Quote: Original post by Dreddnafious Maelstrom
I think it's healthy to entertain dissenting views, especially when it's considered taboo.

Absolutely. The climate-change brigade's biggest victory is not in how good their science is, but in getting everyone to believe that it's so obviously right, that only cranks would think otherwise. Phrases like "climate change deniers" are routinely used to ridicule those who don't share the prevailing view, in a clear attempt to discredit their arguments so that they can be dismissed without response. In the UK election, one candidate even accused another of "associating with climate change deniers" as if he were saying "holocaust deniers".
It is exactly the same approach used when talking about new-earthers and scientists should know better. How long before big debates if climate change should be taught as truth or a theory in schools [wink]

Quote: Original post by ddn3
It's so obvious that man made climate change is occurring

And there we go. The old "it's obvious, any fool can see it" argument. What is obvious and why? Because your local weather isn't nice, or because you've listened to people repeat it on TV, or because you've analysed the raw data, or because you've verified the raw data isn't adjusted to look good?

To be clear - I don't deny or explicitly accept climate-change as a man-altered effect. I just think it's worth remembering the people who have convinced the world of its existence are not the scientists, but politicians and media. Since when did we unilaterally trust them?

The "greenhouse effect" has been known for a century - this is the name I knew "climate change" by when I was a kid, followed by "global warming". I wasn't told about it by politicians or the media, but by scientific periodicals, school teachers and history books -- it's old news. The reason it's exploded so much in the media lately and become an issue for politicians is because the denial movement came into existence in recent decades.

For half-a-century we've known that we're pumping an unprecedented amount of "greenhouse-gasses" into the air.
For decades we've recorded the effects of the changing composition of the atmosphere, and we've compared these measurements with the predicted changes due to the "greenhouse effect" - the predictions and observations line up.

Now, you can't say with certainty that this flood, or this harsh winter, or this easy winter, or this storm, or this drought have been caused by these man-made changes.
What we can say, is that we are drastically altering the composition of the atmosphere, which in turn will have some effect on not only the climate, but also the biosphere - there is no argument as to whether we are changing the climate in some way.

Quote: ...should be taught as truth or a theory in schools

Gravity is 'just a theory', therefore it's not true! <facepalm/> Not another one who doesn't know what a theory is...

As for holocaust deniers - they're just offensive, telling lies about the past.
On the other hand, climate change deniers are actively trying to sabotage the future in exchange for short term profit.
Which is a worse crime?

Quote:

Quote:

Quote: I think it's healthy to entertain dissenting views, especially when it's considered taboo.

It is exactly the same approach used when talking about new-earthers and scientists should know better.

It also reminds me a lot of the evolution vs. creationism debates.

What, in that new-earthers, creationists and climate-change-deniers are all challenging sound scientific theory with unfounded doubt and magical nonsense?

Quote: Original post by Hodgman

Quote:

Quote:

Quote: I think it's healthy to entertain dissenting views, especially when it's considered taboo.

It is exactly the same approach used when talking about new-earthers and scientists should know better.

It also reminds me a lot of the evolution vs. creationism debates.

What, in that new-earthers, creationists and climate-change-deniers are all challenging sound scientific theory with unfounded doubt and magical nonsense?

Oops, sorry, deleted my post without refreshing the page. I had decided that I should really say more if I was going to say anything at all but didn't really care to say more.

But, yeah, that would be one way to put it, but I'd probably be a little more conciliatory. In each case there is an established, sound scientific theory that is being challenged by a group that indulges in confirmation bias and treats any suggestion (sound or otherwise) that the scientific theory doesn't have everything 100% figured out as strong evidence that the scientific theory is flat out wrong. It's not that they never have a good point, it's that they overstate the importance of every point they make, good or not.

Quote: Original post by Hodgman
For half-a-century we've known that we're pumping an unprecedented amount of "greenhouse-gasses" into the air.
For decades we've recorded the effects of the changing composition of the atmosphere, and we've compared these measurements with the predicted changes due to the "greenhouse effect" - the predictions and observations line up.

I've always wondered about this, as I've never found a single paper that detailed comparisons between what humans put out, and what is added by nature (Forest fires, natural venting, volcanoes, etc.) through out history.

I've read various stats, such as a single eruption putting out as much sulfuric acid in a few hours as all the cars in the world do in a decade or more. But they've always been random snippets.


Also, given that eruptions are in sharp decline from millions of years ago, the levels aren't too likely to be 'unprecedented'. :P Just, not too recent.

Quote: Original post by Talroth
I've always wondered about this, as I've never found a single paper that detailed comparisons between what humans put out, and what is added by nature (Forest fires, natural venting, volcanoes, etc.) through out history.

I've read various stats, such as a single eruption putting out as much sulfuric acid in a few hours as all the cars in the world do in a decade or more. But they've always been random snippets.

Also, given that eruptions are in sharp decline from millions of years ago, the levels aren't too likely to be 'unprecedented'. :P Just, not too recent.

Actually, carbon dioxide levels (and current temperatures) are currently at something of a low, judging by the graph from here. I remember this coming up in an earth science class I took in second year, too, so I'm pretty sure that link is legit.

Quote: Original post by Dreddnafious Maelstrom
Yes it's the Telegraph :)

See, that's a dramatic improvement from last time.

Quote: Original post by Talroth
I've always wondered about this, as I've never found a single paper that detailed comparisons between what humans put out, and what is added by nature (Forest fires, natural venting, volcanoes, etc.) through out history.

Stuff like natural common stuff, such as natural venting and cow farts is generally studied.

However, going too far back is pointless, since
1. Most of human climate changed happen during and after the industrial revolution.
2. Most of the time when humans were around, the climate has been fairly stable.(Besides the Toba catastrophe and it's surrounding stuff)
3. It's not a matter of if the Earth survives, which it will. It is a matter of if humans survive.

That being said, the time of the dinosaurs, the average temp was between 60 ~ 70 degrees C(148 ~ 158 F), while through most of human history, it was about 15 C(60F). So if we are returning to the average temp of the dinosaurs, we apes are toast.

Quote: Original post by Binomine

Quote: Original post by Talroth
I've always wondered about this, as I've never found a single paper that detailed comparisons between what humans put out, and what is added by nature (Forest fires, natural venting, volcanoes, etc.) through out history.

Stuff like natural common stuff, such as natural venting and cow farts is generally studied.

However, going too far back is pointless, since
1. Most of human climate changed happen during and after the industrial revolution.
2. Most of the time when humans were around, the climate has been fairly stable.(Besides the Toba catastrophe and it's surrounding stuff)
3. It's not a matter of if the Earth survives, which it will. It is a matter of if humans survive.

That being said, the time of the dinosaurs, the average temp was between 60 ~ 70 degrees C(148 ~ 158 F), while through most of human history, it was about 15 C(60F). So if we are returning to the average temp of the dinosaurs, we apes are toast.

Yes, but my point was that I have never seen a single paper that looked at All the natural factors, and then compared it to the output of direct human actions.

I also remember reading papers that suggested that the last 400 years have been remarkably cold.

My biggest issue I have with most of the climate change 'science' is that we have been gathering detailed hard data for less than 100 years, and trying to apply that to 1,000,000+ years. Not exactly a great sample size.

(For the record, I am a strong supporter of reducing pollution and making better use of resources, but I don't want it being done simply because of bad science.)

Quote: Original post by Talroth

Quote: Original post by Binomine

Quote: Original post by Talroth
I've always wondered about this, as I've never found a single paper that detailed comparisons between what humans put out, and what is added by nature (Forest fires, natural venting, volcanoes, etc.) through out history.

Stuff like natural common stuff, such as natural venting and cow farts is generally studied.

However, going too far back is pointless, since
1. Most of human climate changed happen during and after the industrial revolution.
2. Most of the time when humans were around, the climate has been fairly stable.(Besides the Toba catastrophe and it's surrounding stuff)
3. It's not a matter of if the Earth survives, which it will. It is a matter of if humans survive.

That being said, the time of the dinosaurs, the average temp was between 60 ~ 70 degrees C(148 ~ 158 F), while through most of human history, it was about 15 C(60F). So if we are returning to the average temp of the dinosaurs, we apes are toast.

Yes, but my point was that I have never seen a single paper that looked at All the natural factors, and then compared it to the output of direct human actions.

I also remember reading papers that suggested that the last 400 years have been remarkably cold.

This is true. It has been remarkably cold for Earth, but a good average for us Humans. :P

Quote: My biggest issue I have with most of the climate change 'science' is that we have been gathering detailed hard data for less than 100 years, and trying to apply that to 1,000,000+ years. Not exactly a great sample size.

This is an untruth.

Although we've been gathering hard data for slightly more than 100 years, we have things like ice core and sediment cores to estimate the average yearly temps for 800,000 years and millions of years, respectively.

Quote: (For the record, I am a strong supporter of reducing pollution and making better use of resources, but I don't want it being done simply because of bad science.)

The science behind climate change is fairly good and does look at all things. It's the media reporting that often doesn't.