Global Warming, just a hoax?

[zeusbheld]

I mean, I have a different view point to you.

I read different articles to you.

Your opinion is fine - up to you.

i don't mean this as slagging you off--

but if you believe (or anyone believes) that science generally is a matter of faith or 'having a different view point' then you dont' even slightly understand how science works, and yours is not a different opinion, it's just wrong.

But I can't remember ever slagging you off.

i had no intention of slagging you off in this particular case and i am sincerely sorry it came off that way.

to be perfectly clear. i do not mean to imply that you are in any way corrupt. let me say explicitly,for the record, that my impression based on what i know of you from this site, from around town, and from the organization you work for, is that you do business honestly and fully above-board. i want it to be perfectly clear that i am in no way suggesting that you personally do business dishonestly. i also want to reiterate that i believe you do business impeccably.

if you want further apologies or if i have misinterpreted your objections just as and i will apologize further, as it was not my intention to paint you personally in a bad light or make any generalizations about your character beyond the scope of what you have posted in this thread.

however, i am suggesting that even by local standards, the nightlife industry, in general. is extremely prone to corruption. even if these darker elements don't impinge on your personal business, you would acknowledge that they not only exist but that the nightlife industry in Thailand is rife with corruption in general.

that established, my point was that you seem to be assuming that research science, as a whole is generally corrupt. you have in effect slagged off not just climate scientists but scientists in general. aside from this being insulting to scientists in general, i don't feel like your view of how academia operates is fair or accurate.

i was merely suggesting that you appear to be overly cynical about the whole process and that it quite likely is influenced by your environment rather than significant contact with scientific research.

What has my job running a nightclub got to do with my postings?

i hope i made the relevance clear above: you run a nightclub.as i said, i believe you are an honest businessman, but i would have a hard time believing you can run a nightclub or a restaurant in this town without coming into contact with some rather dark and corrupt elements, and this likely influences your opinion of how academia operates.

if indeed you run your business more honestly than most, then you surely are acutely aware that there are quite a few law enforcement officials and bureaucrats willing to let people in the nightlife world bend the rules for a taste of the action.

I would like to see less use of fossil fuels... just for a different reason than you.

while it happens that i would like to see less use of fossil fuels, exactly how do you know what my reason for that is? i doubt i have posted it, and i have been quite consistent

can i slag you off for posting stupid **** without it being a personal slagging off? because you assuming you can read my mind is some seriously stupid ****.

as it happens my position on AGW is "i don't know. i'm too lazy to do the math, and the vast majority of people on internet fora have already made up their mind (both pro and con, typically for incredibly stupid and irrelevant reasons).

i am not pro AGW, i am anti-mongish-agenda-driven pseudo-debate over scientific subjects. i think such "debates" aren't debates at all, they're just soapboxes for the sort of mongs who don't even understand the question to air their political views.

so no, i don't actually have an opinion on AGW ... and the chances that your opinion means

BTW for my facts - see the last forum we had on this subject. I gave you a dozen or so websites, research articles and publications... you didn't check any of them out - just dismissed all those Nobel prize winners, MIT and Harvard scientists as 'debunkers'.

had it occurred to you that i might already know who these people are, and that they aren't obscure?

i don't remember your list but i'm guessing you had Fred Singer on your list. Singer has exclusively been funded by big oil and tobacco companies. what's his other field of interest btw, in case you were wondering? second hand smoke.

Michaels, if you listed him, is another partisan hack who works pretty exclusively for the Cato INstitute, who are known primarily for funding partisan hacks and little else.

by MIT you probably mean Lindzen. he's not a climate scientist but a meteorologist with an axe to grind, but at least he seems reasonably sincere and honest in his work as far as i can tell.

as for Nobel Prizes, diid any of them get their Nobel prize in climate science? when you find one that has, then and only then will their Nobel prize be relevant. or do you think i should give a **** about Al Gore's opinion too? (maybe slightly more than yours, as at least he *read* some science papers).

and i did read the forum, it wasn't all that funny and even less informative.

[English_Bob]

You should read that whole forum - it was funny and informative. I think it ended pretty amicably last time.

I was trying to find it. We need a better forum search. Remember what it was called?

http://www.thailandfriends.com/index.php?name=DB_phpBB2&file=viewtopic&t=13048&start=0&sid=ef2b6e36fb2efe5d983fd3695fd8ec3b&&sid=ef2b6e36fb2efe5d983fd3695fd8ec3b

I thought I posted this before... in case it fails again - look on page 12 of the forums Greenland Sea Levels I think the title is.

[English_Bob]

Thanks for the apology Zeus - very gracious.

And as we will never agree on this, there's no point in prolonging the debate.

Opinions aren't wrong... they are opinions. Science isn't a matter of right and wrong - that's why we have 'theories'.

I'm not convinced yet.

[Neo]

http://www.thailandfriends.com/index.php?name=DB_phpBB2&file=viewtopic&t=13048&start=0&sid=ef2b6e36fb2efe5d983fd3695fd8ec3b&&sid=ef2b6e36fb2efe5d983fd3695fd8ec3b

I thought I posted this before... in case it fails again - look on page 12 of the forums Greenland Sea Levels I think the title is.

Thanks for that!

I might have missed something but it seemed like all the links were about Antarctic ice. That's an interesting area since there are unusual amounts of ice-shelf loss occuring and also an apparent overall decrease in temperature (although an increase in temperature in some areas).

So far though, I've been unable to find any solid argument against global warming. I've read many papers purporting to debuk it, but it only took a few minutes of research in each case (sometimes less) to determine that these papers were not very credible for one reason or another. From all I've read so far it looks like global warming is valid enough to be a big concern, but I'd be happy to find something that makes me think otherwise.

[Simmo_V2.0]

Damm .. 6 pages and I only just noticed this thread.

Great to see people finally waking up to this Gaia worship religion.

[LakeGeneve]

Damm .. 6 pages and I only just noticed this thread.

Great to see people finally waking up to this Gaia worship religion.

Unfortunately, even after hundreds of years those in Porto still dislike Gaia.

[CiaranM]

Thanks for the apology Zeus - very gracious.

And as we will never agree on this, there's no point in prolonging the debate.

Opinions aren't wrong... they are opinions. Science isn't a matter of right and wrong - that's why we have 'theories'.

I'm not convinced yet.

but surely when Science produces enough evidence then these theories r accepted as fact .... until someone produces enough evidence to disprove them !!!

[Neo]

Opinions aren't wrong... they are opinions. Science isn't a matter of right and wrong - that's why we have 'theories'.

but surely when Science produces enough evidence then these theories r accepted as fact .... until someone produces enough evidence to disprove them !!!

Good point. The theory of gravity is only a theory, but i'm not tempted to jump off any buildings in defiance of said theory.

[Simmo_V2.0]

Once again folks take the pepsi challenge.

Wheres the global warming.

[Neo]

Once again folks take the pepsi challenge.

Wheres the global warming.

Here...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Instrumental_Temperature_Record.png

I'd like to see something more credible than Roy Spencer's failure to disprove anything based on too small a sample. He claims a cooling since 2001. Sure you can cherry pick along the entire temperature graph and find such short term coolings. Next time try to find someone with a little more cred. This guy is a major intelligent design freak.

[English_Bob]

http://www.thailandfriends.com/index.php?name=DB_phpBB2&file=viewtopic&t=13048&start=0&sid=ef2b6e36fb2efe5d983fd3695fd8ec3b&&sid=ef2b6e36fb2efe5d983fd3695fd8ec3b

I thought I posted this before... in case it fails again - look on page 12 of the forums Greenland Sea Levels I think the title is.

Thanks for that!

I might have missed something but it seemed like all the links were about Antarctic ice. That's an interesting area since there are unusual amounts of ice-shelf loss occuring and also an apparent overall decrease in temperature (although an increase in temperature in some areas).

So far though, I've been unable to find any solid argument against global warming. I've read many papers purporting to debuk it, but it only took a few minutes of research in each case (sometimes less) to determine that these papers were not very credible for one reason or another. From all I've read so far it looks like global warming is valid enough to be a big concern, but I'd be happy to find something that makes me think otherwise.

Ahh but the argument isn't about Global Warming... the earth has been warming slowly for 6000 years or more. It's an inter-glacial period - they come around periodically.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_glaciation

The discussion is whether Mankind is to blame. AWG - Anthropogenic Global Warming - meaning man-made global warming.

While I think we've done some terrible things to the planet - pollution, disease, overfishing, destruction of the rainforests - I don't believe we are the cause of the temperature rise happening now.

We had Ice-ages long before mankind arrived - change happens.

Global temperatures have risen by 0.6% in the last 140 years... but much of the measuring done 140 years ago was inaccurate. Also weather stations which were remote are now surrunded by cities - which are warmer than countryside.

To be blunt - I don't feel 0.6% in 140 years is that big a deal

While I have a relatively small carbon footprint (I ride 115cc motorbike, rarely fly and don't use my aircon often), I don't want to curb my lifestyle and be made to feel guilty whenever I do fly.

I feel we should concentrate efforts on over-population, renewable energy, efficient food production.

[Simmo_V2.0]

Here...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Instrumental_Temperature_Record.png

.

Long term ground station measurements are subject to the urban heat island effect.

Try again.

[Neo]

Ahh but the argument isn't about Global Warming... the earth has been warming slowly for 6000 years or more. It's an inter-glacial period - they come around periodically.

Yes I know about that. But those changes take millions of years, and we're talking about a potentially disastrous change happening over tens of years. So I don't think that's relevant.

The discussion is whether Mankind is to blame. AWG - Anthropogenic Global Warming - meaning man-made global warming.

Yes, it is now. Now that the naysayers have had to give up the point of the existence of global warming.

While I think we've done some terrible things to the planet - pollution, disease, overfishing, destruction of the rainforests - I don't believe we are the cause of the temperature rise happening now.

Well much as I respect your opinion, it doesn't persuade me much compared to the opinions of thousands of experts. There are plenty of well researched papers affirming the theory of AGM, and as I said previsouly, I've yet to see any solid evidence against them. And believe me I've tried to find it. At first I thought the CO2/temperature lag was disproof, but no. And the sun activity theory is a joke. Most of the rest of the arguments I've found are too silly to list.

Global temperatures have risen by 0.6% in the last 140 years... but much of the measuring done 140 years ago was inaccurate. Also weather stations which were remote are now surrunded by cities - which are warmer than countryside.

To be blunt - I don't feel 0.6% in 140 years is that big a deal

To be blunt, your opinion of a big deal hugely contradicts the opinions of most of the world's climate experts :wink: So I'm still waiting for some solid evidence to make me think we don't need to do anything about global warming.

[Neo]

Here...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Instrumental_Temperature_Record.png

.

Long term ground station measurements are subject to the urban heat island effect.

Try again.

Ok troll you can shove off now. The data is from NASA, same source that your "evolution is a hoax" friend dug up. As English_Bob already pointed out, the debate is about AGW not GW. Get with the picture.

[Bruce551]

According to the study (NRC, 2006):

There is a high level of confidence that the global average temperature during the last few decades was warmer than any comparable period during the last 400 years.

Present evidence suggests that temperatures at many, but not all, individual locations were higher during the past 25 years than any period of comparable length since A.D. 900. However, uncertainties associated with this statement increase substantially backward in time.

Very little confidence can be assigned to estimates of hemisphere average or global average temperature prior to A.D. 900 due to limited data coverage and challenges in analyzing older data.

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/pastcc.html

[zeusbheld]

Thanks for the apology Zeus - very gracious.

And as we will never agree on this, there's no point in prolonging the debate.

Opinions aren't wrong... they are opinions.

if, in your opinion, nothing bad will happen to you if you jump off the tallest building in Bangkok, i strongly suggest you refrain from performing any demonstrations.

Science isn't a matter of right and wrong - that's why we have 'theories'.

so the acceleration of gravity at sea level iis a matter of opinion, rather than, oh, somewhere around 9.81 meters per second, per second? mmmmkay.

science IS NOT a matter of opinion. the way science works (in as dumbed-down terms possible, as this is TF) is that a testable hypothesis is proposed--a falsifiable statement or set of statements--and then experiments are designed to try to falsify it. if no one succeeds in falsifying the statement, after many many attempts, it becomes accepted as fact.

there is, for example, no "debate" over whether evolution happened, just how. it's been scrutinized to death and has held up to every test. (there is no scientific debate over whether evolution happened; what mongs on the interwebs "think" is utterly and completely irrelevant).

I'm not convinced yet.

the thing that pushes the whole AGW thing into uneasy territory is that the science isn't done. testable hypotheses have been created, it will take quite a while to either falsify them--or fail to.

the thing that makes it a matter of urgency, according to the scientists who believe these hypotheses, is that by the time we know for sure it may be too late to do anything about it. if these hypotheses are shown to be false, then that makes the scientists in question wrong, but doesn't necessarily mean there is any hoax.

mongs on the net will still be mongs, however, and there will still probably be dumbass threads like this one.

[LakeGeneve]

I'm not convinced yet.

the thing that pushes the whole AGW thing into uneasy territory is that the science isn't done. testable hypotheses have been created, it will take quite a while to either falsify them--or fail to.

the thing that makes it a matter of urgency, according to the scientists who believe these hypotheses, is that by the time we know for sure it may be too late to do anything about it. if these hypotheses are shown to be false, then that makes the scientists in question wrong, but doesn't necessarily mean there is any hoax.

mongs on the net will still be mongs, however, and there will still probably be dumbass threads like this one.

There is an old environmental catchphrase from the 70s popular in relation to resource management issues and environmental impact assesments, the precautionary principle. It was later formulated into the Rio declaration in 1992 and . I'll use the wiki quote seeing that everyone seems to like wiki;

The precautionary principle is a moral and political principle which states that if an action or policy might cause severe or irreversible harm to the public or to the environment, in the absence of a scientific consensus that harm would not ensue, the burden of proof falls on those who would advocate taking the action.[1] The principle implies that there is a responsibility to intervene and protect the public from exposure to harm where scientific investigation discovers a plausible risk in the course of having screened for other suspected causes.

An important element of the precautionary principle is that its most meaningful applications pertain to those that are potentially irreversible, for example where biodiversity may be reduced.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precautionary_principle\

If ONLY 10% of the scientific predictions are correct regarding the causation of human actitivity and climate change impacts, then the models are still quite concerning. For those who somehow think that human activity has no or little impact on the climate, would you not want to at least engage in public policy changes which support a precautionary approach until the evidence is clearer for you? (The rest of us may not wait). Normal risk management response in any other context would support such an approach would it not?

We don't really have another planet to play around with?

[English_Bob]

the thing that makes it a matter of urgency, according to the scientists who believe these hypotheses, is that by the time we know for sure it may be too late to do anything about it. if these hypotheses are shown to be false, then that makes the scientists in question wrong, but doesn't necessarily mean there is any hoax.

It's a matter of urgency for those people... not for me.

I don't believe we will see catastrophic climate change.

Global warming isn't in dispute... the cause is. There are enough arguments against the human effect to make it doubtful. The trillions of dollars required to stop global warming (and I don't believe it can be done) would be better off spent on finding renewable energy sources and more food supplies.

The IPCC is talking about what will happen in the year 2100... long before then, we will have insufficient food for the burgeoning human population.

[zeusbheld]

There is an old environmental catchphrase from the 70s popular in relation to resource management issues and environmental impact assesments, the precautionary principle. It was later formulated into the Rio declaration in 1992 and . I'll use the wiki quote seeing that everyone seems to like wiki;

The precautionary principle is a moral and political principle which states that if an action or policy might cause severe or irreversible harm to the public or to the environment, in the absence of a scientific consensus that harm would not ensue, the burden of proof falls on those who would advocate taking the action.[1] The principle implies that there is a responsibility to intervene and protect the public from exposure to harm where scientific investigation discovers a plausible risk in the course of having screened for other suspected causes.

An important element of the precautionary principle is that its most meaningful applications pertain to those that are potentially irreversible, for example where biodiversity may be reduced.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precautionary_principle\

If ONLY 10% of the scientific predictions are correct regarding the causation of human actitivity and climate change impacts, then the models are still quite concerning. For those who somehow think that human activity has no or little impact on the climate, would you not want to at least engage in public policy changes which support a precautionary approach until the evidence is clearer for you? (The rest of us may not wait). Normal risk management response in any other context would support such an approach would it not?

We don't really have another planet to play around with?

that in effect is the concept of "post-normal" science. in other words, we can't wait for the science to be worked out.

while it could turn out to be correct, what is troubling about "post-normal" science is that it becomes a situation wherein a consensus amongst scientists in relevant fields is supposed to mean something, in the absence of actual results... in other words, whatever "post-normal science" is, and however well-intentioned it may be, it ain't science.

another troubling thing about the "post-normal" approach is that in the rush to solve problems that aren't fully understood, the solutions can turn out to be ineffectual or worse (as in, unintended consequences or knock-on effects).

[Neo]

There are enough arguments against the human effect to make it doubtful.

I beg to differ on that one. Still looking for something vaguely credible. Everytime I read another naysayer website i get about halfway through before giving up in giggles.

[English_Bob]

There are enough arguments against the human effect to make it doubtful.

I beg to differ on that one. Still looking for something vaguely credible. Everytime I read another naysayer website i get about halfway through before giving up in giggles.

Earth's temperatures have been rising(on average) for about 16,000 years.... what was man doing to the earth then?

About 12,000 years ago there was a cold snap that lasted 1400 years... temperatures dropped 7 degrees in 20 years. The average temperature in England was -5. Glaciers formed...

The earth changes... it's life. We've been active on the planet for a tiny speck of time. We're **** all in the grand scheme of things. We're sitting around looking at 0.1 of a degree rise in temperature like it's the end of the world. We're panicking because sea level might rise 3 inches in the next 150 years.

There have been long warm spells and cold spells during these periods - 4000-2500 years ago was pretty chilly. The Dark Ages had a bleak spell too.

About 1000-1300 AD it was the warmest it had been for 400 years - what caused that?

Stop looking at 140 years and start looking at thousands and millions of years. What's the point? It can't be stopped - it's the next Sky-Is-Falling-Down scaremongering and guilt-inducing crap we're fed constantly.

I'm guessing in 10 years time, we won't be discussing Global Warming (just as we're no longer discussing the next Ice Age, Y2K or any of the other End-Of-The-World-Scenarios).

It'll be mutants. Or Artifical Intelligence. Or some other band wagon for scientists and politicians to use to get their names in the paper.

And who is the champion of the Global Warming hysteria?

Al Gore - who's last big stand was against the Devil's Rock music. Now who's giggling?

You guys feel free to run around panicking and worrying yourself sick (but not ACTUALLY doing anything). Me? I'll live out my life eating red meat, drinking beer, and lying in UV rays... maybe it'll kill me... but at least I won't die of Science-Induced-Stress.

[zeusbheld]

eloquently superficial and trivial, Bob. i'd say "nice try" ....

if it were a nice try. didn't get the memo that, in order to refute an argument, you have to respond to the actual argument, i guess?

[SiamHotel]

http://www.facebook.com/ext/share.php?sid=72464467747&h=zlL3g&u=RPZLp&ref=mf

> MAGNIFICENT !!

[SiamHotel]

..." ONLY LOOVE!!! "

8)

[English_Bob]

eloquently superficial and trivial, Bob. i'd say "nice try" ....

if it were a nice try. didn't get the memo that, in order to refute an argument, you have to respond to the actual argument, i guess?

Jeez! Are you being deliberately dense? I don't believe global warming is man made.

The argument is irrefutable. After millions of years of climate change that happened WITHOUT man, why are the last 140 years important? Nothing dramatic has happened. No major sea rises or temperature rises, no increased weather phenomena... It's business as usual.

Your puny 140 years of statistics don't stand up to the hundreds of millions of years that went before.

Shall I show you the figures?

140 vs 100,000,000 (it's quite big, huh?)

Mankind is a speck. Mother Nature did a whole lot worse than mankind has ever done...

If it makes you feel better that man's 60 parts of carbon in a million are important, so be it.

There's a growing body of scientists who believe global warming causes more carbon dioxide - wouldn't that be great? Wouldn't that explain the carbon lag better than the current theories?