Is global warming/climate change a crock?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daniel

As I said before. Explain the Thames freezing over in the middle of this century?

---

Very simple explanation, the water was colder then. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daniel

Can't be bothered. No use telling a religious/cultist person that one of the cornerstones of their religion/cult may be incorrect.

---

I rather resent the fact that you think that anyone who holds the same views as I do is a 'religious/cultist person'. I don't see it that way at all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tinchote

Patterson's remarks have as much authority as anyone else. The guy's an expert in understanding the climate in terms of geological evidence.

A climatologist cannot go very far without data. And where can they get their data? The atmosphere has been seriously studied for less than 100 years. And with that data they can tell what will happen in another 100 years? Hard to believe. Science works in terms of theories, and climate theories are not known to be particularly sound. Because even if the theory is perfect (which I doubt it is) then to make predictions you have to implement computer models, and that could be really tricky.

---

The problem is that our ability to extrapolate geological records into the average temperature of certain periods isn't accurate either and it is difficult if not impossible to ascertain short term fluctuations in temperature if you're looking at records over several thousand years old. Manmade records are of course imperfect because they only go back for such a short period of time but they are accurate.

Therefore I don't see how your climatologists evidence is more sound than the current consensus in the scientific community.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tinchote

In any case, my main point is not to deny the warming, but to discuss its consequences. We are told that an increase in temperature is catastrophic. As I have asked many times: does that mean that a decrease in temperature will improve the world in any sense? Or does it mean that the current temperatures are "perfect"? I find that hard to believe.

I know I'm biased on this particular bit, but being someone that walks to work in January under -40 weather, it's tough to convince me that "warmer is worse" ;)

---

Sea levels are linked to average temperature due to the increase/decrease in ice in the polar caps taking water out of or pushing more into the system.

Such increases or decreases in sea level didn't matter so much when we as a species either didn't exist or lived a nomadic lifestyle. However since many of the most economically productive cities are now most at risk since they lie either on the coast or not very far from one an increase in sea level is going to have a serious effect. Then there are certain countries whose very existence is at threat, the Netherlands and some Pacific states come to mind.

We do have ways of getting around a rise in sea level of course, flood defence technology has improved in leaps and bounds over the past few years but whether or not we invest in them now depends on whether we believe there actually will be an increase in sea level... hence the debate.

Of course poor countries won't be able to afford such defences but then we're not so concerned about them are we.

When cities like NY, Tokyo, London are flooded on a regular basis and insurance claims rise through the roof, stock markets fall because of uncertainty as to the extra cost of coping with such disasters in the future I suspect you'll find it'll hurt you in the pocket too.

I doubt you can argue that maintaining sea levels at their current position or even reducing them will have the same negative effects as increasing them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daniel

Can't be bothered. No use telling a religious/cultist person that one of the cornerstones of their religion/cult may be incorrect.

---

That applies equally to you since I've not been able to see a single coherent argument from you as to why the scientific consensus is incorrect yet hold tenaciously to your position.

Constant name-calling (eco-Nazi, religious/cultist person) is not an adequate replacement for a reasoned argument btw.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dylan H

That applies equally to you since I've not been able to see a single coherent argument from you as to why the scientific consensus is incorrect yet hold tenaciously to your position.

Constant name-calling (eco-Nazi, religious/cultist person) is not an adequate replacement for a reasoned argument btw.

---

The fact that graphs have been posted which show obscenely high levels of atmospheric CO2 while there have been low temps kind of points out that there may be merit to my argument. Oh wait you ignore anything which doesn't agree with what the scientists think and any scientist which doesn't agree with popular belief is said to be working for the oil companies :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

I rather resent the fact that you think that anyone who holds the same views as I do is a 'religious/cultist person'. I don't see it that way at all.

---

It is a religion. If you speak out against it you are beset upon by hordes of eco-warriors blindly following the scientists (prophets?) who ignore any evidence to the contrary ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daniel

It is a religion. If you speak out against it you are beset upon by hordes of eco-warriors blindly following the scientists (prophets?) who ignore any evidence to the contrary ;)

---

No it isn't. For you to say so is, with respect, ridiculous.

As I have said time and time again, your assertion that every scientist who has studied global warming and come to the conclusion that it's man-made is misguided on the basis that you reckon they have forgotten to take natural causal factors into account has little foundation. Go and talk to just such a person and I am sure they would put you right.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

No it isn't. For you to say so is, with respect, ridiculous.

As I have said time and time again, your assertion that every scientist who has studied global warming and come to the conclusion that it's man-made is misguided on the basis that you reckon they have forgotten to take natural causal factors into account has little foundation. Go and talk to just such a person and I am sure they would put you right.

---

My point with regards to this thread was merely to say that it's possible that the scientists could be wrong......... As I said scientists with the best scientific knowledge available to them in the past have made errors of judgement. I don't think anyone honestly knows. That's my opinion and perhaps ib 50 years time I might change my mind. I still think we should make efforts to increase the efficiency of powerplants and cars and so on to conserve fossil fuels and dare I say it also to decrease CO2 emmisions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daniel

My point with regards to this thread was merely to say that it's possible that the scientists could be wrong......... As I said scientists with the best scientific knowledge available to them in the past have made errors of judgement. I don't think anyone honestly knows. That's my opinion and perhaps ib 50 years time I might change my mind. I still think we should make efforts to increase the efficiency of powerplants and cars and so on to conserve fossil fuels and dare I say it also to decrease CO2 emmisions.

---

OK, fair enough. That's more reasonable. However, I think that to label the climate change theory as being equivalent to a religion is going too far. I also suspect, still, that scientists who are convinced of climate change would argue that they do know.