I may have been wrong about Global Warming

[d000hg]

Global warming isn't a debate with scientists on one side and non-scientists on the other.

It's a debate between scientists who believe man is responsible and other scientists that believe it is simply a natural cycle and over the next 20 years there will be global cooling.

It may be true that between 2012 and 2013 no papers appeared from authors that rejected Global Warming, but that would be like saying the theory of relativity doesn't exist because no papers exists that support it were published in 1916, and then show a very over dimensional pie chart.

For once pj clearly has the stronger argument. Your counterargument is silly, there are no papers on relativity because everyone accepts it.

The scientific community overwhelmingly supports that the climate is changing and that humans are to some degree responsible. That doesn't mean they are right, but that IS the current position.

[DodgyAgent]

For once pj clearly has the stronger argument. Your counterargument is silly, there are no papers on relativity because everyone accepts it.

The scientific community overwhelmingly supports that the climate is changing and that humans are to some degree responsible. That doesn't mean they are right, but that IS the current position.

The climate is changing anyway. What is "some degree" precisely? If we stop burning fossil fuels, stop consumption and return to living in mud huts and growing and eating vegetables what guarantees are these people making that the climate will stop changing (It won't because it never has)?

[EternalOptimist]

.

The scientific community overwhelmingly supports that the climate is changing and that humans are to some degree responsible. That doesn't mean they are right, but that IS the current position.

That is simply untrue. Last time I checked it was closer to 50/50.

What IS true is that the overwhelming majority of NGO's, environmental commentators, renewable investors and manufacturers, etc are right behind the CAGW meme. They stand to gain a lot, so why wouldn't they

The actual number of papers that deal directly with human induced climate change is tiny, the rest are dealing with the effects, assuming the models are correct.

There is zero scientific evidence that links CO2 to climate change, see my OP. All they have are dodgy models, massive speculation, massively adjusted temperature records, a PR campaign and a dogma.

There is no hotspot, ice is up, sea levels are not rising exponentially, their theory is busted. The dogma keeps them going

The damage they are doing to the poor and the third world is a scandal.

[vetran]

Define ruin?

I think there are just too many humans.

I doubt it, we have high population densities that can almost support themselves. With a little bit of study we could probably make self supporting high population density a reality.

If we could stop pouring poisons into the air by outsourcing our dirty work to India & China with no restrictions on the emissions.

etc.

It is a little world but its still big enough for us if we treat it right.

[vetran]

The damage they are doing to the poor and the third world is a scandal.

WEOS

[d000hg]

The climate is changing anyway. What is "some degree" precisely? If we stop burning fossil fuels, stop consumption and return to living in mud huts and growing and eating vegetables what guarantees are these people making that the climate will stop changing (It won't because it never has)?

"Some degree" means "a significant degree" in this context; I thought that was clear but could've been more explicit. However "the climate is in constant flux anyway" isn't really an argument that a human impact - even if we all agreed it is there - isn't anything to care about.

There is no hotspot, ice is up, sea levels are not rising exponentially, their theory is busted. The dogma keeps them going

The damage they are doing to the poor and the third world is a scandal.

Generally in science when your observations don't match your theory, that doesn't mean you throw your theory in the bin. It means either the theory is correct but you you have misunderstood the implications when making predictions, or that the theory is not correct (or both). If theory is flawed that doesn't mean it should be thrown away, it means you have to figure out where it is flawed and how badly, only then can you decide if it's fundamentally wrong or that you were along the right lines but need to revise it.

[EternalOptimist]

Generally in science when your observations don't match your theory, that doesn't mean you throw your theory in the bin. It means either the theory is correct but you you have misunderstood the implications when making predictions, or that the theory is not correct (or both). If theory is flawed that doesn't mean it should be thrown away, it means you have to figure out where it is flawed and how badly, only then can you decide if it's fundamentally wrong or that you were along the right lines but need to revise it.

100% correct

[BlasterBates]

For once pj clearly has the stronger argument. Your counterargument is silly, there are no papers on relativity because everyone accepts it.

The scientific community overwhelmingly supports that the climate is changing and that humans are to some degree responsible. That doesn't mean they are right, but that IS the current position.

But everyone doesn't accept man is responsible for Global Warming. Often in these debates warmists simply show graphs of temperatures warming and say "see told you so". This is simply evidence of warming. But because we have warming doesn't mean it must be man made. To prove it was man made you would have to demonstrate that the warming is unprecedented. That's what Michael Mann's paper puportedly did. But there are plenty of published scientific papers that contradict what he published.

i.e. is the warming natural or is it man made.

That is debate that is on going amonst scientists.

Just simply saying there isn't a debate is dishonest.

[d000hg]

It seems fairly clear that we're somewhere on this path with climate change. I would say we're quite early on, and it will take decades to revise it - however the problem is that to make a prediction and gather data takes a number of years.

In astrophysics you have the same issue - make a prediction about the sun and you might have to wait millenia to test it - but have a lot of different stars in different stages. Sadly with the earth, we don't have that luxury so you sort of have to start acting based on your predictions because by the time they're proved right (you hope) it's too late!

[BlasterBates]

We don't have to wait long, because the "natural cycle " scientists say that the global temps will start to decline within the next 10 years. We should also see the arctic ice coming back.

We should have pretty strong evidence in 2020 onwards, if the 60 year cycle is as they predict.

The prediction is that temps will be not exactly back to where they were in the 1970's by 2030 but pretty close, commensurate with a slow millennial trend.

and in any case fossil fuel consumption is continuing unabated. All the green policies are failing.