Is global warming/climate change a crock?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daniel

Fair point ;) So why is it that when there's a drought somewhere and semi-monsoonal conditions elsewhere that it's the effects of global warming?

---

Much of it is due to "normal" variations - we've always had droughts and floods.

What is happening at the moment is that extreme weather events are becoming more frequent, and one of the cornerstones of the GW scenario is exactly that.

And even those scientists who are firmly convinced of GW are surprised by the current rate of loss of Arctic ice, which is much greater than forecast by even the most pessimistic.

Incidentally, I don't believe that we are solely responsible - as has been pointed out, the Earth does go through warming/cooling phases, but the current rate of change is extreme, and if we can possibly do anything to lessen the effects, then we should.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rah

What made the Thames freeze over? it was cold weather. Why has it not frozen over since? Well maybe because it is warmer. But it is more likely the case that there have also been changes to the banks of the Thames that reduce the chance of it freezing over.

But what does that have to do with Global Warming? not much. The Thames freezing over is a local event, not a global event.

A climatologist can predict trends over years. Not whetere its going to rain more next year. They could predict if it is going to rain more as a continuing trend over your region.

---

That's rubbish. Climatologists are quite good at predicting change and if they're not right they simply put any miscalculations down to global warming. I'm not saying that they should be able to predict tomorrows weather or even next week's weather. But huge seasonal variations should be fairly easy to predict considering we're so knowledgable about the atmosphere and how it works. Oh wait we don't actually know how it works and therefore we can't predict what the weather's going to be like for next year with any huge degree of accuracy. :rolleyes:

I agree Tinchote. Is colder better or worse? Were we at the "right" temperature before man supposedly warmed the planet?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CharlieJ

What is happening at the moment is that extreme weather events are becoming more frequent

---

Is that a fact? I would like to see the evidence. Because we obviously have a more communicated World these days, and even a few decades ago news would travel a lot slower or not at all.

I'm still amazed about how people seem to be surprised every year about their local whether (i.e. they seem to forget it's cold in the Winter, hot in the Summer, it's always a surprise), and it's probably the same with "extreme whether events".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tinchote

Is that a fact? I would like to see the evidence. Because we obviously have a more communicated World these days, and even a few decades ago news would travel a lot slower or not at all.

I'm still amazed about how people seem to be surprised every year about their local whether (i.e. they seem to forget it's cold in the Winter, hot in the Summer, it's always a surprise), and it's probably the same with "extreme whether events".

---

As humans we want everything to be easy to understand. We don't want to not know how something like the weather and world climatew works....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CharlieJ

And even those scientists who are firmly convinced of GW are surprised by the current rate of loss of Arctic ice, which is much greater than forecast by even the most pessimistic.

---

But then, they won't mention at all those areas in the Artic which are cooler than usual, and with more ice. I have Inuit friends, and for the last two years the yearly ice retreat in the Summer, at their hometown, has been way slower than what they are used to. When you find the melting in the Artic mentioned, and these phenomena not mentioned at all, you are in presence of an agenda.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daniel

That's rubbish. Climatologists are quite good at predicting change and if they're not right they simply put any miscalculations down to global warming. I'm not saying that they should be able to predict tomorrows weather or even next week's weather. But huge seasonal variations should be fairly easy to predict considering we're so knowledgable about the atmosphere and how it works. Oh wait we don't actually know how it works and therefore we can't predict what the weather's going to be like for next year with any huge degree of accuracy. :rolleyes:

---

I suspect most climatologists would be rather insulted to hear a layman saying that if they're not right, they just blame global warming. How do you know that this isn't actually the right reason? Truth is, you don't.

And I suspect that, earlier in this thread, you were given a perfectly good explanation as to why climatologists can't predict exact weather events.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

I suspect most climatologists would be rather insulted to hear a layman saying that if they're not right, they just blame global warming. How do you know that this isn't actually the right reason? Truth is, you don't.

And I suspect that, earlier in this thread, you were given a perfectly good explanation as to why climatologists can't predict exact weather events.

---

Thing is, I'm critical of this retrospective science. Tell us what the effects are and then if they happen there is some kind of loose proof for the argument. But merely trying to explain any inconsistencies in the weather with a one argument fits all excuse it tiring at best.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daniel

Thing is, I'm critical of this retrospective science. Tell us what the effects are and then if they happen there is some kind of loose proof for the argument. But merely trying to explain any inconsistencies in the weather with a one argument fits all excuse it tiring at best.

---

How do you know that it's not absolutely right, though?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

How do you know that it's not absolutely right, though?

---

We don't ... That's the rub!

Let's take a T-Rex as an example of science getting it wrong
1) The theory was they walked upright - now the theory is walked parallel to the ground.
2) The theory was they ran 40 miles an hour -now the theory is they creped along.
3) The theory was they were predators - now the theory is they were scavengers.

Another Crock of Doodle
CFCs caused the hole in the Ozone layer. REALLY?! The Ozone layer was discovered in the beginning of the 20th century. When was the first hole discovered? In the 1970's. Were there holes before that at some point? I'll bet yes. Oh and the CFCs must break down into chlorine to cause the hole. But the CFCs have to get higher than 30,000 feet in the atmosphere for that to happen. How does a gas 3X the weight of air get up there? It's like pushing a rock uphill.

I am sure global warming is real but I will stand on my belief it is not caused by primarily by man UNTIL there is REAL proof. Real proof that I suspect never materializes.

- Can you see why I am skeptical?

I am with the global warming not existing clan. I personally believe that it won't be the end of us and even if it does exist I think it will only cause another ice age which we survived the last time.

Only this morning I had a debate with some classmates at school about global warming existing and I was shocked by the amount of people that had allowed themselves to be brainwashed by the ecologists. :eek:

People, stop trying to save the world because about 99% of people that can actually make the slightest difference have better, more important things to worry about. ;)