• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Global warming revisited

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Atheus

Diamond Member
Jun 7, 2005
7,313
2
0
I'd laugh but it's so sad. These attitudes are part of what I'm now calling 'the rape of the enlightenment' - the idea that the opinion of scientific experts, or the majority thereof, is no more important than the opinions of laymen. It's the same reason people now choose to visit sellers of aromatherapy, homeopathy, and crystal balls, rather than a real doctor. I have actually heard the phrase 'why should we trust what the experts say' recently... well folks the answer to that question is because they're the fucking experts! It is clear to the vast majority of climate scientists that the greenhouse effect is real, and that the Earth will continue to warm by a handful of degrees this century, and as far as I am aware not one of you is qualified to argue with them. Of course this woman had a PHD, but I can find people with PHDs saying all kinds of stupid crap, and nobody agrees with them either. Anyone who does feel they are qualified to argue, please answer me these questions. 1) if the greenhouse effect is not real, why is Venus so much hotter than Mercury? and 2) if in fact the greenhouse effect is real, how could we put millions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere and not affect the climate?

I think the root of this is a basic misunderstanding of science. Many of you seem to think that if it were proved that the Earth was going to cool in the long term rather than warm, then the current majority would somehow be unhappy about that, like they had lost and you had won. This is not how science is conducted, in fact quite the opposite - the entire idea of science is to take the current theory and prove it wrong. That's called 'progress'. When you get to a theory you cannot prove wrong (yet) then you have to concede you may have disovered the truth. There is currently not enough evidence to prove the warming theory wrong but plenty to support it. The other problem goes even deeper than misunderstanding of science and almost reaches the level of a learning disability, or perhaps the symptoms of brain washing, where clear logical falacies are put forward as supposed proof of facts. The classic and most common example is the converse/reverse accident fallacy where someone cites a heavy snowfall, or a couple of cooler than average years, and then concludes something about the whole next century without taking any other evidence into account. Even more ridiculous is the arguement that says look - the climate was changing way before we started burning fossil fuels - as if natural warming somehow excludes the possibility of man-made warming also existing. It's like standing up in a murder trial and saying well, this other guy died last week and that wasn't murder, so of course this isn't murder either! :laugh:
 

IGBT

Lifer
Jul 16, 2001
17,708
49
91
todays eco-KOOK movement is nothing more then liberal moral vanity. And one of many myths that comprise the modern liberal neo-marxist cultist agenda.
 

blahblah99

Platinum Member
Oct 10, 2000
2,689
0
0
Originally posted by: WaTaGuMp
I have proof global warming is real. today is going to be warmer then yesterday, try and argue that fact bitches. :D
Easy. Tommorow is going to be colder than today.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
72,640
23,762
136
Originally posted by: IGBT
todays eco-KOOK movement is nothing more then liberal moral vanity. And one of many myths that comprise the modern liberal neo-marxist cultist agenda.
Hey guys look, it's like a crazy right wing mad lib.
 

IGBT

Lifer
Jul 16, 2001
17,708
49
91
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: IGBT
todays eco-KOOK movement is nothing more then liberal moral vanity. And one of many myths that comprise the modern liberal neo-marxist cultist agenda.
Hey guys look, it's like a crazy right wing mad lib.
..so what else is new on the moral vanity agenda??

 

WHAMPOM

Diamond Member
Feb 28, 2006
7,628
181
106
Originally posted by: IGBT
todays eco-KOOK movement is nothing more then liberal moral vanity. And one of many myths that comprise the modern liberal neo-marxist cultist agenda.
In contrast to the myths of the out-of-date conservative neo-fascist cultist agenda?
 

Duwelon

Golden Member
Nov 3, 2004
1,058
0
0
Originally posted by: WHAMPOM
Originally posted by: IGBT
todays eco-KOOK movement is nothing more then liberal moral vanity. And one of many myths that comprise the modern liberal neo-marxist cultist agenda.
In contrast to the myths of the out-of-date conservative neo-fascist cultist agenda?
So lame (and ignorant) that you just lumped conservatives in with cultists, neo-fascists etc.

It's religious men and women, Christians in fact, and conservatism that created this great nation. Go learn some history. FAITH IN GOD, Low taxes, personal responsiblity and small government created the nation that is the envy of the world. Idiot liberals are destroying all that because they're too foolish that understand what got us here and what it took.

Today, we're turning from God, turning to big government, turning to higher taxes, turning to entitlement mentalities, etc.
 

artikk

Diamond Member
Dec 24, 2004
4,172
1
71
Originally posted by: Duwelon
Originally posted by: WHAMPOM
Originally posted by: IGBT
todays eco-KOOK movement is nothing more then liberal moral vanity. And one of many myths that comprise the modern liberal neo-marxist cultist agenda.
In contrast to the myths of the out-of-date conservative neo-fascist cultist agenda?
So lame (and ignorant) that you just lumped conservatives in with cultists, neo-fascists etc.

It's religious men and women, Christians in fact, and conservatism that created this great nation. Go learn some history. FAITH IN GOD, Low taxes, personal responsiblity and small government created the nation that is the envy of the world. Idiot liberals are destroying all that because they're too foolish that understand what got us here and what it took.

Today, we're turning from God, turning to big government, turning to higher taxes, turning to entitlement mentalities, etc.
religious men and (women? especially in 18th cent) that owned slaves,
most ideas came from the Renaissance and not religion--> separation of powers into branches, checks and balances, social contract, etc
 
Dec 10, 2005
21,054
2,538
126
Originally posted by: Duwelon
Originally posted by: WHAMPOM
Originally posted by: IGBT
todays eco-KOOK movement is nothing more then liberal moral vanity. And one of many myths that comprise the modern liberal neo-marxist cultist agenda.
In contrast to the myths of the out-of-date conservative neo-fascist cultist agenda?
So lame (and ignorant) that you just lumped conservatives in with cultists, neo-fascists etc.
So let me get this straight, it's okay to lump liberal democrats into the leftist socialist category without doing any thinking, but if you do the same, you're ignorant and lame?

Hypocrite.


On this thread:
There is a scientific consensus that there is global warming. There is strong evidence that we are part of the problem. Even if we aren't part of the problem, there are good reasons to cut back on pollution. But instead, we keep bickering...
 

dphantom

Diamond Member
Jan 14, 2005
4,511
140
106
Originally posted by: Brainonska511

On this thread:
There is a scientific consensus that there is global warming. There is strong evidence that we are part of the problem.

Absolutely wrong. There is a "belief" man is the cause. There is no definitive evidence we are. There is no "consensus". There is a very strong group of climate and other scientists who do not see AGW, but rather normal climactic variations.
 
Dec 26, 2007
11,783
2
76
Originally posted by: Duwelon
Originally posted by: WHAMPOM
Originally posted by: IGBT
todays eco-KOOK movement is nothing more then liberal moral vanity. And one of many myths that comprise the modern liberal neo-marxist cultist agenda.
In contrast to the myths of the out-of-date conservative neo-fascist cultist agenda?
So lame (and ignorant) that you just lumped conservatives in with cultists, neo-fascists etc.

It's religious men and women, Christians in fact, and conservatism that created this great nation. Go learn some history. FAITH IN GOD, Low taxes, personal responsiblity and small government created the nation that is the envy of the world. Idiot liberals are destroying all that because they're too foolish that understand what got us here and what it took.

Today, we're turning from God, turning to big government, turning to higher taxes, turning to entitlement mentalities, etc.
Were you one of the writers of BSG?

"God did it"
 

Carmen813

Diamond Member
May 18, 2007
3,189
0
76
As I read it, temperatures have plateaued, not decreased. What if the cooling cycle began in 2000? If temperatures are staying the same, that's just as bad as if they were increasing.

I don't think the worlds going to end from global warming, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try to take better care of the planet (and ourselves).
 

ElFenix

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Mar 20, 2000
101,429
5,506
126
Originally posted by: NeoV

Why is it a bad thing to try and make the air cleaner - GW or not? Ask people who suffer from asthma about that.
Why is it a bad thing to try and lessen our dependence on foreign fuel sources?
Why is it a bad thing to utilize more nuclear plants - if you are going to make cars electric - fully or partially - more coal plants aren't the answer - and clean coal as it stands today is a pipe-dream. Spend that money to improve the ways nuclear waste is stored, and start building more nuclear plants!
well, the people who generally push GW as a political issue and want laws passed to conform society also generally don't like nuclear power. it sure isn't exxon running the commercials showing footage from the 70s of nuclear plants and sewage dumps.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
72,640
23,762
136
Originally posted by: artikk
Originally posted by: Duwelon
Originally posted by: WHAMPOM
Originally posted by: IGBT
todays eco-KOOK movement is nothing more then liberal moral vanity. And one of many myths that comprise the modern liberal neo-marxist cultist agenda.
In contrast to the myths of the out-of-date conservative neo-fascist cultist agenda?
So lame (and ignorant) that you just lumped conservatives in with cultists, neo-fascists etc.

It's religious men and women, Christians in fact, and conservatism that created this great nation. Go learn some history. FAITH IN GOD, Low taxes, personal responsiblity and small government created the nation that is the envy of the world. Idiot liberals are destroying all that because they're too foolish that understand what got us here and what it took.

Today, we're turning from God, turning to big government, turning to higher taxes, turning to entitlement mentalities, etc.
religious men and (women? especially in 18th cent) that owned slaves,
most ideas came from the Renaissance and not religion--> separation of powers into branches, checks and balances, social contract, etc
Guys, you're arguing global warming science with a creationist. Just what do you expect to accomplish?
 

WHAMPOM

Diamond Member
Feb 28, 2006
7,628
181
106
Originally posted by: Duwelon
Originally posted by: WHAMPOM
Originally posted by: IGBT
todays eco-KOOK movement is nothing more then liberal moral vanity. And one of many myths that comprise the modern liberal neo-marxist cultist agenda.
In contrast to the myths of the out-of-date conservative neo-fascist cultist agenda?
So lame (and ignorant) that you just lumped conservatives in with cultists, neo-fascists etc.

It's religious men and women, Christians in fact, and conservatism that created this great nation. Go learn some history. FAITH IN GOD, Low taxes, personal responsiblity and small government created the nation that is the envy of the world. Idiot liberals are destroying all that because they're too foolish that understand what got us here and what it took.

Today, we're turning from God, turning to big government, turning to higher taxes, turning to entitlement mentalities, etc.
Pot, kettle much?? Forgot the thousand years of European religious rule called the "Dark Age" ? What got us "here" is rational men throwing religion out of government.
 

WHAMPOM

Diamond Member
Feb 28, 2006
7,628
181
106
Originally posted by: Carmen813
As I read it, temperatures have plateaued, not decreased. What if the cooling cycle began in 2000? If temperatures are staying the same, that's just as bad as if they were increasing.

I don't think the worlds going to end from global warming, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try to take better care of the planet (and ourselves).
I think of it this way, sliding down a lava flow on a block of glacier ice, we may be cool for now but when the ice melts? Solor dimming due to industrial pollution, global warming from man made CO2, now a prolonged inactive sun cycle?? There are so many climate effects to consider.
 

NeoV

Diamond Member
Apr 18, 2000
9,529
0
0
for the umpteenth time - there has been ZERO change in solar radiance since the late 1980's.

Stop saying the sun has anything to do with what we are experiencing
 
Jun 26, 2007
11,925
2
0
Originally posted by: daniel49
New facts seem to be gearing to blow the global warming Junk science out of the water.
Text
Caught a blurb on the news this morning also about a researcher at the University of Wisconsin Madison who is now saying that the warming trend actually ended in 2000 and that we have started a new cooling trend.
I wish I could remember what he called his theory.. It was chaotic something or other that basically offered a natural explanation of cooling and warming trends. will have to try and find a link later when I have more time.

Don't expect the Gore congregation however to give up as it will now just become a more generic form of impending doom.
It ended and started and ended and started and "omg it's cold today must be false" and all that bullsheit.

That global warming is reality and is ongoing is NOTHING to discuss, what IS being discussed is WHY, concentrate on that and you might have a chance to lose the debate more gracefully.

Until then, cheerio.
 
Nov 30, 2006
15,456
389
121
Originally posted by: NeoV
for the umpteenth time - there has been ZERO change in solar radiance since the late 1980's.

Stop saying the sun has anything to do with what we are experiencing
This isn't about solar radiance. There's a huge proven correlation between global temperature fluctuations and solar winds/galactic cosmic rays. Suggest you google papers by Scafetta/West, Solanki/Usokin/romer/Shussler/Beer, and the CLOUD experiment at CERN.
 

PaperclipGod

Banned
Apr 7, 2003
2,021
0
0
I believe in evolution. I don't believe in global warming. If your head hasn't exploded, please keep reading.

The only data there is in support of GW is carbon-dioxide levels. However, looking at historical climate trends (ice cores), all we can see is that there's a correlation between a global warming trend and the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. There's no piece of evidence that says "in the past, the earth has randomly started producing craploads of carbon dioxide, and as a result everything got warmer." Correlation != causation. This is no different than the hysteria in the 1970's over "Global Cooling." Then, as now, the public got a hold of some research that they ignorantly misunderstood which translated into public panic and pushes for political intervention. Once politicians realized they could get votes by appealing to the cries of these ignorant masses, you started to see elected leaders have no choice but to alter their stance or get voted out of office. Yeah, democracy rocks.

Personally, I think we're actually headed towards a new ice age, but it's not going to be some cataclysmic overnight event that destroys civilization. The long-term data supports this. The short-term data (screaming politicians and soccer moms aside) supports almost anything, since there's far too little data to say anything conclusively. However, if you look at the postulated history of our universe (or even just our solar system), you'd see that it's pretty friggin egotistical for man to think he could even have such an enormous impact on earths climate. Really, we're not that significant.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
72,640
23,762
136
Originally posted by: PaperclipGod
I believe in evolution. I don't believe in global warming. If your head hasn't exploded, please keep reading.

The only data there is in support of GW is carbon-dioxide levels. However, looking at historical climate trends (ice cores), all we can see is that there's a correlation between a global warming trend and the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. There's no piece of evidence that says "in the past, the earth has randomly started producing craploads of carbon dioxide, and as a result everything got warmer." Correlation != causation. This is no different than the hysteria in the 1970's over "Global Cooling." Then, as now, the public got a hold of some research that they ignorantly misunderstood which translated into public panic and pushes for political intervention. Once politicians realized they could get votes by appealing to the cries of these ignorant masses, you started to see elected leaders have no choice but to alter their stance or get voted out of office. Yeah, democracy rocks.

Personally, I think we're actually headed towards a new ice age, but it's not going to be some cataclysmic overnight event that destroys civilization. The long-term data supports this. The short-term data (screaming politicians and soccer moms aside) supports almost anything, since there's far too little data to say anything conclusively. However, if you look at the postulated history of our universe (or even just our solar system), you'd see that it's pretty friggin egotistical for man to think he could even have such an enormous impact on earths climate. Really, we're not that significant.
I'm so sick of the 'global cooling' myth. It didn't happen. Just because Newsweek writes a news story on something doesn't make it even remotely true. Even in the 1970's, during the 'global cooling' thing, scientists were actually worried about - you guessed it - global warming. Also, the science for why we think carbon dioxide heats the atmosphere comes from a hell of a lot more than just seeing a correlation between ice cores and global temperatures. To say that is the basis for the worldwide scientific consensus on carbon forced warming is silly.

We don't have some science that the public doesn't understand driving public policy in any way. In fact, a large number of scientists are flat out screaming for the world to do far far more. If anything, the misinformation campaign being waged against global warming is paralyzing governments from being able to take effective action.
 

NeoV

Diamond Member
Apr 18, 2000
9,529
0
0
Doc - "There's a huge proven correlation between global temperature fluctuations and solar winds/galactic cosmic rays." - so that data is proven, but the correlation between co2 and temperature fluctuations is bs?

BTW, since 1950, there have basically been no increases in solar activity. Solar winds are ejections of plasma from the sun that travel around the speed of light - they are not long term, climate changing trends.

I'm very familiar with the CERN/Cloud experiments that deal with Cosmic Rays and their potential impact on cloud cover - it's still in it's early stages, and again, the more information, the better, but find me one scientist involved in that study that thinks 'this is the smoking gun for the temperature increases we are currently experiencing in the past 25 years' - don't bother looking, you won't.

By the way, you may want to read up on that study yourself before you go saying there are 'huge proven correlations'.
 
Nov 30, 2006
15,456
389
121
Originally posted by: NeoV
Doc - "There's a huge proven correlation between global temperature fluctuations and solar winds/galactic cosmic rays." - so that data is proven, but the correlation between co2 and temperature fluctuations is bs?

BTW, since 1950, there have basically been no increases in solar activity. Solar winds are ejections of plasma from the sun that travel around the speed of light - they are not long term, climate changing trends.

I'm very familiar with the CERN/Cloud experiments that deal with Cosmic Rays and their potential impact on cloud cover - it's still in it's early stages, and again, the more information, the better, but find me one scientist involved in that study that thinks 'this is the smoking gun for the temperature increases we are currently experiencing in the past 25 years' - don't bother looking, you won't.

By the way, you may want to read up on that study yourself before you go saying there are 'huge proven correlations'.
Never said that the carbon dioxide correlation was BS...hmmm.

You obviously didn't read the studies I pointed you to or understand the GCR theory....I'll provide the links if your 'really' interested.

I definitely agree with you that the more information the better. We currently don't know how significant the potential impact of this GCR correlation may be and I doubt many scientists want to put the cart before the horse here...especially since this issue is so politically charged.

Edit: Links to the GCR studies can be found in this thread.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY