Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
Join free Log in
Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.
Climate Change NOT Debunked
- Thread starter Pilgrim
- Start date
I trust satellite data more than improperly set-up, positioned, maintained and interpreted surface stations.
Having said that, the cold Winter we've seen in much of the USA and Europe is not reflected in the overall satellite data for the planet. IIRC, last Winter was a warm one.
In other news, we're coming to find out that much of the ice loss in the Arctic was likely due to winds and currents, not CO2.
Having said that, the cold Winter we've seen in much of the USA and Europe is not reflected in the overall satellite data for the planet. IIRC, last Winter was a warm one.
In other news, we're coming to find out that much of the ice loss in the Arctic was likely due to winds and currents, not CO2.
Or that the more severe swings in temperature and weather predicted by climate change models are in fact occurring.
It all depends on how you interpret the data. I tend to trust the faculty members I work with who all favor the climate change interpretation.
That's your prerogative and you're welcome to it.
I tend to NOT trust people when they say "the science is settled" on a matter as vast and unpredictable as the global climate, especially when these people are not the most open to either A) sharing their data, or B) debating other people on their findings, and when there is contradictory evidence to what they're claiming. Even more so when it comes out that a purported leading body in this field, namely the IPCC, has admitted to using fictitious data in their reports and even not using data at all to drive an agenda.
Link Removed
In regards to skepticism... that's a slippery slope:
A)Can't trust the scientists, because they're getting funding from THE GOVERNMENT!!!!
B)Can't trust the scientists, because they're getting funding from THE CORPORATIONS!!!!
D)Can't trust the old businesses, because they're using climate-hostile techniques to MAKE MONEY!!!
E)Can't trust the new businesses, because they're using climate-friendly techniques to MAKE MONEY!!!
etc.
I didn't say that. I don't see how human activity could not be affecting the climate. However, I hold the opinion that no one really knows whether the purported rise in temperature is 1) real 2) significant and 3) caused by humans.
My point is that dramatic climate changes occurred hundreds of times even before the ascent of man, and will continue to do so. They're called glacial and interglacial periods, by the way. If global warming is indeed happening, we may just be going toward a warmer part of the current interglacial. In that case, don't worry, it's going to get hot, and there's nothing Al Gore can do about it.
An interesting thought is that all it would take to reverse the whole thing would be something like the eruption of a supervolcano (like, say Yellowstone), or the impact of an asteroid. So I'm just going to wait and see if that happens. If it does, we're going to be wishing we hadn't done anything to cool off the earth.
Thanks for clarifying.
I'm no scientist, so I don't feel qualified to talk about the hard data, but if you're going to swing Hume's wrecking ball, you gotta take aim at all facets of the debate.
I didn't say they felt "the science was settled". I don't think a single one of them would say that. The faculty I work with (and this is at a Research-1 institution) are consistent in their support of the fact that climate change is occurring, and that human actions are a factor in causing it. That is NOT saying the science is settled. There are many questions around it, but acknowledging the direction things are going and the probable causes is something they are consistent in.
I don't know what's hard about this. If you see a problem, and the bulk of scientific opinion points to a probable cause of the problem, the only sensible thing to do is to mitigate the causal factors. In this case, we don't lose anything by modifying our practices - and we may have a big win.
There are always people ready to say "there is no problem" because they think they can wish it away or because they simply don't want to acknowledge the evidence. That's fine, as long as they stay out of the way of people who acknowledge reality and want to act.
This is the lie though. The bulk of scientific evidence DOESN'T point to a probable cause, since we don't know why the Earth warms and cools. If human involvement was the problem, then why did the earth warm in the Medieval period? Why has the temp fluctuated before? How do we know the things that caused these warming, and other cooling periods in history are not what's at work now?
I mean hell, not that I really trust 100% what this guy says, but phil Jones himself has even admitted that there has been no statistically significant global warming in the last 15 years, and that there has actually been a statistically insignificant cooling trend over the same time period. What is reality here?
Also, I never said I didn't support the advancement of green technologies, or that we shouldn't do what we can to make sure that our presence on this Earth isn't harmful.
Would you like more KoolAid? Anyway, we are doing something for our children and grandchildren. We are closing the doors on our clean, modern manufacturing facilities and moving them overseas where they can spew to their heart's content. We are bringing our children...poverty.
Don't forget the HUMUNGOUS tax burden we will pass along to them as well. Yes, think of the children. Actually we should thank our children. They'll be paying out the ass for our stupid, REALLY stupid decisions.
+1 to the above.
Personally I believe we should have green technologies, we should recycle and reuse etc etc. I also believe that the climate is changing but I don't believe that man is as big of a factor as the man-made climate change advocators would have everyone believe.
In the late '70s when I was a teenager we were being told that a new ice age was on the way. Now 30 years later we are told the earth is actually warming. No way is there that big of a swing in 30 years. 30 years on the timeline of the age of the earth doesn't even register let alone jump back and forth from 2 potentially catastrophic life changing events.
Oh.....and by the way.... the depth of Arctic ice levels are now back to their historical averages. Some areas are still thin and some areas are thick. Now what? The thin Arctic ice was one of the first things that climate changers would point to and say "See? See?". That was on a radio report yesterday and I think billhilly66 made mention of that back on page 2 of this thread.
Of course, you could also make the argument that the existence of an organism that has had so much geologic impact as the human race has is unprecedented in the history of the planet Earth, so to depend on information and data that largely predates things like the Industrial Revolution would be, at best, a flawed notion.
Just an idea... like I said before, I'm no scientist.
Just an idea... like I said before, I'm no scientist.
I don't understand your argument.
How can there not be both natural climate change cycles and warming caused by human involvement?
I think every one who's ever bought into global warming is well-aware of natural temperature fluctuations and is worried about a separate, man-made increase in temperatures in addition to that. I mean I was taught about natural climate change as a 14 year old in high school from the first time my teachers introduced the idea of global warming. As long as I've been aware of global warming I've known that other causes of climate change certainly exist. I think anyone that ever paid attention in freshman science class is in the same boat. I mean that's not even part of the debate--everyone knows about natural climate change and is worried about a different issue entirely.
I'm not weighing in on the discussion overall as TB's style of discourse on the subject is less than productive. I just saw this same argument again and again throughout the thread and didn't understand how it is an argument at all.
The only voice of reason in the entire "discussion".
Maunder Minimum, anyone?
I'm all for "green technology", mainly because I've seen first-hand what the oil industry has done to the coastal areas of south Louisiana (what's LEFT of it
); and the last thing I care for is for my country's economy to be tied to a product that is overwhelmingly imported from countries that would love nothing more than to see us become a failure. But, I'm not STUPID enough to want to toss the baby out with the bathwater here. Let's do this stuff sensibly - not rush to an ethanol-based energy system for instance (and tie up food production for a fuel which we can't really use effectively!
) - but really think it through. There are plenty of "green" energy sources that we need to work on developing, and we need to do this - but do it sensibly, over time.
