Global Warming or Global Cooling?

[Brain]

Not true since the modells are flawed to begin with and they can still not prove it because of that and just lack of data to say the least, it doesn't help that every model they use they always input us indtead of several other factors that needs to be researched, and when a model fails, so far hundreds, they make a new model with differen't parameters and input us and our emissions to prove cause and effect.

Where are these hundreds of models that failed? Climate change modeling is based on physics: irradiation from the Earth, from the sun, fluid dynamics and other solidly established science. They don't just make it up. If you are saying climate models are completely wrong, then you are saying that we have no idea how fluids behave, for instance. They also do include as many factors as possible in the modelization.

The point is, climate scientists are very well aware of what their models do and what they do not. Their models are based on sound science, but there certainly are uncertainties about various parameters because they are variously hard to observe. However, these uncertainties are bounded and thus one can evaluate by how much the climate model can be off. It so happens that scientists estimate that their predictions of global warming are robust to that uncertainty. Basically, they know enough to know that there will be global warming, even though they cannot predict very exactly by how much - you could say that they couldn't make the models tell them otherwise even if they tried (and obviously, they tried - any scientist would, when given such a toy).

I have yet to come across a peer-reviewd report that holds up under scrutiny or is recognised as fact or credible.

Given the kind of sources you look at, I am not surprised.

Can you emember reading anything about such findings that would if they existed end the debate?

Only time will end the debate. There are many interests against global warming, they won't give up that easily and they are working actively to downplay the scientific consensus, find dissenters and confuse people. Pretty sadly, it works :(

no not even the ippc have a political organ asking for more funds with only goal of proving it is mankinds fault dismissing other science even that related to the sun affecting climate change. Thats why so many scientists have had to even use legal support to be able to leave the ippc reports and their findings because they did not agree with.

So many? Really? How many is many? Can you name me one? Can you name me two? Good luck!

http://www.dakotavoice.com/2009/06/a...lobal-warming/

lol. By the same author:
http://www.dakotavoice.com/2009/06/evidence-of-the-age-of-planet-earth/

But let's look at the article anyway. It posits that the current warming is caused by a "recovery from a cold period". Wow. As if the Earth decided in 1850 that "okay, let's make the temperature higher now!" Good. That does not happen magically. We can still try to figure out what factors caused that rise, including whatever happened now. And research has been done and has concluded that the current warming is most likely our fault!

Global warming has not stopped in the 2000s. The ten hottest years on record were since 1997. There is no significant cooling "trend", unless temperature dipping in 2008 is a "trend".

Just one of many bits not reaching mass media in many countries. I also like to make a point that, we do not even have instruments to collect weather readings across the globe to collect that sets of date, you and others presume we have acces to, you also assume you know 150 years of industrialisation is responsible? there are NO facts in any recognised science journal or research institute confirming that theory, as of yet.

Yes there are. You need to get better at searching. Here is an exercise: is the sun responsible for the present warming? Investigate and tell me what you find. Make sure you read from both sides of the debate, to background check everybody you read from and everybody they quote and to verify if any argument you read about has been countered somewhere. If you don't do it right I will tell you how to do it right.

So we should only count the last 150 years? tell that to Al Gore using graphs from the great ice age that he later have to trash due to lack of evidence that it is Co2 causing the upswing when the data seems to suggest otherwise unless you work for the ippc (later Presents a graph tracking CO2 levels and global temperatures during the past 650,000 years, but never mentions the most significant point: Global temperatures were warmer than the present during each of the past four interglacial periods, even though CO2 levels were lower.)

Read my earlier post for an explanation of why data spanning hundreds of thousands of years is completely irrelevant to the debate.

Then how come they can not yet present that research as facts without failing and asking for more grants to prove what you claim has already been proven by the scientists that just earlier the other month asked for more grants??? Yet we "idiots" have no problem of accepting string theories, quantum mechanics and relativity etc. Is there a translation problem? or lack of research and facts?

The loonies at Conservapedia do seem to reject relativity now. I am not kidding. Look it up, it is absolutely hilarious. Seriously, though, strong enough ideology can make people reject good science on specious grounds, because they want to reject it. Suffices that powerful interests make people believe that something is against their interest by appealing to some of their other beliefs and they will argue en masse against anything, really. There are numerous examples in history: the Earth revolving around the Sun and evolution were "discredited" by the Church, the dangers of tobacco were "discredited" by interests funded by the tobacco industry, global warming is the latest victim, its contrarians this time being funded by the oil industry and political opportunists (and there's actual evidence that they did, if you look it up). They appeal to the fear that some people have of communism and losing their freedom and gain sympathizers that unwittingly perpetuate their interests. Result: there is a shitload of noise about the issue right now. Now, it wouldn't be so bad if they were right. But they are not :(

even the scientists using these models admits that they can't be sure, I on the other hand, is innocent until proven guilty,

They are pretty damn sure and I, on the other hand, would rather be safe than sorry.

and if the cost of being wrong is also sentencing billions to even more starvation, suffering and mass death not to mention mass unemployment in the west and less liberty then...

Oh, please. That's just scaremongering. I see no evidence that any of this would happen.

I bet the reason you would disagree is hat you would argue that my idea of life is not sustainable, so you like every communist party out there take the opportunity to use "global warming" as a means to an end, socialism and or communism, all for the good of the planet right?

Socialism? Communism? Stop getting your information from right-wing clowns. The cap and trade policy is a free market solution. Carbon tax is often presented as revenue neutral - for instance, the revenues from that tax could be used to reduce income tax on individuals. I mean, fuck, trying to solve a problem isn't communism and does not require communist ideas.

Edit: To make sure there are no missunderstandings. We do have enviromental problems we need to adress including resources, but at the moment we are investing more money and effort tackleing something that is unlikely and not proven, funny how global warming is the only scientific field were we have the lowest bar of standards.

Evolution too, if the clown you linked to is to be believed. Look, there is "proof" (strong evidence). You just can't be assed to look for it seriously, preferring to get your information from sources that reassure you about your own biases (and there's a lot of those). Empty your head from any and all preconceived notions about global warming and tell yourself that there is one and only one important thing: to be well informed about people who say it is happening and their arguments, and people who say it is not and their arguments. Start on Wikipedia - it is usually fairly neutral and reasonable and will not rile you up about anything like other sources might.

 

[cantab]

] I also like to make a point that, we do not even have instruments to collect weather readings across the globe to collect that sets of date[/B]

Satellites. Oceanic weather monitoring buoys. The hundreds of terrestrial weather stations. Daily releases of weather balloons. Etc etc. We do have those instruments, a lot of them.

if we grow local organic food we can sustain 3 out of soon 7 billion people

We don't need to do that to tackle climate change.

if we use alternate energy resources the "THIRD WORLD" will revert from early to modern industrialisation and benefits that carry back to the dark ages, you tink that helps them?

We don't need to do that to tackle climate change. And anyway how we generate electricity makes no difference to the industries and people that use it. France generates most of its electricity by nuclear power. Iceland generates three quarters of its electricity from hydro power, a quarter from geothermal energy, and uses virtually no fossil fuels. Kenya gets a quarter of its electricity from geothermal. Denmark gets 20% of its electricity from the wind. China is building the biggest and most powerful hydroelectric dam in the world. Etc etc etc

Indeed, less developed countries would be far better off using renewable energy sources than fossil fuels. Fossil fuels they keep having to pay and pay and pay for. Renewables, once the generating capacity is built (which can be done with aid), have only the low maintenance cost.

Oh and please explain to me this turmoil, with facts proving that such changes did not occur before without devasting effects please

I. Told. You. Already. Several mass extinctions have occurred during times of climatic change.

So we should only count the last 150 years?

If we're interested in the issue of whether human industrial activity is causing climate change, the last 150 years or so is what is relevant.

AS OF YET, there is no fact that proves global warming exist, or that it is manmade, just models, theories and contradicting ones you and others dismiss because you love doomsday scenarios, I do to, but mostly on film ;)

As of yet, the scientific verdict is absolutely clear. If you don't consider climate change proven, then you cannot consider ANYTHING proven.

blah blah blah

Your arguments are what are known as 'straw men'. I am not advocating any particular political solution, nor technological regress. Indeed, technologies with reduced environmental impact are progress by any sensible definition of the word.

 

[pokedude7]

The Straight Dope already dealt with the issue of whether Global Warming is real (www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2647/is-global-warming-for-real). The answer is yes. And:

<i><b>Even if all Kyoto targets are met, world carbon emissions will continue to rise.</b> Why? Because Kyoto exempts developing nations, and increased carbon emissions in those countries will swamp any reductions the developed world achieves.</i>

There are at least 3 questions as to the source of Global Warming:
1) Is it naturally occurring warming?
2) Is it from Man's activities?
3) or is it from a combination of both (the activity of man accelerating the naturally occurring warming)?

Since Global Warming/Climate change is real, the questions then becomes:

What do we do about it? What do we have to give up to fix it (if it can be fixed)?