Talk:Global warming denialism

From RationalWiki
(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
(complainant's alleigance)
m (Al Gore's film critiqed by UK judge. Damnit!: sp 9 scientific errors!)
Line 133: Line 133:
 
:I've changed it to "6.  (There is an hypothesized sixth step, "Global warming was happening, it was caused by humanity, it is a very bad thing and previous governments should have done something.")"  But it still could be sharpened up.--[[User:Bob_M|Bob]][[User_Talk:Bob_M|<sup>'s your uncle</sup>]] 14:55, 8 October 2007 (EDT)
 
:I've changed it to "6.  (There is an hypothesized sixth step, "Global warming was happening, it was caused by humanity, it is a very bad thing and previous governments should have done something.")"  But it still could be sharpened up.--[[User:Bob_M|Bob]][[User_Talk:Bob_M|<sup>'s your uncle</sup>]] 14:55, 8 October 2007 (EDT)
  
== Al Gore's film critiqed by UK judge. Damnit!  ==
+
== Al Gore's film critiqued by UK judge. Damnit!  ==
  
Al Gore's film critiqed by UK judge. Damnit! [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/7037671.stm BBC  report] [[User:SusanG|<font color = "0000ff">Susan</font>]][[User_talk:SusanG|<font color = "ff00ff"><sup>talk to me</sup></font>]] 00:26, 11 October 2007 (EDT)
+
Al Gore's film critiqued by UK judge. Damnit! [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/7037671.stm BBC  report] [[User:SusanG|<font color = "0000ff">Susan</font>]][[User_talk:SusanG|<font color = "ff00ff"><sup>talk to me</sup></font>]] 00:26, 11 October 2007 (EDT)
  
 
The complainant is a member of [http://www.newparty.co.uk/ the New Party] an organisation which I haven't previously heard. Glancing at it's web page it appears to be a leetle bit right of centre (!). [[User:SusanG|<font color = "0000ff">Susan</font>]][[User_talk:SusanG|<font color = "ff00ff"><sup>talk to me</sup></font>]] 00:54, 11 October 2007 (EDT)
 
The complainant is a member of [http://www.newparty.co.uk/ the New Party] an organisation which I haven't previously heard. Glancing at it's web page it appears to be a leetle bit right of centre (!). [[User:SusanG|<font color = "0000ff">Susan</font>]][[User_talk:SusanG|<font color = "ff00ff"><sup>talk to me</sup></font>]] 00:54, 11 October 2007 (EDT)

Revision as of 04:56, 11 October 2007

Contents

Intro

I would respectfully disagree with that, Ed. Just because it is a political issue does not invalidate the science. I see your point, and politics does muddy things, but if you look, you can see the science. --PalMD-yada yada 19:54, 30 May 2007 (CDT)

"Many of the global warming doom sayers seem to be obsessed with a longing for Apocalypse." I dunno, in my experience most of the folks talking about global warming catastrophes are screaming at people to avoid an Apocalypse. --Kels 19:55, 30 May 2007 (CDT)

And, unfortunately, many folks who believe in the Apocalypse think global warming is irrelevant. --PalMD-yada yada 19:58, 30 May 2007 (CDT)

Even scarier are the Apocalyptic nuts who think that if they can make Earth unlivable enough, Jesus will be FORCED to return and Save them. Pleasant thought, eh? --Gulik 15:45, 9 July 2007 (CDT)
Have you read Skinny Legs and All, Gulik? Given the other overlaps in our tastes, you might enjoy it. --jtltalk 16:02, 9 July 2007 (CDT)

And many skeptics happen to be American with ties to the oil and automobile industries... MiddleMan

To avoid any misunderstandings:

  • Fact: the average temperature on Earth is rising.
  • Fact: the average temperature of the polar regions is rising faster than that of the rest of the world.
  • Fact: melting icecaps are bad for the world.
  • Fact: solar activity influences global temperatures.
  • Fact: human activity influences global activity.
  • Fact: Per capita, Americans consume 70% more oil than the British.
  • Fact: the human factor of global warming is significant (40% or higher).
  • Only thing that's not a fact: the exact percentage of global warming that can be attributed to human activity.

Conclusion: whether we're responsible for 48% or 63% doesn't really matter here, what matters is that our influence is significant, meaning we can also significantly reduce global warming!

MiddleMan

I've replaced the previous article with something which addresses the issues a bit more.--Bob_M (talk) 15:31, 31 May 2007 (CDT)

Also, increasing CO2 has significantly changed ocean acid-base chemistry. Im way to lazy right now to dig up the great recent article in the New Yorker. User:PalMD


You might find this interesting: Your Beginners Guide to Denying Global Warming. Paladiea's been doing some good work, covering climate change politics in Canada, so the rest of her blog's interesting too. --Kels 16:10, 31 May 2007 (CDT)

Yes, when the spirit moves me I'm going to write part two on the "scientific" objections to global warming. But that doesn't' mean I'll complain if somebody else does it first.--Bob_M (talk) 16:16, 31 May 2007 (CDT)

Say, the wingnuts are crowing about the Director of NASA denying Global Warming is an immediate issue. I assume they're telling only a fraction of the story, so does anyone here have more info? --Kels 16:21, 31 May 2007 (CDT)
Not familiar with the story, but the Bush administration has kept a pretty tight lid on what it lets those boys say anyway hasn't it?--Bob_M (talk) 16:29, 31 May 2007 (CDT)

Interview on NPR today with the NASA administrator who basically toed the Bush line on climate change. I actually felt bad for him...briefly.--PalMD-yada yada 17:35, 31 May 2007 (CDT)

That's so... undemocratic. MiddleMan

New Scientist in the UK has run a number of articles on political interference in NASA reports. I suppose the same reports surface in the US.--Bob_M (talk) 03:42, 1 June 2007 (CDT)

Today I read Bush proposed an alternative (alternative to Kyoto) treaty to limit global warming (implying he believes it is real), when is he going to make his mind up? MiddleMan

Yes, I read something about that as well. If he continues down that route a lot a Republicans are going to have to engage in double think.--Bob_M (talk) 14:17, 2 June 2007 (CDT)
Not to worry, they'll follow the same road as our Conservative party. Set a target date of 2050, don't do anything else, then blame all the non-Conservative governments between now and then for their failure. --Kels 14:21, 2 June 2007 (CDT)
I thought the current Canadian government was getting some grief for pulling back on Global Warming commitments - or did I get that wrong?--Bob_M (talk) 14:33, 2 June 2007 (CDT)

Inserted text

This text replaced the main article for a few minutes:

The global warming debate has left the realm of science a long time ago. It has become totally politicized. Any scientific criticism is not met with a scientific response, but with name-calling and a stepping up of the scare tactics. Some skeptics have even lost their jobs or are told to shut up or else. Many of the global warming doom sayers seem to be obsessed with a longing for Apocalypse. A good New Zealand example was the acceptance speech of Peter Barrett, when he received the (well-earned) Marsden Medal. He predicted the extinction of the human race by the end of this century due to AGW.

[1]

What's anyone think about including it? To be clear it wasn't my addition, but an IP user added it.-αmεσ (!) 01:16, 8 July 2007 (CDT)

That is more-or-less the original text of the article by Ed Poor which was overwritten by the present one. There might be some issues worth raising, but the first part simply turns reality on it's head. I'd say leave it out.--Bob_M (talk) 01:47, 8 July 2007 (CDT)
Agreed. It's just the usual "La-la-I-can't-hear-you-nothing-wrong-here!" non-argument. --AKjeldsenGodspeed! 05:58, 8 July 2007 (CDT)

"Arguments against humans as the cause of global warming"

How does a finding that ice sheets might not respond to warming as dramatically as previously thought qualify as an argument against "man made global warming," exactly? Dyskolos 22:57, 8 July 2007 (CDT)

And it looks the author was being selectively quoted by the right-wing site cited. Dyskolos 23:27, 8 July 2007 (CDT)

While it's true...

After years of hearing about global warming and doing what little study I've done on the whole issue I've reached some tentative conclusions:

  • Global warming is occurring.
  • Human activity probably is helping it along.
  • Even if we were able to stop GHG (CO2 and CH4 emissions totally today GW would likely continue.
  • GW is more dependent on solar cycles and solar energy output than GHG combinations.
  • Average ocean temperatures are a better indicator of GW than average terrestrial (air) temps.
  • Humanity will survive.
"We can't stop the house burning, so let's just roast marshmallows", eh? The longer we can delay catastrophic warming, the longer we have to work on a real solution. --Gulik 15:49, 9 July 2007 (CDT)
We might survive, but the planet will be in bad shape. I read somewhere that 2040 is the years the Evil Librul Science Conspiracy is projecting the oceans will be so acidic that krill won't be able to form their shells. At that point, we can kiss the entire ocean ecosystem goodbye, so enjoy your tuna and cod NOW. --Gulik 15:49, 9 July 2007 (CDT)
That was actually a terrific article. It's easy to forget chemistry sometimes...in the human body, HCO3- is the main buffer, with the lungs controlling CO2 output and retention. The oceans perform a similar task on Earth, and as the pH of oceans changes with increased atm CO2, microorgs that make carbonate shells are having a helluva time.--PalMD-Goatspeed! 16:05, 9 July 2007 (CDT)
Thankfully humans are fully self-sufficient and don't need any other living things to survive in luxury and comfort. --jtltalk 16:09, 9 July 2007 (CDT)

"GW is more dependent on solar cycles and solar energy output than GHG combinations." What lead you to conclude this? Dyskolos 21:49, 9 July 2007 (CDT)

lol

from Conservapedia:

"Evolutionary scientists who believe in global warming think that the Earth has experienced numerous ice ages over two million years, during which global temperatures dropped approximately 11° F and then returned to normal."

wtf? Dyskolos 21:47, 9 July 2007 (CDT)

The first thing to know is that, what the rest of the world calls "scientists", creationists call "evolutionists" or, if they're being very accomodating, "evolutionary scientists". It doesn't matter if they're studying geology or geography or astrophysics or anything else, if they disagree with anything the speaking creationist believes (for instance, that the world is 6000 years old), they're evolutionists. --jtltalk 22:15, 9 July 2007 (CDT)

Wow-- I haven't been over to the CP global warming site in ages. Now it doesn't even mention CO2 at all. It at least mentioned it once before... ŠтΈṜȳŁЁand...? 14:58, 1 August 2007 (CDT)

NASA/Al Gore spinmasters

More sources coming. 16:01, 13 August 2007 (CDT)

Someone needs an understanding of statistical significance. Look the change in the data went from non-significant but with 1998 being hotter to non-significant with 1934 being hotter. In reality there was NO change (0.02 percent). And 1934 was the middle of the friggin' dust bowl. Not really "comforting" news. Not to mention that when dealing with averages across years the 90s and 2000s are still the hottest "decade" in US history. And also US is not the world. The Global Temperature is unchanged. Basically an anomaly in the US data having to do with a specific weather event (the dust bowl) leads to 1998 being non-significantly a little less than the "hottest" year. ohhh conspiracy all around. tmtoulouse irritate 17:09, 13 August 2007 (CDT)

Merge

We should be looking out how to handle content here and at List of claims by global warming denialists. tmtoulouse irritate 00:11, 14 August 2007 (CDT)

Okay. tmtoulouse irritate 16:10, 29 August 2007 (CDT)

"climate change" vs. "global warming"

I'm not quite sure how to introduce my favourite bit of climate change denial - I'll try something like "Using anecdotal evidence - like "Wow, it's really fucking cold today!" to argue that "global warming" is not an issue." Y'all can decide if it fits... There was a story on Fox News just today on low temperatures and the corn harvest or some such thing. The root of the problem - and the title of this very article is part of the problem - is that we should be talking about "climate change," not "global warming." PFoster 23:35, 13 August 2007 (CDT)

The semantics of "climate change" versus "global warming" is complicated I would argue. While the specific local consequences of global warming might be different and thus labels "climate change" the overall cause of much of it is still the increase in global temperature. tmtoulouse irritate 23:48, 13 August 2007 (CDT)
I think "climate change" alone is too vague in some ways, since, as Tmt points out, the rise in average global temperature is the concern - and how much of it is anthropogenic. For instance, if we noticed that we were gradually entering another ice age (we should be, IIRC), that would also be "climate change", and might worry us in terms of how to prepare for it, if possible. Probably the entire phrase describing the issue of concern would formally read "climate change due to anthropogenic global warming". The easiest and clearest shorthand for that is "global warming".

I agree - but the pervasiveness of the common shorthand form "global warming" makes it easy for deniers to point to localised events and anecdotal evidence, like a cold snap or an unusually snowy winter - like last year in NY State, as evidence that there's no "global warming" problem, when it is in fact evidence of a climate change problem - climate change caused by, yes, no doubt, global warming. PFoster 12:05, 14 August 2007 (CDT)

Maybe we could condense the smart stuff in this section into the article - in an intro defining the term, and in that section on anecdotal bluster? I agree absolutely that GW can cause not only heavier precipitation (global flood, anyone?!), but even colder winters - locally, of course. humanbe in 12:08, 14 August 2007 (CDT)
Tangentially, a lot of this could use some copyediting. I didn't bother at first because it looked like it was a quick slapdash creation due to frustration with our resident "skeptic", but now it's turning into a "real" article I might have to try. humanbe in 12:12, 14 August 2007 (CDT)

Sun's influence on climate

And a paper by the Royal Society [2]. For those with a subscription to Nature, [3] and several news articles on the article [4] [5] [6] [7] . The short of it is:

  • The light output of the sun did not have correlation to the climate in the past solar cycle
  • The number of sunspots did not have a correlation to the climate in the past cycle
  • The magnetic field of the sun did not have a correlation to the climate in the past cycle
  • The cosmic rays (from a weaker magnetic field, involved in cloud formation) did not...

If any of these were to have a significant effect on the climate, one should have seen a reduction in the tempature around 1985. Even with lag time, temperature continued to raise.

--Shagie 01:55, 14 August 2007 (CDT)

Denial step 6

Hmm...not sure how to word this properly, but I'm guessing that the 6th step wouldn't be admitting culpability, but instead blaming the failure to do something on one's political opponents. We've actually got a Conservative Prime Minister up here who's simultaneously denying it's a problem, trumpeting how much he's doing to solve the problem, and blaming the previous government for not solving the problem that they've just denied exists. --Kels 14:31, 8 October 2007 (EDT)

I've changed it to "6. (There is an hypothesized sixth step, "Global warming was happening, it was caused by humanity, it is a very bad thing and previous governments should have done something.")" But it still could be sharpened up.--Bob's your uncle 14:55, 8 October 2007 (EDT)

Al Gore's film critiqued by UK judge. Damnit!

Al Gore's film critiqued by UK judge. Damnit! BBC report Susantalk to me 00:26, 11 October 2007 (EDT)

The complainant is a member of the New Party an organisation which I haven't previously heard. Glancing at it's web page it appears to be a leetle bit right of centre (!). Susantalk to me 00:54, 11 October 2007 (EDT)

Personal tools
Namespaces

Variants
Actions
Navigation
Community
Tools
support