I do read the sources, did you read the article? It has nothing to do with me fooling anyone. The majority of scientists have already fooled and schooled those who believe in man made global warming. I'm just relaying the message, as I'm not a scientist, and I don't pretend to be one.
Global warming - a suggestion
- Thread starter Warlord Sam
- Start date
I do read the sources, did you read the article? It has nothing to do with me fooling anyone. The majority of scientists have already fooled and schooled those who believe in man made global warming. I'm just relaying the message, as I'm not a scientist, and I don't pretend to be one.
It's ridiculous to cherry pick a few scientists by googling who think everything is rosy on planet earth. We are definitely screwing up the environment in drastic ways.
Keep chopping down the forests and damaging the environment in our ever increasing quest to obtain oil by all means.
It's just a big coincidence. All is well!
Chalks
The blue pieces
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2010
- Messages
- 1,097
Yes, like an unreasoning parrot.
Is there any reason why you selected this particular falsehood to chirp so merrily, or did a pedaller of it just happen to catch you on a particularly gullible day?
I don't think you have to worry about anyone accusing you of being one.
Ever.
Minor Annoyance
Deity
But if they don't screw up global warming what would I do? Who would I be...
Aussie_Lurker
Deity
So Yosef, did you read *anything* that I wrote-or is that an ability that you lack (it would certainly explain how you so willingly accept the argument of fellow denialists in the absence of empirical evidence). I very *clearly* said that climate has changed in the past-something that climatologists say *all* the time. Indeed, they highlight prior climate change events as proof of the climates sensitivity to energy imbalances. In the past this energy imbalance clearly came about as a result of increasing solar radiation (which is easy to show by studying levels of C-14 & Be-10 isotopes). Yet this time around solar radiation is *NOT* the cause, because total incoming solar radiation has been *falling* for the last 40 years. Your claim that past climate change events absolves humanity for recent global warming is akin to saying "most forest fires occur naturally, so humans *never* start forest fires"-i.e. it is a totally *ludicrous* statement with no basis in REALITY! Humans are the cause of current global warming because-unlike any point in the last 8 million years-humans have been able to add CO2 into the atmosphere that hasn't been there in over HALF A BILLION YEARS (whilst simultaneously removing many natural carbon sinks on the other hand). Thus we're disturbing the natural atmospheric balance & creating an energy imbalance. The model for this has been developed & refined for over 100 years-& it involves the balance between incoming short-wave radiation vs outgoing long-wave radiation. CO2-& other greenhouse gases-are excellent at trapping outgoing long-wave radiation which, in turn, leads to an increase in the total energy on the planet. Of course the rate of increase is impacted by the amount of incoming short-wave radiation, & there is also a lot of energy exchanged between the air & the oceans, which is why we don't always see a temperature increase in consecutive years. This model is certainly a lot better than anything you or your Denialist Mates have been able to provide-even with the Junk Science they publish in that joke Journal known as "Energy & Environment".
You claim that the MAJORITY don't accept that humans are the cause of global warming. Well even if that were true (& Gallup Poll suggests that 50% of *Americans* accept that Human Activity is to blame-its higher in Countries *outside* of the US), last time I checked scientific theories are not decided by democratic vote, but by the weight of evidence. If a majority of Americans believed that the Earth was only 5,000 years old, does that mean that we should just abandon the Theory of Evolution & ignore more than a century of evidence of evolution? It certainly sounds like that's what you're suggesting-which is typical of the anti-intellectuals who make up the bulk of the Denialist Movement.
You see, as much as you PLAY UP the "scandal", the fact is that so-called ClimateGate has proven to be a big fizzer-no evidence of fraud or hoax has been able to be shown & the bulk of the Right-Wing press have already abandoned the story due to lack of interest. It has also *not* caused the Theory of Global Warming to crash in the scientific community-making such a claim simply proves how *little* you know about the scientific community.
Aussie.
You claim that the MAJORITY don't accept that humans are the cause of global warming. Well even if that were true (& Gallup Poll suggests that 50% of *Americans* accept that Human Activity is to blame-its higher in Countries *outside* of the US), last time I checked scientific theories are not decided by democratic vote, but by the weight of evidence. If a majority of Americans believed that the Earth was only 5,000 years old, does that mean that we should just abandon the Theory of Evolution & ignore more than a century of evidence of evolution? It certainly sounds like that's what you're suggesting-which is typical of the anti-intellectuals who make up the bulk of the Denialist Movement.
You see, as much as you PLAY UP the "scandal", the fact is that so-called ClimateGate has proven to be a big fizzer-no evidence of fraud or hoax has been able to be shown & the bulk of the Right-Wing press have already abandoned the story due to lack of interest. It has also *not* caused the Theory of Global Warming to crash in the scientific community-making such a claim simply proves how *little* you know about the scientific community.
Aussie.
This is a lame debate...
it's like trying to convince Christians that their beloved believes has been nothing more than a multi centuries fraud or creationist that dinosaurs were'nt a medieval creature!
You can bring TONS of evidences... it won't help! We cant do nothing for them!
it's like trying to convince Christians that their beloved believes has been nothing more than a multi centuries fraud or creationist that dinosaurs were'nt a medieval creature!
You can bring TONS of evidences... it won't help! We cant do nothing for them!
Aussie_Lurker
Deity
That's true, Grimberht, but I also do it because I won't allow Yosef's brand of ignorance to go unchallenged. Especially as he attacks me for having "No model" for global warming (even though I did provide one) yet he has yet to provide any model, himself, to explain the last 60 years of warming. I mean, what a total hypocrite. Similarly hypocritical is how he bangs on about supposed "scandals" within the pro-AGW community, whilst ignoring the scandalous ties between the anti-AGW camp & their close relationship with the Fossil Fuel industry (I mean, talk about a CONFLICT OF INTEREST).
Aussie.
Aussie.
Aussie_Lurker
Deity
Yosef, it has *everything* to do with it being debunked. The Denialist Cult gloated about this paper as the "proof" that global warming wasn't caused by humans, yet the Paper didn't even survive 6 months before it was shown to be UTTER RUBBISH. They tried to prove a link between SOI & Global temperatures by HIDING THE INCLINE in temperature. Once that sleight of hand was shown, the "link" between SOI & global temperature completely falls apart. The paper was debunked in the very same Journal in which it was originally published, so a conspiracy can hardly be claimed. This is pretty much par for the course-skeptics put out a paper "proving" that current global warming is the result of natural variance, but is then thoroughly debunked within less than a year (usually because other researchers point out the clear 40-60 year divergence between temperature & natural forcings that the original researchers conveniently missed). By contrast, in spite of minor improvements & revisions, the Theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming has stood the test of time for more than 50 years. No Theory is perfect, of course, as can be attested to by the Theory of Evolution (which has undergone many minor alterations as evidence comes to light). For my part, when the skeptic community can bring out a model for global warming that can survive scrutiny for over a year or more, then I might be able to give it consideration. Until such time, AGW remains the best explanation for temperature increases of the last 60 years that currently exists.
Luckily us Catholics aren't like that, I believe that Dinosaurs existed, that the Earth is really old (whatever that number the scientists said), however there is a large number of Americans who are so conservative they want to go back in time because "life was better, more moral and safer then," yes Mr. Hannity life was safer, especially for who didn't look white in the 1950s
Shh
pull up a chair... I love people getting clubbed with facts also they are still talking about Climate Change, which is the topic after all
A nice summary in 6 words.
Educated people (including scientists) are often the exception to this rule (but not always!) that people in general will believe what they want to believe and will always be able to find evidence to rationalise their beleif. It's interesting that it doesn't matter how good evidence is but what seems to matter more to people is how much evidence there is.
What is always painful to see is scientists arguing rationally with another party which is irrational. It is unfortunate IMO that people who deny anthropogenic climate change have become labelled by some as "climate skeptics". Really, it is usually the scientists advancing the understanding of man's effect on climate change who should be called climate skeptics because they are the ones who have examined the evidence for and against the theory and therefore are "skeptical" in the truest sense. Any idiot can post links but it takes a strong scientific mind (even non-scientists can have one, don't forget that!) to actually judge sources of information.
It's one of of the most unfortunate consequences of the Information Age that political groups have easy access to many sources that advance their political agenda no matter how untenable it is. With the right google searching, you can find research that advances all sorts of things like Astrology, Flat Earth, Homeopathy, Smoking doesn't cause cancer, Creationism in the science classroom, etc.
P.S. I apologise for making no real attempt to bring this back on topic, but perhaps my post could help encourage people to give up debating this - I'm not sure...
Umm, no. The topic for all threads on this forum is Civ 5.
Discussion of real-life science extends beyond the scope of this forum and is therefore off-topic!
What's especially egregious is the amount of flaming going on here.
Actually, the debate has been quite civilized.
I think some form of global warming should be in ciV as global warming is a reality in this present age. Therefore, it should be modeled correctly. Not just through nukes being used.
Besides that, I think we can all learn something new. I certainly appreciate Aussie Lurker explaining things in layman's terms.
I think some form of global warming should be in ciV as global warming is a reality in this present age. Therefore, it should be modeled correctly. Not just through nukes being used.
Besides that, I think we can all learn something new. I certainly appreciate Aussie Lurker explaining things in layman's terms.
Aussie_Lurker
Deity
Also, I just wanted to reveal the truth about this little "gem"
). What this article highlights is three things: (1) the depth to which the Denialist Cult will sink to "prove" their point (in the absence of actual scientific evidence), (2) that for a politician, Phil Jones makes a very good Climate Scientist (i.e. a Politician or Fossil Fuel Industry spokesperson would have known how to sidestep such an obviously LOADED question), (3) that Yosef, like most of his fellow cult members, should try getting out of their "echo chambers" if they actually wanted to LEARN something about the real state of the planets climate (for the record 99% of these online "echo chambers" are fully funded by companies like Dutch Shell & ExxonMobil.)
This is just another typical Denialist misrepresentation of what Phil Jones *really* said. He was actually asked if the warming of the last 13 years (1996-2009) was statistically significant. His answer was that it fell just below the 95% confidence interval & therefore the warming of the last 13 years could not be called STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT. Note, he didn't say that there had been no warming over this time period-indeed, he said there *had* been warming over this period-he just highlighted how the signal to noise ratio over such short time periods is often too high to make an accurate determination of statistical signficance (not that this prevents members of the denialist cult from using time periods such as 1998-2008 or 2003-2008 to "prove" that the planet has been cooling
). What this article highlights is three things: (1) the depth to which the Denialist Cult will sink to "prove" their point (in the absence of actual scientific evidence), (2) that for a politician, Phil Jones makes a very good Climate Scientist (i.e. a Politician or Fossil Fuel Industry spokesperson would have known how to sidestep such an obviously LOADED question), (3) that Yosef, like most of his fellow cult members, should try getting out of their "echo chambers" if they actually wanted to LEARN something about the real state of the planets climate (for the record 99% of these online "echo chambers" are fully funded by companies like Dutch Shell & ExxonMobil.)This forum is for civ 5, this thread is about Climate Change in Civ 5, this discussion is about Climate Change, see? it is related
M
Me,myself,and,I
Guest
I have watched people argue about this since the time I became politically aware. Neither side has provided enough evidence to prove or disprove AGW, but I'm positive that we can all agree that climate can change naturally. There for I propose that ocaisonal natural climate change should be a standard feature, while AGW should be an option (mostly because the mechanic is terrible) and lastly nukes should have seperate ecological effects. 
I have watched people argue about this since the time I became politically aware. Neither side has provided enough evidence to prove or disprove AGW, but I'm positive that we can all agree that climate can change naturally. There for I propose that ocaisonal natural climate change should be a standard feature, while AGW should be an option (mostly because the mechanic is terrible) and lastly nukes should have seperate ecological effects.
where is the proof lacking?
M
Me,myself,and,I
Guest
The proof is lacking all over the place. I could go on for hours about the holes in the two arguments, but that is for another thread on another forum. For now let's keep the disscusion to gameplay.
Besides, we'll probably move on to something new in a few years anyways just like the new ice age and peak oil etc etc...
I certinaly hope so, none of you people have come up with something new in ages, exept for those emails. I somewhat board and irrataded by the whole thing.
Besides, we'll probably move on to something new in a few years anyways just like the new ice age and peak oil etc etc...
I certinaly hope so, none of you people have come up with something new in ages, exept for those emails. I somewhat board and irrataded by the whole thing.
Similar threads
