http://www.skepticalscience.com http://www.grist.org/article/series/skeptics/ http://my.nowpublic.com/environment/how-talk-global-warming-denier
at 05:08 on November 7th, 2010
And if resounding rhetorical arguments and scare stories don't work, then you can always blow them up. ;)
at 13:34 on November 7th, 2010
Where in the preceding have you seen an intent to blow anyone up?
at 15:57 on November 7th, 2010
I was referring to that rather pathetic video by the 10:10 group, "No pressure". Hence the smilie. Seriously though, if you have any impirical proof that the hypothesised feedbacks and "tipping points" actually exist, I'm willing to see it. The simple fact is that we don't know the magnitude or even the sign of cloud feedbacks in the climate system, rendering projections "guesses" at best. I follow the scientific principles of Karl Popper, rather than the "post normal" principles used in some sciences today. His comment might you pause for thought; "Whenever a theory appears to you as the only possible one, take this as a sign that you have neither understood the theory nor the problem which it was intended to solve."
at 17:12 on November 8th, 2010
I have a fairly good understanding both of the theory and of evidence for it.
The other theories that have been proposed (sun spots, warming-and-cooling cycles, New World Order conspiracy consisting of everyone except the Tea Party) are easily refutable.
Whereas unchecked carbon emissions combined with rainforest deforestation explains all the effects observed.
at 21:59 on November 9th, 2010
at 03:16 on November 10th, 2010
The CO2 being the major factor is very much in line with observed reality. A significant rise in CO2 has been recorded; other suggested factors have not. One such explanation - the changes in sun's radiation - is dismissible right out of hand, since no significant change in solar radiation has been observed in 60 years. Another - cyclical fluctuations in the earth's temperature - do not explain why the oceans are turning to acid or why there is more CO2 in the atmosphere in recorded history. Global warming explains all the observed effects. Raising CO2 emissions while cutting down rainforests creates massive amounts of CO2 with nothing to absorb it and only two places to go - the atmosphere and the oceans. The heating of the atmosphere, the destabilization of the climate, the melting of the glaciers, the acidification of the oceans - the main predicted effects - have been observed and continue being observed.
To falsify global warming you would need to debunk these effects or find another explanation for all of them. No explanations suggested begin to explain the situation. Some, such as changes in solar activity, are easily dismissed as being inconsistent with observed evidence. Others, such as cyclical fluctuations, not only do not have any evidence behind them but also fail to explain vast aspects of the problem.
No explanation begins to explain the situation with any degree of comprehensiveness as does CO2-emission-led global warming. None has nearly as much data behind either. Glaciers melting and flooding the low-lying coastal areas is a possible effect of global warming. The ocean currents such as Gulf Stream being re-routed through the melting of the glaciers is also a possible effect. They are not inconsistent with one another; they are two different scenarios that can take place and for the same reason.
I suggest that you look again at both the theory and the evidence and see why 97% of legitimate scientists who have dealt with this matter have all come to the same conclusion. And no, it has nothing to do with satanic conspiracies or plans for a one-world government either. The solutions can be done just as easily by private sector as by public sector and with different entities putting this into place in different parts of the world.
at 17:26 on November 11th, 2010
at 20:28 on November 11th, 2010
Most likely they are not scared but do not see the need, are too busy, or prefer to do science rather than activism. Deniers have plenty of time on their hands; legitimate scientists do not.
Cyclical fluctuations do not have effect on acidity of the oceans. Unchecked carbon emissions combined with rainforest deforestation does. Carbon goes into the oceans and makes them acidic. This too has been observed.
Carbon emissions combined with rainforest deforestation is therefore a problem by itself.
There are plenty of measurable predictions besides the one you have quoted, and they have been met. They include rising temperatures across the world, acidification of the oceans, melting glaciers, and climate destabilization.
The 60-year cycle that you have talked about has far smaller amplitude than the consistent rise we have seen in world temperatures. It's a lot like looking at the Standard and Poor's over the last century or so and seeing small cyclical changes against the backdrop of a consistent upward trend.
What I wrote about the glaciers stands. Glaciers melt, ocean levels rise. Glaciers melt and re-route ocean currents, temperatures change in places affected by the ocean currents. The first is happening; the second has a strong chance of happening if this goes on.
Depending upon how much time I have I will visit the sites you are talking about if you provide the links.
at 23:39 on November 13th, 2010
at 19:49 on November 16th, 2010
Visited the sites, writing something right now.
See ishambat's recent stories
NowPublic lets people work together to cover news events around the world.
Find out more