• Dutch agency admits mistake in UN climate report
    73 replies, posted
-argument ninja'd-
And how do any of you know if anything was omitted? Reliable as Encyclopaedia Brittanica my ass.
[QUOTE=ExplodingGuy;23136124]You actually cited wikipedia, get me a real source. Not some publically editable document. As if a mere sixty years makes a difference. Stop listening to the propaganda.[/QUOTE] It does. Show me the evidence that it doesn't, because I have good evidence that it does: [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPCC_Fourth_Assessment_Report[/url] If you have more objections to wikipedia, the actual report is in a link at the bottom, and most of the pieces that are good are direct quotes, anyway.
[QUOTE=Dr_Funk;23136035]Global warming is happening. There's thousands of scientific studies AND scientists who assert this, until it has become a globally accepted fact. Do we really need to argue this?[/QUOTE] Heh. If only you knew what you're not hearing. I was out in Iceland on a scientific expedition talking to scientists with degrees who study glaciers every single day. They are unanimous in their belief that it aint happening. Oh and Kagrenak... [url]http://brainbender.blogspot.com/2007/09/global-warming-and-milankovitch-cycles.html[/url] By the way, do you need the religion argument to see that any scientific organisation can put their weight behind anything and it'd be true.
[QUOTE=ExplodingGuy;23136221]And how do any of you know if anything was omitted? Reliable as Encyclopaedia Brittanica my ass.[/QUOTE] Obviously they can't sample every single page of each encyclopaedia, but they use this science called statistics to make sure that the sampling was fair, and they used this thing called blinding, to make sure that bias wasn't introduced.
[QUOTE=Dr_Funk;23136035]Global warming is happening. There's thousands of scientific studies AND scientists who assert this, until it has become a globally accepted fact. Do we really need to argue this?[/QUOTE] One side finds something that is not correct, the side corrects it. And we all win.
[QUOTE=North;23136231]Heh. If only you knew what you're not hearing. I was out in Iceland on a scientific expedition talking to scientists with degrees who study glaciers every single day. They are unanimous in their belief that it aint happening. Oh and Kagrenak... [URL]http://brainbender.blogspot.com/2007/09/global-warming-and-milankovitch-cycles.html[/URL] By the way, do you need the religion argument to see that any scientific organisation can put their weight behind anything and it'd be true.[/QUOTE] You still haven't cited one legit thing. Anecdotal evidence and some jackoff with a blog aren't legit sources.
I do not give a shit about global warming. Not my fucking problem even if it does exist. I will not pay a fuckton of tax for nothing.
[QUOTE=North;23136231]Heh. If only you knew what you're not hearing. I was out in Iceland on a scientific expedition talking to scientists with degrees who study glaciers every single day. They are unanimous in their belief that it aint happening. Oh and Kagrenak... [url]http://brainbender.blogspot.com/2007/09/global-warming-and-milankovitch-cycles.html[/url] By the way, do you need the religion argument to see that any scientific organisation can put their weight behind anything and it'd be true.[/QUOTE] lol, that blog confused the New Scientist (they report really fringe stuff sometimes) with SciAm (They keep to more mainstream reporting, usually). It then went on to completely miss the point of the article in that it wasn't disproving anything related to the current state of AGW, just that the greenhouse effect wasn't responsible for the end of the last Ice age. I like your anecdote there, though. The plural of anecdote is anecdotes, not data.
[QUOTE=ExplodingGuy;23135760] [img] [url]http://filesmelt.com/dl/co2-vs-temp.jpg[/url] [/img] Yep, there was big industry 400,000 years ago....[/QUOTE] And if you look at bit further, you'll find that the current CO2 level is 392.94 ppm. [URL]http://co2now.org/[/URL] This research was conducted by the Mauna Lua Observatory.
[QUOTE=Xen Tricks;23136278]You still haven't cited one legit thing. Anecdotal evidence and some jackoff with a blog aren't legit sources.[/QUOTE] You even bother to check the links? Scientific American is hardly anecdotal evidence.
[QUOTE=Superwafflez;23136308]I do not give a shit about global warming. Not my fucking problem even if it does exist. I will not pay a fuckton of tax for nothing.[/QUOTE] That's the attitude that got us in this mess.
[QUOTE=North;23136371]You even bother to check the links? Scientific American is hardly anecdotal evidence.[/QUOTE] Did you? The article has nothing to do with the current state of AGW, it just has to do with the previous Ice Age, and the guy with the blog is completely missing the point.
[QUOTE=Zeke129;23136408]That's the attitude that got us in this mess.[/QUOTE] Well, provided the theory of AGW is correct (Which it's not.) your statement is still bullshit. If it is correct we had no idea we would have got into this 'mess' because we didn't have fraudulent science a hundred years ago.
[QUOTE=North;23136453]Well, provided the theory of AGW is correct [b][highlight](Which it's not.)[/b][/highlight] your statement is still bullshit. If it is correct we had no idea we would have got into this 'mess' because we didn't have [b][highlight]fraudulent science[/b][/highlight] a hundred years ago.[/QUOTE] Get a load of this guy
[QUOTE=QwertySecond;23136330]And if you look at bit further, you'll find that the current CO2 level is 392.94 ppm. [URL]http://co2now.org/[/URL] This research was conducted by the Mauna Lua Observatory.[/QUOTE] You do realize that water vapor may be what is causing global warming, man made or not... [URL]http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/11/1110_051110_warming.html[/URL]
[QUOTE=Zeke129;23136408]That's the attitude that got us in this mess.[/QUOTE] Yeah, well how about you go join Greenpeace or something and achieve nothing. To make a difference in this corporate run world you need lots of money.
[QUOTE=Zeke129;23136470]Get a load of this guy[/QUOTE] Bring on the ad-hominem. [QUOTE]Yeah, well how about you go join Greenpeace or something and achieve nothing.[/QUOTE] Watch the interview with one of the founders of Greenpeace on Global Warming in the film 'The Great Global Warming Swindle'?
[QUOTE=North;23136453]Well, provided the theory of AGW is correct (Which it's not.) your statement is still bullshit. If it is correct we had no idea we would have got into this 'mess' because we didn't have fraudulent science a hundred years ago.[/QUOTE] Actually, we've known about AGW since the 1950s: [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_climate_change_science#Concern_and_increasing_urgency.2C_1950s_and_1960s[/url] So we could have definitely done something about it much sooner.
[QUOTE=North;23136371]You even bother to check the links? Scientific American is hardly anecdotal evidence.[/QUOTE] First off the article is talking about climate change a long time ago, not the current global warming problem. Secondly: [QUOTE]Earth is currently nearly circular in its orbit and, if this Oligocene pattern were to be followed, would next be headed into another ice age in about 50,000 years. But the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has reached levels not seen for millions of years prior to the Oligocene. Thus, to get an accurate picture of what the climate might be like in coming years, scientists will have to continue back even farther in history to a period known as the Eocene. It is already clear, however, that the effects of the carbon released now will affect the oceans for years to come. "Another effect of this residence time of carbon in the ocean is that it takes a long time to flush the system out," P�like says. "It will take a very long time to go back to the level that existed before a large excursion of CO2. It's not going to be doomsday, end of the world, but a rise in sea level would affect a very large percentage of humankind." Not to mention the shells laid down today on the deep ocean floor of the Pacific. [/QUOTE] This bring up another point. Even if global warming is fake (which it's not), humans are dickbutts and have royally fucked over parts of the environment, and actions should be taken to counter that.
[QUOTE=Kagrenak;23134507]Oh no, there's a mistake or two, and a few typographical errors in a three thousand page long document. This obviously means that now people on Facepunch can be justified in coming along and completely ignoring the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming. Anyway, this is a very good thing, even these minor errors and typographical mistakes are important to fix, in order to assure that we have a correct view of what is happening, and what will probably happen in the future.[/QUOTE] Humans dont cause global warming, or cooling, or climate change, or whatever they are calling it now...
[QUOTE=ExplodingGuy;23136471]You do realize that water vapor may be what is causing global warming, man made or not... [URL]http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/11/1110_051110_warming.html[/URL][/QUOTE] Yeah, it's just [i]one[/i] of the forcing agents. [img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/bb/Radiative-forcings.svg/1000px-Radiative-forcings.svg.png[/img] (IPCC Fourth Assessment Report)
[QUOTE=Zeke129;23136408]That's the attitude that got us in this mess.[/QUOTE] Sorry if I like driving, and using electricity, and in general being civilized. I'm a Uni student that barely gets by, any more taxes and I can't afford to live. So what comes after a carbon tax? A tax on breathing?
[QUOTE=Ridge;23136512]Humans dont cause global warming, or cooling, or climate change, or whatever they are calling it now...[/QUOTE] Good use of evidence and supporting facts, along with solid reasoning and application of logic. [sp]No, not really.[/sp]
[QUOTE=Kagrenak;23136481]Actually, we've known about AGW since the 1950s: [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_climate_change_science#Concern_and_increasing_urgency.2C_1950s_and_1960s[/url] So we could have definitely done something about it much sooner.[/QUOTE] Yeah, interesting how most scientists at the time debunked it, so even if it was real we couldn't have done anything about it. And read the section on Milankovitch cycles in the Wiki article YOU cited.
[QUOTE=Kagrenak;23136552]Good use of evidence and supporting facts, along with solid reasoning and application of logic. [sp]No, not really.[/sp][/QUOTE] How about where global temperatures reached a record high in medieval UK, which, if I remember correctly, was a little over 100 years before the industrial revolution. Or how global temps have been on the decline since 2005?
[QUOTE=North;23136562]Yeah, interesting how most scientists at the time debunked it, so even if it was real we couldn't have done anything about it. And read the section on Milankovitch cycles in the Wiki article YOU cited.[/QUOTE] No they didn't? They said "We can't tell what's happening as of the result of us using the atmosphere as a garbage dump" They held the view that there was a net positive effect, but they weren't sure. Quote me the relevant passages, it's not my job to go hunting for things that support your argument, I showed you the graph that shows that we're on a downswing of one. You have to find the specific thing that supports your claim.
[QUOTE=North;23136562]Yeah, interesting how most scientists at the time debunked it, so even if it was real we couldn't have done anything about it. And read the section on Milankovitch cycles in the Wiki article YOU cited.[/QUOTE] [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles"][QUOTE][B][URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles"]Milankovitch cycles[/URL]:[/B] Beginning in 1864, Scottish geologist [/URL][URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Croll"]James Croll[/URL] theorized that changes in earth's orbit could trigger cycles of ice ages by changing the total amount of winter sunlight in the high latitudes. His theory was widely discussed but not accepted. Serbian geophysicist [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milutin_Milankovi%C4%87"]Milutin Milanković[/URL] substantially revised the theory in 1941 with the publication of [I]Kanon der Erdbestrahlung und seine Anwendung auf das Eiszeitenproblem[/I] (Canon of Insolation of the Earth and Its Application to the Problem of the Ice Ages). Milanković's ideas became the consensus position in the 1970s, when ocean sediment dating matched the prediction of 100,000 year ice-age cycles.[/QUOTE] What of it? I see how it has an effect on ice age cycles and... not much else. I read the article itself about the cycles, and it says pretty much nothing about debunking AGW or anything similar.
[QUOTE=Ridge;23136580]How about where global temperatures reached a record high in medieval UK, which, if I remember correctly, was a little over 100 years before the industrial revolution. Or how global temps have been on the decline since 2005?[/QUOTE] They've been in decline since 1998. And temperature cycles in the UK are fascinating. We've been through periods of immense heat and cold in the UK over the last millennia. None of which have been affected by man. Read between the lines. Milankovitch cycles have an effect on the climate whether you like it or not.
[QUOTE=ExplodingGuy;23136471]You do realize that water vapor may be what is causing global warming, man made or not... [URL]http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/11/1110_051110_warming.html[/URL][/QUOTE] [quote=from your article] According to a team of Swiss scientists, heat from other greenhouse gases is causing more water to evaporate, releasing the vapor into the atmosphere above Europe. That vapor in turn, adds to the greenhouse effect, further warming the region. [/quote] yay feedback loops
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.