Skeptic Friends Network

Username:
Password:
Save Password
Forgot your Password?
Home | Forums | Active Topics | Active Polls | Register | FAQ | Contact Us  
  Connect: Chat | SFN Messenger | Buddy List | Members
Personalize: Profile | My Page | Forum Bookmarks  
 All Forums
 Our Skeptic Forums
 Pseudoscience
 I'm Surprised No One Hates Climate Warming
 New Topic  Topic Locked
 Printer Friendly Bookmark this Topic BookMark Topic
Next Page
Author Previous Topic Topic Next Topic
Page: of 2

chaloobi
SFN Regular

1620 Posts

Posted - 09/28/2006 :  13:41:26  Show Profile  Send chaloobi a Yahoo! Message Send chaloobi a Private Message
I'm surprised there isn't a poster or two here claiming Climate Warming is bad science. I frequent other discussion forums where there's always a cohort of, IMO misguided, individuals who think climate scientists are all in a global conspiracy to generate hefty research grants to stay employed (or some similar nonsense). Does EVERYONE here actually agree that Climate Warming is basically good science?

Where would it go, anyway? Bad science is not necessarily pseudo-science.... hmmmm ... Conspiracy theories? General Skepticism?

-Chaloobi

Dude
SFN Die Hard

USA
6891 Posts

Posted - 09/28/2006 :  14:37:34   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Dude a Private Message
I'm sure there are a few people here who don't think warming is legit.

But the prevailing opinion is, I think, that the science is correct, global warming is real, and there is a significant human contribution.


Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson

"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin

Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth
Go to Top of Page

@tomic
Administrator

USA
4607 Posts

Posted - 09/28/2006 :  16:15:29   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit @tomic's Homepage Send @tomic a Private Message
There have been many discussions about global warming on this forum. I'm sorry if the low turnout of those doubting it's validity disappoints you. This doesn't mean they aren't out there. There's been much discussion on this forum about global warming in the past you can check out. Here are some links:

Global Warming?

US admits that Global Warming is happening

So is the earth Warming or not?

I can only guess why there isn't more discussion here. My guess is that the vast majority of SFN regulars have no problem with the science behind global warming. Any debate on the subject is more than welcome. I think you have to do better than saying "It's bad science" to get anything started here. That's not much of a claim. Pointing out exactly why one disagrees with the science in a way that indicates an understanding of what good science is could get quite interesting.

@

Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law!

Sportsbettingacumen.com: The science of sports betting
Go to Top of Page

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
25973 Posts

Posted - 09/28/2006 :  20:48:50   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Dave W.'s Homepage Send Dave W. a Private Message
I hate Global Warming. I hate how you tree huggers can't get your collective acts together and reduce CO2 emissions to the point where I can drive my Hummer to work every day (80 miles, round trip) guilt free. Nooooooo... you just let corporate America walk all over you like....

What? Ooohhhhhh.

- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too.
Go to Top of Page

chaloobi
SFN Regular

1620 Posts

Posted - 09/29/2006 :  07:27:55   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Send chaloobi a Yahoo! Message Send chaloobi a Private Message
I think a little global warming is a good thing. Afterall, according to the prevailing climate cycle for the last 400k years or so, we should be slowly cooling into the next glacial period. That's not a good thing. I recently read in Scientific American the long cooling trend may have actually been interupted, if only slightly, by the Agricultural Revolution some 5-8k years ago. Of course it wasn't until the Industrial Revolution that the trend was abruptly reversed, bringing with it all sorts of potential for sudden and catastrophic change....

I think what we really need is some sort of Climate Engineering. I for one do not want to go back to where the world SHOULD be sans human activity. Of coures, swamping world-wide coastlines is not a good thing either, unless you're in the dyke engineering business...

-Chaloobi

Edited by - chaloobi on 09/29/2006 07:28:53
Go to Top of Page

@tomic
Administrator

USA
4607 Posts

Posted - 09/29/2006 :  08:29:12   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit @tomic's Homepage Send @tomic a Private Message
I'd like to see the science behind this claim. It certainly isn't a widely held belief. I personally don't put much stock in "I heard from this one guy" arguments unless they are compelling. Climate engineering might be a good thing but we can't even control crime or our economies. Climate control must be quite a long ways off. Flooding our atmoshphere with CO2 is not climate control.

@

Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law!

Sportsbettingacumen.com: The science of sports betting
Go to Top of Page

chaloobi
SFN Regular

1620 Posts

Posted - 09/29/2006 :  09:20:46   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Send chaloobi a Yahoo! Message Send chaloobi a Private Message
Atomic - What claim are you talking about? The Agricultural Revolution claim or the Ice Age cycles and where we're at in relation? The SciAm article talked about both, iirc. I think the issue was about a year ago, I'm sure I still have it. I'll see if I can find it and cite the source. Or maybe it's available on their web site....

RE Climate Engineering -- Good idea to be sure. Workable? Certainly not in this day and age and not in the foreseeable future, IMO. But a good idea nonetheless.

EDIT:

Found it! (Wow, that was EASY )

Here's the synopsis:

quote:
How Did Humans First Alter Global Climate?; March 2005; Scientific American Magazine; by William F. Ruddiman; 8 Page(s)

The scientific consensus that human actions first began to have a warming effect on the earth's climate within the past century has become part of the public perception as well. With the advent of coal-burning factories and power plants, industrial societies began releasing carbon dioxide (CO2) and other greenhouse gases into the air. Later, motor vehicles added to such emissions. In this scenario, those of us who have lived during the industrial era are responsible not only for the gas buildup in the atmosphere but also for at least part of the accompanying global warming trend. Now, though, it seems our ancient agrarian ancestors may have begun adding these gases to the atmosphere many millennia ago, thereby altering the earth's climate long before anyone thought.

New evidence suggests that concentrations of CO2 started rising about 8,000 years ago, even though natural trends indicate they should have been dropping. Some 3,000 years later the same thing happened to methane, another heat-trapping gas. The consequences of these surprising rises have been profound. Without them, current temperatures in northern parts of North America and Europe would be cooler by three to four degrees Celsius--enough to make agriculture difficult. In addition, an incipient ice age--marked by the appearance of small ice caps--would probably have begun several thousand years ago in parts of northeastern Canada. Instead the earth's climate has remained relatively warm and stable in recent millennia.



Here's the link to the synopsis and a place where you can, <cough>, buy a copy...

http://www.sciamdigital.com/index.cfm?fa=Products.ViewIssuePreview&ARTICLEID_CHAR=F9374686-2B35-221B-635B1D2A02A8B6D5

-Chaloobi

Edited by - chaloobi on 09/29/2006 09:28:03
Go to Top of Page

@tomic
Administrator

USA
4607 Posts

Posted - 09/29/2006 :  12:50:48   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit @tomic's Homepage Send @tomic a Private Message
This is all well and good but has nothing to do with whether or not global warming is good or bad science. Wasn't that what you first chimed in about? This detour you decided to take makes a huge mistake. It assumes that past temperatures indicate what future temperatures should be. Remember that on the stock market past performance cannot predict future performance. We do know that global temperatures are rising and that this fits the well known fact that CO2 traps heat. That's good science. A claim that past temperature trends should indicate future temperatures doesn't appear very sound to me.

There is another problem. The gasses our ancestors may have released are a tiny sliver of what we release now. Compare the CO2 our society produces with those of an agrarian world 8,000 years ago. It's like the difference between a pinch of salt and a supertanker filled with salt.

@

Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law!

Sportsbettingacumen.com: The science of sports betting
Go to Top of Page

chaloobi
SFN Regular

1620 Posts

Posted - 09/29/2006 :  13:38:48   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Send chaloobi a Yahoo! Message Send chaloobi a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by @tomic

This is all well and good but has nothing to do with whether or not global warming is good or bad science.
I didn't say it did.
quote:
Wasn't that what you first chimed in about?
No.
quote:
This detour you decided to take makes a huge mistake.
You took the detour. I was having light conversation about an interesting hypothesis I read. You expressed doubt and asked for a source and I posted it. Where's the mistake???
quote:
It assumes that past temperatures indicate what future temperatures should be.
Making educated guesses based on observed trends and cycles (extrapolation? logical deduction? )is not bad science. Do you expect the average temperatures in the Northern hemisphere to drop over the next 3 months? I do, with confidence. I can't say the same thing about the stock market though.

And in researching paleo-clmates, when a cycle repeats itslef 10 or 12 times over a period of a millino years or so, pretty much exactly each time, you don't think it's reasonable to hypothesize it will repeat yet again, assuming no major changes to the overall system?

quote:

There is another problem. The gasses our ancestors may have released are a tiny sliver of what we release now. Compare the CO2 our society produces with those of an agrarian world 8,000 years ago. It's like the difference between a pinch of salt and a supertanker filled with salt.
Read the article. I can't speak for the study's author, but his hypothesis is logically sound and apparently supported by evidence. But there's not much sense in you trying to dispute it if haven't read it, don't know the methodolgy, the data taken, or even the specific conclusions it reaches.

-Chaloobi

Edited by - chaloobi on 09/29/2006 13:41:32
Go to Top of Page

@tomic
Administrator

USA
4607 Posts

Posted - 09/29/2006 :  14:00:30   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit @tomic's Homepage Send @tomic a Private Message
It's fair enough that I haven't read the whole thing but the part you quoted made no sense at all. Perhaps there is more to his theory. I sure hope so because to compare the CO2 emissions of a small number of people 8,000 years ago to those of today is ridiculous.

I think the title of this topic indicates that this topic is about whether global warming is good or bad science. Read what you initially posted again and tell me, with a straight face, that "No" that's not what you first chimed in about.

@

Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law!

Sportsbettingacumen.com: The science of sports betting
Go to Top of Page

Dude
SFN Die Hard

USA
6891 Posts

Posted - 09/29/2006 :  17:35:36   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Dude a Private Message
quote:
I can't say the same thing about the stock market though.



Its election season. I can predict that the market will see gains on most days between now and Nov 7th, and the unemployment rate will drop.


Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson

"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin

Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth
Go to Top of Page

filthy
SFN Die Hard

USA
14408 Posts

Posted - 09/29/2006 :  18:17:05   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send filthy a Private Message
I'd say it's good science because I've observed global warming, in a very minor way, in my lifetime.

When I was a child (1940s), east coast fire ants were pretty much restricted to Flordia due to year-around temperture. They don't handle freezing tempertures well. Today, they have advanced into southern North Carolina. In species range expansion as well as geologic terms, that's fast! Fast even allowing for possible (probable -- the ToE predicts that this will happen, sooner or later) adaptations to lower tempertures.

And the physical evidence that anyone can see is right in front of us. Melting glaciers and a later and later Arctic ice pack should ring alarm bells in all but the religiously and politically freaked out.

It's real; it's happening, and eventually we're gonna have to deal with it.




"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)

"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres


"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude

Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,

and Crypto-Communist!

Go to Top of Page

Ghost_Skeptic
SFN Regular

Canada
510 Posts

Posted - 09/30/2006 :  02:14:40   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Ghost_Skeptic a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by chaloobi

RE Climate Engineering -- Good idea to be sure. Workable? Certainly not in this day and age and not in the foreseeable future, IMO. But a good idea nonetheless.



Here is a Real Audio file with some proposed engineering solutions to mitigate global warming. These are not alternatives to reducing CO2 emissions, but they might buy us some time.

"You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink. / You can send a kid to college but you can't make him think." - B.B. King

History is made by stupid people - The Arrogant Worms

"The greater the ignorance the greater the dogmatism." - William Osler

"Religion is the natural home of the psychopath" - Pat Condell

"The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter" - Thomas Jefferson
Edited by - Ghost_Skeptic on 09/30/2006 02:15:34
Go to Top of Page

dglas
Skeptic Friend

Canada
397 Posts

Posted - 09/30/2006 :  09:12:08   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send dglas a Private Message
I see it as another example of the tragedy of the commons. Nothing new, and we haven't developed any real solution to it so far. Denial is not a solution.

I don't think of it as us destroying "the environment." I see it as us replacing the current environment with one that is inhospitable to us. We will have earned our own demise.

Let the ants try.

--------------------------------------------------
- dglas (In the hell of 1000 unresolved subplots...)
--------------------------------------------------
The Presupposition of Intrinsic Evil
+ A Self-Justificatory Framework
= The "Heart of Darkness"
--------------------------------------------------
Go to Top of Page

chaloobi
SFN Regular

1620 Posts

Posted - 09/30/2006 :  14:56:51   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Send chaloobi a Yahoo! Message Send chaloobi a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by @tomic

It's fair enough that I haven't read the whole thing but the part you quoted made no sense at all. Perhaps there is more to his theory. I sure hope so because to compare the CO2 emissions of a small number of people 8,000 years ago to those of today is ridiculous.

I think the title of this topic indicates that this topic is about whether global warming is good or bad science. Read what you initially posted again and tell me, with a straight face, that "No" that's not what you first chimed in about.

@

My chime was to wonder why nobody comes to this site and claims Climate Science is bad science. I don't have any doubt about climate science myself.

Regarding the paper, he's not comparing emissions from 8k years ago to today. He's comparing CO2 concentrations and CH4 concentrations beginning 8k and 5k years ago respectively with the concentrations found at an equivalent time one full glacial cycle earlier. There was a deviation in concentrations at those times in what was expected as well as a slight deviation in temperature -- slightly higher than it should have been, but still slowly cooling toward glaciation. That's pretty much it as far as the observed evidence goes. Read the paper, it's fun.

-Chaloobi

Edited by - chaloobi on 09/30/2006 21:47:51
Go to Top of Page

chaloobi
SFN Regular

1620 Posts

Posted - 09/30/2006 :  21:45:30   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Send chaloobi a Yahoo! Message Send chaloobi a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by Ghost_Skeptic

quote:
Originally posted by chaloobi

RE Climate Engineering -- Good idea to be sure. Workable? Certainly not in this day and age and not in the foreseeable future, IMO. But a good idea nonetheless.



Here is a Real Audio file with some proposed engineering solutions to mitigate global warming. These are not alternatives to reducing CO2 emissions, but they might buy us some time.

Ghost, I believe the technology is there, but the political will, the willingness to expend the resources, and the ability to cooperate on such a scale are not. Nor will they be, as I said, in the forseeable future. IMHO, at least. :)

I think that humanity will not do anything serious about global warming until the oceans start flooding the cities. And then, of course, it'll be FAR too late.

-Chaloobi

Go to Top of Page
Page: of 2 Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  
Next Page
 New Topic  Topic Locked
 Printer Friendly Bookmark this Topic BookMark Topic
Jump To:

The mission of the Skeptic Friends Network is to promote skepticism, critical thinking, science and logic as the best methods for evaluating all claims of fact, and we invite active participation by our members to create a skeptical community with a wide variety of viewpoints and expertise.


Home | Skeptic Forums | Skeptic Summary | The Kil Report | Creation/Evolution | Rationally Speaking | Skeptillaneous | About Skepticism | Fan Mail | Claims List | Calendar & Events | Skeptic Links | Book Reviews | Gift Shop | SFN on Facebook | Staff | Contact Us

Skeptic Friends Network
© 2008 Skeptic Friends Network Go To Top Of Page
This page was generated in 0.23 seconds.
Powered by @tomic Studio
Snitz Forums 2000