Non-global warming?
-
puirt-a-beul — 17 years ago(June 19, 2008 06:53 PM)
"But many researchers are increasingly of the opinion"
And many are not. So?
So, it's not the clear-cut "this is truth, that is fanaticism" fad that people on the "baahh humbug" side like to try to make it out to be. So far, I don't think anyone can definitively say "this is so" about this matter.
Closing the question off with endpoint claims like "there have always been trends of warming and cooling; this is just another one" may seem comforting, but it may or may not be accurate. It's as much an assumption or subjectively emotive response as those expressed by those who are over-concerned, and ignores any inconvenient evidence that there
may well
be more than that happening.
That's what I hate so much about the current debate: It smacks of elitist majoritarianism of the worst kind.
The enemy of scientific debate and thought.
You're surely not suggesting that the "you're all sheep and aren't listening to the
real
scientists" point of view put forward by the anti-human-influenced-global-warming tribe *
isn't- elitist? And "majoritarian" in its own way? (Just a little more grumpy, because it isn't, actually, in the majority. For the moment, anyway.)
They're two highly emotive and subjective terms to use. It's only when one's own opinion isn't in the apparent ascendancy that phrases like "elitist" come out, but I can't really see how it applies here. And nobody minds being part of a majority, if they feel the majority happens to be right on an issue (ie share one's own opinion). Here, I'm personally not sure that they are, but I also feel it's an insufficient response to dismiss ideas that one has subjectively, emotively chosen not to share, with such a sweeping response.
It's just as politicising, surely, to accuse others of having a certain belief simply for political motives? And especially about something for which let's face it there at least appears to be some evidence to support concern?
If you're going to accuse the people you don't agree with of "elitist majoritarianism" as the reason for why they see things the way they do, then that's an "enemy of scientific debate and thought" right there.
You
might
very well think that. I couldn't possibly comment.
- elitist? And "majoritarian" in its own way? (Just a little more grumpy, because it isn't, actually, in the majority. For the moment, anyway.)
-
filmklassik — 14 years ago(December 19, 2011 03:20 PM)
Ummm, Crichton has acknowledged that. And ummm, his novel STATE OF FEAR even says as much on numerous occasions throughout the book, that the earth's5b4 temperature is definitely rising. But ummmm, Crichton never thought of the situation as anywhere near as dire as the alarmists were indicating.
Ummmm, get the picture now? That's ummmm, where his thinking was on the issue before he died. -
Mithrandir-Olorin888 — 18 years ago(January 08, 2008 12:57 AM)
Watch Endgame: Blueprint for Global Enslavement
www.RonPaul2008.com
America's Last Hope for Freedom!!!! -
AdventureClub — 17 years ago(June 12, 2008 09:47 AM)
Although Endgame is a good documentary, I don't remember it having anything to do with global warming.
The Great Global Warming Swindle is a good documentary concerning this subject. You can find it on google video. -
inspectors71 — 17 years ago(November 05, 2008 10:28 AM)
Crichton was a great scientific mind. He believed that human actions influenced the climate, but that the hysterical link perpetrated by agenda-driven scientists that humans were somehow destroying the planet was invalid. Read "State of Fear" to get a real feel for how science should and shouldn't be conducted.
By the way, I refer to Crichton in the past tense because the news services are reporting his death this morning. He, and his razor-sharp mind will be missed.
"You eat guts."Nick Devlin -
fgooshd — 17 years ago(November 06, 2008 03:16 PM)
Which TSI data are you using? Perhaps we can compare our trend analyses. I suspect (and in fact know) yours are woefully incorrect, if even done at all.
The melt on Mars is a regional phenomenon, not a global climate change (See
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v435/n7039/full/nature03561.html
).
Which glaciers? Have a look at the numbers, when you can (See
http://nsidc.org/
). Try the Sea Ice Index. What do the trends in extent show?
If you actually had something useful to contribute you would have painstakingly analyzed what data are available, written a paper detailing why tens of thousands of scientists have been so very wrong, and submitted it to a relevant journal (try Nature or Geophysical Research Letters). But you know better than to open yourself up to such well deserved ridicule.
I b68genuinely hope you're not involved in a scientific discipline or any enterprise where capable analysis is required. -
fgooshd — 17 years ago(November 07, 2008 06:44 PM)
If you had read my post you would know I didn't ask you to submit your analysis to imdb but to an academic journal. Swing and a miss.
The hockey stick isn't a theory. It's a temperature reconstruction by Manb68n, Bradley, and Hughes (MBH98). It has nothing to do with Al Gore and it isn't a scam. You may take issue with their use of non-centered PCA, but beyond that the paper and its analysis are sound. Mann et al even have a new temperature reconstruction (See
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2008/09/02/0805721105.full.pdf+html
). Have at it.
The science of climate change is complex. Anyone can't simply casually acquaint themselves with the science and expect to realistically determine what's well conducted science and what isn't. There are those who understand radiative physics, and those who do not. Those who have a grasp of the mathematics involved, and those who do not. That you've so arrogantly decided to denigrate the work of thousands of individuals (individuals far, far, far more capable than you) because you heard from some guy whose uncle read on the internet that it's all a hoax, when it's so painfully obvious that you haven't the knowledge nor ability to realistically appraise the current state of the science, speaks very poorly for you.
If you have this source from climatologists then produce it.
As it is, you're just another denialist trying to disprove a multi-decadal trend with a single month of data ("August was so very cold this year, what a hoax!"). And that is so very pathetic.
Curious that you choose the word believe. -
AnthonySocksss — 10 months ago(May 28, 2025 01:17 PM)
He was another climate-change denying loon.
Like those anti-vaxxer celebs
Melton1 Wanted for Pedophilia:
https://i.ibb.co/6cnPmJVr/IMG-0830.jpg
https://m.youtube.com/shorts/Zjxk307CND0
