Global Warming

[SWP's back]

The data simply isn't credible yet. The only answer is balanced scientific study.

How can decades of data independently collated in multiple disciplines, that all point to the same conclusions not be credible?

We had decades of being told smoking was bot bad for you.

Most studies find whatever they were paid to find.

 

[rickmcfc]

How can decades of data independently collated in multiple disciplines, that all point to the same conclusions not be credible?

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter2.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-repor ... apter2.pdf</a>
p. 203

The Level of Scientific Understanding for almost all forcings, according to the IPCC, are low to very low or very low. Out of sixteen factors, five are very low, six are low to very low, two medium to low, two medium and only one high. By marvellous coincidence, the higher LoSUs happen to be positive forcings i.e. ones where the temperature will go up, and low vice versa. How can data with margins of error as big as they are for the cloud albedo effect and lack of understanding so pronounced be considered conclusive? Fuck knows.

Let me try and bring this down to more common language as we're getting into technical language here and this argument will go a bit mad.

You are stating that a Level of Scientific Understanding for the different factors that drive climate change are low, with the exception of the one that we understand the most, that points to a large warming. Then you provide a paper on radiative forcing.

And you think that despite have a large understanding of a primary cause of temperature and is showing a clear correlation, we should what? Ignore it? Say that we don't know?

I don't understand what you are trying to say

 

[Damocles]

The data simply isn't credible yet. The only answer is balanced scientific study.

How can decades of data independently collated in multiple disciplines, that all point to the same conclusions not be credible?

We had decades of being told smoking was bot bad for you.

Most studies find whatever they were paid to find.

This isn't true. People have known the dangers of smoking since the 1600s and scientifically since the 1940s. What the media told you is not the same as what science has concluded.

 

[Challenger1978]

How can decades of data independently collated in multiple disciplines, that all point to the same conclusions not be credible?

We had decades of being told smoking was bot bad for you.

Most studies find whatever they were paid to find.

This isn't true. People have known the dangers of smoking since the 1600s and scientifically since the 1940s. What the media told you is not the same as what science has concluded.

Damocles your very very badly misinformed there. I've got old medical books here that literally state having a fag and a brew in the morning is good for you if you wake up with a bad chest.

 

[Damocles]

It may say independent on the front cover but there are many who would argue it wasn't.

Another one, I don't understand what your main point is here. Do you agree with these as facts?

The amount of CO2 is rising.
CO2 absorbs infrared light.

 

[Zinagol]

Somebody just said something to me about the thoughts of the "man in the street" regarding global warming and I'd like a quick survey.

Yes or no, as far as you are concerned is global warming happening and is it a man made problem?

Yes & Yes.

I think the answer is, nobody knows for sure what is happening.Nobody on either side of the debate can offer comprehensive proof either way.

Try going to Google Scholar and typing "Global Warming" into the search field.

As Damocles said, An Inconvenient Truth is worth watching. Here is another good presentation:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fWInyaMWBY8

 

[Damocles]

Damocles your very very badly misinformed there. I've got old medical books here that literally state having a fag and a brew in the morning is good for you if you wake up with a bad chest.

When were they published, who printed them, and on what page?

 

[squirtyflower]

I thought you were presenting a scientific debate until you brought the Al Gore fictional film into it

 

[Skashion]

Let me try and bring this down to more common language as we're getting into technical language here and this argument will go a bit mad.

You are stating that a Level of Scientific Understanding for the different factors that drive climate change are low, with the exception of the one that we understand the most, that points to a large warming. Then you provide a paper on radiative forcing.

And you think that despite have a large understanding of a primary cause of temperature and is showing a clear correlation, we should what? Ignore it? Say that we don't know?

I don't understand what you are trying to say, especially with "By marvellous coincidence"?

Erm, no, no that's not what I'm saying is it Damocles. I'm saying look at the margin of error for the cloud albedo effect. The cloud albedo effect could be a huge negative forcing but we do not have enough data to know either way. THAT, is what I'm saying. More balanced science aimed at building scientific understanding of negative forcings.

To put in laymans terms, as you seem to want, the climate is a scale balance, with weights on either side, some make the temperature go up, some make the temperature go down. We currently have no idea what the ones that make the temperature go down weigh so we don't know where we stand. The climate could be very close to balance or heavily stacked on the warming side. I want science to end the uncertainty through trying to plug that gap in knowledge. I would have thought you, least of all people, would disagree with the prospect of more scientific understanding.

By marvellous coincidence I mean I'm not naive enough to believe that scientific funding comes with no strings attached, or, that, for instance, it isn't easier to secure funding for research on greenhouse gases than aerosol effects.

 

[Challenger1978]

Damocles your very very badly misinformed there. I've got old medical books here that literally state having a fag and a brew in the morning is good for you if you wake up with a bad chest.

When were they published, who printed them, and on what page?

They're buried under a load of shit at the back of a spare room so i don't know. I'm not lying to you though read this.

Stopping smoking is one of the best things you can do for your health.

Nowadays, that may seem fairly obvious, but not so very long ago doctors didn't always agree that smoking was bad for your health.

The discovery that smoking is bad for your health caused quite a stir within the medical profession.

Over fifty years ago (1950), two doctors, Professor Austin Bradford Hill and Dr Richard Doll of the British Medical Research Council, published a scientific paper that shocked the scientific community. The report revealed something that we all now know as an undisputed fact.

It was the first time that anyone had discovered an undeniable association between tobacco and cancer.

The findings, published in the British Medical Journal in 1950, were based on a survey of lung cancer patients in 20 London hospitals. The investigation was broadened to include other areas of the country and, in 1952, the researchers announced that "the association between smoking and carcinoma of the lung is real".

It took a full five years (until 1957) for the Medical Research Council to announce to the British public that smoking was without a doubt to blame for the increase in lung cancer. The Minister of Health declared that the UK Government now fully acknowledged these facts. He smoked a cigarette while he made his announcement!

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.completemindcare.co.uk/Hypnotherapy%20to%20help%20you%20with/More%20about%20stopping%20smoking/What%20the%20doctors%20used%20to%20say%20about%20smoking.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.completemindcare.co.uk/Hypno ... oking.html</a>