Global warming skeptics are heretics and dissidents!
Throughout history the dissidents have usually been proven correct!
posted by Miss Carnivorous @ 5:50 PM
Monday, February 12, 2007
Previous Posts
- Where are the Muslim peace marches?
- Miss C is part Russian and she loves fur!
- Blacks already suspicious of Barack Obama
- Hundreds and thousands of dead fish were washed a...
- Poor Anna Nicole!
- On Gavin Newsom's sex scandal
- When man eating crotch squirrels attack!
- Beware the "Pigeon Pose!"
- My Baby's got a bed
Subscribe to
Posts [Atom]
14 Comments:
Someone once said that most new ideas were dismissed as being crackpot in the beginning, but that at the same time most ideas that are dismissed as crackpot are.
Is it possible that one day the global warming skeptics will be vindicated? Sure. Is it probable that they are wrong? Yes.
Why are you so sure that the majority scientific opinion is wrong?
Gary, how can the predictions about global warming be so accurate when weather cannot be forcasted accurately more than five days? Is the global warming part of a natural cycle caused in part by excessive sunspot activity?
Why is the Earth's magnetic field shifting poles? Science does not know. How can you be so sure of probabilities on global warming?
I've explained before that science is a discipline not a belief system. The theories on global warming and its cause still have not been proven with indisputable evidence. The proponents of global warming have theories with some evidence leading to a certain conclusion but, as of yet there is not sufficient proof to back up their assretions other than the Earth has been warmer lately. Has the Earth experienced global warming before? You know that the answer is yes. Why? Are the causes of this warming cycle different than previously? There is no indisputable evidence of such.
Why are the other planets in the solar system also experiencing warming? Is man the cause of the warming on other planets? The Earth has gone through many upheavels through the millenia and yet there are only theories as to why. Why are you so sure that the proponents are right?
Scientists have measured global warming. I am not a scientist so I am inclined to go along with the majority of scientists in the field (estimated at over 90%) who support the idea of human-caused global warming.
It is undisputed that Co2 levels are rising sharply and that this is caused by human activity. The laws of physics would suggest that this would cause a warming effect. A warming effect is being observed. The most prestigious scientific bodies in the world see a direct connection between the rising c02 levels and global warming.
Could the majority be wrong? Conceivably, yes. But it seems to me that the majority is more likely to be right.
Gary you have ignored most of what I have written. Yes co2 levels have risen. Is man the only cause?
There is no proof that elevated co2 levels are the cause of global warming. Explain the previous periods of global warming. What were the causes. Do you and the "prestigious scientists" dispute that the sun is in an intense period of activity? Do you and they dispute that the other planets are warming? The only thing that is proven is the planet is warming. The cause has yet to be determined. In the 1970s many of these same scientists claimed that we were on the brink of an ice age due to increasing co2 emissions. You are far too trusting and too willing to believe
what is said over and over without indisputable proof. Here is something that I have learned through the years working in government and industry and ngo's- follow the money.
To answer your questions: man is certainly the primary cause of the rise in CO2.I don't know that the other planets are warming. I have read that Mars is but for local reasons unrelated to increased solar activity.But I admit that I am not a scientist. Are you?
No one has been able to answer why the minority scientific opinion is preferable to the majority opinion, particularly since the majority is over 90%.
Gary-Mars is warming and it is not due to sun activity? What provides the warmth for the planets in the solar system? All planets would be
frozen without the sun. Fact: The sun has seen increased sunspot activity and increased sunspot activity means increased solar radiation which means increased heat. You have not been able to effectively counter my assertions
regarding global warming except to say" well the majority says that it is so". That type of argument would get you a failing grade in any debate class. Better luck next time.
For global warming on Mars see:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=192
As for countering your assertions, I will go with the opinion of the head of the National Academy of Science or the National Association for the Advancement of Science over you any day of the week. Also I would give more weight to their opinion than some hack who has done no work in the field but gets money from Exxon to confuse the issue.
The majority of people in America belive a lot of really stupid things. I tend not to follow the herd!
Miss C, the majority of people believe in creationism but the majority of scientists believe in evolution, just as the majority of scientists believe in global warming. Most of the opposition to the global warming theory comes from the political right and it is idealogical not scientific.
You are following the rightwing herd, right off the cliff.
I hate to tell you this, Gary, but there are two big problems with your ascertation of Co2.
1 - definitive evidence exists that shows that the earth has been significantly cooler than it is now with much higher levels of Co2 present - certainly indicating that Co2 and cooling temperatures are not directly related.
2 - that same evidence exists for periods in which mankind was not an industrial entity and therefore NOT the primary reason that Co2 existed in large quantities.
Gee, that kind of blows that theory all to bits doesn’t it?
Now, let's look at your conviction that over 90% of the scientist agree. Really? How do you know? Because someone with a political agenda revolving around global warming told you this....like Al Gore and the U.N., maybe?
I can tell you that of the many scientists that I have read, that are on the extreme side of academia specifically in areas of climatology, that far more than 10% are not buying into this scare tactic.
I personally like, and agree with, the scientist that acknowledge that we have climate change AND, as tex points out, that we need to study it further because it is such a complex model that we do not yet understand how it works.
Sorry, Gary, I also failed to mention that for item #1, there is also evidence of the inverse - i.e. the earth has been warmer, with lower levels of Co2.
Again, the point being that one cannot conclusively and logically derive that elevated levels of Co2 are directly related to elevated levels of temperature.
You should read some of Brad's dad's posts about global warming, Gary. Brad's dad is an engineer and a lot smarter than you or I. I think I am going with Brad on this one, he's pretty smart too and he's not a conspiracy theorist which proves he is more rational than you.
Gary here are links reporting global warming on other planets in our solar system:
http://www.greatdreams.com/grace/100/121warmplanets.html
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/pluto_warming_021009.html
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/mars_ice-age_031208.html
I am glad that you have found your scientific mentors but, I suggest that you might be better off if you chose to be a bit more skeptical of their claims concerning global warming and its
causes. If you wish to follow the gullible herd than so be it.
the majority scientific opinion is wrong?
The majority of scientific opinion is irrelevant. The answers to scientific questions are not decided by opinion, or by a consensus of opinion. If they were then scientists would go around saying, "It is our consensus of opinion that E=mc2."
Scientific questions are answered by formulating testable hypotheses, and then evaluating those hypotheses in terms of data, e.g., the body of facts and information gleaned about the world that either support or fail to support a particular hypothesis. That is how we came to understand the structure of the atom, how the quantum aspect of light was discovered, how it was learned that the earth orbits the sun, that all objects in a gravitational field fall with the same rate of acceleration regardless of mass, that the sun shines by thermonuclear fusion, that (force = mass x acceleration), that the force of gravity is directly proportional to the product of the masses and inversely proportional to the square of the mean distance between the masses, that the orbits of the planets are ellipses with the sun at one focus of the ellipse, that the universe is expanding, that microwaves induce spin-flip in the molecules which in turn heats your breakfast burrito, that chilling certain materials with liquid nitrogen makes them superconductors...
I could go on for a very long time with this list...and NOT A SINGLE ONE of these scientific findings was established through a consensus of scientific opinion.
Is it possible that one day the global warming skeptics will be vindicated? Sure. Is it probable that they are wrong? Yes.
"Probability" is a much misused term. The probability of some things can be evaluated mathematically, but the probability of many things cannot.
For example, if we suppose a situation where we have one bag containing ten green marbles, and ten red marbles, we can evaluate the probability of any particular combination of marbles being removed from the bag. If we draw four balls, we can state the probability that 3 will be green and 1 will be red. Or 2 red and 2 green, and so on...
Why are we able to accurately state the probability of any combination of marbles in this case? Because we know the VARIABLES. There are only as many variables as there are combinations that can be drawn, and we also know how many red and how many green marbles are in the bag. We can then employ mathematical formulas to evaluate the probability of any case.
Now, you state that it is "probable" that the GW skeptics will be wrong. There is no such thing as "probable." There are only probabilities from zero (no chance)to one (guaranteed to happen), and in between zero and one are specific fractional probabilities, and those quantities are always calculated. E.g., "X-percent probability that such and such occur," or "1 chance in ten," etc.
Do you know all the variables involved in calculating whether the global temperature will rise or fall substantially in the next 100 years? You can't, and the the scientists who have reached a consensus can't, either. Why not? Because NO ONE can adequately predict the final state of a chaotic system (climate) the day after tomorrow, let alone 100 years from now. It is beyond the capacity of statisticians to calculate.
Did you consider what you were really saying when you opined that it's probable that the "skeptics" are wrong?
The global warming guys run computer models, and where computer models used to be an adjunct to the acquisition and analysis of hard-data, increasingly these global warming computer models are seen as generating data themselves. This is not science. Richard Feynman, one of the most brilliant and respected physicists in the world called this tendency in science to draw conclusions from parallel processors a "disease."
Now, I suspect that you have come to the conclusion that I am a "global warming skeptic." My answer to that is, "yes, I am skeptical, but not in the way you think." I do not say that global warming is not occurring, but that a truly scientific case has not been made for that proposition yet, and we need better science, and most of all, those scientists ringing in on the consensus need to stop fornicating with politicians and get back to basics and start doing science again.
Even if the climate is warming, I still cannot say with certainty that anthropogenic causes are behind it, because the climate has warmed and cooled before. 20,000 years ago when Neanderthals were still running around, it was cold, and glaciers covered the land that I live on right now to a thickness of 2 miles. From the viewpoint of a Neanderthal brought forward to the present day (no, not the GEIKO guys), global warming has already happened.
Yes, Neanderthal is extinct, but our forebears, Cro-Magnon are not. They did well during the Ice Age, and their ancestors, the HUMAN RACE, are still around now.
The scientific "consensus" is starting to look kind of grim, here.
Michael Crichton made an excellent point when he said, "consensus is the traditional refuge of scoundrels." Because, if you have to come to a consensus of opinion, that can only mean that the science supporting your position isn't good enough to stand on its own.
You state:
Scientists have measured global warming.
Correction. Scientists have measured global mean temperature, and only accurately for around a century. The earth has existed for around 4.6 billion years, and there has been life for about 4 billion years of that time. Granted, for much of that 4 billion years the life was relatively simple So, let's "start" the climate of earth at the point where mammals first appeared. That's about 200 million years. Or we can move it up further to when flowering plants first appeared. That's 100 million years. Or up to the time of the extinction of the dinosaurs. 65 million years.
All we have around 100 years of good temperature data on climate and another century of hit and miss temperature data. Another few centuries of weather described in general terms, and a smattering of data, in comparison, from tree rings and ice cores (which is only a record; interpretation is a whole 'nuther ball game). That's it. That it is the slice of time out of 200 million years that we are using to estimate the future 100 years from now.
We also know that there have been ice ages, and warmer periods, and mini ice-ages all throughout the history of earth. Up until the middle of the 19th century, the Thames in London froze solid every winter, and they held a winter carnival on the ice. After about the middle of the 19th century, it started getting warmer. It was...global warming.
Gore speaks of a "carbon footprint," but I rarely hear him speak of a "carbon sink." Because earth has several. Not only in plant life, but in carbonaceous rocks, and in all the ways that carbon combines with other elements (which is quite a few - why do think all life is based on carbon?)
Look at the case of Venus. Venus is about the size of Earth, similar chemical composition. It had a "runaway" greenhouse effect, yet no technology leaving a "carbon footprint." Venus is now HELL, with a CO2 atmosphere at a pressure of 100 earth atmospheres, a temperature at the surface hot enough to melt lead, and clouds composed of sulfuric acid.
Completely natural causes for this. The ability of carbon to combine with the elements in rock is temperature dependent. Being closer to the sun than earth, the temperature was warmer. CO2 outgassing from volcanoes for millions of years increased the CO2 by volumes unimaginable compared to our 100+ year "carbon footprint" from fossil fuels. As the temperature increased, less carbon was incorporated in carbonate rock, because that's a temperature dependent process (it works less well the hotter it gets). More outgassing, more CO2, temperature goes even higher, even less carbon goes into rocks...
This is the runaway greenhouse effect I speak of. Again, there was no anthropogenic carbon footprint on Venus.
Now, viewing the history of Earth in light of this and everything else I've discussed, with these understandings:
- that we have only been fossil-fuel intensive for about a century,
- that climate is a "chaotic system" with elements of intrinsic unpredictability,
- that there have always been warmer and cooler periods and that we don't even understand the processes behind those,
- that the science backing the global warming alarmism is not very good at all, regardless of the "consensus" of scientists, many of whom have gotten into a very bad position of making scientific questions matters of consensus, and who fornicate with the politicians who will in turn make public policy based on their consensus. Without ever understanding that the science is bad.
Would you still say that it is "probable that the "warming skeptics" are wrong? I think the honest answer would be that you have no idea, one way or the other. Because I don't, and neither do those scientists.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home