Jump to content
Thunder?
Local
Radar
Pollen
IGNORED

'Naysayers Guide to Global Warming.


Mondy

Recommended Posts

Posted
  • Location: Larbert
  • Location: Larbert

    Ok, the most recent "Global Warming" threads, or topics hinting to GW have been ruined ( :lol: ) by individuals such as myself, with the pro-GWers exclaiming if we don't believe in GW, then don't post in such a thread..

    So, this is a thread dedicated to the non-believers out there.

    With respect, the pro-movement can post elsewhere.

    To start the ball rolling, i'm thinking GW will be blamed on this next.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    • Replies 422
    • Created
    • Last Reply
    Posted
  • Location: 4 miles north of Durham City
  • Location: 4 miles north of Durham City

    Its funny Mondy, how you seem to dismiss the strong 'official' status-quo with the GW agenda, but yet accept the official government theory of 9\11 without any scepticism.

    'Belief', 'fact', 'spin'? You decide.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Posted
  • Location: Mytholmroyd, West Yorks.......
  • Weather Preferences: Hot & Sunny, Cold & Snowy
  • Location: Mytholmroyd, West Yorks.......

    :lol: Nice to see you two chewing over old 'issues' again!

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Posted
  • Location: Larbert
  • Location: Larbert

    Again, with respect PP, 9/11 conspiracy theories have nothing whatsoever do with this.

    We all have "thoughts" about that particular day, but this thread isn't about that.

    You and I both know there are a few on here, maybe quite a few, who are not convinced by GW.

    Hence the thread title.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Posted
  • Location: New York City
  • Location: New York City

    I declare myself a non-believer of the the pseudo-science the media spits out at us.

    Truthfully, I think something doesn't quite add up in terms of the larger picture of GW, but ONLY time will tell.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Posted
  • Location: Larbert
  • Location: Larbert

    Don't be scared to post further thoughts, Hiya!

    It's not as if the GW brigade are worried about these kind of threads, although just how many are onlookers is equally interesting

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Posted
  • Location: Sunny Southsea
  • Location: Sunny Southsea

    I'm not going to 'spoil' your thread, mondy, but i do object to this:

    Ok, the most recent "Global Warming" threads, or topics hinting to GW have been ruined ( ) by individuals such as myself, with the pro-GWers exclaiming if we don't believe in GW, then don't post in such a thread..

    If you didn't post in GW threads, there'd be nothing for us to write... :help:

    Your scepticism ruins nothing. Please keep scepting.

    I'll leave you to your 'personal' thread now.

    :)P

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Posted
  • Location: Chevening Kent
  • Location: Chevening Kent

    Why must it be this constant 'I believe' or 'I don't Believe' scenario what about me and the many like me that are stuck in the middle and think that neither of you are right? 3 sides to every story your side, their side and the plain old truth! which normally lies somewhere in the middle as I guess it does with this issue.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Posted
  • Location: Co Dublin, Ireland
  • Location: Co Dublin, Ireland

    Nice thread Mondy. Man made GW does not exist as some believe but if they want to remain fanatical about it then they can knock themselves out as far as im concerned. :help:

    To start the ball rolling, i'm thinking GW will be blamed on this next.

    :D The beaver obviously got confuzzled about where he was meant to build his dam. No harm. A better array of wildlife is a better thing I reckon.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Posted
  • Location: New York City
  • Location: New York City
    Why must it be this constant 'I believe' or 'I don't Believe' scenario what about me and the many like me that are stuck in the middle and think that neither of you are right? 3 sides to every story your side, their side and the plain old truth! which normally lies somewhere in the middle as I guess it does with this issue.

    Some what akin to myself, to believe humans are solely responible for the warming of the planet is naive, so is trying to argue the world isn't warming!

    I'm not a climatologist, some people on here have become amature climatologists and they present good arguments, but I not of that mind. What I do understand is the basic principles (chemistry), and when I notice that someone else doesn't I normally come down on them like a tonne of bricks.

    Since I've commited to this thread I might keep going with it tho.

    btw, anyone out there with a climatology degree?

    Scot

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Posted
  • Location: Rossland BC Canada
  • Location: Rossland BC Canada

    To me, it's a question of proportion. There is a lot of public confusion over the difference between "global warming" and AGW, which are not necessarily exactly the same thing.

    Few people would describe themselves as skeptical of global warming at this point, including me, but I think the numbers are often over-hyped. I see the warming as being regionally varied and as such Europe seems to be warming faster than many other regions. The Canadian arctic was warming noticeably in recent years but some of the most recent data show a temporary reversal of that trend.

    So quite often I think people who say they are skeptical of global warming really mean they are skeptical of AGW or the greenhouse gas cause postulated for this warming. In that particular case, I am not so much skeptical as uncertain, I think some percentage of the warming is probably due to human activity, but what percentage? What would be happening naturally right now if human beings were not present or at least not technologically advanced?

    I suspect it would be almost the same climate, perhaps with slight differences brought on by our contributions. These are often estimated as fairly high by the AGW lobby, in the 50 to 90 per cent range usually. I feel that it's more like 20 to 25 per cent.

    Since the variations are quite possibly natural in origin, they can and probably will reverse over time. That's the actual debate, I think, but the media tend to obscure this in various ways. For example, recently the UN panel said they were 90% sure that human activity was a component of global warming. That seems quite reasonable to me, but of course the general public have gained the impression from that statement that 90% of the warming is caused by human beings. I think most members of NW will be statistically savvy enough to realize that the two statements are not identical, nor are they meant to be understood as identical.

    There are many different ways that this complex question can be playing out -- weather patterns may not be entirely dependent on just surface input (some form of space-atmosphere linkage may be at work) so just because we are warming up the atmosphere does not completely explain differences from decade to decade in storm tracks, etc. The most difficult part of this question is that we have no control laboratory, we have to assess what's going on from the real-time real-world laboratory that we live in. As a result, everyone tends to see what they want to see in the data, but I think it remains an open question as to the proportions of natural and human-related warming. The more the natural component, obviously, the more one should favour a planning response over an interventionist response (can't change the natural cycles, only the human input). This is more than just an academic argument because, either way, we may have only a few decades left to act in some way, and I have come to the conclusion we should be planning for high-risk, possibly inevitable, future sea level rises. If these are based largely on natural variations, our only real option would be to plan our responses, not to try to prevent what we can't change. But at the same time, I see no real down side to a cleaner environment, and better technology, so as long as the proponents of AGW are reasonable about uncertainty, they should proceed, I suppose, as long as they don't claim they have "proved" a human cause for the warming, because in purely scientific terms, and this is important in and of itself, that has not really happened, and it is philosophically dangerous to imply that it has.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Posted
  • Location: Mytholmroyd, West Yorks.......
  • Weather Preferences: Hot & Sunny, Cold & Snowy
  • Location: Mytholmroyd, West Yorks.......

    Let us not forget that ,for those who say warming isn't happening there are those who say it is and then there are those who say it is and a lot faster than models show (but that the 'clever old planet' is doing it's level best to 'keep things as they were')

    Both the first and the last group are outside the IPCC 'umberella' and both groups tend to be greeted with incredulity.

    Vive la difference!!

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Posted
  • Location: Lincoln, Lincolnshire
  • Weather Preferences: Sunshine, convective precipitation, snow, thunderstorms, "episodic" months.
  • Location: Lincoln, Lincolnshire

    What I often notice is a tendency to pick out the arguments of the extremists on the "other side", while avoiding the more moderate arguments- a read of "straw man fallacy" could be in order.

    I might be considered one of the "GW-believers" but I am perfectly open to the possibility that the warming is not all down to human activity, and indeed suspect that some of it may be down to other forcings. For example, positive phases of the NAO and AO contribute to positive anomalies over the Northern Hemisphere landmasses and negative anomalies over the oceans, resulting in inflated temperatures over the Northern Hemisphere as a whole.

    What I generally tend to dish out, though, is the assertion often used in the IPCC Reports, namely "the warming is unlikely to be due to natural forcing alone".

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Posted
  • Location: Larbert
  • Location: Larbert

    Hmmm. More replies from [possible] believers than naysayers on this thread!

    The idea of this thread is really to post something in it which perhaps you have seen, read, wondered etc and ultimately makes a mockery of aGW/GW. It doesn't have to be replied to on a day-to-day basis, but if something is relevant and contradicts the above, please do post and share with the other naysers.

    Here's a few of my thoughts so far..

    1. Hurricane Katrina seemed to be regarded as being caused by "climate change" rather than the natural processes that create hurricanes. Really?

    2. These "models" that the IPCC rely so heavily upon - they can't tell us accurately what the temperature will be in a week's time let alone a hundred years yet that doesn't seem to bother anybody. If the models were any good, they could be set in reverse to show us major weather changes of the past (e.g the ice ages) but they can't even do that.

    3. Every doomsayer prediction is based on the results gained from flawed computer models.

    Even the IPCC summary for policy makers doesn't suggest doom and gloom, but every talking head on TV news says "see...we told you...we're in deep Doh a dumb swear filter got the better of met and its our fault!!!"

    4. Data does show it warmed up a little between 1900 and 1945. Then it cooled quite a bit between 1945 and 1975, which is the reason the 'scientific consensus' was saying back in the 70s that the next ice age was upon us. Since 1978 NASA has been recording earths temperature with satellite microwave radiosond technology (accurate to .1C) and that data, millions of bits of data covering the entire planet has shown no increase - NONE - apart from the odd El Nino spike that was completely gone within a year.

    5. Antartica melting/thawing/warming? Rubbish. It happens all the time. Temperature records/data will show you that only a tiny % of Antartica ever sees temperatures above zero C and only for a few shorts months every year, the rest barely gets above -10 at it warmest and spends the rest of the year below -20 and down around -40 and colder.

    Just how much Antartic ice do you reckon melts at temperatures between -10 and -40/50 or 60?

    Anyone ever read stuff by scientists showing that ice accumulation at the south pole is actually increasing and that is causing increased carving (Ice falling off into the sea). Or do you think the antartic continent can hold any amount of snow that falls on it no matter what?

    6. Scientists freely admit their understanding of contrails (which has been mentioned in other threads recently) and there 'effect' on anthropogenic global warming is near nil and yet in the name of 'saving the planet' they are taxing it...because it is an easy target, not because they truly believe it will make any difference. The true climate scientists are getting more alarmed by the week because the very credibility of science and the general publics trust in scientists is being risked by fundamentalist environmentalists.

    7. If you think about it not one single doomsayer prediction I've heard of has ever amounted to anything - not one thing I ever read in the newspapers or saw on TV media or learned about through reading books. Nil. Go on, think about it..

    8. From this link, let me quote:

    Viscount Monckton of Brenchley

    Lord Monckton served (1982-1986) as Special Adviser to the Rt. Honorable Mrs. Margaret Thatcher, Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, in the Prime Minister’s Policy Unit, 10 Downing Street, London.

    His views and opinions are not necessarily those of the Center for Science and Public Policy.

    FIGURES in the final draft of the UN’s fourth five-year report on climate change show that the previous report, in 2001, had overestimated the human influence on the climate since the Industrial Revolution by at least one-third.

    Also, the UN, in its 2007 report, has more than halved its high-end best estimate of the rise in sea level by 2100 from 3 feet to just 17 inches. It suggests that the rate of sea-level rise is up from 2mm/yr to 3mm/year – no more than one foot in a century.

    UN scientists faced several problems their computer models had not predicted. Globally, temperature is not rising at all, and sea level is not rising anything like as fast as had been forecast. Concentrations of methane in the air are actually falling.

    The Summary for Policymakers was issued February 2, 2007, but the report on which the Summary is based will not be published until May. This strange separation of the publication dates has raised in some minds the possibility that the Summary (written by political representatives of governments) will be taken as a basis for altering the science chapters (written by scientists, and supposedly finalized and closed in December 2006).

    The draft of the science chapters, now being circulated to governments for last-minute comments, reveals that the tendency of computers to over-predict rises in temperature and sea level has forced a major rethink.

    The report’s generally more cautiously-expressed projections confirm scientists’ warnings that the UN’s heavy reliance on computer models had exaggerated the temperature effect of greenhouse-gas emissions.

    Previous reports in 1990, 1995 and 2001 had been progressively more alarmist. In the final draft of the new report there is a change in tone. Though carbon dioxide in the air is increasing, global temperature is not.

    9. In the last few days I have started reading a book called 'The Skeptical Environmentalist' by Bjorn Lomborg. I commend this book to you all - full of accurate mathmatical graphs and easy to read text it will put your mind at ease on every issue you can think of. The man is an environmentalist and a Professor of Statistics teaching in a University in Denmark. It may sound boring but it's actually a great read.

    http://www.lomborg.com/books.htm

    http://www.lomborg.com/articles.htm

    So, after what feels like an age typing this, here's my general feeling.

    Sceptic? Me? You bet!

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Posted
  • Location: Sunny Southsea
  • Location: Sunny Southsea

    Lomborg is an interesting choice. His work is taken seriously, even when people disagree with him. It would be good if you could post occasional 'snippets', Mondy, so we can discuss them somewhere (not necessarily on this thread).

    I'm still resisting any temptation to respond to your actual posts, for obvious reasons. Have fun.

    :)P

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Posted
  • Location: Larbert
  • Location: Larbert

    Appreciate that, P3. Purely for the naysayers to pick up and either add or comment.

    Regarding Lomborg. Get your own copy :help: :lol: Point taken, though about the snippets. Will do, but so many threads now, it may well just add more clutter and debate, which is no bad thing i suppose.

    Anyway, i've said/written enough today, some other naysayer can have a shot now..lol

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Posted
  • Location: Near Newton Abbot or east Dartmoor, Devon
  • Location: Near Newton Abbot or east Dartmoor, Devon
    Hmmm. More replies from [possible] believers than naysayers on this thread!

    8. From this link, let me quote:

    Lets look at this quote from Lord Monckton:

    "The UN's 2001 report showed that our greenhouse-gas emissions since 1750 had caused a

    'radiative forcing' of 2.43 watts per square metre. Our other effects on climate were shown as

    broadly self-cancelling.

    In the current draft, the UN has cut its estimate of our net effect on climate by more than a third,

    to 1.6 watts per square metre. It now thinks pollutant particles reflecting sunlight back to space

    have a very strong cooling effect."

    It's very 'clever'. Why? Well here's the explaination.

    In the UN 2001 report the forcing due to CO2/CH4/N2O/Halocarbons was indeed estimated at 2.43Wm2. In the current SPM (2007) the estimated forcing due to CO2/CH4/N2O/Halocarbons is...2.64Wm2. But, Lord Monckton has used the gross (ie +ve forcings only) figure for anthro forcing from 2001 and the net (ie +ve and -ve forcings) figure for anthro forcing from 2007. What would you call that? A mistake? A decept...well, I know what I think. He is either very, very careless and he made a silly mistake/copied this stuff from some cruddy website (because this nonsense has done the rounds of the denialist sites) or he is misleading us/himself. Lord Monckton isn't stupid, and given his wording, I go for the latter.

    So, the truth is this: The UN has not 'cut it's estimate of our net effect'. No, Lord Monckton has 'confused' GROSS and NET. He'd not make an accountant....

    But, what do you think...

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Posted
  • Location: Huddersfield, 145m ASL
  • Weather Preferences: Lots of snow, lots of hot sun
  • Location: Huddersfield, 145m ASL

    I was going to reply, and then I thought 'Whats the point ?'. There are clearly some people who will, I suspect, never be convinced, and this is because I doubt whether what they would consider incontrovertible evidence will ever be available in our lifetimes. And I further suspect that even if we all lived for a couple of hundred years, and it was proved that increased CO2 in the atmosphere had caused global warming, then it would still probably be virtually impossible to prove beyond absolutely any doubt that man was the main cause of this. So, I suspect, the 'naysayers' will remain safe in their ivory tower of 'where's the proof ???' as long as they wish to remain holed up in there, whilst the rest of us get on with acting on good probabilities and strong likelihoods.

    To put it another way, I am prepared to modify my behaviour and lifestyle based on the possibility that GW is to an as yet not fully determined extent caused by human activity, and that it is highly likely that GW will have serious negative consequences for many people on this planet. If it then turns out I was wrong and humans had nothing to do with climate change, so what ???? The changes I can make are hardly very painful, and they may make a difference. If they don't I haven't lost anything, but if they actually do....................

    So to sum up, I'm really not bothered whether people believe in AGW or not, but I do believe everyone has a responsibility to try and modify their lifestyle/behaviour to do everything they can, purely on the basis that it might make a difference. It's really the same principle as why I don't drive at 70 mph passed schools. There is no absolute proof that my action would have any negative effects, but there is a good chance it might, so I don't, I drive passed schools at 20 mph.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Posted
  • Location: Near Newton Abbot or east Dartmoor, Devon
  • Location: Near Newton Abbot or east Dartmoor, Devon

    Mondy, I wont be alone in noting you don't come out fighting for the Lord...

    Arrgghh, you quote Khilyuk and Chilingar probaly the single most laughable climate 'science paper' I've read over the last decade - it's taken apart here.

    Jese, it that really the best you have?

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Posted
  • Location: Larbert
  • Location: Larbert

    Chaps. It's simple really. If you don't like what you're reading, don't post/reply. It was made clear during the opening thread that this topic would be aimed specifically at the naysayers.

    The reason?

    People such as WiB, SF, VP and more were getting irked with people like me and others who were hijacking their own threads with reference to Global Warming in it. As a sceptic, i replied, but it was deemed inappropriate given that anti-GW (naysayers) voices would be ignored and evidently hampering the actual thread.

    So, while it's fine for believers to carry on regardless, the minority(naysayers), i guess, just have to sit tight and be quiet/read?

    Hence this thread.

    Mondy, I wont be alone in noting you don't come out fighting for the Lord...

    Arrgghh, you quote Khilyuk and Chilingar probaly the single most laughable climate 'science paper' I've read over the last decade - it's taken apart here.

    Jese, it that really the best you have?

    Again, if you aren't interested in sceptics, post on a thread where at least someone will agree with you.

    Jeez.

    Jese, it that really the best you have?

    I trust you did read the other links or were you being too quick to dismiss one certain link that you find laughable?

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Posted
  • Location: Near Newton Abbot or east Dartmoor, Devon
  • Location: Near Newton Abbot or east Dartmoor, Devon
    Chaps. It's simple really. If you don't like what you're reading, don't post/reply. It was made clear during the opening thread that this topic would be aimed specifically at the naysayers.

    The reason?

    People such as WiB, SF, VP and more were getting irked with people like me and others who were hijacking their own threads with reference to Global Warming in it. As a sceptic, i replied, but it was deemed inappropriate given that anti-GW (naysayers) voices would be ignored and evidently hampering the actual thread.

    So, while it's fine for believers to carry on regardless, the minority(naysayers), i guess, just have to sit tight and be quiet/read?

    Hence this thread.

    Again, if you aren't interested in sceptics, post on a thread where at least someone will agree with you.

    Jeez.

    I'm interested in what is right and what is wrong. Lord M was (at best) misleading, K&C awful, yet your scepticism is so blinding you can't even bring yourself to acknowledge that?

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Posted
  • Location: Larbert
  • Location: Larbert
    Nothing wrong with debate Mondy.

    Would you like to expand on that and add to the debate? There are of course numerous other GW/AGW threads in this very forum which have been debated until i reckon we're all red in the face!

    There is debating. There's also downright spitefulness over a person view, which is clearly not towing the party line. :rolleyes:

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Posted
  • Location: Derby - 46m (151ft) ASL
  • Location: Derby - 46m (151ft) ASL

    Good point Wibbles :rolleyes:

    What you perhaps have to look at in this debate, is if we all agreed on GW, then the world would be putting plans into action. The fact that the world isnt doing so, shows that out there, throughout the globe, not everybody has the same idea on what is happening.

    It should make an interested readable debate, so lets not tell people to go and post elsewhere (or in turn, please respect others views as well).

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Posted
  • Location: Larbert
  • Location: Larbert
    I'm interested in what is right and what is wrong. Lord M was (at best) misleading, K&C awful, yet your scepticism is so blinding you can't even bring yourself to acknowledge that?

    And the other links?

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Posted
  • Location: Near Newton Abbot or east Dartmoor, Devon
  • Location: Near Newton Abbot or east Dartmoor, Devon
    Would you like to expand on that and add to the debate? There are of course numerous other GW/AGW threads in this very forum which have been debated until i reckon we're all red in the face!

    There is debating. There's also downright spitefulness over a person view, which is clearly not towing the party line. :rolleyes:

    You are entitled to your view - I'd defend that etc etc.. What I'm doing is examining what you've presneted in support of your view. I've shown that one thing you presented to us was misleading and another downright rubbish. Will you acknowledge that reality please :rofl:

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Archived

    This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

    Guest
    This topic is now closed to further replies.
    ×
    ×
    • Create New...