Talk:Global warming

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Icon science.svg

This Climatology related article has been awarded BRONZE status for quality. It's getting there, but could do with improvement.

This article is of HIGH importance to the wiki.

See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.

Copperbrain.png


This page is automatically archived by Pibot
Archives for this talk page: <1>, <2>, <3>, <4>, <5>, <6>, <7>

Contents

[edit] Is global warming falsifiable?

This graph sure seems to show its failure: http://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/NASA_vs_IPCC.jpg

Is there anything that will wake up the climate believers from their stupor? Maybe we need to wait 20 years and the look at the next version of this graph. Abraxas (talk) 21:31, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

I'll take the National Academy of Sciences over notrickszone.com myself, but I'm odd that way. Doctor Dark (talk) 21:39, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
"In the question of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." - GalileoAbraxas (talk) 19:54, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
"They laughed at Galileo. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown" - Carl Sagan - David Gerard (talk) 20:26, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Evidence against

FYI there is a mountain of evidence against AGW. Here is a list of 1100 published, peer-reviewed papers supporting skeptics' arguments: http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.htmlAbraxas (talk) 01:35, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Man, between you and Talsley, it's enough to make me wish that tedium was a bannable offense. EVDebs (talk) 19:56, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
But I'm not trying to bore you. I'm trying to rescue you from the con-men. "the closer you look at the data and alarmists’ presentations, the more fraud you find... For decades, as a professional experimental test engineer, I have analyzed experimental data and watched others massage and present data. I became a cynic" - Burt Rutan, aerospace engineerAbraxas (talk) 21:31, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
I've picked a couple at random and am going through them now (I refuse to go through all of them) but from the looks of it they're just papers exploring alternative models with varying degrees of success. Not many that I've read through so far seem to be good evidence against AGW. But, you know, cherry pick and misrepresent everything all you like, some people might fall for it. Scarlet A.pngd hominemModerator 14:12, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
About half a dozen that I've spotted so far seem to be the same author, Sherwood B. Idso, saying the same point in different journals (of varying quality). Being a single author, he isn't really doing active research and more just proffering opinion on the backs of others, and is the head of the "Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change", which has a conflict-of-interest given that it's funded partially by oil companies. Scarlet A.pngssholeModerator 14:17, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
AGW Gish gallop. Without analysis, at that. And lots of character attacks as "rebuttals." Very fun. sterilesporadic heavy hitter 14:49, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
There are probably some diamonds in the rough. I'm reading this one now - "we will show how political bodies act to control scientific institutions, how scientists adjust both data and even theory to accommodate politically correct positions, and how opposition to these positions is disposed of.", Richard Lindzen, atmospheric physicist - http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0809/0809.3762.pdf Abraxas (talk) 17:40, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
Ooooo, a conspiracy theory. Great use of denialist techniques! sterilesporadic heavy hitter 18:44, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
Um... Burt Rutan? I bet you the man knows a lot about weather, but doesn't know much at all about climate. The physics of flight don't change significantly because of a couple degrees difference in atmospheric temperature average; you just get more turbulence and storms to fly around. He wouldn't be my choice for an expert on the subject. EVDebs (talk) 22:22, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Scary graphs

The graphs of the "climate anomaly" look wild and very scary. Even the name "anomaly" is scary.

Why not show graphs of something that people actual are familiar with, viz. the temperature:

http://catallaxyfiles.com/files/2012/05/Mean-Temp-1.jpg Abraxas (talk) 23:07, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Scale is inappropriate. Everything looks like a flat line if you zoom out such that the bottom means the entire globe is covered in ice and everyone dies and the top means that the entire globe is a desert and everyone dies. Appropriate scale - http://danbraganca.com/2011/11/30/lexophiles-locale-heated-debate-edition/ Hipocrite (talk) 14:49, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

[edit] AGW unravelling?

It really looks more and more cracks are appearing in the AGW foundation. See here http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.co.uk/2013/01/paper-shows-solar-activity-at-end-of.html "Paper shows solar activity at end of 20th century was near highest levels of past 11,500 years" and "NASA on the sun: ‘…tiny variations can have a significant effect on terrestrial climate.”...Researchers have considered the possibility that the sun plays a role in global warming." - http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/01/09/nasa-on-the-sun-tiny-variations-can-have-a-significant-effect-on-terrestrial-climate

This shift in the science community is all happening within the context of 17-years of non-warming and failed IPCC ex ante predictions as researchers try to save face and cover their butts. (Actually the UK Met Office is now conceding that there will be 20 years of non-warming: "If the forecast is accurate, the result would be that the global average temperature would have remained relatively static for about two decades" - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-20947224)

It will be amusing to watch the 180-degree flip on this website and the editors revising all the nasty insults and jokes after the science wins out.

Abraxas (talk) 19:59, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Of course you know that that will never never happen. There can be no such thing as papal infallibility. Dirk Steele (talk) 21:18, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I am already preparing for the next ice age. http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn23060-has-global-warming-ground-to-a-halt.html Dirk Steele (talk) 20:38, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Misrepresentations and deliberate fraud. Hipocrite (talk) 21:10, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

[edit] RE: Hierarchy of global warming denial

Where does "Global warming is happening, [but it’s not caused by humanity]/[and it is in part caused by humanity].... but we probably should still do something about it anyways" fit into the hierarchy? Or is it not listed because it's not a position many people are known to hold? Or that, because it agrees that something should be done, it isn't "denialism" anymore, even if the person holding the opinion doesn't believe it's anthropogenic climate change? Because so far this article seems to just cover either people who say it's absolutely anthropogenic climate change, and that anyone who say it isn't in turn thinks "we don't have to do anything [about it]". -- 71.141.113.91 (talk) 07:01, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Who in the public eye has actually argued that? Just wondering. Osaka Sun (talk) 07:26, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

[edit] Climate change denialism

I think the sections about climate change denialism or global warming denialism should be cut to a separate article on this subject. Up to now, these terms were redirects to global warming conspiracy theory, which is a fairly unhelpful list of supposed culprits & motives for hoaxing global warming but says very little about what (pseudo)scientific claims denialists make. I've rerouted these redirects to here instead, as there is a lot more relevant material, but ideally it should be moved to a separate article with this one just covering the basics of what global warming is & what evidence demonstrates it. WėąṣėḷőįďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 23:34, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Personal tools
Namespaces

Variants
Actions
Navigation
Community
Toolbox
support