Is global warming/climate change a crock?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daniel

Exactly. Two days is a silly sample size. But do we know what an appropriate sample size is?

When the earth has been warmer than it is now not that long ago (only a thousand years or so :mark: ) you have to wonder how much we know in our 20 or so years of thinking that the earth is heating up :)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Warm_Period

---

I think you should have another read of that wiki article. I don't think it says what you want it to say.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rah

Don't get too aggressive champ. AGW is the best term as what we are talking about is man made global warming. If you don't understand what I mean let me know and I will try to explain further.

Mate, let you fingers do the walking.You never know, a little research might help you out on this subject. A good place to start is http://environment.newscientist.com/...change/dn11650
Or http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/page.asp?id=6229
Or this is one of my favourites http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...h-connections/
Unfortunately your simple explanations have already been investigated. Funnily enough, the global climate proved not to be simple.

Well why don't you find a newer graph? Maybe because it is used in a context that is misleading. Where did you get the graph from?

---

Quite possibly. But it was about midnight so I took what first came to hand. That's an honest answer and I didn't intend to mislead anyone if the data suddenly becomes less favourable after 2000 :) Of course it could be used to mislead because it contains data that makes someone's theory seem more plausable but you've not shown any data that contradicts this :)

I have said that global warming may be caused by man but just that it seems like a lot of scientists who disagree with popular views aren't as well funded, aren't publicised as well and if they do get funding from an oil company they're instantly dismissed as being biased which I can understand perfectly well and it may even be justified. All I ask is that there's balance to the discussion and when you see the news it doesn't appear that there is. I also dislike the fact that anything strange that happens is immediately put down to global warming.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Robinho

would you rather be happy living in a dark cave, happy in the knowledge that the world is flat, that you need to pray for a new sun to come up and that your newborn has just died from measles? :p :

---

Sure, gimme this today! :) No need to pray for the sun to come up, I know and trust that it will come up. World flat? No problema, I'll just make sure I don't get too close to the edge and I'm safe. :)

Too bad about the newborn really. :( But I don't think it would be very probable to get measles in that cave anyway - it's a contagious disease and only few people are around.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daniel

Quite possibly. But it was about midnight so I took what first came to hand. That's an honest answer and I didn't intend to mislead anyone if the data suddenly becomes less favourable after 2000 :) Of course it could be used to mislead because it contains data that makes someone's theory seem more plausable but you've not shown any data that contradicts this :)

I have said that global warming may be caused by man but just that it seems like a lot of scientists who disagree with popular views aren't as well funded, aren't publicised as well and if they do get funding from an oil company they're instantly dismissed as being biased which I can understand perfectly well and it may even be justified. All I ask is that there's balance to the discussion and when you see the news it doesn't appear that there is. I also dislike the fact that anything strange that happens is immediately put down to global warming.

---

Let me help you out on the sun. There has been no increase n solar irradiance since at least 1978 when satellites began observing the sun.
http://www.pmodwrc.ch/pmod.php?topic.../SolarConstant
The temperature has change, the sun has not.

Trust me thereis plenty of funding available from companies like exxon if you want to doubt AGW.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rah

I think you should have another read of that wiki article. I don't think it says what you want it to say.

---

I should point out that I don't support using wiki links as evidence. I'm at work and I don't have time to do a lot of research because I'm doing my job. I think the evidence of grapes being grown in colder places kind of says a lot of the people who disagree with it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daniel

Exactly. Two days is a silly sample size. But do we know what an appropriate sample size is?

When the earth has been warmer than it is now not that long ago (only a thousand years or so :mark: ) you have to wonder how much we know in our 20 or so years of thinking that the earth is heating up :)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Warm_Period

---

Good point. When people look at average temperature figures and manipulate results to show 5 year averages, 10 year averages, 100 year averages, 1000 year averages etc, you can get very different results and come to different conclusions. Some people say they saw the "hockey stick" graph and then believed in man made global warming. Some people see a graph over hundred and thousands of years and say that man made global warming isn't happening. Neither of these conclusions can be made from the graphs alone as the former shows that the global temperature is rising and the latter shows that the climate can change. On they're own they prove nothing but in conjunction with other data and theories they can help tell a story.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rah

Let me help you out on the sun. There has been no increase n solar irradiance since at least 1978 when satellites began observing the sun.
http://www.pmodwrc.ch/pmod.php?topic.../SolarConstant
The temperature has change, the sun has not.

Trust me thereis plenty of funding available from companies like exxon if you want to doubt AGW.

---

I have no bias. I'm simply after balanced discussion. Don't suggest that. If in 50 years temperatures are going up at a level that models suggested then I'll agree. If it turns out you're wrong will you agree or are you to proud to admit you could be wrong?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daniel

Yes but it's science that went "ooh thallidomide!" and certain scientists that said "You don't need to vaccinate your child, it can cause autism plus these illnesses aren't around anymore".

They were wrong and could quite possibly be wrong now. Just like I could be wrong in doubting them.

---

Errrrr. What can I say to that post?

Thalidomide and Wakefield are both examples of what happens when people decide to shortcut or circumvent standard protocols for introducing a drug or for publishing a research paper.

Thalidomide was released because it wasn't tested on animals sufficiently, had it been tested for teratogenic effects on rabbits as it was after its side effects were found it wouldn't have been released.

Wakefield wrote a paper with no scientific merit whatsoever. Sadly the Lancet saw merit in it and the press and public didn't understand how flimsy the science behind it was. In his case the mainstream scientific and medical community shunned him.

Unfortunately in the case of global warming the mainstream scientific community are all for it. You're quite right in that science is inexact, it is quite possible that in the future something is found that discredits global warming and mankinds effect on it but right now with the evidence we have, there does appear to be a link between CO2 and climate change.

In a sense the science doesn't really matter, just like with Wakefields paper. What does matter is what the public believe, and how that shifts behaviour. Companies and organisations don't have to sign up to climate change and change their products and behaviour but the market will shift away from them. What amuses me is watching the car industry fight legislation against limiting pollution when past history shows that such legislation always gets introduced in the end. The companies that fight it and don't do the relevant research end up having to buy the technology from the companies that just did research into cleaner technologies. Eventually the Americans, Australians and Chinese/Indians are going to have to fork out a lot of money paying licence fees for green tech to European and especially Japanese companies.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daniel

If in 50 years temperatures are going up at a level that models suggested then I'll agree.

---

One of the problems is that it's no good if everybody who doubts it comes round to it in 50 years.

I think it's very sad that you say just because it's not so well supported that it shouldn't be funded and looked into.

If the boot was on the other foot and man made global warming was happening but we were trying to dismiss it as being natural occurences going on would you want me to use that same argument on you? I'd suspect not. I'm not poo-pooing anyone's idea because a lot of people agree with me which is what a lot of people who believe that man is causing global warming are doing.