"How to talk to a global warming sceptic"

[[Matt]]

Pretty good article here with most of the answers to global warming sceptics questions.

http://www.clipmarks.com/clipmark/21C5E681-CF9D-43C1-8773-D2281C3A8DBF/

Some highlights...

Objection: So 2005 was a record year. Records are set all the time. One really warm year is not global warming.

Answer: This is actually not an unreasonable point -- single years taken by themselves can not establish or refute a trend. So 2005 being the hottest globally averaged temperature on record is not convincing. Then how about:

* every year since 1992 has been warmer than 1992;
* the ten hottest years on record occurred in the last 15;
* every year since 1976 has been warmer than 1976;
* the 20 hottest years on record occurred in the last 25;
* every year since 1956 has been warmer than 1956; and
* every year since 1917 has been warmer than 1917.

 

[Baal]

In regards to that single highlight quote; does anyone actually refute the fact that the Earth is warming anymore? They're retarded if they do.

What most reasonable (take that with a grain of salt) people seem to argue is whether or not man is causing this warming/speeding up the process off "climate change"

This is where Al Gore's pretty graphs come into play

 

[spunge]

In regards to that single highlight quote; does anyone actually refute the fact that the Earth is warming anymore? They're retarded if they do.

Any one who asks that question is retarded. You could say earth is warming within the last 30 seconds, cooled in the last 2, whatever, no one's disputing that.

It's whether or not we are affecting it, and those figures all have one thing in common "ON RECORD". Proves nothing. All it shows is that the warmest recorded temperature occured during the recorded time.

 

[Mr Stabby]

Apparently temperatures between 1850-1900 fell, yet surely man made CO2 increased during that period.

I think we should assume man is causing global warming, even if they data isn't 100% conclusive, because it's better to assume it's true and be wrong then assume it's false and be wrong. We are running out of fossil fuels, so we need alternative energy investment anyway.

 

[Eejit]

Apparently temperatures between 1850-1900 fell, yet surely man made CO2 increased during that period.

Of course, but there's a lag of several decades between the cause and the effect with global climate.

 

[Iliketobenaked]

People that seem like nice environmentalists actually have an agenda to increase government control over the average person.

 

[Krynn72]

Today, I found a new word that we spell differently from you guys.

 

[CyberPitz]

The world isn't getting warmer, man is getting colder! How can scientists not see this!

 

[Sulkdodds]

Yeah, surely the questions you want to have answers for are whether we're doing it, not whether it's happening.

 

[Saturos]

Global warming is natural. Human induced pollution only contributes to about %0.008 (<EDIT: That's eight thousandths, not hundredths. My bad. )of all of the ozone damaging CFC's and/or carbon emission(s) in the atmoshpere.

A single volcanic eruption is far more damaging to the atmopshere than all of the pollution generated (since the start of the industrial age) combined. We are merely still recessing from the ice age, and there's no stopping it.

I'll just make sure my grand kids are excellent swimmers when the time comes.

I'm still a skeptic. Not on the "Global warming isn't happening." front mind you, but the, "Why is it happening?"

 

[Godron]

Global warming is natural. Human induced pollution only contributes to about %0.008 (<EDIT: That's eight thousandths, not hundredths. My bad. )of all of the ozone damaging CFC's and/or carbon emission in the atmoshpere.

Then there must have been a natural event that released loads of CFCs into the atmosphere sometime around 1979, otherwise why did the ozone layer start thinning at that time? Besides, I've heard that the hole's starting to heal (or at least stop growing) now that CFCs have been banned.

 

[Saturos]

Then there must have been a natural event that released loads of CFCs into the atmosphere sometime around 1979, otherwise why did the ozone layer start thinning at that time? Besides, I've heard that the hole's starting to heal (or at least stop growing) now that CFCs have been banned.

Probably just propaganda all those hippies made up during that time to suit their silly agenda(s). :/

CFC's were probably banned just to keep them quiet.

 

[Mr Stabby]

The link between CFCs and Ozone damage is a proven fact and irrelevant to global warming.

 

[Saturos]

...futhermore, the government(s) couldn't give two sh**s about the environment. They are ruled by humans after all.

 

[Solaris]

Global warming is natural. Human induced pollution only contributes to about %0.008 (<EDIT: That's eight thousandths, not hundredths. My bad. )of all of the ozone damaging CFC's and/or carbon emission(s) in the atmoshpere.

A single volcanic eruption is far more damaging to the atmopshere than all of the pollution generated (since the start of the industrial age) combined. We are merely still recessing from the ice age, and there's no stopping it.

Oh brilliant. We have a climatologist is out midst. Clearly he is the best and most qualified expert as he can tell us these facts with no source. He doesn't need one though, because he is obviously a Scientist himself!

Either that, or he is an arrogant ignoramus who feels he is more knowledgeable on the topic than 95+% of the worlds climatologists, who is in now position to assert facts that people who have spent decades studying the climate would disagree with.

Which is it?

 

[Saturos]

Oh brilliant. We have a climatologist is out midst. Clearly he is the best and most qualified expert as he can tell us these facts with no source. He doesn't need one though, because he is obviously a Scientist himself!

Either that, or he is an arrogant ignoramus who feels he is more knowledgeable on the topic than 95+% of the worlds climatologists, who is in now position to assert facts that people who have spent decades studying the climate would disagree with.

Which is it?

Look kids, a troll! Now now, don't stick your fingers in it's cage, as it bites. :|

Stfu Solaris.

 

[Solaris]

No it's a point that I demand an answer too.

You have insulted 95+% of the people who spend their lives studying the subject of climatology. These people write ****ing shit loads of papers and do all kinds of studies, you think you can dismiss all that with a few lines of unsourced facts?

Do you understand how Science even works??

 

[Atomic_Piggy]

Look kids, a troll! Now now, don't stick your fingers in it's cage, as it bites. :|

Stfu Solaris.

No, Solaris is right. I doubt you actually have any idea what you are talking about.

 

[Saturos]

No it's a point that I demand an answer too.

You have insulted 95+% of the people who spend their lives studying the subject of climatology. These people write ****ing shit loads of papers and do all kinds of studies, you think you can dismiss all that with a few lines of unsourced facts?

Do you understand how Science even works??

How many of these climatologists' data then presents the wholesome truth? People will believe almost anything thats on paper, and that's good enough for those wishing to keep organizations like green peace out of the way.

Money-centric policies seems to ruin true scientific discovery.



BTW, I'll glady have a discussion with you like a gentleman Solaris. Just don't expect me to behave like one in return if you insult me.

 

[Solaris]

How many of these climatologists' data then presents the wholesome truth? People will believe almost anything thats on paper, and that's good enough for those wishing to keep organizations like green peace out of the way.

Please be a bit more coherent.

Your saying the vast majority of the worlds respected climatologists are part of a conspiracy to fudge the data? To what end? Why would they do this?

Most importantly, what is your evidence?

 

[Atomic_Piggy]

How many of these climatologists' data then presents the wholesome truth? People will believe almost anything thats on paper, and that's good enough for those wishing to keep organizations like green peace out of the way.

Thats why a thing called peer review exists.

 

[Saturos]

'peer review' you say? You mean like reviews that are made by other prefessionals in the field(s) before a discovery is published?

Most importantly, what is your evidence?

Admittedly, it is my opinion. Only facts need evidence.

The evidence is based on my own inability to trust others' data so easily. Or the fear of one being considered naive.
It's not that I'm incapable of doing research to back my theory, it's just that there's no way to know for sure unless the research is carried out by me alone. (Plus, I have no funding)
Information on the media (internets) cannot be proven fact until it is researched by my own hands. Which I haven't. I'm just going by what others know to be the truth. That is, those whose data is inexplicably the opposite of the data of those climatologists who are more optimistic in their research by nature. Simply because I'm a pessimist, cynic, and a doomsayer of mankind. ....*deep breath". There. :|

 

[Atomic_Piggy]

'peer review' you say? You mean like reviews that are made by other prefessionals in the field(s) before a discovery is published?

Yesh.

 

[Solaris]

'peer review' you say? You mean like reviews that are made by other prefessionals in the field(s) before a discovery is published?

Stop selectively replying.

And make your point instead of dragging it out.

Are you prepared to accept global warming is man made?

 

[Saturos]

Are you prepared to accept global warming is man made?

Nope, I'm not convinced. Let me ask you this however. How do you know the data over the internet(s) is one-hundred percent un-biased? Do you personally know an expert climatologist?

 

[sinkoman]

Step one: learn to spell Skeptic.

....

 

[Atomic_Piggy]

Nope, I'm not convinced. Let me ask you this however. How do you know the data over the internet(s) is one-hundred percent un-biased? Do you personally know an expert climatologist?

You don't have to know an expert climatologist. As I just said, peer reviews are mandatory in the scientific community - and when a theory gets thousands of supporters, then chances are it has something going for it. Of course people in Greenpeace blow it out of proportion - but people like you are just as bad, if not worse, because while they [environmentalists] are at least active, your happy to sit here on the off chance that the vast majority of climate scientists are wrong.

Good going there.

 

[Saturos]

You don't have to know an expert climatologist. As I just said, peer reviews are mandatory in the scientific community - and when a theory gets thousands of supporters, then chances are it has something going for it. Of course people in Greenpeace blow it out of proportion - but people like you are just as bad, if not worse, because while they [environmentalists] are at least active, your happy to sit here on the off chance that the vast majority of climate scientists are wrong.

Good going there.

I know. I'm horribly lazy.

Plus, I've lost hope for mankind.

 

[Atomic_Piggy]

Nice job attempting to change the subject

 

[Eejit]

Nope, I'm not convinced. Let me ask you this however. How do you know the data over the internet(s) is one-hundred percent un-biased? Do you personally know an expert climatologist?

Really, good job trying to make peer-reviewed journals by describing them available "over the internet". They aren't some wiki or blog...

Seriously, would it make a difference if you read the hard copies?

 

[Saturos]

Really, good job trying to make peer-reviewed journals by describing them available "over the internet". They aren't some wiki or blog...

Seriously, would it make a difference if you read the hard copies?

That would be a start, but how do the experts in the panel agree upon a theory? What if they decide it's bogus? What kind of quality assurances are in check? etc.

 

[Solaris]

It's not our responcability to explain this to you.

Get some scientific literacy before you start dismissing the scientific conciencious.

 

[Mr Stabby]

I've been reading up on Global warming, and apparently water vapour is the main problem, yet we are only really concerned about CO2/methane. A nuclear fission reactor still produces vast quantities of water vapour, so is it really a viable solution.

 

[Saturos]

It's not our responcability to explain this to you.

I don't expect it to be there, Sylvester J. pussycat. (Ha-ha) You asked for my opinion(s). (It'sth not our reposnscability -Sylvester Ha-ha. )

Get some scientific literacy before you start dismissing the scientific conciencious.

Why learn a flawed method thorougly? It obviously is not greater than human's own flaw, which would be the greed, and the desire for wealth and fame. A greater understanding requires a greater method. To accomplish this, our current policies need to be re-worked and our current capitalistic views re-visioned.

State policies have a great affect on our knowledge and understanding of the scientific method imo and thus, the understanding of our climate.

 

[Solaris]

I don't expect it to be. You asked for my opinion(s).

Why learn a flawed method thorougly? It obviously is not greater than human's own flaw, which would be the greed, and the desire for wealth and fame. A greater understanding requires a greater method. To accomplish this, our current policies need to be re-worked and our current capitalistic views re-visioned.

Policy has a great affect on our knowledge and understanding of the scientific method imo.

What? I can't make any understanding of the secound part here.

You have basically demonstrated you have no understanding of how Science works. Your original argument has been thoroughly discredited. Your rambling making no sense.

Salvage your dignity and admit you are wrong.

 

[Saturos]

Salvage your dignity and admit you are wrong.

Nah, I'll just go ahead and throw it all away then. No need to salvage my dignity if that's what you think I should be doing. It's not like I need it here on HL2.net or anything. :/

 

[Atomic_Piggy]

Why learn a flawed method thorougly?

A flawed method? Of course, the fact that in the past 200 years, using this method, we have discovered more about our world than the past hundred thousand, means nothing. And you of course know a better way to get knowledge than a method that has discovered everything you know.

It obviously is not greater than human's own flaw, which would be the greed, and the desire for wealth and fame. A greater understanding requires a greater method. To accomplish this, our current policies need to be re-worked and our current capitalistic views re-visioned.

State policies have a great affect on our knowledge and understanding of the scientific method imo and thus, the understanding of our climate.

WTF are you talking about?
Of course, climate change is a government conspiracy, along with peak oil, evolution, quantum theory, string theory, gravity, etc.

 

[dfc05]

I've been reading up on Global warming, and apparently water vapour is the main problem, yet we are only really concerned about CO2/methane. A nuclear fission reactor still produces vast quantities of water vapour, so is it really a viable solution.

I haven't read on water vapor much, but CO2 and methane do have strong infrared absorbance, which leads to more heat radiating back to earth, and CO2 levels have been increasing by a lot. Methane is actually a more potent greenhouse gas (1 ton of methane will cause more warming than 1 ton of greenhouse gas), but much higher quantities of CO2 are produced. I don't know the potency of water vapor or whether water vapor levels have been changing over time... will have to look that up.

I think that water vapor being produced is better than CO2 production, because the steam can be used to provide heat for other processes and the condensed water can be removed, whereas CO2 capture & sequestration is much more expensive.


Saturos's comments are frustrating but I won't respond because I think Solaris and Atomic_Piggy are doing a pretty good job of defending science . Linked from the website in the original post, though: http://illconsidered.blogspot.com/2006/02/there-is-no-consensus.html. A good list of all the institutes supporting the IPCC's conclusions on climate change.

[edit]
I read this about water vapor.
Water vapor is the main contributor to the "greenhouse effect" (warming of earth by greenhouse gases in general), but not necessarily to "global warming" (recent increase in temperature).

 

[Eejit]

I've been reading up on Global warming, and apparently water vapour is the main problem, yet we are only really concerned about CO2/methane. A nuclear fission reactor still produces vast quantities of water vapour, so is it really a viable solution.

I believe the water vapour sinks work far faster and more efficiently than the natural CO2 sinks. The main CO2 sinks are weathering and fixing by plants.

Also water vapour mainly abosrbs in the blue-spectra iirc, and most of its absorbance peaks are also highly absorbed by CO2 anyway - though CO2 also has some significant peaks in the red through to infra-red.

 

[Escaep]

It is all of those darn penguins in Antarctica. Thats what it is.