Slashdot Mirror
Global Warming 'Undeniable,' Report Says
BergZ writes "Scientists from around the world are providing even more evidence of global warming. 'A comprehensive review of key climate indicators confirms the world is warming and the past decade was the warmest on record,' the annual State of the Climate report declares. Compiled by more than 300 scientists from 48 countries, including Canada, the report from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration said its analysis of 10 indicators that are 'clearly and directly related to surface temperatures, all tell the same story: Global warming is undeniable.'"
I love the asshats that cite the winters around PA being cold as evidence that global warming is a myth.
Unless you're a Republican or a corporate shill, that is.
No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Winston Churchill
And that the Earth's flatness was also "undeniable". Fact of the matter is there exists NO credible evidence that C02 has anything at all to do with warming, and any climate study that includes ZERO research on solar output data (after all, ALL heat comes from the Sun) could not possibly be "undeniable" as it is at best incomplete.
Furthermore, archaeological evidence proves that our planet has been both much warmer AND much cooler than it is now. How could man be the cause of that when they didn't have SUV's in Roman times?
Corporatism != Free Market
Jesus. For like half my life I've continuously heard about "Global Warming," and for a decade there's been a lot of "Proof" coming out. As in, they're constantly trying to PROVE IT EXISTS. The big news is always "GLOBAL WARMING IS REAL, SEE?!"
When you have to continuously find reasons to believe in something, and continuously tout that you've just proven (for the 600th time) that it's real, you've invented one of two things: Politics or Religion.
Give me something real: Impact assessments that aren't "ZOMG ZEE APOCALYPSE!"; correlated facts that aren't "CARS AND CIGARETTES MAKE THE EARTH A BOILING DEATH SPHERE!!"; suggestions about what we should do about it that aren't entirely focused on stopping/reversing the changes. Until then, I'm just looking at stupid political bullshit.
Support my political activism on Patreon.
Are there still glaciers covering North America?
That one seems pretty obvious and undeniable. Though it doesn't give the AGW crowd much ammunition unless they are going to blame it on mammoth SUVs.
Global power rationing counts as a change to our entire civilization.
There's only so much efficiency you can squeeze out of a system.
Not going to happen for political reasons.
Also not going to happen in anything like the sufficient volume, again for political reasons.
There isn't the capacity to manufacture enough biofuels to take a significant chunk out of fossil fuel use. Look at total oil crop production versus petroleum usage.
What false dichotomy? If you truly believe in catastrophic global warming, I expect you to live like it. If you don't want to live like you believe that Global Warming is a catastrophic problem requiring drastic measures, shut up and go away.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
At all. More BS from the Glow Ball Warming peeps.
I mean, the evidence is all over the report. The only thing stopping them from saying that it is conclusively man made is that 1) it's probably impossible to prove it and 2) there might always be some evidence of non anthropogenic warming contributing to the cause but not accounting for all of it.
Therein lies the problem: If it's impossible to prove, it's religion. As for point 2, the question isn't really about whether mankind is contributing so much as it is what percent of the warming makind is responsible for. Anthropogenic Warming can't contribute the whole, and there's disagreement in the scientific community that it's even contributing "a lot."
Too late, he's been troll modded by the AGW conspirators. Still at +2, though.
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
None of that was shown through experiments, it was all hypothesized based on measurements of one existing system.
"Dinosaurs used to roam the earth" is based on fossils. A measurement. There was no experiment -- no creation of a system with specific properties to test a hypothesis about how those properties produce the result. In fact, an experiment is impossible.
The 4.5 billion age is also a measurement. Radioactive decay of certain elements in certain rocks. It is based upon a significant assumption that is an elephant in the room that nobody mentions. What if the rate of decay is NOT a constant? We've been able to measure the rates of some things for what, about 50 years? Maybe 100. Might we be unable to measure a change that occurs over 100,000 years? Sure. If we're talking about elements with half-lives of millions of years, might we be off a bit when we've only known about radioactivity for a couple of hundred years and had 100 or fewer years to actually measure it?
Now, specifically for the 'experiment' that the report uses. Ten measurements, seven rising, three declining. Measurements of what? For the most part, temperatures, of course.
The ability to measure temperature came about in the early to mid 1600's, depending on who you claim invented the thermometer. That's 400 years ago. Regular measurements of earth temperatures on a large scale didn't happen until the satellite age, and then those measurements are not direct, they are all indirect. That means that the 'long term' data we have on temperature really only starts less than 100 years ago.
Does anyone else remember about fifteen years ago how the satellite remote sensing guys realized that their algorithms for calculating sea surface temps were wrong? Whoops.
So, it may be warmer this year than last. It may be colder this year than 100 years ago. It's nice that you claim you can tell where all the carbon comes from, but what if the change is not due to CO2 levels? It may be due to CO2, but unless we can create an experiment with a planet where we can change the CO2 and keep everything, including solar input, the same, causality eludes us.
Models are great, but models require a complete knowledge of the system being modeled, which we simply do not have. Models are tweaked on a daily basis to match the assumptions of the modeller, and to fit whatever is considered to be current valid data. An email about ten years ago from NCAR trumpeted the fact that modelers had changed one parameter in the "hockey stick" model and got a model that still fit the existing data and showed an even more significant upturn. This was, to them, proof of even more danger just around the corner, even though all it really was was a change to an empirical constant.
Are dinosaurs fake? Was Piltdown Man a fake?
The mantra for all those pushing the Globull warming scam is, "If, at first you don't succeed, Lie, Lie and Lie again."
Lok at Gore, Obama and Gillard (Australian Labor Party's principal liar)
Funny you should mention it, but Creationists actually get a lot more respect from Evolutionary Biologists. Assuming the latter are not all atheists, that is. In that debate it doesn't necessarily make you a lesser form of human being to disagree. Can you genuinely say the same of this debate? If so, thinly at best.
Let's try and not go completely off the rails by claiming that I am every denier you have ever faced on the internet, that I am incapable of facing reality, or what-have-you.
No, you're a specific denier who I have faced on the Internet before. If you'd like to face reality, now would be a perfect time.
In a community that rejects dissent, consensus is a non-fact.
If you want to expand that to 'no dissent allowed', that's all well and good, but you really have to acknowledge that the consensus is at a minimum drastically diminished. Either level of severity supports my main thesis here - One cannot put much value in the consensus in and of itself.
The central argument of your thesis -- that dissent is rejected -- is false. Dissent is not rejected. Bad papers and science are rejected. Good papers and science that dissent are accepted. As the link clearly shows. That's the reality that you aren't accepting.
The specific paper the comment was referring to was going to be published by the journal, despite being a terribly flawed paper, simply because it was dissenting. Basically the opposite bias of the one you claim. And how do we know that this paper was singled out for terribleness by the researchers, and not merely because it dissented? Because of all the other papers that are published that dissent, but aren't terrible. Your whole thesis falls apart in the face of the reality that good, dissenting opinions are accepted by the climatology community.
That this constitutes a small percentage of the published literature tells you something about the state of the science. It means there is relatively little to dissent about among those who are studied. In areas where there is ample room for dissent -- cosmology is a good example -- there are many papers published that wildly disagree with the most popular theories.
"Consensus" is a vague term and was never intended to imply unanimous agreement. Simply a very large preponderance of agreement.
Your argument that this consensus is invalid (or merely 'drastically diminished', please let's not quibble) because the consensus was created in an environment where disagreement with the pre-formed consensus is rejected, is demonstrably false.
That's reality. Can you accept it?
The enemies of Democracy are
Are there still glaciers covering North America?
Next time, just gracefully bow out. There is nothing wrong with that. There's no need to embarrass yourself like that. Sometimes its the smarter man who stays silent.
You see, when you make a bold statement which is intended to summarily terminate a discussion or imply its a pivotal point, and in doing so, reveals you know nothing of the subject matter, you've embarrassed yourself and wasted everyone's time.
If you're still not sure why you've embarrassed yourself, please go learn something, anything, about the Earth's climate before you comment further in any future climate discussion.
Mexicans are welcome if they ask permission.
If they don't ask permission, then they will meet the same fate as the gentleman who enters your home without permission (gets shot). Intrusion is never acceptable accept in the minds of fucking idiots.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall