Poll Is it happening?-GlobalWarming

Does Global Warming Exist?

  • Yes GW exists, and is a problem.

    Votes: 43 64.2%
  • Yes GW exists, and is not a problem

    Votes: 13 19.4%
  • No GW does not exist.

    Votes: 11 16.4%

  • Total voters
    67

pete.dakota

Donator
Donator
Joined
Mar 23, 2008
Messages
621
Reaction score
2
Points
0
Location
Surrey, UK
But what can we do against it? Exactly nothing. Because we don't know what to do exactly beside reducing our greenhouse gas emissions as a potential cause.

Faulty argument laden with redundancy.

The 'slight warming trend' as you put it, is, certainly, due to man-made CO2 emissions. This you have agreed to. How can you claim that reducing our emissions futile when you have admitted that our emissions have caused a raise in the mean temp anomaly?

What proof do you have saying that reducing emissions will have NO effect on the climate?

'Potential cause'? CO2 emissions in the only cause of above expected warming since man's industrialisation, as shown by scientific data. Reducing our emissions is the smartest and most appropriate course of action.

Bah, what's the point. I'm sure you'll come back with some blanketing written argument again, citing no credible science or research, claiming that anything man does ever is futile in your 'big picture'.

I'm out.
 

Moonwalker

New member
Joined
Jul 6, 2008
Messages
1,199
Reaction score
0
Points
0
The 'slight warming trend' as you put it, is, certainly, due to man-made CO2 emissions. This you have agreed to. How can you claim that reducing our emissions futile when you have admitted that our emissions have caused a raise in the mean temp anomaly?

I do not strongly agree that our emissions have caused a raise of some mean temperatures (not all and everything is warming on the globe by the way). I say it is not for sure what caused it.

It is too early to conclusively say that we have caused the current global warming trend basically, and to bite on 0,038% CO2 only. We still don't know all climate drive and change factors. There is a lot of research to be done still. It's not over. The mistake which some serious IPCC members also mention, was to be too much conclusively already, since the UN now considers to cut budgets for the IPCC.

What proof do you have saying that reducing emissions will have NO effect on the climate?

You really have to make a difference between will and might. I do not say it will have no effect. I say it might have no effect. Nobody knows what will happen exactly.

'Potential cause'? CO2 emissions in the only cause of above expected warming since man's industrialisation, as shown by scientific data.

What tells you that there are no different impacts? Yes, there is now 0,038% CO2 within the atmosphere. But the Earth's climate does not only depend on 0,038% CO2. There are a lot of more factors within the nature, but also the solar system has to be considered. There is much research missing still...

'Reducing our emissions is the smartest and most appropriate course of action.

I agree. Reducing our emissions can't be wrong at all.

But it is also possible that such reductions do not show a significant impact. What if even the CO2 level would not really decrease significantly?

Remember that man-made CO2 emissions are only ~6% of all natural CO2 emissions. And I'm not yet convinced that we really know what happens exactly to all the CO2 contents within the nature. Science is not impeccable, less than ever climatology.
 

Omhra

Donator
Donator
Joined
Feb 9, 2008
Messages
285
Reaction score
0
Points
16
Location
Salt Lake City
Website
www.myspace.com
OK,
I, now, understand.
You say that through science we should learn that science is not scientific...
And that the most likely thing to happen is the thing we should least expect.
And that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of ignore.
But you do acknowledge that we could improve "things" because it wouldn't be wrong yet you maintain that it is not what would be the right thing to do.
I agree that it might be a bit useless to continue with the thread.
Science is not being used here by all sides and because climate study is a science and one side (37%) using the shaking of their head as main translator for an idea (not necessarily Data) while the rest of us are using compiled Data to base our reason this has rendered the discussion into fractured monologues...
 

Urwumpe

Not funny anymore
Addon Developer
Donator
Joined
Feb 6, 2008
Messages
37,588
Reaction score
2,312
Points
203
Location
Wolfsburg
Preferred Pronouns
Sire
I say that science is not always accurate. Especially if its based on statistical methods.

That is right. But it is much more accurate as all alternatives.
 

Moonwalker

New member
Joined
Jul 6, 2008
Messages
1,199
Reaction score
0
Points
0
That is right. But it is much more accurate as all alternatives.

There are not even real alternatives to be honest, which sounds rather conclusive on the one hand. But on the other hand, much more accurate or even most accurate does not necessarily mean accurate.
 

Urwumpe

Not funny anymore
Addon Developer
Donator
Joined
Feb 6, 2008
Messages
37,588
Reaction score
2,312
Points
203
Location
Wolfsburg
Preferred Pronouns
Sire
There are not even real alternatives to be honest, which sounds rather conclusive on the one hand. But on the other hand, much more accurate or even most accurate does not necessarily mean accurate.

Yes, but it also means: If you have no better alternative as science, predictions made by scientific methods, even when possibly wrong, are still more accurate as any prediction made by non-scientific methods. This includes the logical fallacy "Because scientific theories can be wrong, AGW is wrong. The predictions are just alarmist and will not come true."

Until you have a scientific alternative, which survives peer review and testing of your predictions, without assumptions (=fictional hypothesis), you are better served with trusting the scientific theory with-in it's own error bars.

And currently, no error bar allows global cooling and no natural phenomena is capable of explaining it. A lot of stuff needs to be wrong, to make the theory of AGW completely wrong.
 

tblaxland

O-F Administrator
Administrator
Addon Developer
Webmaster
Joined
Jan 1, 2008
Messages
7,320
Reaction score
25
Points
113
Location
Sydney, Australia

Moonwalker

New member
Joined
Jul 6, 2008
Messages
1,199
Reaction score
0
Points
0
True, but since when has there ever been 100% accuracy in anything?

I think that the Earth orbits the sun is a 100% accurate observation for example ;)

Yes, but it also means: If you have no better alternative as science, predictions made by scientific methods, even when possibly wrong, are still more accurate as any prediction made by non-scientific methods. This includes the logical fallacy "Because scientific theories can be wrong, AGW is wrong. The predictions are just alarmist and will not come true."

Right. But I don't say that GW will not come true. I say that the latest IPCC assessment report does not convince me regarding AGW and predicted future trends (while past predictions got changed significantly partly). The report by far is no proof that the current trend will continue for sure. Beside observations, it's mainly a summarization of assumptions which are based on computer models.



95a.jpg
 

simonpro

Beta Tester
Beta Tester
Joined
Feb 10, 2008
Messages
1,042
Reaction score
7
Points
0
I don't have time to respond to everything, so I'm just responding to this:
I think that the Earth orbits the sun is a 100% accurate observation for example

No it's not. Other planets/heavenly bodies affect our orbit, so in the strictest use of the word we're not orbiting the sun.
 

Urwumpe

Not funny anymore
Addon Developer
Donator
Joined
Feb 6, 2008
Messages
37,588
Reaction score
2,312
Points
203
Location
Wolfsburg
Preferred Pronouns
Sire
Moonwalker: It does not have to convince you. It is a scientific theory, written from climate scientists for climate scientists. But you can also not argue against it, without doing science yourself - otherwise, you are doing exactly what you accuse the IPCC of.

If you have no alternative scientific theory, which is still valid, you have to base your decisions on the best you have. If you have 90% chance for AGW being true and 10% chance for something else, you are on the safe side by investing 90% into the AGW theory and it's possible mitigations, and only 10% into alternative theories or general risk mitigation.

No it's not. Other planets/heavenly bodies affect our orbit, so in the strictest use of the word we're not orbiting the sun.

In the strictest use of the word orbiting, you are right. The orbit of Earth is no two-body-problem, and thus, no original Kepler orbit. But Earth's trajectory is dominated by the gravity of the sun - the sun is our central body, and the other planets (and our moon) only perturbations of the Kepler solution.
 

Moonwalker

New member
Joined
Jul 6, 2008
Messages
1,199
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Hairsplitting. The Earth still orbits the Sun periodically, no matter if other objects do cause deviations.


-----Post Added-----


It is a scientific theory, written from climate scientists for climate scientists.

It's written for politics. While a few authors (and even lead authors) do not even strongly agree to AGW on the whole.
 

Urwumpe

Not funny anymore
Addon Developer
Donator
Joined
Feb 6, 2008
Messages
37,588
Reaction score
2,312
Points
203
Location
Wolfsburg
Preferred Pronouns
Sire
It's written for politics. While a few authors (and even lead authors) do not even strongly agree to AGW on the whole.

You also don't "strongly agree" for 1,000,000 € bonus payments for you - if I am defining what "strongly agree" means. ;)
 

Moonwalker

New member
Joined
Jul 6, 2008
Messages
1,199
Reaction score
0
Points
0
I've often heard the allegation that dissidents get "bonus payments". In another forum, people alleged that even me must be payed by the oil industry:rofl:
 

Urwumpe

Not funny anymore
Addon Developer
Donator
Joined
Feb 6, 2008
Messages
37,588
Reaction score
2,312
Points
203
Location
Wolfsburg
Preferred Pronouns
Sire
I've often heard that dissidents get "bonus payments". In another forum, people alleged that even me must be payed by the oil industry:rofl:

Are you? AFAIK the oil industry is among the biggest investors for solar energy in Europe. :p
 

Omhra

Donator
Donator
Joined
Feb 9, 2008
Messages
285
Reaction score
0
Points
16
Location
Salt Lake City
Website
www.myspace.com
Its not splitting hairs... Science is not simple. and if you wish to land a probe in a crater on Mars you have to account for everything that might throw your orbital trajectory off. Even galactic spin and and that itch in your pocket.
You want it simple.. so do we. Just isn't at the moment.
But I bet you do get some "mula" from some oil related secret consortium bent on destroying Earth for us while moving the climate to a warmer more lizard friendly environment.

I kid.
 

Eagle

The Amazing Flying Tuna Can
Joined
Feb 11, 2008
Messages
1,105
Reaction score
3
Points
0
Its not splitting hairs... Science is not simple. and if you wish to land a probe in a crater on Mars you have to account for everything that might throw your orbital trajectory off. Even galactic spin and and that itch in your pocket.
You want it simple.. so do we. Just isn't at the moment.
But I bet you do get some "mula" from some oil related secret consortium bent on destroying Earth for us while moving the climate to a warmer more lizard friendly environment.

I kid.

Well you just do a course correction to compensate for minor perturbations you haven't accounted for.

Tell you what though, it would be nice to get paid just for having an opinion. I forget who it was, but some blogger was asked if they got money from oil companies, his response: "I wish."
 
Top