If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Telegraph)   "2008 was the year man-made global warming was disproved"   (telegraph.co.uk) divider line 305
    More: Unlikely  
•       •       •

3173 clicks; posted to Geek » on 28 Dec 2008 at 6:50 AM (5 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



305 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all
 
2008-12-28 05:50:34 AM
The author of that article has absolutely no clue what he is talking about. Protip: Learn the difference between "climate" and "weather".
 
2008-12-28 06:13:23 AM
Well at is a shame
 
2008-12-28 06:15:52 AM
Interestingly, he proved the unified theory of Hurr.
 
2008-12-28 06:30:01 AM
Warning:

This is the first unique instance of an argument against what is accepted as common knowledge. This is NOT a repeat from any time in the last six months despite what you may think you have seen. Remain calm and extinguish any smoking materials.
 
2008-12-28 06:34:03 AM
Ahh is this where all those fans of science decide to throw out the Scientific Method in favor of "consensus" to make themselves feel "special"?

Man, just look at everything that occurred to create the Dustbowl of the 30's and tell me that we can even start to predict and model this shait. Face it, Nature will change the climate far quicker and far most drastically than we will.

It's fine to want to be environmentally safe, you know, I'm all for green things and furry creatures; let's just put it in context and stop the breathless "OMG I'm Killing my MOTHER EARTH" ranting eh?
 
2008-12-28 06:37:35 AM
Global Warming is just a bit too political of an issue to be able to conclusively prove or disprove much of anything involved with it.
 
2008-12-28 06:39:06 AM
TheOmni: Global Warming Slavery is just a bit too political of an issue to be able to conclusively prove or disprove much of anything involved with it.
 
2008-12-28 06:40:34 AM
CanisNoir: Ahh is this where all those fans of science decide to throw out the Scientific Method in favor of "consensus" to make themselves feel "special"?

Man, just look at everything that occurred to create the Dustbowl of the 30's and tell me that we can even start to predict and model this shait. Face it, Nature will change the climate far quicker and far most drastically than we will.

It's fine to want to be environmentally safe, you know, I'm all for green things and furry creatures; let's just put it in context and stop the breathless "OMG I'm Killing my MOTHER EARTH" ranting eh?


Actually, after watching this (^), I tend to think that climate change is far less of an issue that we'll have to deal with than is global resource depletion due to overpopulation, which is a subject that many have simply seemed to have forgotten. That could come to bear within the next few years.

Watch the whole lecture if you have time, it's quite frightening all around.
 
2008-12-28 06:48:58 AM
I, for one, have known since 2004 that the real threat to society as we know it isn't the turrists, but is, in fact, MANBEARPIG.
 
2008-12-28 06:55:37 AM
Global Warming Slavery Cheese Sandwich is just a bit too political of an issue to be able to conclusively prove or disprove much of anything involved with it.
 
2008-12-28 06:59:07 AM
CanisNoir: Man, just look at everything that occurred to create the Dustbowl of the 30's and tell me that we can even start to predict and model this shait.

Um, the Dust Bowl was a man-made phenomenon, caused by erosion due to bad farming practices.

But please, don't let that stop your idiot wharrgarbl. It is entertaining.
 
2008-12-28 07:05:50 AM
citizen905: CanisNoir: Man, just look at everything that occurred to create the Dustbowl of the 30's and tell me that we can even start to predict and model this shait.

Um, the Dust Bowl was a man-made phenomenon, caused by erosion due to bad farming practices.

But please, don't let that stop your idiot wharrgarbl. It is entertaining.


No, actually it was due to a warm water current drifting a few degree's to the west causing less rain to fall in the plains. Over farming only came into play because of the extended draught and unusual winds. Lack of a root system allowed the top soil to be blown around and erode too much.

But keep believing nature had nothing to do with it if you like.
 
2008-12-28 07:18:49 AM
I'd rather take the chance that I'm wrong in believing the theories about global warming and wind up looking stupid, rather than being wrong about disbelieving the theories about global warming and winding up in a massive climatogical disaster.
 
2008-12-28 07:29:35 AM
starsrift: I'd rather take the chance that I'm wrong in believing the theories about global warming and wind up looking stupid, rather than being wrong about disbelieving the theories about global warming and winding up in a massive climatogical disaster.

Yea but if you're wrong about believing the theories, you're not exactly "fixing the problem" or even "preparing for the real problem". You see, nobody is claiming that the Climate is a static thing, we just disagree on whether or not *we* are the cause and the be all end all of the problem. If we just focus on what *we* think *we* are doing wrong, we're not preparing for the day that nature proves the theories wrong and changes the climate in a way you didn't see coming or prepare for - you know, because driving electric cars made you believe you were safe.

Why don't we focus on being able to adapt to a rapidly changing climate instead of flagellating ourselves over the fact that we advanced technologically? I thought only nutjob monks whipped themselves into believing they were without sin.
 
2008-12-28 07:36:17 AM
Hm, no snow outside and it is end of December, global warming proved!!!! Works both ways I guess, anecdotal evidence that is.
 
2008-12-28 07:40:50 AM
CanisNoir: The only problem with your premise: at current, the only preparation we can make for dramatic climate change is to put our heads between our legs and kiss our asses goodbye. We simply don't have the technology level to cope with massive climactic shift, and we've got a population load well beyond what can be maintained in such an environment.

You may as well say, "Well, you wouldn't have to worry about the climate so much if you were living on Mars!"
 
2008-12-28 07:41:13 AM
honestly, i'm more worried about the plastic dissolving in the ocean...
 
2008-12-28 07:46:27 AM
Occam's Chainsaw: CanisNoir: The only problem with your premise: at current, the only preparation we can make for dramatic climate change is to put our heads between our legs and kiss our asses goodbye. We simply don't have the technology level to cope with massive climactic shift, and we've got a population load well beyond what can be maintained in such an environment.

You may as well say, "Well, you wouldn't have to worry about the climate so much if you were living on Mars!"


But that's because we've been too busy telling auto companies that they need to make electric cars or GTFO instead of investing in research towards things that could aid us the event that climate does change rapidly. I'm all for more ecosphere events and such - please genetically enhance some corn crops - let's see if we can make a bandanna that will grow in Alaska.

If we set up giant turbines, can we alter underwater currents? You know, shait like that. I just think right now too many people are making too much money off of the "We kill the environment" movement that we're losing sight of the *real* science; which is the Climate changes, sometimes rapidly and it's a really farking complex system that involves damn near every aspect of life on this planet because ecosystems are all truly inter-connected in subtle ways.

That's all I'm sayin :)
 
2008-12-28 07:47:58 AM
Increases in co2 (from fossil fuel usage) in the atmosphere cause heat to be trapped. Increases in particulate matter in the atmosphere (from fossil fuel usage) cause heat to be reflected away. Since the timeframe for the dissipation of the excess co2 is longer than the precipitation of the particulate matter, the only thing that can save us is more pollution.
 
2008-12-28 07:48:19 AM
let's see if we can make a bandanna banana that will grow in Alaska.

FTFM

Stupid Blind spell checking.
 
2008-12-28 07:53:12 AM
CanisNoir: But that's because we've been too busy telling auto companies that they need to make electric cars or GTFO instead of investing in research towards things that could aid us the event that climate does change rapidly. I'm all for more ecosphere events and such - please genetically enhance some corn crops - let's see if we can make a bandanna that will grow in Alaska.

If we set up giant turbines, can we alter underwater currents? You know, shait like that. I just think right now too many people are making too much money off of the "We kill the environment" movement that we're losing sight of the *real* science; which is the Climate changes, sometimes rapidly and it's a really farking complex system that involves damn near every aspect of life on this planet because ecosystems are all truly inter-connected in subtle ways.

That's all I'm sayin :)


Fair enough, but why not do both? Undertake activity to return human impact to pre-industrial levels and work on superscience toys to manipulate the climate as we see fit?
 
2008-12-28 07:54:46 AM
CanisNoir

I somewhat agree with your point that we have made global warming too much of an issue, but I don't necessarily agree that we should abandon the social movements that have been made to combat pollution. For example, I think there are many reasons that an eco-friendly hybrid (I specify eco-friendly, as the batteries of the current ones are most certainly not) or an electric car is a good idea, primarily to wean ourselves from foreign oil and thus hopefully reduce our involvement in pitiful little civil wars in the Middle East.

I believe, as you do, that natural climate change has had a lot to do with global warming and the Dust Bowl and the like, but it doesn't negate the fact that we could certainly have had a strong hand in it as well. The line is entirely too blurry to be able to strongly stand on one side or the other, so I'm going to favor eco-friendly progress over business as usual.
 
2008-12-28 08:01:03 AM
CanisNoir: But keep believing nature had nothing to do with it if you like.

Oh, I see, you're saying that man's influence (loss of topsoil due to overfarming, natural grassy root systems replaced by dead crops) is enough to tip an already chaotic nature into catastrophic conditions.

As man has dominion over nature, we must use our God-given powers wisely. That includes limiting our CO2 output.
 
2008-12-28 08:03:58 AM
citizen905: CanisNoir: But keep believing nature had nothing to do with it if you like.

Oh, I see, you're saying that man's influence (loss of topsoil due to overfarming, natural grassy root systems replaced by dead crops) is enough to tip an already chaotic nature into catastrophic conditions.

As man has dominion over nature, we must use our God-given powers wisely. That includes limiting our CO2 output.


No, what I'm saying is that Irrigation sure made this a non-issue and we still farm as much of the land if not more than before.

See, over farming wasn't the problem; lack of understanding the effects of that current shifting was.
 
2008-12-28 08:06:05 AM
CanisNoir: No, what I'm saying is that Irrigation sure made this a non-issue and we still farm as much of the land if not more than before.

See, over farming wasn't the problem; lack of understanding the effects of that current shifting was.


*facepalm*

The weather changed due to the current, but the inability of the land to cope with the change was due to human behavior.
 
2008-12-28 08:07:28 AM
Occam's Chainsaw:
Fair enough, but why not do both? Undertake activity to return human impact to pre-industrial levels and work on superscience toys to manipulate the climate as we see fit?


I'm not saying drop environmentally sound policies all together, I'm just saying have some context and prioritize. Having children scared to death that polar bears are dying, purposefully increasing the cost of energy to encourage less use and things like that are not the way to do both.

Right now we've got what I consider almost a religion surrounding this notion of Man Made Climate Change and it's causing our priorities to be skewed; because the climate will dramatically change even if we are at pre-industrial levels. Why cause undue suffering when what you claim you want to avoid is going to happen anyway?
 
2008-12-28 08:08:20 AM
I can't believe you people.
When will you see LaRouche was right about everything all along?
He's been talking about colonizing Mars for years.
If he got elected back in 1988 we'd be arguing the merits of re-colonizing Earth by now.

This is the problem with being 20 years ahead of your time I guess.
I can't even begin to imagine the patience of that man, putting up with you people.
 
2008-12-28 08:11:47 AM
CanisNoir: No, what I'm saying is that Irrigation sure made this a non-issue and we still farm as much of the land if not more than before.

See, over farming wasn't the problem; lack of understanding the effects of that current shifting was.


Oh, I get it now. Just as the technology of irrigation allowed us to control nature's chaos, so too will the technology of renewable energy allow us to stop using fossil fuels and prevent the runaway greenhouse effect.
 
2008-12-28 08:13:04 AM
Occam's Chainsaw: CanisNoir: No, what I'm saying is that Irrigation sure made this a non-issue and we still farm as much of the land if not more than before.

See, over farming wasn't the problem; lack of understanding the effects of that current shifting was.

*facepalm*

The weather changed due to the current, but the inability of the land to cope with the change was due to human behavior.


Your missing the point - it's almost a metaphor for problem solving.

Position 1: Dust Bowl was a form of Man Made Climate Change: Over Farming caused the Black Blizzards.
Solution: Fewer wheat farms so that the plains grass root system stays in tact and the drought will have minimal impact on the top soil.
--Unintended Consequences--
Fewer families own land, have jobs and the plains never get settled. The bread basket that will eventually feed most of the world never exists.

Position 2: Lack of understanding the effects of a shifting oceanic current is the problem.
Solution: Study the effects of shifting oceanic currents and understand that droughts can occur in the plains. Develope a solution that can deliver water to fields in the event of lower than expected rainfall.
---Unintended Consequences---
I can't really think of any.

This is what I'm talking about.
 
2008-12-28 08:16:32 AM
citizen905: CanisNoir: No, what I'm saying is that Irrigation sure made this a non-issue and we still farm as much of the land if not more than before.

See, over farming wasn't the problem; lack of understanding the effects of that current shifting was.

Oh, I get it now. Just as the technology of irrigation allowed us to control nature's chaos, so too will the technology of renewable energy allow us to stop using fossil fuels and prevent the runaway greenhouse effect.


Irrigation wasn't something invented after the 30's - it's a technology that's been around a long while. I'm saying if we had focused on the real problem, money would have been spent preparing the fields for eventual droughts. We've become too focused on one thing and it's causing un-needed suffering.

That's my whole beef with Man Made Climate Change. When you stop acting like Nut Job Monks intent upon whipping yourselves bloody in hopes of feeling saintly, then I'll think we're on the same page.
 
2008-12-28 08:20:12 AM
CanisNoir: We've become too focused on one thing and it's causing un-needed suffering.

What suffering? Seriously, I'm curious.
 
2008-12-28 08:21:07 AM
I can go ahead and put the matter to rest for you all.

1. Factors beyond our control have an impact on the climate.
2. Factors within our control have an impact on the climate.
3. We could probably have a significant impact with a deliberate and well thought effort to change the climate to our liking.
4. #3 could backfire horribly, I suppose.
 
2008-12-28 08:25:55 AM
CanisNoir: That's my whole beef with Man Made Climate Change. When you stop acting like Nut Job Monks intent upon whipping yourselves bloody in hopes of feeling saintly, then I'll think we're on the same page.

So you agree with the scientific consensus on climate change? Glad I was able to turn you around.
 
2008-12-28 08:26:23 AM
What is more likely to happen is also mentioned in the article. The severe economic downturn will restrict what will be done in the name of "global warming" or "global climate change" (whichever you choose). In the interim, the trend in cooling will continue and the whole frenzy will slowly wither.

Regardless of the side you are on, two facts cannot disputed. 1. The economy will prevent most large-scale action, 2. There has been a cooling over the last two years.

/don't forget #3 - The climate is always in flux
 
2008-12-28 08:31:41 AM
Munchausen's Proxy: Regardless of the side you are on, two facts cannot disputed. 1. The economy will prevent most large-scale action, 2. There has been a cooling over the last two years. century

FTFY

After all these defeats that liberalists suffered this year I don't see how anyone can call himself liberalist with straight face
 
2008-12-28 08:32:36 AM
Doooom: CanisNoir: We've become too focused on one thing and it's causing un-needed suffering.

What suffering? Seriously, I'm curious.


Remember the four dollar a gallon gasoline and politicians claiming that it was a good thing? Or how about the rapid shift in public desire for hyper fuel efficient automobiles that far outpaced an industries natural ability to adapt?
Higher fuel costs, increased regulation... You name it.
 
2008-12-28 08:34:37 AM
citizen905: CanisNoir: That's my whole beef with Man Made Climate Change. When you stop acting like Nut Job Monks intent upon whipping yourselves bloody in hopes of feeling saintly, then I'll think we're on the same page.

So you agree with the scientific consensus on climate change? Glad I was able to turn you around.


What you mean the theory that The Climate Changes and Always Will regardless of how Green we think we are? Yea, I've always believed that one.
 
2008-12-28 08:37:26 AM
Link (new window)

Know your source

Booker's scientific claims, which include the false assertion that white asbestos (chrysotile) is "chemically identical to talcum powder" [2] were also analysed in detail by Richard Wilson in his book Don't Get Fooled Again (2008). (The chemical formula for talc is H2Mg3(SiO3)4 or Mg3Si4O10(OH)2, while the formula for chrysotile, the primary ingredient of white asbestos, is Mg3(Si2O5)(OH)4).

Wilson highlighted Christopher Booker's repeated endorsement of the alleged scientific expertise of John Bridle, who has claimed to be "the world's foremost authority on asbestos science", but who in 2005 was convicted under the UK's Trade Descriptions Act [3] of making false claims about his qualifications, and who the BBC has accused of basing his reputation on "lies about his credentials, unaccredited tests, and self aggrandisement".[4].

In 2006, the HSE published a further rebuttal[8] after Christopher Booker had claimed, again incorrectly, that the Health and Safety Laboratory had concluded that the white asbestos contained within "artex" textured coatings posed "no health risk". [9].

In May 2008, the Health and Safety Executive accused Booker of writing an article that was "substantially misleading"[10]. In the article[11], published by the Sunday Telegraph earlier that month, Booker had claimed, falsely, that a paper produced in 2000 by two HSE statisticians, Hodgson and Darnton[12], had 'concluded that the risk of contracting mesothelioma from white asbestos cement was "insignificant", while that of lung cancer was "zero"'.

In December 2008, an article by Booker was published in The Daily Telegraph, 'Facts melted by 'global warming''[13] and subsequently in The Australian, 'More inconvenient cold weather, snow and polar ice'.[14] The article claims that "Without explanation, a half million square kilometres of ice vanished overnight." That claim is false as an explanation was provided on 13 December and Booker's article was published on 21 December.[15].
 
2008-12-28 08:42:25 AM
How many actual Climate Scientists in this thread? Or even just real scientists?

Show yourselves.
 
2008-12-28 08:45:39 AM
2wolves: How many actual Climate Scientists in this thread?

I stayed in a Holiday Inn Express last night.
 
2008-12-28 08:46:14 AM
2wolves: How many actual Climate Scientists in this thread? Or even just real scientists?

Show yourselves.


We're called "climatists", you half-literate toast-masher.
(climatologists is acceptable from Brits, those backward monkeymen)
 
2008-12-28 08:53:09 AM
2wolves: How many actual Climate Scientists in this thread? Or even just real scientists?

It doesn't take advanced training in environmental sciences to realize that we're looking at something as huge as the earth, with more variables than all of the computers we have combined and attempting to make predictions. A daunting task at best, a fool's errand at worst.

I'm not saying it shouldn't be studied, it's just really really farking complicated, and people tend to oversimplify it.
 
2008-12-28 08:57:26 AM
nekom: It doesn't take advanced training in environmental sciences to realize that we're looking at something as huge as the earth, with more variables than all of the computers we have combined and attempting to make predictions. A daunting task at best, a fool's errand at worst.

I'm not saying it shouldn't be studied, it's just really really farking complicated, and people tend to oversimplify it.


To summarize, nekom is not a climatist. But I am, and I say... aw crap I forgot to hold the auction.
Okay, climatist expert facts, bidding starts at $15.
 
2008-12-28 09:05:28 AM
Where did Christopher Booker get his PhD in Climatology?
 
2008-12-28 09:05:46 AM
No, man-made global warming was disproved years ago, but 2008 showed remarkable progress in educating the masses to this fact.
 
2008-12-28 09:09:42 AM
randomjsa: No, man-made global warming was disproved years ago, but 2008 showed remarkable progress in educating the masses to this fact.

Disproved by what scientists? Can you give me a link to an article in a peer-reviewed journal? I'd like to read it, so I can stay up to date on the subject.
 
2008-12-28 09:16:43 AM
attackingpencil: Disproved by what scientists? Can you give me a link to an article in a peer-reviewed journal? I'd like to read it, so I can stay up to date on the subject.

I must have missed the peer-reviewed articles proving it beyond a theory. The growing existence of those not afraid of opposing it is evidence of something. If it was a proven fact, opposition would wain to the point of only fringe heretics. It has been the opposite. After years of declining temperature averages, people are not so quick to shout down those questioning.

Hmph, people actually using their brains and not deeding that to Mssr, Gore et all. Imagine.
 
2008-12-28 09:19:46 AM
Munchausen's Proxy: I must have missed the peer-reviewed articles proving it beyond a theory.

And with that sentence you've proved you don't understand science.

Munchausen's Proxy: he growing existence of those not afraid of opposing it is evidence of something. If it was a proven fact, opposition would wain to the point of only fringe heretics. It has been the opposite. After years of declining temperature averages, people are not so quick to shout down those questioning.

It's just that none of these people seem to be scientists, you know experts in the subject? The people who actually know what they're talking about. It's like with creationists "but a whole bunch of people have problems with evolution" of course none of these people know what they're talking about and anyone with a grasp of the subject accepts evolution. Seriously, show me some actual SCIENCE disproving global warming.

Munchausen's Proxy: Hmph, people actually using their brains and not deeding that to Mssr, Gore et all. Imagine.

Al Gore isn't a scientist. I'm choosing to believe people with PhDs. Do you know how hard it is to get a PhD?
 
2008-12-28 09:25:37 AM
CanisNoir: Remember the four dollar a gallon gasoline and politicians claiming that it was a good thing? Or how about the rapid shift in public desire for hyper fuel efficient automobiles that far outpaced an industries natural ability to adapt?
Higher fuel costs, increased regulation... You name it.


The only time I have seen $4/gal gasoline is when there was a gas shortage. Then again, I live in Georgia. Gas is $1.43 now.

As far as the car companies go, I beg to differ with you. I think they've had more than enough time and resources to develop fuel-efficient vehicles but have chosen not to. As gas prices have risen the American car companies in particular have done next to nothing to improve gas efficiency. Gas prices did rise sharply for a little while, and the American car companies' gamble on cheap gas didn't pay off. Same thing happened in the 70s, which allowed the Japanese car market to gain a foothold in the US.
 
2008-12-28 09:26:21 AM
attackingpencil: Do you know how hard it is to get a PhD?

That attitude will change when you start working with them.
 
Displayed 50 of 305 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report