Global warming or not?

[Icarusbop]

Originally Posted by Sparrow

A lot of people are saying that, but is it true?

According to Wikipedia the IPCC (where CC stands for 'Climate Change') was set up in 1988.
I don't think it was ever called the IPGW, so 'Climate Change' doesn't seem to be new terminology.

the IPCC was set up ages ago, but all the propaganda we have had for years was (nearly) always called 'Global warming'. This propoganda has since changed to 'Climate Change' - probably because it is difficult to convince poeple about global warming, when the average global temperature is (currently) decreasing.
But now they are going on about climate change (instead of Global Warming)and saying the world gets hotter because of CO2, evindence however shows that even though CO2 is still going up, the temperature is still going down, therefore debunking their arguments - no matter what they call it.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by Icarusbop

Best science which is very dubious - to put it delicately ...

Certainly you are free to believe whatever non-science based writings and publications you want. And certainly you are free to have your opinion, but when the majority of top scientists in the field look at the actual data (not writings about it) and all agree (with a few exceptions of course - that's how science works) that Global Warming is real and is caused by humans. They as I say, you disregard it at your own (and the world's) peril.

(P.S. Science is not something that is done by committee or society or politics or news articles and stories, so best to disregard those things when discussing science. )

[Sparrow]

Originally Posted by Icarusbop

the IPCC was set up ages ago, but all the propaganda we have had for years was (nearly) always called 'Global warming'. This propoganda has since changed to 'Climate Change' - probably because it is difficult to convince poeple about global warming, when the average global temperature is (currently) decreasing.

I don't see it - 'climate change' and 'global warming' have both been common terms as far back as I can remember.

[Icarusbop]

Originally Posted by kennyc

...but when the majority of top scientists in the field look at the actual data (not writings about it) and all agree (with a few exceptions of course - that's how science works) that Global Warming is real and is caused by humans...

This one has already been dealt with on page 11.....

Not so I'm afraid:
Look up the
'Oregon Petition' 19,700 against and
'The Global Warming Petition Project' 31,486 againt
(And they both have quite a number of scientists who have signed up)
Granted, the same scientist may have signed both, but, either of these on it's own has more signatories than the report that was presented at Koyoto, for the agreement (I think it was around 3,300 scientist signatories, but annoyingly cannot find the actual numbers - sorry)

So the commonly stated 'Fact' of ' Most climate scientists agree' is in actual fact, actually not a fact..

Agreed a lot of these signatories are not global warming / climate change specialists, But a lot also are, and there are those who have cited they are afraid to put their name to various writings (againt) for fear of losing grants.

I understand a theory must be able to explain ALL possible data at the time of theorising, and is then tested against new data as it becomes avaiable, if it still fits the new data the theory stands, if not the theory fails.

All these 'Experts' wo have signed up for, seem to have problems explaining why (some) Ice core samples have indicated that CO2 goes up after a warming period IF CO2 is a cause of warming (as currently cited), therefore they ignore those ice samples, presuming them to be erroneous. Simply ignoring data as erroneous, because it does not fit your already presumed results is not good science, this is how bad theories are made...

[GeoffC]

Originally Posted by Icarusbop

This one has already been dealt with on page 11.....



Agreed a lot of these signatories are not global warming / climate change specialists, But a lot also are, and there are those who have cited they are afraid to put their name to various writings (againt) for fear of losing grants.

I understand a theory must be able to explain ALL possible data at the time of theorising, and is then tested against new data as it becomes avaiable, if it still fits the new data the theory stands, if not the theory fails.

All these 'Experts' wo have signed up for, seem to have problems explaining why (some) Ice core samples have indicated that CO2 goes up after a warming period IF CO2 is a cause of warming (as currently cited), therefore they ignore those ice samples, presuming them to be erroneous. Simply ignoring data as erroneous, because it does not fit your already presumed results is not good science, this is how bad theories are made...

I mentioned a reason for that, above ....

[Icarusbop]

Originally Posted by Sparrow

I don't see it - 'climate change' and 'global warming' have both been common terms as far back as I can remember.

I remember differently.

And this still does not answer why CO2 is a cause of warming (greenhouse gas) and is still going up and yet, the temperature is going down. The two statements simply do not work together.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by Icarusbop

This one has already been dealt with on page 11.....


.....

Ah....page 11....that certainly must be science....

[GeoffC]

I think this argument will go on and on back and forth.......

......Sometime in the future one side will be judged more correct than the other.

[Icarusbop]

Originally Posted by GeoffC

an increase in CO2 may be a by-product of an increase in vegetation. but vegetation also tends to thrive in an increased CO2 atmosphere - but as with everything else in the atmospheric heat engine - there's feedback mechanisms and many other that are not fully understood - never mind correctly modelled in computer simulations.

more time is needed before we can be sure; but can we afford to wait that long?

The graphs of these ice cores indicate that CO2 was stable (stable enough to indicate 'normal' levels) , then there was a warm period, then the CO2 went up (quite drastically).
I don't understand most of the complexities, but I doubt there will be some kind of 'feedback mechanism' that can span -60 years or so.

It's easier to believe that as the sea gets warmer (due to global warming), it is unable to hold as much CO2 and therefore it is released into the atmosphere. Plants thrive on this, leading to more vegetation. This still makes CO2 a product instead of a cause of warming.

[Icarusbop]

Originally Posted by kennyc

Ah....page 11....that certainly must be science....

Page 11 wasn't science, the data contained therein however could be deemed as so by virtue of it's original source.

Page 11 was there to indicate we are going around in circles, not to imply that the words 'Page 11' contain irrefutable evidence; in one direction or another.

[Icarusbop]

Originally Posted by GeoffC

I think this argument will go on and on back and forth.......

......Sometime in the future one side will be judged more correct than the other.

Agreed - so why do they want me to pay a fortune now?

[WT Sharpe]

Project Steve was a humorous effort by scientists to combat creationists who tried to discredit evolution by producing lists of scientists who didn't accept the theory. In honor of Stephen Jay Gould, the original goal of Project Steve was to come up with a list of 100 scientists named "Steve" who accept evolution. That goal was easily reached in less than two weeks, and by the end of 2007, it had grown to over 700 names.

Perhaps we need a similar effort to combat the lists made by the global warming deniers who present their lists as proof of widespread dissent from the scientific consensus.

A good name for such an effort could be "Project Carl" in honor of Carl Sagan who put a lot of effort into understanding climate change.

[pshrynk]

Originally Posted by kennyc

Certainly you are free to believe whatever non-science based writings and publications you want. And certainly you are free to have your opinion, but when the majority of top scientists in the field look at the actual data (not writings about it) and all agree (with a few exceptions of course - that's how science works) that Global Warming is real and is caused by humans. They as I say, you disregard it at your own (and the world's) peril.

(P.S. Science is not something that is done by committee or society or politics or news articles and stories, so best to disregard those things when discussing science. )

Unfortunately, there is far too much science being done by committee than we would like to know about.

We may or may not be the cause of climate change. I just want to get away from using petroleum for transporation and lighting so that we can tell certain countries to cram it and not be at their mercies. If we didn't have the oil habit, we would possibly not be fighting two wars right now... I'm just sayin'...

[GeoffC]

The Met Office released provisional figures showing the UK winter has been the coldest for more than 30 years.

The mean UK temperature was 1.5C, the lowest since 1978/79 when it was 1.2C.

However, in Scotland and Northern Ireland, the winter has been the coldest since 1962/63.

[GeoffC]

thar ye go, what more proof do ye need .... :snortle: