Environmentalist who questions global warming
- Thread starter rainforests1
- Start date
Yup. A study of just basic mathematics leaves me in awe of the minds and the logical thinking abilities of the ancient Greeks and others.
das_nut
Forum Legend
- Joined
- Jun 4, 2012
- Reaction score
- 579
It's actually pretty cool how much the Greeks accomplished with what primitive tools they had.
It just amazes me, every time I think about it. The ancient Egyptians and Babylonians also, with, for instance, the concept of pi and how closely they approximated the value.
Trinity
YES!
Many of the ancient cultures were quite advanced even by modern standards, and without the benefit of the technology we have today. That's one of the things I find depressing - that so many people remain willfully ignorant, with all of the accumulated information available at our fingertips.We seem to have regressed in many ways.
Yes agreed! It's really fascinating. It feels to me as if truth often gets lost along the way and then when the that truth is re-introduced as a general principle people think it is crazy.
It often takes one person to stand up and represent that truth (and often become a martyr), get ridiculed by the scientific (or authoritative) community, before other people start coming out of the closest.
It seems that most people are afraid of being seen as 'not normal' and not conforming, and being labeled as crazy. History has a huge track record of persecuting people who don't fit in the box of whatever the government/ruling authority deems is normal or acceptable.
When someone unveils a new truth it can rock the foundations of our lives - it's often easier to stay in blissful ignorance.
das_nut
Forum Legend
- Joined
- Jun 4, 2012
- Reaction score
- 579
The fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown. - Carl Sagan
Blobbenstein
.......
das_nut
Forum Legend
- Joined
- Jun 4, 2012
- Reaction score
- 579
It's impossible to argue with you sometimes. You show intelligence sometimes but other times I worry. Three possiblities:
1.The numbers are fake, and there is no global warming.
2.The Earth goes through cycles and this is just another cycle that is happening regardless of what humans do.
3.Global warming is real. I've clearly stated I question it, but I still think there's a possibility it's real.
I honestly have no idea which is true, and don't need sources to back up a claim I've never made. As one who has never had children and believes in a small human population I've done about as much to try to combat the possibilities of global warming as anyone here on this board. Complain to those with power that are doing little to nothing about this problem(virtually all governments) rather than me please.
It isn't. The University of East Anglia published data which fitted the model that it wanted to show. Back in the '70's the 'received wisdom' was that we were heading for another Ice Age. The reality is that climate change has been going on since the year dot and runs in various cycles. Two thousand years ago when our forebears where ruled by the Romans, Britannia had a mild enough climate for vineyards. From roughly 800 AD to 1300 AD, Greenland had a milder climate and a larger level of population than it does now.
das_nut
Forum Legend
- Joined
- Jun 4, 2012
- Reaction score
- 579
Quick question, got a source on the vineyards in England? This link states it's uncertain.
It also brings up evidence that vineyards in England occured throughout most of its history: "At the time of the compilation of the Domesday Survey in the late eleventh century, vineyards were recorded in 46 places in southern England, from East Anglia through to modern-day Somerset. By the time King Henry VIIIth ascended the throne there were 139 sizeable vineyards in England and Wales - 11 of them owned by the Crown, 67 by noble families and 52 by the church.
It is not exactly clear why the number of vineyards declined subsequently. Some have put it down to an adverse change in the weather which made an uncertain enterprise even more problematic. Others have linked it with the dissolution of the monasteries by Henry VIII. Both these factors may have had some part to play but in all probability the decline was gradual (over several centuries) and for more complex reasons."
It also states "The period from the end of the First World War to shortly after the end of the Second World War may well be the only time in two millennia that vines to make wine on a substantial scale were not grown in England or Wales. Doubtless, during that time, there were some vines being grown on a garden scale by amateur growers, but for more than 25 years there was a total cessation of viticulture and winemaking on a commercial basis."
Also, I found a source that states that the Norse population of Greenland peaked at about 5,000 people. Today, it's about 56,000 people.
Clueless Git
Plant powered
Vineyards don't require as mild of a climate as most people seem to believe. There was a vineyard about twenty miles from here, and the weather here is zone 5-6. While this is a harsher than usual winter (we've been having a majority of nights in the single digits Farhrenheit to well below zero (-25 below, -50 below with the windchill being the coldest this year so far), it is normal around here to have a significant number of nights at or near zero degrees Fahrenheit (not even counting the windchill).
That vineyard ceased to exist a year or two ago, but it wasn't because of the weather.
That vineyard ceased to exist a year or two ago, but it wasn't because of the weather.
Ah, good old "Climategate". It's funny how almost all the climate scientists worldwide are apparently involved in this conspiracy, though.
That was before they realized we humans were altering the global climate with ridiculous amounts of greenhouse gas emissions. The Earth's climate goes in cycles, with ice ages alternating with warmer periods. The warm period we're in now has been unusually long, so in that sense another ice age is overdue.
This is not evidence against the theory of anthropogenic climate change. It is widely recognized that the climate cycles between ice ages and warmer periods. What is special about anthropogenic climate change as opposed to natural cycles, is the rate of change, e.g. in global temperatures and sea level rises.
UEA published erroneous data as scientific 'fact'. You don't have to call it 'Climategate'.
On what timescale?
Never mind, our government can carry on ruining what is left of our economy by obeying EU directives to close efficient coal-fired power stations like Didcot 'A' and Ferrybridge 'C' whilst China and India carry on full-steam ahead with industrialisation, building more coal-fired generation every year than this country has ever had in total. And we've got hundreds of square miles of wind turbines, each of which would require its own access road for maintenance vehicles if they were built with longevity in mind, which none of them are; but that is probably just as well as they are useless when the wind doesn't blow or it blows too hard as these wind turbines then have to shut down to prevent damage. Best build some nukes for base load but the eco-evangelist lobby don't like them either ...
das_nut
Forum Legend
- Joined
- Jun 4, 2012
- Reaction score
- 579
What was the erroneous data that was published as 'fact', and what was the correct data?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/co...East-Anglia-U-turn-in-climate-change-row.html
I guess you'll have to ask your friends at UEA.
I guess you'll have to ask your friends at UEA.
cornsail
Forum Legend
- Joined
- Jun 4, 2012
- Reaction score
- 237
The vast majority of climate scientists who actually study this stuff professionally would disagree with you.
Oreskes, 2004 Study on Scientific Climate Literature:
“The drafting of such reports and statements involves many opportunities for comment, criticism, and revision, and it is not likely that they would diverge greatly from the opinions of the societies’ members. Nevertheless, they might downplay legitimate dissenting opinions. That hypothesis was tested by analyzing 928 abstracts, published in refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and listed in the ISI database with the keywords “climate change” (9). The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.”
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/reprint/306/5702/1686.pdf
According to Doran and Kendall Zimmerman’s 2009 poll “76 out of 79 climatologistswho "listed climate science as their area of expertise and who also have published more than 50% of their recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change" believe that mean global temperatures have risen compared to pre-1800s levels, and 75 out of 77 believe that human activity is a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures.”
http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf
Academies of Science and other scientific organizations agreeing with the IPCC position on climate change:
U.S. Global Change Research Program, Arctic Climate Impact Assessment, European Acamedy of Sciences and Arts, InterAcademy Council, International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences, Australian Academy of Sciences, Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts, Brazilian Academy of Sciences, Royal Society of Canada, Caribbean Academy of Sciences, Chinese Academy of Sciences, French Academy of Sciences, German Academy of Natural Scientists Leopoldina, Indian National Science Academy, Indonesian Academy of Sciences, Royal Irish Academy, Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei (Italy), Academy of Sciences Malaysia, Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand, Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, Royal Society (UK), Network of African Science Academies (the science academies of Cameroon, Ghana, Kenya, Madagascar, Nigeria, Senegal, South Africa, Sudan, Tanzania, Uganda, Zambia, Zimbabwe and the African Academy of Sciences), Polish Academy of Sciences, National Research Council (US), American Association for the Advancement of Science, European Science Foundation, Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies, American Geophysical Union, European Federation of Geologists, European Geosciences Union, Geological Society of America, Geological Society of Australia, International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics, National Association of Geoscience Teachers, Stratigraphy Commission of the Geological Society of London, American Meteological Society, Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society, Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences, Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society, Royal Meteorological Society, World Meteorological Organization, American Quaternary Association, International Union for Quaternary Research, Australian Coral Reef Society, Institute of Biology (UK), Society of American Foresters, The Wildlife Society (international), World Health Organization, American Institute of Physics, American Statistical Association, International Association for Great Lakes Research
Their data matches the data of the other institutions involved with such measurements, including the satellite temperature record. There's no evidence that they cooked the books or engaged in any sort of academic fraud. But even if they had it would not really mean anything with regard to this debate. They are one University.
Let's think about the plausibility of a major conspiracy to fraudulently raise fears over climate change. According to Forbes (http://www.forbes.com/sites/scottdecarlo/2013/04/17/the-worlds-biggest-companies-2/), 8 of the 25 largest companies in the world are oil and gas companies (Exxon Mobil, Royal Dutch Shell, PetroChina, Chevron, Gazprom, Petrobras and Total). There's also Volkswagen at #13. Most of the rest are banking companies.
In 1998, Exxon devised a plan to stall action on global warming. The plan was outlined in an internal memo that promised, "Victory will be achieved when uncertainties in climate science become part of the conventional wisdom" for "average citizens" and "the media."
In June 2005, US State Department papers showed the Bush administration thanking Exxon executives for the company's "active involvement" in helping to determine climate change policy, including the U.S. stance on Kyoto. Input from the business lobby group Global Climate Coalition was also a factor.
http://www.theguardian.com/news/2005/jun/08/usnews.climatechange
Some U.S. scientists resigned their jobs rather than give in to (alleged) White House pressure to underreport global warming.
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines07/0130-10.htm
So if there's a conspiracy, where is more likely to be coming from?
That is not correct.
http://skepticalscience.com/ice-age-predictions-in-1970s.htm
There was certainly never a scientific consensus predicting global cooling.
Correct. And none of them can account for the recent rise in global surface temperatures. Not sun variation, not orbital drift, not ocean oscillation. Weather variation and ocean oscillation, by the way, affect the distribution of heat around the planet rather than the total heat content. CO2 and other greenhouses gasses raise the total heat content of the planet when their concentration is increased in the atmosphere.
