Global Warming... a hoax?

[Awol]

To be honest Virgil, it doesn't take a lot of research to come to the inescapable conclusion that a LOT, maybe even a majority of scientists (proper ones ) strongly dispute AGW. Sure, the ones serving as figureheads for the AGW lobby get the airtime and the coverage all the time, but that is out of all proportion to the scientific consensus. 'World Ending Tomorrow' is a news story, the biggest ever and gets the appropriate hysterical response from the media. 'World Not Ending Tomorrow (Again)' isn't. Result? The public are led to believe there is only one side of the argument and that the debate is settled. The reality is very different.

WHOAH There horsey. "a lot of real scientists strongly dispute AGW"? I see no evidence that a lot dispute it.

Perhaps a lot of seismologists and geologists, dentists and chiropodists do. I don't know.

But the overwhelmingly vast majority of climatologists believe (in order of strength)

1) The climate is changing
2) Changes in CO2 are a major cause of this shift
3) Humans are playing a part in changes in CO2 patterns

Now, to say that any disagreement about how much each of those is true and what to do about them and how to prove it does not make the theory wrong.

Dawkins has come under massive attack for his theories on evolution by fellow scientists (particularly around the fact that he makes no allowance for the impact of the cellular environment, and believes all hereditary characteristics are encoded in DNA). But you only see a limited number of people arguing that this means that evolution isn't real. And they are a very SELECT group of people.

There is a video I linked to either in this thread or the other one which points out just how widely disputed AGW is. There's also a Channel Four documentary on Youtube which again says how widely disputed it is, and there are plenty more out there too.

The trouble is, as I've said, the World not ending story isn't sexy so it doesn't get covered. All we ever hear, all the time, is how GW is going to toast us all. Not surprisingly,we build up a picture of doom and gloom that is out of all proportion to the reality. Scientists against AGW haven't got anything to sell to the media, it's a non-story. Even now, it's only a story because someone was caught cooking the books, that is the story, not the fact that AGW might not be happening.

[Bazzinho1977]

There is a video I linked to either in this thread or the other one which points out just how widely disputed AGW is. There's also a Channel Four documentary on Youtube which again says how widely disputed it is, and there are plenty more out there too.

The trouble is, as I've said, the World not ending story isn't sexy so it doesn't get covered. All we ever hear, all the time, is how GW is going to toast us all. Not surprisingly,we build up a picture of doom and gloom that is out of all proportion to the reality. Scientists against AGW haven't got anything to sell to the media, it's a non-story. Even now, it's only a story because someone was caught cooking the books, that is the story, not the fact that AGW might not be happening.

And yet, you don't directly disagree with any of my points. You are basing "AGW is crap" on a couple of YouTube videos and an example of some scientists potentially telling porkies?

Cool. That is what I base all of my key life (and in this case PLANET) changing decisions on. Yep - what the internet tells me all the way for me.

Edited to Add: Oh and Elvis ISNT dead, Diana WAS killed by special forces with lasers and the special ingredient in Big Mac sauce is Ronald McDonalds jizz.

All true man.

[shape.when.wet]

There is a video I linked to either in this thread or the other one which points out just how widely disputed AGW is. There's also a Channel Four documentary on Youtube which again says how widely disputed it is, and there are plenty more out there too.

What, you mean the C4 documentary that was widely criticized (including by the scientists who appeared in it who were misquoted and misinterpreted) that Channel 4 eventually had to issue an apology about? I see.

The trouble is, as I've said, the World not ending story isn't sexy so it doesn't get covered. All we ever hear, all the time, is how GW is going to toast us all blah blah blah..

I don't think anyone states that the end of the world is nigh. The principal affects of climate change will be to exacerbate the affects of poverty. Famine, disease, shelter, conflict and malnutrition and infant mortality. You're a bit of a cunt if you think the threat of those things getting even worse than they are, in the twilight of the most energy and therefore power rich epoch of humanity, isn't worth being very careful about.

[MikeMcc]

There is a video I linked to either in this thread or the other one which points out just how widely disputed AGW is. There's also a Channel Four documentary on Youtube which again says how widely disputed it is, and there are plenty more out there too.

The trouble is, as I've said, the World not ending story isn't sexy so it doesn't get covered. All we ever hear, all the time, is how GW is going to toast us all. Not surprisingly,we build up a picture of doom and gloom that is out of all proportion to the reality. Scientists against AGW haven't got anything to sell to the media, it's a non-story. Even now, it's only a story because someone was caught cooking the books, that is the story, not the fact that AGW might not be happening.

And yet, you don't directly disagree with any of my points. You are basing "AGW is crap" on a couple of YouTube videos and an example of some scientists potentially telling porkies?

Cool. That is what I base all of my key life (and in this case PLANET) changing decisions on. Yep - what the internet tells me all the way for me.

Edited to Add: Oh and Elvis ISNT dead, Diana WAS killed by special forces with lasers and the special ingredient in Big Mac sauce is Ronald McDonalds *.

All true man.

Don't worry, RealClimate is all a commie plot based on one political bloggers comments!

[chieftiff]

Sea levels are dropping and have been dropping since 1970, temperatures in the short and mid-term are also dropping, parts of the icepacks are growing, 80% of the world's ice will never melt because it is in Antartica which will stay frozen whatever happens. This isn't me talking, I know bugger all about it, but if that's what doctors and professors are telling me, and more importantly can show me, then I'm more inclined to believe them than another group of experts who admit they have to fake the data to make it fit their theories.

And these are facts? I'm not sure but even if they were I refer you to the late great:
"Science is facts; just as houses are made of stone, so is science made of facts; but a pile of stones is not a house, and a collection of facts is not necessarily science."
Jules Henri Poincaré (1854-1912) French mathematician.

"Data" or facts can be fickle, the scientists job is to make sense of them, [in reality] have a sort of educated guess and then test that guess, when you think you have it right formalise it, commit your reputation to it and throw it out there to see if anyone disagrees... it's what scientists do that journalists and lay people don't, it's what gives science credibility over mere opinion.

[Awol]

There is a video I linked to either in this thread or the other one which points out just how widely disputed AGW is. There's also a Channel Four documentary on Youtube which again says how widely disputed it is, and there are plenty more out there too.

The trouble is, as I've said, the World not ending story isn't sexy so it doesn't get covered. All we ever hear, all the time, is how GW is going to toast us all. Not surprisingly,we build up a picture of doom and gloom that is out of all proportion to the reality. Scientists against AGW haven't got anything to sell to the media, it's a non-story. Even now, it's only a story because someone was caught cooking the books, that is the story, not the fact that AGW might not be happening.

And yet, you don't directly disagree with any of my points. You are basing "AGW is crap" on a couple of YouTube videos and an example of some scientists potentially telling porkies?

Cool. That is what I base all of my key life (and in this case PLANET) changing decisions on. Yep - what the internet tells me all the way for me.

Edited to Add: Oh and Elvis ISNT dead, Diana WAS killed by special forces with lasers and the special ingredient in Big Mac sauce is Ronald McDonalds *.

All true man.

Cheap jibe Baz. I expected better than that.

Read it properly and you'll see that I said "Channel Four", I said "Scientists". I think there's an Horizon one too. As you know very well, just because things are available on the internet, doesn't make them automatically fruit cake.

Except you possibly.

It appears then, that you reject the words of experts and scientists just because they have also been released onto the web. Or is it just that you won't watch anything that might threaten your entrenched view with a few good old fashioned facts?

Choosing to close your mind to the alternative viewpoint doesn't exactly strengthen the validity of your argument.

[Awol]

Sea levels are dropping and have been dropping since 1970, temperatures in the short and mid-term are also dropping, parts of the icepacks are growing, 80% of the world's ice will never melt because it is in Antartica which will stay frozen whatever happens. This isn't me talking, I know bugger all about it, but if that's what doctors and professors are telling me, and more importantly can show me, then I'm more inclined to believe them than another group of experts who admit they have to fake the data to make it fit their theories.

And these are facts? I'm not sure but even if they were I refer you to the late great:
"Science is facts; just as houses are made of stone, so is science made of facts; but a pile of stones is not a house, and a collection of facts is not necessarily science."
Jules Henri Poincaré (1854-1912) French mathematician.

"Data" or facts can be fickle, the scientists job is to make sense of them, [in reality] have a sort of educated guess and then test that guess, when you think you have it right formalise it, commit your reputation to it and throw it out there to see if anyone disagrees... it's what scientists do that journalists and lay people don't, it's what gives science credibility over mere opinion.

Absolutely. What conclusion would you come to if you went to the Maldives and saw a tideline from 1970, two and a half feet higher than today? Something also reflected across the globe?

[Awol]

What, you mean the C4 documentary that was widely criticized (including by the scientists who appeared in it who were misquoted and misinterpreted) that Channel 4 eventually had to issue an apology about? I see.

.

Link? 'Cos I can't find it.

Ah, this one...

http://www.digitaltoast.co.uk/channe...arming-swindle


Nope it wasn't that one.

[chieftiff]

Absolutely. What conclusion would you come to if you went to the Maldives and saw a tideline from 1970, two and a half feet higher than today? Something also reflected across the globe?

I'd be asking myself the same questions as you would but not concluding that all climate scientists were inappropriately manipulating data and telling lies or that the climatic models were therefore completely wrong, although they could be(the latter not the former)

[shape.when.wet]

Absolutely. What conclusion would you come to if you went to the Maldives and saw a tideline from 1970, two and a half feet higher than today? Something also reflected across the globe?

Awol, you quote facts from here and there very selectively, and yet accuse others of picking data to suit their agenda.

Your quote about Antarctic ice for example. It's getting thicker in the centre of the continent (where snow accumulation is approx. 5mm a year), and getting thinner at the coast (where accumulation is up to 5m a year). It doesn't take a professor to work out that a 5% increase in snowfall in the interior and a 5% decrease in the rest of it are rather different things.

Besides, do you know how many data points of measurement go in to those values? Feck all in the interior of the continent. It's a vast desert that's only getting 'wetter' because it's getting warmer.