this is real?
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Himalayas and nearby peaks have lost no ice in last 10 years
- Thread starter Kosmo
- Start date
- Status
Bulbo Urethral Baggins
Banned
The fact that you choose to misrepresent him makes me think you have an agenda.
At least your guy follows the peer-review process:
"He has only given the book to one climatologist, Jochem Marotzke, the director of the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology in Hamburg, to read prior to its publication. Marotzke's assessment is clear: Vahrenholt represents the standpoints of climate skeptics. "A number of the hypotheses in the book were refuted long ago," Marotzke claims, but adds, on a self-critical note, that his profession has neglected to explain that global temperatures will not increase uniformly. Instead, says Marotzke, there could also be phases of stagnation and even minor declines in temperature. "This has exposed us to potential criticism," he says."
He's also unequivocally wrong about a lack of warming, you should look up the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature Project.
Science changes its mind every year
happyfunball
Member
Come on BUB, the trolling is a bit too obvious this time.
Cubsfan23 said:
You mean like how new evidence forces us to modify existing theories? You're right. Science can be very "sciency".
Bulbo Urethral Baggins
Banned
A chemist, one of the fathers of Germanys modern green movement, a social democrat, IPCC reviewer and green activist... He's one of yours.
And he's wrong. What is the issue exactly?
Worth the repost:
This is how excited the AGW-GAF gets to post this comic in every thread that remotely goes against their dogma:
I'm for all those things, just not by killing everything we are doing starting tomorrow.
Climate change is the real deal. Checking the CV of most "contrarian" PhDs invariably finds that they're also contrarian in favor of creationism (a shocking coincidence, I'm sure).
That said, we should be putting more effort into soot reduction to mitigate melting in the near-term, rather than focusing solely on CO2.
That said, we should be putting more effort into soot reduction to mitigate melting in the near-term, rather than focusing solely on CO2.
state-of-the-art
Member
Yes, why don't we know more about this "science" all you liberals like to tout so much.
Bulbo Urethral Baggins
Banned
Quite the blanket statement. Wrong about what? That the IPCC buries alternative viewpoints and pushes bullshit non peer reviewed studies? That the earth hasn't warmed statistically in 13 years despite CO2 increases. That the sun has more to do with climate than is recognized by the IPCC? That weaker solar cycles are ahead? That we should work to reduce CO2 levels and use renewable energy?
happyfunball
Member
Holy hell, you're serious.
Doesn't sound like the German Al Gore to me but maybe you've read more about this person that I've never heard of or have a dartboard with his face on it. What I see in that article is a man that lost his job and now has a provocative book to sell that is based on paper-thin hypotheses. I can assure you, he is not "one of mine".
Anyone?
OpinionatedCyborg
Member
scientist? more like lientist.
who says most of us agree with those things? your precious studies showing a link between cancer and cigarette smoking prove nothing. and your studies showing tobacco causes cancer in animals is also inapplicable at best and fradulent at worst. epidemiolog-whatever studies prove NOTHING.
The earth certainly has warmed in the last 13 years. What a ridiculous claim, and I'm certain you've made it before and shown you were wrong. Pay attention.
The IPCC isn't some scientific arbiter. Even if we ignore everything used in the IPCC reports we have mountains and mountains of peer reviewed, published papers making the fact of global warming incredibly clear. Beyond that there are more mountains of peer reviewed literature detailing why humans as the cause of this warming represents the absolute best understanding of science to date.
I wasn't even aware of the existence of global warming skepticism until I started conversing with Americans over the internet. I did however meet one in real life recently, a well-spoken engineer from North Carolina who was very passionate about this issue. He was also passionate about fluoride in the water supply (although only after I brought it up in response) and seemed to be convinced that Islam and Hinduism were the same thing, but he was a very nice man and a lot more pleasant to be around than some of my idealogical brethren.
That being said, the way rightwingers describe trust in the scientific consensus as a "religion" is more than a little ironic.
That being said, the way rightwingers describe trust in the scientific consensus as a "religion" is more than a little ironic.
state-of-the-art
Member
Because it's a government plot to tax businesses and give the money to grants for "research."
Science explained this the other day. It tutns out the heat is being transferred to the oceans along with absorbing the co2 acidifying it. I'm on my phone so i don't have the time to find the study, if i remember tonight i'll find it for you.
OpinionatedCyborg
Member
it is interesting watching the right wing narrative change on global warming
in the late 70s and early 80s, prominent right wingers, including the men who went on to establish such republican think tanks as the Marshall Institute, conceded that global warming would occur within a relatively short timeframe. but they didn't regard the problem as being urgent. they assumed we could just adjust to the changing climate or that technological innovations would solve our problems. however, by the late 80s and early 90s, they changed their tune, and started attacking the science of global warming itself and the people involved in it. the gradual shift from acceptance to acceptance but it won't be so bad to it's a conspiracy by elitist liberals who want to reset civilization to the stone age has been fascinating to watch.
Was he skeptical that the Earth might be warming slightly or the proposed solutions/potential impact. Like I said, focusing on soot = good. Creating CO2 exchanges that will do nothing but enrich the politically connected and Wall Street and pass all the cost on to cosumers = bad
Are completely forgetting that the same scientists trying to scare us about global warming now were saying an ice age was imminent in the 70's?
It's been snowing like a bitch this year in Ottawa.
That is 100% false.
Literally the same scientists. Prob had the same data too.
Most of those are much more effective arguments to garner support than global warming scare tactics ever will be.Worth the repost:
really? don't these nice companies deserve a bit of looooooove?
Right, which is why the CIA convened a summit on global cooling in 1974. Actual PDF from the summit: http://www.climatemonitor.it/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/1974.pdf
In fact, when you read that document, it's the exact same thing they are saying that will happen with AGW (famine, etc) except they were talking about global cooling.
AceBandage
Banned
The Earth's climate is far more complex than scientists try and make it seem.
Especially in North America where the Jet Stream effects us so directly.
Especially in North America where the Jet Stream effects us so directly.
.
I completely agree with this. There is always going to be "skeptics" but when 97% of the scientific community agrees about global warming........ but somehow Global warming has been warped into being equivalent to being anti-god by the republican party.
Did you actually read it? It says they need to study it because it's important. There are no conclusive declarations there, and besides the CIA is not a scientific body.
Science at the time WAS NOT predicting an ice age. The large, large majority of peer reviewed papers discussed the possibility of global warming due to an increase in CO2 and no papers predicted an ice age. None. Only a very small number suggested temperatures would decrease over time.
happyfunball
Member
There you have it. A CIA conference in 1974 negates all subsequent work in climate science. Just to add to this logic, if you didn't hear, doctors performed bloodletting in the Dark Ages, therefore, negating all future work in medicine. See, doesn't this make the world so much simpler!
You intimated it was 100% false that there was a global cooling consensus in the 70's. This proves otherwise.
Governments really need to do a better job of explaining the science to the masses.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcrut3/diagnostics/global/nh+sh/index.html
National Climatic Data Center, annual global analysis.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcrut3/diagnostics/global/nh+sh/index.html
National Climatic Data Center, annual global analysis.
The hell is does. What are you talking about?
way more
Member
That damned Dogma of science and empirical evidence. Bigoted Big Science types keeping us from teaching Intelligent Design.
The Librarian
Banned
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/2011-temps_prt.htm
Global temperature differences between way back when and now.
Global temperature differences between way back when and now.
Elfforkusu
Member
I have a site for you:
http://skepticalscience.com/
Live it up.
Soot is an aerosol, which generally produce cloudcover = short term cooling effect. We need more soot in the atmosphere, not less! (or we could stop putting so much CO2 and methane up there, but that's no fun)
Dreams-Visions
Member
lol @ explaining Science to the masses. If you can't explain something in 30 seconds, 50% of the fucking population will tune you out immediately. another 30% is lost when you use your first field-specific jargon word or two.
Maybe if you can put it in a Dr. Seuss book. Or felt it into an episode of The Family Guy.
way more
Member
On Global Warming no less!
AceBandage
Banned
ReBurn
Gold Member
That's why they use videos of polar bears and pengiuns helplessly floating out to sea on melting ice floes.
happyfunball
Member
Sorry Kosmo, that's the other guy. I just think your logic is full of shit.
ReBurn
Gold Member
:lol I lost it.
THE EVIL GOVERNMENT! Unfortunately that will be all the more reason for them to not believe.
Yeah, those scientists, always trying to oversimplify things...
AceBandage
Banned
We have a little over a hundred years of data for a planet that is millions of years old...
I'm not saying that the climate isn't changing, but it's not simply because of humans.
We have thousands and thousands of years of climate data.
Elfforkusu
Member
We can quantify everything that's adding energy (heat) into our closed system (the earth). We're heating up. It's not volcanoes, it's not the sun, it's not cosmic rays, it's not poor measurements. We can safely rule all these things out.
CO2 is up 100+ ppm. Our oceans are measurably more acidic than they used to be (you'd expect this, given the extra CO2). The only legitimate question is not "are humans causing climate change?", it's "how quickly will this get out of control?"
That one we don't have the answer to. But if we do nothing, I guess we'll find out when it happens... and send the answer into space, because we might not be around to observe it.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked