Global Warming debate

[Minilad]

Repeating untruths doesn't make them any more believable. We have no idea what the equipment in the picture is used for or who the data it collects is supplied to. So, yes, it is completely unsubstantiated.

The idea that global warming ended in 1998 has been thoroughly discredited in this thread. Even your own graph demonstrated that!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


The evidence doesn't support your opinion.

Really ?. Ladies and Gentlemen I give you An Inconvenient Truth.
I would say that was a perfect example

 

[Snapper]

You might say that - many others would disagree. The science behind the film was sound - even if the film was rather inconvenient to the denial camp. I note that the film was critically acclaimed and even won an Oscar.

 

[Minilad]

You might say that - many others would disagree. The science behind the film was sound - even if the film was rather inconvenient to the denial camp. I note that the film was critically acclaimed and even won an Oscar.

Oh come on. Most of the science in that film has been rubbished. As indeed as Mr Gore.

 

[Snapper]

Most of the science in that film has been rubbished. As indeed as Mr Gore.

Not at all. The deniers have tried, but the views represented still stand and the science still influences the worlds movers and shakers.

it's more misrepresentation I'm afraid.

 

[OxtedL]

I think when the Department of Education (or whatever they called themselves then or indeed now) passed the film they said that largely all the science was reasonably sound. In fact they only specifically pulled out one bit. A fairly crucial bit if I seem to remember, something along the lines of a 20m sea level rise revised down to 2m, but still...

Not that that means much of course.

 

[Minilad]

Not at all. The deniers have tried, but the views represented still stand and the science still influences the worlds movers and shakers.

it's more misrepresentation I'm afraid.

No. It really doesn't.
The fact that you use Deniers for someone who disagrees with your views suggests you don't really want to have a mature debate about this.

 

[Snapper]

No. It really doesn't.

Actually - it does -as we can see from current events. The science in the film was checked and commented on by climate scientists. The film is still shown and no-one has made a credible challenge to it. I note that you don't produce any evidence to the contrary so we only have your word for it.

The usual caveats about wikipedia aside - this makes interesting reading:

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

The comments from the experts about the science in the film are very instructive. The information about the UK court case also...

 

[jon0844]

You might say that - many others would disagree. The science behind the film was sound - even if the film was rather inconvenient to the denial camp. I note that the film was critically acclaimed and even won an Oscar.

Even Pearl Harbor won an oscar or two! That was VERY accurate!

Maybe it's time to move on to talking about whether God exists...

 

[Minilad]

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monckton/goreerrors.html

Or for a differing view you could try this one.
The problem here is your mind is made up so you won't want to hear an alternative view.
I do not have a view either way but I do edge slightly to the view that both sides over estimate their own arguments for their own ends. In fact some climate change pressure groups have actually said that overestimating the effect of climate change is acceptable to gain public support and awareness. A tactic I think is doomed to failure

 

[Snapper]

A differing view? Monkton is a well known climate change denier and Thatcherite. He is hardly an unbiased source who will stick to the science when it comes to the Gore film. To say that he's compromised is an understatement!

I'm happy to listen to an alternative view. The difference is that I'm still going to keep my critical faculties intact whilst I do and therefore I'll be examining that 'alternative view' rather then just swallow it whole purely because it is 'alternative'...

 

[Minilad]

A differing view? Monkton is a well known climate change denier and Thatcherite. He is hardly an unbiased source who will stick to the science when it comes to the Gore film. To say that he's compromised is an understatement!

And Al Gore is unbiased ? Oh come on

 

[ralphchadkirk]

I think it is important to point out that in Dimmock v Department of Education, it was ruled that whilst there were a few errors, the film was broadly accurate in its presentation and did not constitute political propaganda or indoctrination.

 

[OxtedL]

Climate change is very much an issue where people hear what they want to hear. Hopefully we all know this by now.

I'm quite happy just to go along with it, as most of the steps we can take to deal with it make life better and/or cheaper anyway. Like cleaner air, or energy saving equipment including light bulbs (dropping your bills), or whatever.

Incidentally, I love the way the SPPI tries to dress its site up as something not solely involved in Climate Change denial... :roll:

 

[Minilad]

Climate change is very much an issue where people hear what they want to hear. Hopefully we all know this by now.

I'm quite happy just to go along with it, as most of the steps we can take to deal with it make life better and/or cheaper anyway. Like cleaner air, or energy saving equipment including light bulbs (dropping your bills), or whatever.

Incidentally, I love the way Monkton tries to dress his site up as something not solely involved in Climate Change denial... :roll:

Couldn't have put it better myself

 

[Snapper]

And Al Gore is unbiased ? Oh come on

Interesting. You're happy to accept the word of one partisan person but at the same time criticise another for the same thing! hardly a level playing field. As I and others have pointed out - the science in the film still stands. Monkton hasn't had any impact.

 

[Minilad]

Interesting. You're happy to accept the word of one partisan person but at the same time criticise another for the same thing! hardly a level playing field. As I and others have pointed out - the science in the film still stands. Monkton hasn't had any impact.

My point was you are doing exactly that. You will not see another point of view that conflicts with your own. As indeed most people won't on this subject

 

[Snapper]

Incidentally, I love the way the SPPI tries to dress its site up as something not solely involved in Climate Change denial... :roll:

Indeed. He seems to be hoping that most people won't be bothered to check on who he is or who he's tied in to.

 

[Minilad]

Indeed. He seems to be hoping that most people won't be bothered to check on who he is or who he's tied in to.

Which could also apply to Gore

 

[Snapper]

My point was you are doing exactly that. You will not see another point of view that conflicts with your own. As indeed most people won't on this subject

Untrue. I'm more than happy to look at these things. The difference is that I'm going to look at them thoroughly and check their 'facts', rather then swallow them without examination. The point is - they can't all be right. Monkton is clearly struggling with many of his points as the UK court case later proved.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Which could also apply to Gore

Untrue. The science in Gore's film has been examined by the real experts and not found wanting. Gore makes no secret of who he is or what he believes.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
OK, let's look at a couple of Monkton's assertions:

"Gore says that, as well as malaria, “global warming” is spreading dengue fever, Lyme disease, West Nile virus, arena virus, avian flu, Ebola virus, E. Coli 0157:H7, Hanta virus, legionella, leptospirosis, multi-drug-resistant TB, Nipah virus, SARS and Vibrio Cholerae 0139. It is doing no such thing. Only the first four diseases are insect-borne, but none is tropical. Of the other diseases named by Gore either in his film or in the accompanying book, not one is sensitive to increasing temperature. They are spread not by warmer weather but by rats, chickens, primates, pigs, poor hygiene, ill-maintained air conditioning, or cold weather."

And the reality? Rather different:

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warmin.../impacts/early-warning-signs-of-global-9.html

 

[OxtedL]

Couldn't have put it better myself

I was talking about you too! :roll:

 

[Minilad]

I was talking about you too! :roll:

But as I pointed out earlier I am not convinced either way. But I do feel both sides will not look at the opposite view and just look to their own sources for the "facts"
My guess is both are wrong and the truth lies somewhere in the middle.
Is there Climate Change. Yes there is always Climate Change.
Is it man made. Neither side can prove that one way or the other.
Will it mean the end of the world. No

 

[table38]

Untrue. I'm more than happy to look at these things. The difference is that I'm going to look at them thoroughly and check their 'facts', rather then swallow them without examination.

Just out of interest, how do you check their facts? Do you do your own independent climate research? Have you maybe taken your own temperature readings over the last 20 or 50 years?

 

[Snapper]

Even if it were possible it would seem to be a little extreme to try and recheck data which is internationally recognised and vouched for. However, there is plenty of the Monkton misrepresentations that can be easily checked - as I proved earlier.

Let's have a look at another one now:

"Gore says coral reefs are “bleaching” because of “global warming.” They are not. There was some bleaching in 1998, but this was caused by the exceptional El Nino Southern Oscillation that year. Two similarly severe El Ninos over the past 250 years also caused extensive bleaching. “Global warming” was nothing to do with it."

History shows us that Gore was right and the problem has got worse:

http://www.nature.com/news/2010/101119/full/news.2010.621.html

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Coral-lifes-a-bleach-and-then-you-die.html

 

[table38]

Even if it were possible it would seem to be a little extreme to try and recheck data which is internationally recognised and vouched for.

Recognised and vouched for by who exactly?

 

[Snapper]

By several different agencies as there's not just one solitary organisation that measures and tracks the planets temperature. This helps explain;

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp

 

[table38]

By several different agencies as there not just one solitary organisation that measures and tracks the planets temperature. This helps explain;

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp

So your "facts" come from the NASA website? Hardly independent, given how NASA is funded. I was hoping for some evidence from an organisation that does not have a vested interest in promoting climate change.

 

[Stewart]

So your "facts" come from the NASA website? Hardly independent, given how NASA is funded. I was hoping for some evidence from an organisation that does not have a vested interest in promoting climate change.

That organisation is run by the criminal James Hansen for starters.

Yes, this is the scientist that come up with such scientific language as, "if we, in effect, destroy Creation, passing on to our children, grandchildren, and the unborn a situation out of their control, the contrarians who work to deny and confuse will not be the principal culprits. The contrarians will be remembered as court jesters. There is no point to joust with court jesters. They will always be present. They will continue to entertain even if the Titanic begins to take on water. Their role and consequence is only as a diversion from what is important."

Still I suppose it's not as bad as the UK's version of James Hansen in ex-scientist Phil Jones, who came out with the classic, "why should we show you our data. We have 15 years invested in this, and you only want to find something wrong with it".

Compare that to the release of all information from CERN last week when they thought they had found something a bit more important.

 

[Snapper]

So your "facts" come from the NASA website? Hardly independent, given how NASA is funded. I was hoping for some evidence from an organisation that does not have a vested interest in promoting climate change.

No, the facts come from a variety of sources, of which NASA is just one. It was all explained in the link which you've obviously not bothered to read. Tryoing to refer to them as 'facts' doesn't do anything to alter their status.

Attempting to cast aspersions isn't really much of a challenge to the established science and data.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

That organisation is run by the criminal James Hansen for starters.

Now this is classic conspiracy stuff and denial misinformation!

Criminal? He was arrested at a demonstration! It hardly makes him a criminal but it does show the level that some people sink to in a desperate effort to try and discredit the science. They can't so they try and discredit the people.

As for the other stuff - unattributable quotes lifted from the internet no doubt - probably from a climate denial website.

This is the level the debate often sinks to when the deniers are challenged I'm afraid. Try and sow doubts through misinformation and exaggeration - and refuse to deal with the facts or explain yourself when you're clearly caught out spreading misinformation.

Meanwhile, here's a Wiki history of Hansen for people to make up their own minds.

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

Now, back with the science. The climate record is complied from many different sources and countries. The notion that this can somehow be 'fiddled' really is rather daft. It's noticeable that no reputable source has come out with such contrarian data - although that's hardly surprising.

 

[ralphchadkirk]

Perhaps Stewart would care to explain where he got those quotes from, and why the HoC Science and Technology Select Committee reported in March 2010 that it had found that: "the scientific reputation of Professor Jones and CRU remains intact" and, the emails and claims raised in the controversy did not challenge the scientific consensus that "global warming is happening and that it is induced by human activity". The MPs had seen no evidence to support claims that Jones had tampered with data or interfered with the peer-review process.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy#cite_note-ST-87

 

[table38]

No, the facts come from a variety of sources, of which NASA is just one. It was all explained in the link which you've obviously not bothered to read. Tryoing to refer to them as 'facts' doesn't do anything to alter their status.

Attempting to cast aspersions isn't really much of a challenge to the established science and data.

Actually I did read it. Along with your childish refrence to "Thatcher" previously and now this sudden hostility, it told me everything I needed to know.

If you are just regurtitating "facts" that you have been spoon-fed by the climate change lobby, without any indpendent verification, there really isn't any point in continuing as it is clear that you aren't interested in an intelligent or informed debate at all.

You might as well go around shouting "the science is settled", something a real scientist would never do.