Global Warming

I’m genuinely curious to hear from someone who believes that global warming is not happening. What do you make of the chart in the link below?

Clearly global sea ice is melting, yes?

I realize that there’s other conversations to be had on whether global warming is man-made and whether theres anything we could do to prevent it or reverse it, but I’m just wondering if anyone actually believes its not happening. It’s amazing to see articles like the one below continue to get published.

The fact that some people don’t believe in global climate change was one of the most shocking things about moving to the US. right up there with a large % of the population not believing in evolution or the fact that people think that the best way to stop gun crime is to buy more guns.

Although having said that, back in Scotland we’re actively campaigning for climate change.

The climate change argument is pretty convincing to me. However, I can see how a small number of informed skeptics would say that the data is not conclusive. It is not possible to prove with 100% certainty that changes over the last 100 years are man made and not part of some longer natural pattern. If the data is only 97% conclusive, 1% of scientists could easily say it is not conclusive enough.

Also, many organizations have a vested interest in denying man made climate change. So it is hard to say if they really believe their own anti climate change argument, or if they are just acting to promote their interests. They could also just be biased by their interests, so that they convince themselves of the truth in their argument (like rich people usually believe that lower taxes are better for the economy as a whole, not just for themselves).

There is also the camp of people who say man made climate change could be real, but they just don’t care. Canada real estate value will probably increase, so maybe it is good for someone.

The religious people who say that climate change is impossible or because should not be fought because it is “god’s will” are in a whole group altogether, and I cannot explain this. I cannot explain also why people pay millions of dollars to football teams and become invested in the outcome of games. So there is a lot of stuff I don’t understand about US culture.

Ghibli is our resident climate-change-is-bollox-er.

That’s me, I’m indifferent.

I just don’t understand why the discussion is partisan. Surely your political views should have no correlation with your views on an environmental phenomenon.

It is, because emissions regulations impose costs to most businesses. So, financial conservatives are more likely to oppose regulations on pollution, making them more likely to argue against climate change, or even to believe that it is not significant or real (as discussed above).

In addition to ohai’s point above, liberals want to establish a cash grab by taxing carbon emissions based on a system that would be completely arbitrary.

this is the troof and nothing but the troof so help ajar

It always goes back to the root problem. The corporation was not programmed to take into account externalities, and “invisible hand” economics was nonsense. The homo sapien arguers are just drones of the corporation, arguing against their species’ best interests. When the math error is fixed, they drop away.

America’s problem

You’re muddling the issue. This isn’t about policy solutions for GW, but simply whether GW even exists.

I talked about these issues in my first post.

Yawn…The OP asked about global warming, not climate change. The climate changes constantly. No debate. Peruse my posts if you really want to be informed. Temperature peaked recently at the end of the '90s, yet CO2 emissions have gone threw the roof, which is a fantastic thing for mankind. Low CO2 concentrations, below 300 ppm, are dangerous to our food supply. 600 ppm, the max we would probably reach even if we attempted to max-out emissions, would cause an incredible “greening” of the Earth which would be fantastic for our ability to support a large population. The greening has already started. Remember, all the carbon in fossil fuels was in fact part of the atmosphere previously… I have no dog in this fight. My interest stems from courses I took related to renewable energy while I was pursuing a degree in engineering, which I can humbling say my aptitude for the discipline easily falls into the top 1% of those that have ever attained such a degree. I say this just to emphasize that I do not struggle with matters of science. And it’s the internet. I can say whatever I want. PA demonstrates that daily. You can be rest assured that if somebody talks about climate without talking about the Sun, there is nothing to learn. The same can be said for anybody mentioning “consensus” when it comes to science. You will find that most physicist, those that practice life sciences are the equivalent of those that laud the CFP as a difficult endeavor in the world of a physicist, find the whole theory of AGW laughable. Physicists, as a group, are no doubt the top of the scientific community. The margins of error in the available earthbound data expand too rapidly to even allow any analysis at all.

Below is all you need to know. This chart is undisputedly the most non-polluted data on global temperatures. The fear mongering AGW zealots are literally killing people in the low income areas of the World and causing a drag on the economy for the rest of us. All much ado about nothing. Competition will come for fossils fuels and we will move on, but the religion of AGW is no reason to artificially accelerate the trend.

Fig. 1. Global (80S to 80N) Mean TLT Anomaly plotted as a function of time. T_he blue band is the 5% to 95% envelope for the RSS V3.3 MSU/AMSU Temperature uncertainty ensemble. The yellow band is the 5% to 95% range of output from CMIP-5 climate simulations. The mean value of each time series average from 1979-1984 is set to zero so the changes over time can be more easily seen. Note that after 1998, the observations are likely to be below the simulated values, indicating that the simulation as a whole are predicting too much warming._

Um, can we all as a society just specify a date where certain regions are too hot to live… thanks

really, can someone estimate an answer where X part of world is too hot too live because Y degrees at Z date? What date will migration due to temperature be expected?

You guys have stolen, and are wearing out, my patented internet yawn. angry

Ghibli, is the chart your showing using the same data as in the link below?

I’ve never seen either chart before, but both are trending up, yes?

Some useful links…

And here’s a memo written by a Republican communication strategist during W’s administration.

An article talking about “consensus” was just posted. (facepalm) Those that mention that stat don’t even know what question was asked or how the survey was performed, yet they feel comfortable repeating it. Bumbling buffoons.

Obviously, nobody watches the videos I post, but here is another. See the light.


Out of interest, what got you interested in the topic and prompted you to read up on it?

Want to meet some of the scientists that are part of the consensus? Click on their image and see what they said.