• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

The facts and science of the theory of anthropogenic Global warming

Is anthropogenic global warming happening today?


  • Total voters
    18

jfuh

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 10, 2005
Messages
16,631
Reaction score
1,227
Location
Pacific Rim
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
There's been a lot of cherry picking data, out of context quotes and out right lies with regards to anthropogenic global warming (AGW).
The opposition says there's no such thing, that there's a wide open debate on the matter, that there's not enough evidence to support the theory, and finally - what's so bad about AGW?

I will start this thread with a post of a recent exchange within which was a post that a lot of time and actual source citation was put into.
I will also continue to post additional factual proofs of AGW from various previously written posts.

This is not a thread for personal temper tantrums so take your ad homenins else where. Only scientific facts, not what some scientist wrote in an opinion ed article in the mass media.

Here's the basic premise of AGW

Greenhouse gases lead to green house effect which then leads to global warming when in excess. Humans burning fossil fuels release said greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. This wouldn't be a problem if it were carbon neutral and in equilibrium with the environment but unfortunately it is not and contributes to excesses that directly contribute to enhanced greenhouse effect. Hence anthropogenic global warming.
 
Last edited:
Posted previously: edited
Global dimming
[youtube]rkJUJ5-PL-0[/youtube]
[youtube]AsDNmDyPLDk[/youtube]
[youtube]ZC4PR24BIc8[/youtube]
[youtube]37SAFkvz6uY[/youtube]

Temps going up and down, the scientific consensus is not: "oh look temps are going up it must mean that man is causing it" or that "oh look, temps are going down it must mean that we're in a natural cycle". Without the supporting blue and red streaks on that graph the graph is meaningless. What is definitive from the graph is the unnatrual divergence
Finally, temps have been dropping for the last 8 years? No they have not.

The response was as such.
Can I direct you to the "Great Global Warming Swindle" movie, it completely debunks everything you have to say Jfuh.


Every last point you make is decimated in that movie, have you watched it?

The Great Global Warming Swindle - Part 1
That's part one.


I'm just curious since you made me sit through your video's...
 
response:
To satisfy your curiosity, I watched it when it first came out and found it a total joke. It's not surprising that you find this pseudo-documentary on any equal par with the production from the BBC that interviewed real scientists that actually have peer reviewed publications that support everything that they say within the documentary that I posted.
It shows no scientific evidence whatsoever and only politicizes the issues brought up. Mis-quoting actual scientific research and taking many sentences in actual research out of context, and finally making up garbage.
You have eaten up all this as if it were even similar to the actual science posted.
The pseudo-documentary “The Great Global Warming Swindle” also abusively uses “cut and paste”, out-of-context statements by at least one legitimate scientist. The result willfully misconstrues the original meaning to instead promote the producer’s agenda. The following are statements by Carl Wunsch, professor of physical oceanography at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and are posted at: The Great Global Warming Swindle » Celsias


[SIZE=+1]Climate scientist ‘duped to deny global warming’[/SIZE]

A Leading US climate scientist is considering legal action after he says he was duped into appearing in a Channel 4 documentary that claimed man-made global warming is a myth. Carl Wunsch, professor of physical oceanography at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, said the film, The Great Global Warming Swindle, was ‘grossly distorted’ and ‘as close to pure propaganda as anything since World War Two’.

He says his comments in the film were taken out of context and that he would not have agreed to take part if he had known it would argue that man-made global warming was not a serious threat. ‘I thought they were trying to educate the public about the complexities of climate change,’ he said. ‘This seems like a deliberate attempt to exploit someone who is on the other side of the issue.’ He is considering a complaint to Ofcom, the broadcast regulator. - Guardian

Professor Wunsch said: “I am angry because they completely misrepresented me. My views were distorted by the context in which they placed them. I was misled as to what it was going to be about. I was told about six months ago that this was to be a programme about how complicated it is to understand what is going on. If they had told me even the title of the programme, I would have absolutely refused to be on it. I am the one who has been swindled.” - Independent


The above web site has multiple other links that refute the assertions made in the pseudo-documentary.

A complete listing of MIT’s Professor Carl Wunsch's comments on the pseudo-documentary can be found at:
http://ocean.mit.edu/~cwunsch/CHANNEL4.html

The example, you have shown that in the past CO2 rises do not initiate global warming, no, they do not, it's indefinite. However it has been shown clearly that CO2 is a greenhouse gas beyond a shadow of a doubt. What is also beyond a shadow of a doubt is that what humans release is not in equilibrium with the environment thus contributing to a net spike in CO2. Your video attempts to dismiss CO2 as any form of greenhouse gas that is capable of altering the climate - bullshit.
Here's an example of it cherry picking.
The Actual Recent Temperature Record

This first pair of pictures compares the [SIZE=+2]partial[/SIZE] temperature record as presented in “The Great Global Warming Swindle” vs. the actual observations as shown at NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies.

SwindleFakeTemp.jpg


The vertical bars at the right are the pseudo-documentary’s assertion that most of the recent rise in global temperatures occurred before 1940. The exact words from the pseudo-documentary are:
“Most of the rise in temperature occurred before 1940.” (About 14 min. 20 sec. into the presentation.)
Please take a close look at the right-hand portion of the graph.

The picture below shows the actual changes in the world’s temperature as presented by NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies. Data @ NASA GISS: GISS Surface Temperature Analysis: Graphs

SwindleRealTemp.gif


Again please take a close look at the right-hand portion of the graph. The pseudo-documentary version of the temperature graph omits the last 20 years of data. (And “fluffed” the graph to disguise this omission.) The rapid increase in world temperatures over the last 20 years has paralleled the rapid rise in carbon dioxide concentrations. However, the pseudo-documentary does not include this data. (Note: The slight cooling that took place from 1940 to the 1960’s was caused by increasing sulfates in the atmosphere
About 23 minutes into the pseudo-documentary, an assertion is made that carbon dioxide is not responsible for global warming because ice records show there have been several instances where warming has begun some ~800 years before carbon dioxide levels begin to increase. The actual 800-year lead is true, but the conclusion presented in the pseudo-documentary is not true.

As pointed out by Jeff Severinghaus (Professor of Geosciences, Scripts Institution of Oceanography, University of California, San Diego http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=13 ), historical warm-up periods begin via some variable event that starts a warming cycle. For example, in the past, these initializing events were usually set off by, as I mentioned before already, Milankovitch variations in the earth’s orbit that changed the amount of sunshine reaching the ground in the northern hemisphere. This time, the initialization event has been a human induced spike in carbon dioxide concentrations.

In turn, the initial warming event triggers a chain reaction/feedback release of carbon dioxide (blue line in the above chart) and methane (red line in the above chart) from the earth’s oceans, which then drives the rest of the warm-up cycle. Please see Jeff Severinghaus’ article

“What does the lag of CO2 behind temperature in ice cores tell us about global warming?”
at the above web page for more information.

Alternately please see a longer article:
“The lag between temperature and CO2.” by Eric Steig http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/04/the-lag-between-temp-and-co2/
Another assertion in the pseudo-documentary is that sunspots are responsible for global warming. The pseudo-documentary can’t make up its mind whether to assert that it’s sunspots, or some indeterminate “Solar Activity” that is causing changes in temperature; but we will present the pseudo-documentary’s “Solar Activity” chart and compare it with the historical sunspot record.

SwindleFakeSolar.jpg


The Print Screen image above shows the pseudo-documentary’s “Solar Activity” chart. The blue-green line shows the temperature for most of the last 400 years. Again, the film’s producer has omitted the steep warming seen in the last 20 years. If the chart had included this recent warming, the blue-green line would have run off the top of the chart. (See the first pair of pictures.)

The red line is purported to depict “Solar Activity”. If whatever the pseudo-documentary chose to represent as “Solar Activity” had any correlation to observed temperatures, then the red line should have spiked just as the recent temperature has. Of course the red line is conveniently not plotted for the last few decades.

The red line may have been based on original work by Nathan Rive and Eigil Friis-Christensen. They have issued a joint statement stating that the “red line” data was made up of fabricated data that was presented as genuine.
NR+EFC Statement

Regarding: “The Great Global Warming Swindle”, broadcast in the UK on Channel 4 on March 8, 2007

We have concerns regarding the use of a graph featured in the documentary titled ‘Temp & Solar Activity 400 Years’. Firstly, we have reason to believe that parts of the graph were made up of fabricated data that were presented as genuine. The inclusion of the artificial data is both misleading and pointless…it incorrectly rules out a contribution by anthropogenic greenhouse gases to 20th century global warming.


Ian Clark (The spokesman for the earlier discredited quote: “We can’t say that CO2 will drive climate, it certainly never did in the past.”) supports this incorrect solar/sunspot conjecture. Look to the sun


SwindleRealSolar.jpg


The chart above is an excerpt from NASA’s “Solar Cycle Update” at Solar Minimum is Coming.
It shows the actual number of observed sunspots over the last 400 years. (The number of sunspots has been counted for the last 400 years, and this record is our only direct measurement of “Solar Activity” for this time span.) The actual information as shown above doesn’t resemble the red line in the pseudo-documentary. The source data for the red line in the pseudo-documentary thus remains a mystery.

If short term temperatures followed a sunspot cycle, we should see similar short term temperature oscillations that correspond to the ~11 year sunspot cycle. No short term correlation exists. The pseudo-documentary tries to correlate the minor 1940 top in temperatures with the number of sunspots. A quick look at the sunspot chart shows no 1940 correlation. Similarly, if sunspots were responsible for the large observed increase in world temperatures over the last few decades, then there should also be some unusual anomaly in the sunspot pattern over the same last few decades. No such anomaly exists.

<Continued>
 
jfuh said:
Continued

At about 25 minutes 18 seconds into the pseudo-documentary, the video/film shows an animated cartoon of a volcano and asserts that volcanoes emit more carbon dioxide than human induced emissions. The exact quote from the pseudo-documentary is:

“Volcanoes produce more CO2 each year than all the factories and cars and planes and other sources of man-made carbon dioxide put together.”


SwindleVolcano.jpg


Once again the pseudo-documentary willfully falsifies the facts. The following quote is from the U. S. Geological Survey. Volcanic Hazards: Gases (sulfur dioxide, carbon dioxide, hyrdogen chloride, and hydrogen fluoride)

Comparison of CO2 emissions from volcanoes vs. human activities.

“Scientists have calculated that volcanoes emit between about 130-230 million tonnes (145-255 million tons) of CO2 into the atmosphere every year (Gerlach, 1999, 1991). This estimate includes both subaerial and submarine volcanoes, about in equal amounts. Emissions of CO2 by human activities, including fossil fuel burning, cement production, and gas flaring, amount to about 27 billion tonnes per year (30 billion tons) [ ( Marland, et al., 2006) - The reference gives the amount of released carbon (C), rather than CO2, through 2003.]. Human activities release more than 130 times the amount of CO2 emitted by volcanoes--the equivalent of more than 8,000 additional volcanoes like Kilauea (Kilauea emits about 3.3 million tonnes/year)! (Gerlach et. al., 2002)”
Global dimming is not even once referenced within the pseudo documentary as was claimed.
 
This poll fails because "yes" and "no" are the only options. I would have to vote "don't know". The fact that that option was left out says a lot about the intent of the poll.
 
This poll fails because "yes" and "no" are the only options. I would have to vote "don't know". The fact that that option was left out says a lot about the intent of the poll.
If you do not know, then you best educate yourself on the matter. Of the information that has been posted here just which do you not understand?
 
If you do not know, then you best educate yourself on the matter. Of the information that has been posted here just which do you not understand?
I admit that I haven't read every single bit of available info about global warming, but I know a fair amount. Most of what I know is from your links. Sometimes it seems like you don't read them yourself because they contradict the assertions that you're using them to support. BTW, one of the graphs in this thread is different from one that you posted in another thread. The other one had the corrected data. Are you trying to pull a fast one?

I'm sure there are climatologists who know a lot more about this than you or me who would also say "I don't know. We need more research.".
 
I admit that I haven't read every single bit of available info about global warming, but I know a fair amount. Most of what I know is from your links. Sometimes it seems like you don't read them yourself because they contradict the assertions that you're using them to support. BTW, one of the graphs in this thread is different from one that you posted in another thread. The other one had the corrected data. Are you trying to pull a fast one?

I'm sure there are climatologists who know a lot more about this than you or me who would also say "I don't know. We need more research.".
If there is variance, and I have tried to be as accurate as I can here, please feel free to correct it with supplemental information verifying the correction. As I've stated this thread is about the science and the facts.
To date I have not seen a single scientist that denies any of the premise I've stated.
A) CO2 is a greenhouse gas
B) we release greenhouse gases that are not in equilibrium with the environment
C) we are seeing accelerated greenhouse effect

The argument is not what is causing it, but to what extent. You can't simply sit idly around and state because we don't know the severity with absolute certainty thus I don't know if it's happening or not is simply denial.
 
If there is variance, and I have tried to be as accurate as I can here, please feel free to correct it with supplemental information verifying the correction. As I've stated this thread is about the science and the facts.
To date I have not seen a single scientist that denies any of the premise I've stated.
A) CO2 is a greenhouse gas
B) we release greenhouse gases that are not in equilibrium with the environment
C) we are seeing accelerated greenhouse effect

The argument is not what is causing it, but to what extent. You can't simply sit idly around and state because we don't know the severity with absolute certainty thus I don't know if it's happening or not is simply denial.
I misread the question in this poll. I thought you were asking if it was significant, because that's the pertanent question. This question is unimportant.
 
I misread the question in this poll. I thought you were asking if it was significant, because that's the pertanent question. This question is unimportant.
How do you figure that this question is unimportant? As was pointed out in another thread. Indifferent from alcoholism, the first step is admitting of being an alcoholic. If we do not admit that we are indeed causing the problem then there would not be any joint step in right direction.
 
How do you figure that this question is unimportant? As was pointed out in another thread. Indifferent from alcoholism, the first step is admitting of being an alcoholic. If we do not admit that we are indeed causing the problem then there would not be any joint step in right direction.
The poll doesn't ask if we are causing the problem, but it should.
 
The poll doesn't ask if we are causing the problem, but it should.
You're obviously not reading right.
The poll asks whether or not we are seeing anthropogenic global warming today. Anthropogenic by it's very definition is human.
Hence I'm asking exactly whether or not we are the cause of the current warming.
 
You're obviously not reading right.
The poll asks whether or not we are seeing anthropogenic global warming today. Anthropogenic by it's very definition is human.
Hence I'm asking exactly whether or not we are the cause of the current warming.
There's no doubt that humans are emitting CO2, but there's quite a leap from that to saying "we are the cause of the current warming".
 
There's no doubt that humans are emitting CO2, but there's quite a leap from that to saying "we are the cause of the current warming".
How do you figure it's a leap?
We release a greenhouse gas that is un-equilibrated - aka in excess - how is that a leap in particular when all the factual evidence points towards the same conclusion? (ie computational simulations)
I point to posts 1~3 of this thread.
 
How do you figure it's a leap?
We release a greenhouse gas that is un-equilibrated - aka in excess - how is that a leap in particular when all the factual evidence points towards the same conclusion? (ie computational simulations)
I point to posts 1~3 of this thread.
Not all CO2 is from humans. Greenhouse gasses aren't the only factor. Scientists say we need more research.
 
How do you figure it's a leap?
We release a greenhouse gas that is un-equilibrated - aka in excess - how is that a leap in particular when all the factual evidence points towards the same conclusion? (ie computational simulations)
I point to posts 1~3 of this thread.

It is a leap by virtue of the fact that CO2 has been present in larger quantities at the same time mean temperatures were lower in the distant past. It is also a leap by virtue of the fact that all the planets in our solar system (at least those on which we track temperatures) are also warming. Unless there are large numbers of people emitting CO2 on those planets as well, it logically follows that we might look at other factors involved in broadscale climate change other than human generated CO2.
 
Not all CO2 is from humans. Greenhouse gasses aren't the only factor. Scientists say we need more research.
Granted not all CO2 is from humans, absolutely. However the variance is that asside from volcanoes any greenhouse gas that we produce is not in equilibrium with the environment - all the other sources are. Thus as I said, our production is in excess and leading to the increase of greenhouse gases that we see today.
No other natural source is responsible.
What other factors result in the warming we see today?
Finally, who are the scientists that say we need more research and just what exactly are they saying we need more research in? Remind you, if it is not a peer review publication their personal opinions are moot.
Now to back track a little bit, with regards to volcanoes I've already shown on page one of how we produce far more greenhouse gases than any volcano that has or is erupted/ing in the last 2 centuries.
 
Last edited:
It is a leap by virtue of the fact that CO2 has been present in larger quantities at the same time mean temperatures were lower in the distant past.
Evidence there of?
AlbqOwl said:
It is also a leap by virtue of the fact that all the planets in our solar system (at least those on which we track temperatures) are also warming.
Again, evidence there of? Are they warming at the same rate that we are warming at? Finally, relevance? Solar output has remained constant in the last century as I've already shown in the first few posts. Also we there is not any orbital wobble that is leading to our getting any closer to the sun. I will await your further response to this before I can comment any latter or jump to any conclusions via assumption.

AlbqOwl said:
Unless there are large numbers of people emitting CO2 on those planets as well, it logically follows that we might look at other factors involved in broadscale climate change other than human generated CO2.

See above.
 
Evidence there of?

Again, evidence there of? Are they warming at the same rate that we are warming at? Finally, relevance? Solar output has remained constant in the last century as I've already shown in the first few posts. Also we there is not any orbital wobble that is leading to our getting any closer to the sun. I will await your further response to this before I can comment any latter or jump to any conclusions via assumption.



See above.

Here are the first four sources I ran across. Of course you can also post links to opinions that contradict the ones I posted. So my opinion comes more from local scientists who have looked at the evidence/journals/criteria used and whatnot and have universally come to a conclusion that the whole anthropogenic global warming thing is being presented at best incompetently and at worst dishonestly.

Climate myths: Ice cores show CO2 increases lag behind temperature rises, disproving the link to global warming - climate-change - 16 May 2007 - New Scientist Environment

http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/articles/V7/N50/EDIT.jsp

Sun Blamed for Warming of Earth and Other Worlds | LiveScience

.: U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works :: Press Room :.
 
Here are the first four sources I ran across. Of course you can also post links to opinions that contradict the ones I posted. So my opinion comes more from local scientists who have looked at the evidence/journals/criteria used and whatnot and have universally come to a conclusion that the whole anthropogenic global warming thing is being presented at best incompetently and at worst dishonestly.

Climate myths: Ice cores show CO2 increases lag behind temperature rises, disproving the link to global warming - climate-change - 16 May 2007 - New Scientist Environment
http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/articles/V7/N50/EDIT.jsp
Presented before and debunked already.
The assumption is that there are only two possibilities - I've already addressed this before in the first few posts but will do so again.
The fallacy rests with the assumption of only two possibilities
  1. Greenhouse gas drives temperatures
  2. Temperatures drive greenhouse gases (specifically CO2)
This initself is fallacious because it rests the conclusion on only two possibilities that disregard any other factors in particular the feed back of the two on each other.
The initial warming is due to Milankovitch cycles causing CO2 the release of CO2 which then heats causes even more CO2 to be released. I've already noted this exact phenomina, thus - pre-empting exactly what you have posted here. Seems you didn't bother to read what was already stated.
Secondly, that there is a lag says nothing at all that CO2 does not cause warming. All it shows is that CO2 is not the initializer. The article notes the common knowledge of milankovitch cycles as well as accepting that CO2 is indeed a greenhouse gas that generates the greenhouse effect - global warming. However it dismissed milankovitch cycles via the statement that the effect is small - solar effects are now small? Ironically in your 3rd source it states that solar effects are large can't be both now can it? They are contradictory opinions.
Next, as stated, while CO2 does not cause the initial 800 year warming of the 5000 year trend, it most deffinetely seems to be the attributing factor to the warming of the remaining 4200 years, the remaining 5/6.
The rest I will allow for this link to explain.

AlbqOwl said:
Ahh yes, Abdussamatov's theory that greenhouse gases play no role in warming but is 100% the result of solar forcing.
There's just one big problem.
Were it not for global warming and the effect of greenhouse gases, as i've noted, we'd be like the moon. I've also already shown in my former posts how solar radiance has been nearly constant for the last century. For more I have this source
The original peer reviewed literature is here
Add to that that Dr. Habibullo Abdussamatov has 0 publications in any scientific literature to support his concept - hence, personal opinion quite irrelevant.
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index....ecord_id=469DD8F9-802A-23AD-4459-CC5C23C24651
AlbqOwl said:
This one is simply rediculous and doesn't even merrit a response. #1 the writer isn't even a scientists nor a politician but a staff writer in a blog.

As I've also stated before. The personal opinion of science is completely irrelevant unless it is substantiated by peer reviewed scientific publications.
 
Presented before and debunked already.
The assumption is that there are only two possibilities - I've already addressed this before in the first few posts but will do so again.
The fallacy rests with the assumption of only two possibilities
  1. Greenhouse gas drives temperatures
  2. Temperatures drive greenhouse gases (specifically CO2)
This initself is fallacious because it rests the conclusion on only two possibilities that disregard any other factors in particular the feed back of the two on each other.
The initial warming is due to Milankovitch cycles causing CO2 the release of CO2 which then heats causes even more CO2 to be released. I've already noted this exact phenomina, thus - pre-empting exactly what you have posted here. Seems you didn't bother to read what was already stated.
Secondly, that there is a lag says nothing at all that CO2 does not cause warming. All it shows is that CO2 is not the initializer. The article notes the common knowledge of milankovitch cycles as well as accepting that CO2 is indeed a greenhouse gas that generates the greenhouse effect - global warming. However it dismissed milankovitch cycles via the statement that the effect is small - solar effects are now small? Ironically in your 3rd source it states that solar effects are large can't be both now can it? They are contradictory opinions.
Next, as stated, while CO2 does not cause the initial 800 year warming of the 5000 year trend, it most deffinetely seems to be the attributing factor to the warming of the remaining 4200 years, the remaining 5/6.
The rest I will allow for this link to explain.

Ahh yes, Abdussamatov's theory that greenhouse gases play no role in warming but is 100% the result of solar forcing.
There's just one big problem.
Were it not for global warming and the effect of greenhouse gases, as i've noted, we'd be like the moon. I've also already shown in my former posts how solar radiance has been nearly constant for the last century. For more I have this source
The original peer reviewed literature is here
Add to that that Dr. Habibullo Abdussamatov has 0 publications in any scientific literature to support his concept - hence, personal opinion quite irrelevant.

This one is simply rediculous and doesn't even merrit a response. #1 the writer isn't even a scientists nor a politician but a staff writer in a blog.

As I've also stated before. The personal opinion of science is completely irrelevant unless it is substantiated by peer reviewed scientific publications.


I am old enough to remember the scientific debates on major climate shifts back in the 70s when there was a huge scientific consensus that flourocarbons, etc. were driving the Earth into an imminent ice age and all humans were in mortal danger due to thinning of the ozone. There were skeptics then, too, and they were being shouted down or some were claiming that their opinions had been debunked--of course the science used to debunk them the skeptics were also debunking them. Nevertheless, the religionists forced manufacturers to completely re engineer air conditioning, refrigeration, etc.; certain substances were banned; hairspray was reformulated etc.

Then after all that expense had been forced on manufacturers, all the costs to consumers who had to change air conditioning systems or appliances because the old ones had become 'illegal', and some new unintended but real toxic substances had been introduced to replace the old stuff, whoops....sorry....we miscalculated.....the Earth is not showing any signs of unusual cooling and the ozone layer is just fine.

Now you would think they all would have learned their lesson and paid a bit more attention to the skeptics this time. But the religionists who don't have a clue just love to feel righteous even as they seek to silence the voice of any who won't join their religion. It also seems that there are a lot of scientists who put research grants ahead of personal integrity and credibility.

If there was nothing else that convinced me that there is no honest concern for anthropogenic global warming among the scientists pushing that theory is the fact that not one, that I know of anyway, has scaled back their own lifestyle or made anything other than minor changes for show, if even that. Nor have any of the gurus like Al Gore who are out there preaching the word. If they were truly afraid, wouldn't you think they would be walking the walk instead of just talking the talk?

I prefer to go with real science, not junk science, before agreeing to major life changes that will likely accomplish nothing other than cost a lot of money and eventually make a lot of people feel really stupid.
 
I am old enough to remember the scientific debates on major climate shifts back in the 70s when there was a huge scientific consensus that flourocarbons, etc. were driving the Earth into an imminent ice age and all humans were in mortal danger due to thinning of the ozone. There were skeptics then, too, and they were being shouted down or some were claiming that their opinions had been debunked--of course the science used to debunk them the skeptics were also debunking them. Nevertheless, the religionists forced manufacturers to completely re engineer air conditioning, refrigeration, etc.; certain substances were banned; hairspray was reformulated etc.
You're recollection is conskewed then. There was no such scientific consensus then and no the drive was never about flourocarbons. You must be merging the ozone hole that was widening because of flourocarbons with the supposed cooling. Within the scientific literature there was no mention of a cooling, that was taken out of context by newsweek and various other populous media.

AlbqOwl said:
Then after all that expense had been forced on manufacturers, all the costs to consumers who had to change air conditioning systems or appliances because the old ones had become 'illegal', and some new unintended but real toxic substances had been introduced to replace the old stuff, whoops....sorry....we miscalculated.....the Earth is not showing any signs of unusual cooling and the ozone layer is just fine.
Again, halogenated carbons have to do with the Ozone hole, not global cooling.

AlbqOwl said:
Now you would think they all would have learned their lesson and paid a bit more attention to the skeptics this time. But the religionists who don't have a clue just love to feel righteous even as they seek to silence the voice of any who won't join their religion. It also seems that there are a lot of scientists who put research grants ahead of personal integrity and credibility.
An unfounded statement. This is the same conspiracy theory as well as ad homenin. They could be making all the money in the world, but it does not necessitate that they are wrong. This argument is not fact nor science. Wrong thread.

AlbqOwl said:
If there was nothing else that convinced me that there is no honest concern for anthropogenic global warming among the scientists pushing that theory is the fact that not one, that I know of anyway, has scaled back their own lifestyle or made anything other than minor changes for show, if even that. Nor have any of the gurus like Al Gore who are out there preaching the word. If they were truly afraid, wouldn't you think they would be walking the walk instead of just talking the talk?
Tu quo quoi. It doesn't mean they are wrong.

AlbqOwl said:
I prefer to go with real science, not junk science, before agreeing to major life changes that will likely accomplish nothing other than cost a lot of money and eventually make a lot of people feel really stupid.
Great, this post is about the real science. Bring it in.
 
You're recollection is conskewed then. There was no such scientific consensus then and no the drive was never about flourocarbons. You must be merging the ozone hole that was widening because of flourocarbons with the supposed cooling. Within the scientific literature there was no mention of a cooling, that was taken out of context by newsweek and various other populous media.

Again, halogenated carbons have to do with the Ozone hole, not global cooling.

An unfounded statement. This is the same conspiracy theory as well as ad homenin. They could be making all the money in the world, but it does not necessitate that they are wrong. This argument is not fact nor science. Wrong thread.

Tu quo quoi. It doesn't mean they are wrong.


Great, this post is about the real science. Bring it in.

I was there in the 70's and immersed up to my eyeballs in those issues. Were you? And no, I didn't merge global warming and thinning of the ozone--I used these as two examples of junk science widely accepted by the 'scientific community' of that day and spelling out some of the consequences of heeding junk science and dismissing the more sane voices of the skeptics. There were international summits to deal with the global cooling crisis. In September, 1979, President Jimmy Carter signed the National Climate Program Act into law, in aid of predicting future climate and combating global cooling. That act has now been enlisted in the effort to counter global warming. Exaggerated or taken out of context by Newsweek? I don't know, but I really doubt that was the case at that time.

I will continue to prefer to view skeptically anybody who talks the talk but is not willing to walk the walk. I will continue to view skeptically those who NEED there to be global warming in order to keep their grant monies flowing in. You are free to view that as ad hominem if you wish.
 
I was there in the 70's and immersed up to my eyeballs in those issues. Were you?
Yes I was, but then what does it matter if I were or if I weren't? Were you around during the last 650,000 years? No, does that limit you from being able to discuss of it knowledgeably? Fallacy of again appeal to authority.

AlbqOwl said:
And no, I didn't merge global warming and thinning of the ozone
Then please show how halogenated carbons equate to global cooling as you have been stating.

AlbqOwl said:
--I used these as two examples of junk science widely accepted by the 'scientific community' of that day and spelling out some of the consequences of heeding junk science and dismissing the more sane voices of the skeptics.
Again, there was no such thing in the scientific community in the 70's, there was in the populous media but nothing in mainstream scientific community about it. Source

AlbqOwl said:
There were international summits to deal with the global cooling crisis. In September, 1979, President Jimmy Carter signed the National Climate Program Act into law, in aid of predicting future climate and combating global cooling. That act has now been enlisted in the effort to counter global warming. Exaggerated or taken out of context by Newsweek? I don't know, but I really doubt that was the case at that time.
The act was to assess human impact on climate, whether or not there is any link if at all. source
It was not, as you put it, to combat global cooling nor counter global warming.
You're final statement being you doubt that was the case at the time, which do you doubt? Taken out of context or exaggerated?

AlbqOwl said:
I will continue to prefer to view skeptically anybody who talks the talk but is not willing to walk the walk. I will continue to view skeptically those who NEED there to be global warming in order to keep their grant monies flowing in. You are free to view that as ad hominem if you wish.
And how of those whom both talk the talk and walk the walk as well as not needing any funding that still state the same?
 
Yes I was, but then what does it matter if I were or if I weren't? Were you around during the last 650,000 years? No, does that limit you from being able to discuss of it knowledgeably? Fallacy of again appeal to authority.

Then please show how halogenated carbons equate to global cooling as you have been stating.


Again, there was no such thing in the scientific community in the 70's, there was in the populous media but nothing in mainstream scientific community about it. Source


The act was to assess human impact on climate, whether or not there is any link if at all. source
It was not, as you put it, to combat global cooling nor counter global warming.
You're final statement being you doubt that was the case at the time, which do you doubt? Taken out of context or exaggerated?

And how of those whom both talk the talk and walk the walk as well as not needing any funding that still state the same?

Okay, I'll give you two pieces to start educating yourself on this. Then if you care to enter into a discussion instead of offering uninformed and incorrect opinions, I will be happy to do that. I am not interested in a did too--did not exchange; and I rather prefer not to participate in a discussion in which you apparently intentionally misrepresent what I said so that you can more easily attack it.

Rationale behind the 1979 climate act:
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/outreach/proceedings/cdw29_proceedings/Reeves.pdf

And this is awkwardly translated, but it is just one example of the activity re the scientific community re global cooling:
Dr. Kukla, 1972 member Czechoslovakian Academy Sciences pioneer field astronomical forcing, became central figure convincing United States government take dangers climate change seriously. January year, he another geologist, Robert Matthews Brown University, convened what would become historic conference top European American investigators Providence, R.I. working conference's theme: "The Present Interglacial: How When will End?"
Later year, Drs. Kukla Matthews highlighted dangers global cooling Science magazine and, because urgency matter, December alerted President Richard Nixon joint letter. conference had reached consensus, their letter stated, "a global deterioration climate, order magnitude larger than any hitherto experienced civilized mankind, very real possibility indeed may due very soon. cooling has natural cause falls within rank processes which produced last ice age."
Urban Renaissance Institute - The Deniers, Part XXVII: Forget warming – beware the new ice age
 
Back
Top Bottom