then we will have a greater number of available microstates to where the energy load will be dispersed. So if the same load of energy is dispersed among a greater number of CO2 molecules, then the amount of energy absorbed by each molecule will decrease. The only way Earth's atmosphere can become warmer is by increasing the energy load from the primary heat source - the variable Sun.

I strongly recommend you read the following paper which attempts to explain how solar variability drives climate change:

Which Came First? The Chicken or the Egg?
http://www.lavoisier.com.au/papers/a...nForum2008.pdf

 

[free spirit]

LOL!

And the scientific evidence supporting this assertion is where exactly?

Human produced gases are NOT a primary source of heat. All they can do is transport the energy load from one system to another system. If we increase the concentration of CO2 molecules in the atmosphere without increasing the load of energy from the surface, then we will have a greater number of available microstates to where the energy load will be dispersed. So if the same load of energy is dispersed among a greater number of CO2 molecules, then the amount of energy absorbed by each molecule will decrease. The only way Earth's atmosphere can become warmer is by increasing the energy load from the primary heat source - the variable Sun.

I strongly recommend you read the following paper which attempts to explain how solar variability drives climate change:

Which Came First? The Chicken or the Egg?
http://www.lavoisier.com.au/papers/a...nForum2008.pdf

and we're off...

so in bigfish land, if you insulate your house it couldn't possibly warm the house up as the insulation is not a primary source of heat - the heat comes from the radiators, so the only way to warm a house up is to turn up the thermastat on the central heating. Obviously the insulation alone can't create heat, but it can keep the heat from the central heating system inside the house much longer, so for any given heat output from the central heating system, the house will warm up quicker, and stay warmer longer than it would without the insulation.

once again bigfish you're talking utter drivel.

 

[Signal 11]

I strongly recommend you read the following paper which attempts to explain how solar variability drives climate change:

It does not even claim that "solar variability drives climate change" -- it claims they both have a common cause. I strongly recommend you read your own sources before asking us to do so.

It is claiming that the earth's temperature is driven by the PDO. The PDO is an oscillation -- it does not show any trend. It may have some effect on the climate, but it cannot be the cause of the warming trend.

It is also claiming that the sun's energy output is correlated with (but does not directly cause) climate change. Again that is false -- the sun's output has not shown any trend in the last three decades, whilst the temperature has shown a clear warming trend.

 

[free spirit]

cheers signal, I can't get that link to work anyway


but yeah, solar variability is a factor that influences climate - it's the main reason (IMO) that we've seen a slow down in the warming over the last few years, and such a steep warming period in the 90's... we're now at the bottom of the solar cycle, whereas in the 90's we were moving towards the peak of the solar cycle.

this in no way means global warming's stopped or that the solar cycle is the sole cause of the 90's warming, it's just that from peak to trough of the solar cycle is roughly enough to temporarily mask a decades worth of warming from greenhouse gases... we're now about to go from trough to peak again over the next decade, so expect a steep increase in temperatures again*.


*all other factors being equal, which they're not - what happens to global temperatures over the next decade IMO is largely down to whether the Indians and Chinese decide to clean up their coal power stations, and industry or keep building power stations that spew out vast amounts of SO2 that partially masks the underlying global warming from greenhouse gases by reflecting mroe sunlight back into space before it reaches the earths surface.

personally I think the olympics will have been a wake up call for the chinese at least, and they'll be cleaning up their act fairly rapidly over the next decade.

 

[Signal 11]

but yeah, solar variability is a factor that influences climate - it's the main reason (IMO) that we've seen a slow down in the warming over the last few years

Yes, that's nicely demonstrated here.

 

[free spirit]

Yes, that's nicely demonstrated here.

bookmarked cheers.

appears I got my dates slightly muddled, with the last peak being around 1998-2002...

but anyway, this graph nicely demonstrates why bigfish's hypothesis can't be correct, being as global temperatures have definately been going up over the last 30 odd years, yet solar output has slightly decreased (at least at the bottom end of the cycle - which is where we are now).

 

[888]

Haha, bigdish's arguments totally trashed yet again. Is that sine-wavey look to the total solar irradiance due to the sunspot cycle or what?

 

[bigfish]

Abandon ship!

You guys might find the following piece interesting as it is written by a former AGW alarmist who has seen the light and converted back to atheism. I think the piece is noteworthy because it's the first public admission that I have seen by a former alarmist that AGW is a fraud - hopefully it's the harbinger of more to come.

http://www.greenworldtrust.org.uk/TransPlanet/Curious.htm

 

[tarannau]

What's the point of you posting this as 'evidence' either way Bigfish.

As the pwnage on this thread shows, you haven't the scientific knowledge or intellect to actually properly appraise these papers. You'll just post up, second hand, anything vaguely scientific looking that agrees with your preconceptions, with no real understanding of the issues.

You may well as shout; "Look at this. I don't understand. But I agree'

 

[david dissadent]

You guys might find the following piece interesting as it is written by a former AGW alarmist who has seen the light and converted back to atheism. I think the piece is noteworthy because it's the first public admission that I have seen by a former alarmist that AGW is a fraud - hopefully it's the harbinger of more to come.

http://www.greenworldtrust.org.uk/TransPlanet/Curious.htm

Its the same old shit.


Loving this. I think we can asses its credibility right here.

This allegedly comes from this survey
The Gallup Organization, A Gallup Study of Scientists' Opinions and Understanding of Global Climate Change, November 1991.

"Algore's (sic) book is full of calculated disinformation. For
instance, he claims that 98 percent of scientists believe global
warming is taking place. However a Gallup poll of scientists
involved in global climate research shows that 53 percent do not
believe that global warming has occurred, 30 percent say they don't
know, and only 17 percent are devotees of this dubious theory." 22/

SCIENTIFIC FACT:

These numbers, apparently lifted from a George Will syndicated
column of September 3, 1992, 23/ are supposed to reflect the
findings of a Gallup poll taken in late 1991 to ascertain the opinions
of research scientists concerning global warming. Even though
polling is of doubtful relevance for determining the scientific truth of
any proposition, it should be pointed out that nowhere in the actual
poll results are there figures that resemble those cited by Will or
Limbaugh.

Instead, the Gallup poll found that a substantial majority of the
scientists polled, 66 percent, believed that human-induced global
warming was already occurring. Only 10 percent disagreed, and
the remainder were undecided.

Moreover, the 98 percent figure appears in the context of Al Gore's
book to refer to the percentage of scientists who believe that
human-induced global warming is a legitimate threat, not, as
Limbaugh frames it, to the number of those who argue that it is
already in effect. In fact, the Gallup poll seems to bear out Gore's
estimate as well, finding that only 2 percent of the scientists polled
believed that there was no chance that substantial, human-caused
warming will occur over the next fifty to one hundred years.

http://www.bestofmaui.com/rush.html

So unless bigfish has the actual source available we can all, yet again, laugh at his links.

 

[free spirit]

You guys might find the following piece interesting as it is written by a former AGW alarmist who has seen the light and converted back to atheism. I think the piece is noteworthy because it's the first public admission that I have seen by a former alarmist that AGW is a fraud - hopefully it's the harbinger of more to come.

http://www.greenworldtrust.org.uk/TransPlanet/Curious.htm

lol - is this the best you can come up with?

I'm not a trained scientist but I taught myself the key science

OK, so he's not a trained scientist, yet we should take his views more seriously than the views of the IPCC?

In September 2007 I became very concerned about global warming after seeing Al Gore's film An Inconvenient Truth.

and he's been teaching himself about climate science for less that a year, yet we should take his views more seriously than the IPCC.

However, I started to look at evidence afresh. I found the graph

, standard data, yet it shows that global temperatures have NOT risen in the last decade, despite steadily rising CO2 levels.

I noticed doubts in the skeptics' forums that I'd passed over before. I noticed unexplained anomalies in the basic data. IPCC (the Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change) use the following graph showing global temperature rise from 1860 to now.​

ok, so basically he saw the Al Gore film, got interested in climate change science, spent a bit of time learning about it, then came across some of the same stuff that's been routinely rebutted very easily on here and elsewhere, and because he had no proper grounding in the science himself couldn't square this stuff with the IPCC line, and decided that the IPCC were wrong.

gee thanks bigfish, I'm already well aware that fuckloads of interested but untrained people are being confused by the (often deliberately misleading) stuff put out on the internet by the sceptics...

question is do we take the views of someone who's entirely untrained in anything relevant, and has only been looking into the subject for less than a year over the IPCC... personally I'd suggest that'd be a pretty dumb way of making your mind up about a subject as important as this.

1/10 - must try harder​

 

[kyser_soze]

What exactly is going on with that website? Have you seen some of the stuff on it?

Funny thing is, there's tons of stuff on there about loads of stuff bigfish denies - peak oil for one - and is generally rammed full of stuff and this weird ass 'AGW isn't happening' article seems well out of place!!

 

[888]

You guys might find the following piece interesting

Idiot. Just give up.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

He's immune.

He doesn't even read, let alone understand, his own sources, never mind anything others say.

 

[DriveWRC]

God damn. I created a new account there just for fun, but the layout of that web site is very cluttered and completely shit in my opinion. This place is much easier to navigate.

 

[revol68]

God damn. I created a new account there just for fun, but the layout of that web site is very cluttered and completely shit in my opinion. This place is much easier to navigate.

yeah it's kinda as nerdy in lay out as a lot of the content.

i'm getting shouted at by mods for calling a climate denier an idiot, apparently it's way out of order, fuck only knows what would happen if they saw this place.