The worst attempt to justify Global Warming... Ever

reply to post by Mike_A


So your saying only qualified experts can have opinions ? What expert qualification do you have that allows you to have opinion then ?

Just because someone doesn't have a qualification in a certain subject does not mean they dont have the intelligence or right to to form an opinion based on presented facts. I truly believe the peer review system is flawed , history teaches us this in countless cases. The most qualified person is not always right. How many experts used to think the world was the center of the universe or the planet is flat? Experts that have their entire career invested in 'facts' they believe in will allways defened them so they can remain in a position of high authority.

I can see the BBC is bias by looking at all the other news sources that the world has to offer and taking note of what they choose not to report on.

The coal that we have been warned about for causing warming, now causes cooling, righto.....................or it may be due to the huge red ball in the sky and the effect it has on the earth- honestly, there is collective insania in mainstream media, politics and intellegencia

Warming? We're having the coldest year I've seen in the Southern BC. This time of year I have to sit up till midnight outside waiting for my house to cool down so I can sleep. What I'm doing is having a warm bath before bed and going to sleep in a robe. Its an ice age approaching.

reply to post by PhoenixOD

So your saying only qualified experts can have opinions ?

If a doctor tells you that lump on your neck is cancerous and I tell you that it’s just your humours out of balance, who would you listen to?

You can have an opinion but there is no right that says other have to take it seriously.

reply to post by Mike_A

If a doctor tells you that lump on your neck is cancerous and I tell you that it’s just your humours out of balance, who would you listen to?

lol , nice try Mike_A but i am familiar with the Strawman fallacy ,the point you are making is a violation of the rules of rational argumentation

A straw man is a component of an argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position

Originally posted by Mike_A
reply to post by PhoenixOD

 

So your saying only qualified experts can have opinions ?

If a doctor tells you that lump on your neck is cancerous and I tell you that it’s just your humours out of balance, who would you listen to?

You can have an opinion but there is no right that says other have to take it seriously.

the two situations are not comparable- we can definitely find out if something is cancerous, we cannot definitely prove that the climate is being mainly affected by man and we certainly cannot definitely find out what the climate will be in 50 years

reply to post by PhoenixOD


It’s not a strawman it’s just an analogy that highlights what I think is a disconnect in your reasoning.

You said that…

Just because someone doesn't have a qualification in a certain subject does not mean they dont have the intelligence or right to to form an opinion based on presented facts.

Implying that the opinion of an unqualified person is just as valid as that of a qualified one. Yet this doesn’t extend to doctors, or presumably engineers, or theoretical physicist or just about any other area of science. Why not?

You trust a doctor because of his professional education and experience, despite the fact that medical science and individual doctors have demonstrated time and time again that they can be spectacularly wrong. You don’t trust the lay person because they lack the same education and experience.

Just as you can ask why you should believe me over a doctor, when the scientific community examines the evidence and presents its findings on climate change, why should I as a bystander believe you (or the OP) over someone who is actually qualified and experienced in the field?

I provided another example earlier on where I mentioned that quantum physics is a relatively uncontroversial topic among the average population, i.e. we don’t get threads like this one saying how rubbish it is. Why don’t we get those threads? What is it about global warming that means the opinion of the average joe suddenly becomes authoritative?

reply to post by blueorder

we can definitely find out if something is cancerous

“We” can’t but properly qualified doctors can, why believe them over me and my humours?

Originally posted by Mike_A

“We” can’t but properly qualified doctors can, why believe them over me and my humours?

you seriously are not suggesting the actual existence of cancer, which can be verified as existing by qualified doctors, with the mainstream scientific orthodoxy that man is probably affecting the climate?

Are you?

Yes, no one mention that the Sun has been in a heightened state of activity for years now, and 2011 is a record year for predicted sun spots.

Could the big hot thing at the center of the solar system have an influence over Earth's weather? hmmmm.... lol.

I'm not a climate change denier, but I am a firm believer that this is part of a natural cycle of the planet. This has happened many, many times in the past. Planet Earth has been both a lot hotter and a lot colder than it is right now.

As recently as the Middle Ages, there were vineyards in Northern Europe, especially in the London area. Just check out the street names in London and their histories. Also, if you look at all the massive churches and cathedrals built in Northern Europe at that time, they are ALL open plan and NONE of them have fireplaces. Why not? Because they WERE NOT NEEDED.

There are also clues in rock and ice strata going back BILLIONS of years showing that warming/cooling cycles are part of a natural weather pattern planet wide, but global warming alarmists insist on only looking at "available data" since about 1850.

This is like looking at 0.0000000002% of the available data, and making a decision based on this data about the whole. IE, if you look at that same sample of data with cars on the road, you would find that at least 125 cars sold every year are Ferraris. Using the same assumptions as global warming alarmists, you can absolutely, beyond a shadow of a doubt, assume that ALL cars sold EVERY YEAR are Ferraris, based on the same sample size, and ignoring all the other data.

Do we sound crazy now?

Originally posted by blueorder
The coal that we have been warned about for causing warming, now causes cooling, righto.....................or it may be due to the huge red ball in the sky and the effect it has on the earth- honestly, there is collective insania in mainstream media, politics and intellegencia

Do you know WHY coal is blamed for Global Warming?

It all goes back to the 1980's in England. Margaret Thatcher was Prime Minister, and was in a massive battle at the time with - wait for it - the COAL MINERS.

She was the first national leader to establish an ENVIRONMENT MINISTER with cabinet level authority, TOTALLY AGAINST the advice of all the people in her cabinet at the time, who told her there was no good science or available data to back the theory up. In a recent interview, Nigel Lawson (her finance minister at the time) said that he had told her that this idea was ridiculous. All the scientific data at the time was pointing towards a global COOLING trend, NOT global warming.

All that same data from the 1950's and 1960's (which in the 1970's was being used to reflect global cooling) has now been totally skewed to show that we're entering a warming trend. If you dig out "climate change" documentaries from the 1970's, you'll see that ALL of them were talking about COOLING. Anyone who thought the planet was warming was considered to be out to lunch and insane.

The only reason that coal was made out to be the bad guy is that Thatcher was trying to sway public opinion agains the coal miners. It was a brutal strike with many running battles against police involving thousands of strikers.

The Global Warming alarmists got hold of the fake report that she commissioned and totally blew it out of all proportion, and creating the myth that this is real science.

Carbon Dioxide building in the atmosphere is a natural cycle of the planet, and while manmade industrial pollutants have had a minor effect, we're just being arrogant if we think that we're able to influence global weather patterns. The system is just too big.

reply to post by boyg2004


I will tell you the same thing that I tell everyone who comes on here trying to debunk global warming without any knowledge of how the climate works whatsoever.

People like you ride a scooter and then give someone advice on how to fix a ferrari.

Here is a little 101 to help get you started. And please refer this to anyone else who comes on here claiming teh same, there will be another one next week.

The better term is global weirding. Ok, you should of learned this in elementary school, but there is a difference between local weather and climate.
To come on here and say that you got snow so there can't be global warming is the height of ignorance.

Guess what, we got five feet 2 years ago, the most ever. Then we got the hottest summer on record. So what is your point?

The system gets screwed up, so instead of temperature being distributed evenly across the planet, it is now slowing down and stagnating. Which means you are getting colder winters and hotter summers.
So when you get 8 feet of snow in january and then hit 110 in the summer, come here and tell me there isn't a problem.

The reason China is on the radar is because 1) they have a lot of friggin people 2) the country is now coming onto the global grid. Which means they need power and lots of it. The threat? China cares less then Americans when it comes to pollution, and resource usage. See Three Gorges Dam, which has now become a social, environmental, and political nightmare of unmeasurable proportions.
So what is the cheapest resource? Coal. What is the dirtiest resource? You got it, coal. Even the supposed clean coal that is supposed to make people feel all warm and fuzzy, really isn't "clean". And you still have to mine it.
So what do you think happens when a titan the size of China goes on the grid?

BTW, the silly sun theory needed to die yesterday. If the Sun could warm up the solar system enough to warm up a planet further then Earth, the Earth would basically be jerky.
The three whole planets out of the dozens in the solar system that are actually warming, are due to other reasons. Like our friend Mars, whose warming up cuz it wobbles.
If the Sun heats up enough to say warm up Jupiter or Pluto, basically the inner planets would be ash.

think people.

reply to post by boyg2004


Not sure what your point is?

Britain is not the whole world. Globally, 2010 was only the joint warmest year on record. The last decade was the warmest on record. Some question whether it ought have been warmer and think that, just as increased pollution from N America and Europe masked warming in the 60s and 70s (even to the extent of causing temporary cooling), so that from China has done likewise in the 00s

Interestingly, even arch-sceptic Anthony Watts (WUWT) has written in support of this. Though the idea is nothing new, just the latest research data supporting the hypothesis.

And, back to Britain: where were you in April?

Originally posted by PhoenixOD
reply to post by Mike_A

 

In the late 70's and early 80's there were many peer reviewed papers that said the world was getting colder and we were about to go into an ice age.

To be fair though, there were a lot more that said the world was going to get a warmer as a consequence of greenhouse gas emissions.

reply to post by Essan


Sure, but my point was that just because a theory passes the peer review process doesnt mean its right and other peoples opinions dont matter. Opinions on wether man is causing global warming or cooling seem to change all the time and in the past the global temp has been vastly different in both directions.

One thing is for sure , we have only been pumping out greenhouse gases for less than 200 years and its going to take a lot longer before we know the true extent of the impact on the planets weather system / global temp. Theres a lot of people out there getting rich on the idea of global warming without being able to prove its happening and it seems (thanks to Auraura's link) that the BBC has a vested interest in promoting the idea. It has bothered me for some time that the BBC has not been open to debate on the subject yet 30 years ago it was them who were saying we were heading into another ice age.

reply to post by babybunnies


Or people are silly to think that we can't affect it. In a fast plane you can circle the planet in a day, I can get to Europe in 5 hours. It is not that big.

Let me give us the usual examples of how humans effed things up:

In the 1800s, Native Americans and white hunters alike managed to extinguish millions of bison in the matter of 2 decades. As many as 50,0000 have been reported to be killed in a day.
The bison is now off the endangered list, but because the numbers were so reduced, the remaining few herds on park lands are now facing genetic problems because of the genetic bottleneck.
Along with the extinction of the plains bison was the extinction of the bison orchid, which only grew in bison wallows, and the bison salamander, who only existed in buffalo wallows.


Mountain Top Removal Mining

Ok, so we can remove whole mountains but we can't affect the planet?

Hurricane Katrina. Was not the strongest hurricane to hit New Orleans. Camille was. It was a much stronger storm then Katrina. But why the damage during Katrina? 40 years of wetland developement and levees eroded the protective wetlands. A lot was done by the very oil companies that the people of Louisiana work so hard to protect.

Some don't need an explanation.

Chernobyl
Bhopal
Kuwait



Centrailia, Pennsylvania for all you coal backers:

Centralia is a borough and ghost town in Columbia County, Pennsylvania, United States. Its population has dwindled from over 1,000 residents in 1981 to 12 in 2005,[1] 9 in 2007, and 10 in 2010, as a result of a mine fire burning beneath the borough since 1962. Centralia is one of the least-populated municipalities in Pennsylvania.

wiki

Because of the fires, when you walk across the ground, it is actually hot.

I come from western Pennsylvania, where people constantly lose homes to mine subsidance. One relative loses a foot of their yard every year, and there house will be overcome by mine subsidance in about 10 years. Then the mines buy it from them.
When you buy land in western PA, you only own the land to 10 feet down, anything underneath is owned by the mining companies.

The Great Sparrow Campaign
The Austrailian bunny problem
The Great Barrier Reef
Deepwater
Fukishima
Three Mile Island
Windscale Fire
The Great Pacific Garbage Patch

Dryden Chemical Company discharged their effluent directly into the Wabigoon-English River system. In 1970, extensive mercury contamination was discovered in this river system, leading to closure of the commercial fishery and some tourism related businesses. On March 26, 1970, the Ontario provincial government ordered Dryden Chemical Company to cease dumping mercury into the river system, although the order did not place any restrictions on airborne emissions of mercury by the company.[2] It was estimated that over 9,000 kg of mercury had been dumped by the company into the Wabigoon-English river system between 1962 and 1970.[2] The airborne emissions of mercury continued unabated until the company stopped using mercury cells in its chloralkali process in October 1975; the company closed down in 1976.[2]

Ontario Minamata disease

And this is the stuff we know about. I used to work for a very large environmental laboratory, trust me, there is plenty going on that we don't.

Want to see something scarey? Look up how many superfund sites are in the States. Now imagine what corporations do in third world countries.

So what were you saying again?

Water Vapor is the most abundant greenhouse gas in the atmosphere, which is why it is addressed here first. However, changes in its concentration is also considered to be a result of climate feedbacks related to the warming of the atmosphere rather than a direct result of industrialization. The feedback loop in which water is involved is critically important to projecting future climate change, but as yet is still fairly poorly measured and understood.

NCDC: Greenhouse Gases

Not really much we can do about climate change folks. Even if we cut every other greenhouse gas to nil it wouldn't make a bit of difference. Anyone who says the sun doesn't effect us is a fool. If a 23 degree tilt away from the sun can shift us from Summer to Winter, why wouldn't an increase in solar activity affect us?

It ends up that the largest contributor to the change in seasons is the 23 degree tilt of the Earth on its axis, the imaginary line that runs through the middle of the earth from the North Pole to the South Pole. The change in distance of the Earth to the Sun is a very minor player.

Seasonal Change

So in 2007, coal caused global warming
Stop coal, stop global warming

But in 2011, coal is helping to cool the earth.

Which is it, the cause or the cure?
This is why I don't believe the man-made global warming theory.

reply to post by nixie_nox


i agree that the human race as a whole (well, lets face it, mostly a few greedy corporations at the expense of the rest of us) are fouling the planet up.

but that has absolutely nothing to do with CO2 and 'global warming' or whatever they call it these days.
in fact, it makes me spitting mad that these two completely different subjects have become so entangled; and therein i would shout distraction.

we have all become so rabid towards each other about the CO2/anthropogenic 'climate change' issue that we seem to have forgotten the poisoning and pillaging of OUR lands by corporate interests.

my personal opinion on AGW is that its bunk, just another excuse to get governmental snouts into our wallets. not one penny will go towards helping the planet. EVERY penny of taxes paid goes to pay the interest on government loans, (caveat, except in many muslim countries where usuary is illegal, but that is another subject entirely).

so instead of getting mad with each other about wether CO2 causes warming/cooling/angels perspiration, why don't we get mad at a certain brand of cola for poisoning the rivers; or deforestation; or any number of things that are directly and evidentially harming our planet...arms manufacture and war.

then maybe we could all enjoy life for a while longer before we all die.....at the hands of a comet from outer space ;>

peace

reply to post by blueorder

you seriously are not suggesting the actual existence of cancer, which can be verified as existing by qualified doctors, with the mainstream scientific orthodoxy that man is probably affecting the climate?

Are you?

That a sentence?

Do you mean am I questioning the existence of cancer? No I’m not.

Do you mean am I saying that climate change is as understood as cancer? No, I am not.

What I am saying is that the education of a layperson gives them as much authority to question scientific research on climate change as it does to question a doctor’s diagnosis of cancer, i.e. none.

But see my reply to phoenix, it expands on what I’m saying.