Ask a Global Warming Skeptic

[ParadigmShifter]

Dudes, how come you open a thread without asking A REAL EXPERT?

FACT: Assuming spherical cows, a cow trumps more CO^w than ALL OF HUMANS, EVER, IN THE HISTORY of the WORLD.

It was chilly here, like LAST WEEK. Glolbal warmists, how do you EXPLAIN THAT!

Moderator Action: Mocking other posters by copying their posting style is considered trolling. - Grisu
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[KaiserElectric]

Seeing as you are discussing the issue with other more than me and my authority to answer said questions is debatable, would you be happier if I resigned and made this a discussion thread?

 

[ParadigmShifter]

Maybe you could come back after reading a book or something.

 

[History_Buff]

Seeing as you are discussing the issue with other more than me and my authority to answer said questions is debatable, would you be happier if I resigned and made this a discussion thread?

At this point, I'm more interested as to whether this has changed your line of thinking. Have you come around to the fact that AGW is a real thing? Or is there some reason you think you can write each of us off as incorrect?

 

[kiwitt]

Maybe you could come back after reading a book or something.

or this Skeptical Science Website

 

[ParadigmShifter]

They can't even spell scepticism correctly

 

[kiwitt]

They can't even spell scepticism correctly

skeptical - dictionary

 

[ParadigmShifter]

Also, sceptical.

Which is the proper spelling.

 

[kiwitt]

Sceptical = UK, NZ, Australia, India, Parts of Canada etc

Skeptical = USA spelling and parts of Canada

Link


USA #2

 

[peter grimes]

FACT: Assuming spherical cows, a cow trumps more COw than ALL OF HUMANS, EVER, IN THE HISTORY of the WORLD.

I understand the spherical cow reference... but I must point out* that the only reason there are so many cows is due to the fact that they taste good when roasted. So we set aside land on which to raise them, re-plant even more acreage to grow their food on, and raise them just so we can kill them when they'll taste their most delicious; or harvest their muscle meat at the most economically efficient moment in their life cycle.

Any CO^w emissions must be counted on our side of the ledger.



*I suspect I'm a victim of Poe. Please be gentle

 

[kiwitt]

Don't forget the milk, butter and of course cheese for those Hamburgers.

 

[Tarquelne]

Don't forget the milk, butter and of course cheese for those Hamburgers.

They're also the fastest land-animal.

 

[Ajidica]

Ignore post, wrong thread, sorry.

 

[Berzerker]

Your mistake is thinking that the current warming is moderate in pace. It's not. It's faster than just about every major climate shift that's ever happened. The ecosystem would likely be able to respond if we were warming 4 degrees over 250-500 years. It can't do it in 100.

we've warmed maybe 1-2 c in 150 years coming out of the little ice age, that aint fast and its hardly extreme. The actual climate record shows our current interglacial to be very moderate, some even say its no coincidence civilization took off.

Electric

I don't see any benefits from greenhouse gasses, nor do I see any benefit from increasing our current production of said gasses.

If they warm the world, wouldn't that be a benefit? What if the world hit a cold snap like we did just a few centuries ago?

 

[Mise]

I just want to know why some people think they know more about climate science than every single scientific body of national and international standing. There is an overwhelming scientific consensus on climate change: that it is happening and that it is caused by human activity. National academies of science and science societies around the world have all issued statements saying that global warming is happening and is caused by human activity, including the National Research Council in the US and the Royal Society in the UK. Not one single scientific body of national or international standing has maintained a dissenting opinion on climate change.

I just want to know what makes people think they know better than pretty much every single scientific institution in the entire freaking world.

 

[squadbroken]

I just want to know why some people think they know more about climate science than every single scientific body of national and international standing. There is an overwhelming scientific consensus on climate change: that it is happening and that it is caused by human activity. National academies of science and science societies around the world have all issued statements saying that global warming is happening and is caused by human activity, including the National Research Council in the US and the Royal Society in the UK. Not one single scientific body of national or international standing has maintained a dissenting opinion on climate change.

I just want to know what makes people think they know better than pretty much every single scientific institution in the entire freaking world.

because sinister global conspiracies etc.

 

[El_Machinae]

If we acknowledge that CO2 is a GHG, then doesn't it become an obvious question of 'how much CO2 would change the climate?' The idea among skeptics is that the current output (and future output) 'is not enough'. But then, what would be?

 

[Terxpahseyton]

The point is that the climate normally changes in paces that the ecology, or at least most of it, can adjust to.

That is incorrect. And it is naive to even consider so. There is no mechanism which would ensure a climate change in a fashion that most can adjust. Climate changes are erratic and can swing very fast to great extremes, killing massive amounts of species. All without human beings to screw around.
Through-out earth history it happened all the time and it will continue to happen from all we know. As things are, humanity has the pleasure to all in all live in an extraordinary smooth episode of the word climate. Which very well might be related to the ice on the poles, because the presence of such massive amounts of ice on the earth is unusual, too and they could work as some sort of buffer or so. So if we really need to talk about what feels "natural", it would only mean we should expect warming and less stable climate conditions - this is what would be more "natural"..

But not that this is a good argument. It doesn't mean that humanity can not still influence the climate to the worse. Impressions of naturality seem all useless to me, as an impression, and even more so as an argument for or against the human influence on the climate.

 

[LucyDuke]

Seeing as you are discussing the issue with other more than me and my authority to answer said questions is debatable, would you be happier if I resigned and made this a discussion thread?

Ask a... threads are frequently staffed by more than one person.

Link


USA #2

False. USA #1

If we acknowledge that CO2 is a GHG, then doesn't it become an obvious question of 'how much CO2 would change the climate?' The idea among skeptics is that the current output (and future output) 'is not enough'. But then, what would be?

Nobody ever wants to answer my "what would convince you" questions, either.

 

[Truronian]

If we acknowledge that CO2 is a GHG, then doesn't it become an obvious question of 'how much CO2 would change the climate?' The idea among skeptics is that the current output (and future output) 'is not enough'. But then, what would be?

Which interestingly is where the maths takes over. I am admittedly not as mathematical spry as I was a few years ago, but I can find nothing erroneous about these calculations.

I think the only valid area to question climate change modelling is in the future predictions. I'm inclined to believe one or two degrees isn't going to have a major effect on society, with flooding and famine being the main problems (terrible, but not unheard nowadays anyway).