Global Warming: "Pseudoscientific Fraud"

[woot]

I am dumbfounded that people like Indy are still pointing to past climate fluctuations as evidence against man-made global warming, as if climate scientists didn't learn all about those fluctuations on their first day of climatology 101. Assuming a climatologist doesn't know what a Milankovitch cycle is is like assuming that a mathematician doesn't know what a plus sign is. And yet in every corner of the internet we've got people boldly proclaiming that man-made global warming can't be real because the world used to be colder or hotter than it is now. Can someone explain this to me? Are you just trying to fool the fools or do you actually think you've figured something out in your 2 minutes of thinking that an army of PhDs hasn't?

[Uncle Ted]

Does anyone want to explain exactly how CO2 is causing this effect?

[Jeff Lebowski]

So much for a lack of consensus.

http://www.spokesman.com/stories/201...ming-man-made/

Top scientists from a variety of fields say they are about as certain that global warming is a real, man-made threat as they are that cigarettes kill.

They are as sure about climate change as they are about the age of the universe. They say they are more certain about climate change than they are that vitamins make you healthy or that dioxin in Superfund sites is dangerous.

Jeff Severinghaus, a geoscientist at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography, said that through the use of radioactive isotopes, scientists are more than 99 percent sure that much of the carbon in the air has human fingerprints on it. And because of basic physics, scientists are 99 percent certain that carbon traps heat in what is called the greenhouse effect.

But the role of nature and all sorts of other factors bring the number down to 95 percent when you want to say that the majority of the warming is human-caused, he said.

And by the way, that certainty has gone up, not down, during the last 10-12 year flat temp cycle.

Maybe those pesky scientists just haven't seen Indy's charts yet.

[woot]

So much for a lack of consensus.

http://www.spokesman.com/stories/201...ming-man-made/





And by the way, that certainty has gone up, not down, during the last 10-12 year flat temp cycle.

Maybe those pesky scientists just haven't seen Indy's charts yet.

Agreed. Kind of like how the Dow was the same in 2009 as it was in 1997, proving the lack of a long-term upward trend. The stock market is clearly a pseudo-scientific fraud.

[SandYFan]

So much for a lack of consensus.

So what's your horse in this race? You don't believe anything can be done to stop it. Do you just get a lot of joy out of being right?

[Indy Coug]

Agreed. Kind of like how the Dow was the same in 2009 as it was in 1997, proving the lack of a long-term upward trend. The stock market is clearly a pseudo-scientific fraud.

God knows there have never been any other comparable upward slopes leading to local temperature maximums in the past.

[TripletDaddy]

Indy Coug is enduring a series of humiliating crotch kicks in this thread.

I think the only person who agrees with him is maximus.

[woot]

God knows there have never been any other comparable upward slopes leading to local temperature maximums in the past.

I assume you're being sarcastic, because you're not a moron. But sarcastically saying something that is identical to what you always seriously say would seem an interesting choice.

Unless you really are that stupid and weren't being sarcastic, in which case I apologize.

I nominate this post for the insultapology thread.

[Jeff Lebowski]

So what's your horse in this race? You don't believe anything can be done to stop it. Do you just get a lot of joy out of being right?

Being right is a terrific thrill. I hope you are able to experience it some day.

[SandYFan]

Being right is a terrific thrill. I hope you are able to experience it some day.

Me, too.

[woot]

So what's your horse in this race? You don't believe anything can be done to stop it. Do you just get a lot of joy out of being right?

As JL has already explained, you're conflating two very different issues -- you're not alone in this.

Acknowledging the scientific consensus is step one. Step two is deciding what, if anything, can be done. It's maddening that so many people are afraid of step two so they just avoid it by pretending the scientific reality doesn't exist. There are important considerations on both sides of the discussion regarding what, if anything, can be done about global warming, but it seems like most of the effort is wasted on pointless denial of the facts rather than rational discussion of how much should be sacrificed to try to fix the problem, or whether it's fixable at all.

[Indy Coug]

Maybe someone can dust off King Canute.

[Uncle Ted]

Sir Bob Geldof says otherwise... in fact we are all going to be dead by 2030:

Sir Bob Geldof: 'All humans will die before 2030'

SIR BOB GELDOF has declared we ALL have less than 17 years to live.

The musician-turned-activist reckons the world will end in 2030 - leading to the extinction of humankind.


Sir Bob, 61, based his miserable prediction on the effects of climate change.


“The world can decide in a fit of madness to kill itself," he told a group of youngsters at a summit in Johannesburg, South Africa.

The former Boomtown Rats singer also warned "the next war will not be a World War One or a World War Two, it will be the end."


He added: "We may not get to 2030. We need to address the problem of climate change urgently."


Sir Bob is best-known for his attempts in helping to fight famine in Africa, staging Live Aid at Wembley Stadium in 1985.


He finished his speech by apologising for being "bloody miserable", but added: "just get on with it".

http://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/late...ie-before-2030

[VirginiaCougar]

Sir Bob Geldof says otherwise... in fact we are all going to be dead by 2030:


http://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/late...ie-before-2030

What I find amazing is how so many people think that ideology trumps science on these types of issues. A good portion of the anti-climate change are there because it is ideologically inconvenient. Thus spinning the scientific consensus absurdly any way they can.
I don't know who peed in Geldof's Cherrios the other day, but I do believe there is a reasonable discussion to be had about what to do. As Woot noted above, people are afraid of that conversation.

I know a couple of years ago, we decided to see what we could do as a family without fundamentally changing our lifestyle. It has actually been great. Additional insulation, smart thermostats, cf bulbs, a few upgraded energy star appliances etc. have all reduced our electric/gas bills substantially. Nothing wrong with a $20 gas bill (granted a couple of months ago). Changing to CF bulbs is not tyranny, that is absurd!

We traded in our large SUV that got 12-14 MPG for a cross-over SUV that still had three rows of seats and is actually more comfortable to travel in. We now get very high 20's mpg on the road and over 20 in town with a V6 (still has sufficient power). The kids even like it more, with the additional amenities the new vehicle has over the old.

That was the easy stuff and overall I think they have increased our quality of life, not decreased it. I suspect there are a number of other things we could do if we got serious about it. Things that wouldn't fundamentally change our quality of life. Things that would be a lot more productive and meaningful to the issue than sticking a stupid anti-Climate Change sticker on your car. Talk about carrying your own "sign" with you.

[Jacob]

As Woot noted above, people are afraid of that conversation.

I know a couple of years ago, we decided to see what we could do as a family without fundamentally changing our lifestyle. It has actually been great. Additional insulation, smart thermostats, cf bulbs, a few upgraded energy star appliances etc. have all reduced our electric/gas bills substantially. Nothing wrong with a $20 gas bill (granted a couple of months ago). Changing to CF bulbs is not tyranny, that is absurd!

We traded in our large SUV that got 12-14 MPG for a cross-over SUV that still had three rows of seats and is actually more comfortable to travel in. We now get very high 20's mpg on the road and over 20 in town with a V6 (still has sufficient power). The kids even like it more, with the additional amenities the new vehicle has over the old.

That was the easy stuff and overall I think they have increased our quality of life, not decreased it. I suspect there are a number of other things we could do if we got serious about it. Things that wouldn't fundamentally change our quality of life. Things that would be a lot more productive and meaningful to the issue than sticking a stupid anti-Climate Change sticker on your car. Talk about carrying your own "sign" with you.

I don't think many people are afraid of having that conversation. At least I'm not.

Here's the thing's I've done. PUrchased a brand new SUV that gets only 12-14 mpg, worse than my last SUV. Moved into a bigger, but older home that is not extremely efficient and required me to run the AC all summer to placate a pregnant wife. Install higher pressure shower heads that use more water for my comfort and convenience.

But seriously. Whose afraid of having a conversation. There are 3 steps to get to the conversation you want to have, even after having accepted the science.

1. Could we reverse global warming if we wanted to?
2. Even if we could, is it worth the cost? Do the benefits of warming outweigh or mitigate the negatives such that the costs of change are too high?
3. Finally we get to what I believe is the conversation you want to have. How drastic and in what ways should we change and spend money to mitigate warming.

I don't ever hear your side having the conversation in number 2. Are you afraid of that conversation? I wouldn't make that assertion as you have of the other side. Further, your side tends to poo-poo clean energy sources that would mitigate the harm i.e fracking, natural gas, nuclear, water power, keystone. Cheaper oil could even be part of the solution as carbon tax would be much more politically viable (though not something I support).