News Is Global Warming a Swindle?

[Andre]

So what are you doing on a science forum?

 

[BillJx]

So what are you doing on a science forum?

I agree with your implication Andre, that there is no scientific argument in my last post. There is, of course, a point at which a scientific consensus is strong enough that a lay person's doubts become irrational. The creationist "debate" would be an example. However, my post was intended as more than an "appeal to authority". The point of my post was contained in the first sentence. You seem to believe that institutions like the Royal Society are involved in some sort of nefarious political scheme. If they are, then the others I linked to are involved as well. That seems rather unlikely.

 

[Andre]

Point is that I know for myself, and a lot of others do, that global warming, defined as enhanced greenhouse effect due to positive feedbacks, is technically falsified as in the Popperian philosophy

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=169202
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=162192

But there is a large gap between the technical falsification and moving on to face the next world problem

You seem to believe that institutions like the Royal Society are involved in some sort of nefarious political scheme. If they are, then the others I linked to are involved as well. That seems rather unlikely.

No I don't believe that. i do believe that 99,%+ of the scientists and politicians are honestly convinced that global warming is proven beyond doubt, consensus etc, ...strong action is required to etc...etc..

So with the falsification in mind it can no longer be considered ad hominem to question the reasons and motives why they do think so. The conclusion will probably be that under the right conditions, the search for a new enemy to fight against if you don't have one anymore, the natural fear, the inevitably approaching depletion of fossil fuels, etc together have caused a runaway positive feedback loop fueled by the increasing demand of fear, sensationalism of the media and the urge to save humanity and rule it.

It's hard to fight irrationality.

 

[Skyhunter]

I agree with your implication Andre, that there is no scientific argument in my last post.

This is the P&WA forum so your argument is fine. And since there is no scientific argument in the film linked in the OP, your in the right thread for non science.

Seems more than one of the scientists cited in the film are protesting. The film maker keeps apologizing for errors, while the broadcaster is being investigated for violating Britain's rules about airing false and misleading information.

The film has also been referred to the regulatory watchdog Ofcom which is considering a complaint from 37 senior scientists that the programme breached the broadcasting code on the misrepresentation of views and facts.

http://news.independent.co.uk/media/article2521677.ece

 

[Carid]

"Don't forget that Greenland was once "green". The Vikings settled there when the land was lush, but had to eventually abandon their settlements when the temperature continued to decrease and land became covered with ice & snow."

Evo, I thought that the name "Greenland" was given to encourage migrants to a place where even in those days life was hard. "Iceland" was already taken so any further step down the temperature scale would have been poor marketing.

 

[Evo]

"Don't forget that Greenland was once "green". The Vikings settled there when the land was lush, but had to eventually abandon their settlements when the temperature continued to decrease and land became covered with ice & snow."

Evo, I thought that the name "Greenland" was given to encourage migrants to a place where even in those days life was hard. "Iceland" was already taken so any further step down the temperature scale would have been poor marketing.

Go look it up.

 

[LowlyPion]

Go look it up.

That is correct. I think there was a warmer period before the Little Ice Age called the Medieval Warm Period, and settlements in Greenland were semi-prosperous. But as climate entered the Little Ice Age in the 1200's to 1300's the settlements grew tenuous. Records at the churches there during this period as I recall showed a decline in marriages and more deaths and bone studies suggested deterioration in diet that I guess would be consistent with a more extreme environment.

Some of what I am recalling is apparently recounted here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenland

 

[Andre]

There has been a "we have to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period" campaign in the last decade, in which it was suggested that the name Greenland was to attract settlers.

For instance: http://home.iprimus.com.au/nielsens/medieval.html

But it is back now:

See this thread.

 

[Evo]

That is correct. I think there was a warmer period before the Little Ice Age called the Medieval Warm Period, and settlements in Greenland were semi-prosperous. But as climate entered the Little Ice Age in the 1200's to 1300's the settlements grew tenuous. Records at the churches there during this period as I recall showed a decline in marriages and more deaths and bone studies suggested deterioration in diet that I guess would be consistent with a more extreme environment.

Some of what I am recalling is apparently recounted here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenland

A better history during Viking occupation is here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Greenland

And for a more detailed account of Greenland's warmer history, see here. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/07/070705153019.htm

 

[LowlyPion]

Deming mentioned in the link:

Skeptic Professor Deming has Teaching Certification Revoked by University of Oklahoma

Tuesday, 28 October 2008
For ten years or more, professor David Deming has taught a course in environmental geology at the University of Oklahoma. In October 2008, he was informed that the “general education” certification for his course was being revoked. ...
David Boren, President
University of Oklahoma

http://www.climatechangefraud.com/content/view/2601/218/

 

[Gokul43201]

Looks like political meddling. The gen ed requirement is mostly nonsense anyway, the way it is currently set up.

 

[Evo]

Politics and religion are two things that should not control science, but I'm more likely to sprout wings than for that to happen.

 

[Andre]

A better history during Viking occupation is here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Greenland

And for a more detailed account of Greenland's warmer history, see here. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/07/070705153019.htm

Your second link says:

No one knows what lies beneath the kilometre-deep icecaps.

Sometimes we do:

This 'needle' later turns out to be willow bark. I don't think that this was ever published.

This one is also very interesting:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/10/081020095850.htm

... Recent mapping of a number of raised beach ridges on the north coast of Greenland suggests that the ice cover in the Arctic Ocean was greatly reduced some 6000-7000 years ago. The Arctic Ocean may have been periodically ice free...cont'd

But something appears to be very awkward here. Anybody?


Edit: I added a hint

 

[Andre]

raised beach ridges... some 6000-7000 years ago.
...
But something appears to be very awkward here. Anybody?

Raised beach ridges? On Greenland? what about sea levels?

This link may not work but it does for me, if I paste in google search:

"The Norse in Greenland and late Holocene sea-level change"

Check for the journal.cambridge.org link

The abstract:

Norse immigrants from Europe settled in southern Greenland in around AD 985 and managed to create a farming community during the Medieval Warm Period. The Norse vanished after approximately 500 years of existence in Greenland leaving no documentary evidence concerning why their culture foundered. The flooding of fertile grassland caused by late Holocene sea-level changes may be one of the factors that affected the Norse community. Holocene sea-level changes in Greenland are closely connected with the isostatic response of the Earth’s crust to the behaviour of the Greenlandic ice sheet.

An early Holocene regressive phase in south and west Greenland was reversed during the middle Holocene, and evidence is found for transgression and drowning of early-middle Holocene coast lines. This drowning started between 8 and 7ka BP in southern Greenland and continued during the Norse era to the present. An average late Holocene sea level rise in the order of 2–3 m/1000 years may be one of the factors that negatively affected the life of the Norse Greenlanders, and combined with other both socio-economic and environmental problems, such as increasing wind and sea ice expansion at the transition to the Little Ice Age, may eventually have led to the end of the Norse culture in Greenland.

Doesn't seem to add up with raised beach ridges, does it?

Just another example of the deluge of problems with the basic ice age theory.

 

[kasse]

Since the thread about "What the bleep do we know?" was closed, I think it should be put an end to this discussion as well. No serious scientists doubt the fact that global warming is affected by humans.

 

[vanesch]

Since the thread about "What the bleep do we know?" was closed, I think it should be put an end to this discussion as well. No serious scientists doubt the fact that global warming is affected by humans.

That's exactly the kind of groupthink that we want to avoid here. Of course your statement is correct: humans do have an effect on global climate. However, the question is: how much, and is it the principal factor, or a negligible correction to another phenomenon, or something in between ? I think we are still far from being able to be scientifically affirmative beyond doubt on these questions.

However, in contrast to the "what the bleep do we know" stuff, you have to realize that there is no suspense: we will eventually find out, in, say, 30 years from now. So the experiment is clearly defined. Wait for 30 years, continue observations, and we'll know for sure. So there's not even a discussion to be had. The certainty will be there in 30 years. No point in wanting to have it earlier, on much less certain material.

Do not confuse the scientific question of what is a cause-effect relationship and how strong is it, with a social need for having "certainties" in order to decide on politics and actions. I think in the latter case, there's not much discussion: given the plausibility of AGW, and given the potentially dramatic consequences of it, even if there is still a lot of scientific doubt on the issue, one should err on the safe side and do something about it. It will even be part of a global experiment: if we first rise, and after that, we diminish human CO2 exhaust, this will allow for an even better observation of a causal relationship that can exist between CO2 and climate.
So the scientific uncertainty concerning dramatic AGW shouldn't have much influence on any policy. It would only be in the case of an almost certain scientific proof of total absence of AGW that this could eventually influence any policy.

But scientifically, there is still a lot of room for doubt. If you deny this, then you take the risk of putting in jeopardy the whole of science if ever 30 years from now, it turns out not to be there in the dramatic proportions that are announced to be "scientifically certain" by certain optimists right now, and this might have a dramatic backfire effect.

 

[Andre]

No serious scientists doubt the fact that global warming is affected by humans.

Anyway, it's a curious thesis. For instance, the assumption that there is global warming going on. Anyway, indeed there is little doubt if you cut a forest or build a city that you're changing the local micro climate. from that point of view it is clear that humans affect climate.

However, It is likely intended to state that the increased amount of radiative gasses, put in the atmosphere, is causing the Earth to heat up considerably, say >1.5 degrees C per doubling CO2, the lower IPCC border. This can be considered a hypothesis and the question arises, what is the evidence supporting it?

 

[Proton Soup]

That's exactly the kind of groupthink that we want to avoid here. Of course your statement is correct: humans do have an effect on global climate. However, the question is: how much, and is it the principal factor, or a negligible correction to another phenomenon, or something in between ? I think we are still far from being able to be scientifically affirmative beyond doubt on these questions.

also, we should question the premise that global warming would be bad. any sort of change is likely to have winners and losers, but overall, warmer might be better.

 

[mheslep]

also, we should question the premise that global warming would be bad. any sort of change is likely to have winners and losers, but overall, warmer might be better.

Bjørn Lomborg reports 400,000 more heat reported deaths, but 1.8 million fewer cold-related deaths from global warming, IF it proceeds as predicted by the IPCC.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122610299552410141.html

 

[physics girl phd]

Based on our family grocery-visit today, I saw that the http://www.digital-almanac.com/digitalalmanac/2009/ may be predicting global cooling. A trustworthy source to be sure.

 

[Andre]

Based on our family grocery-visit today, I saw that the http://www.digital-almanac.com/digitalalmanac/2009/ may be predicting global cooling. A trustworthy source to be sure.

Perhaps the almanac author had used other sources?

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/GSA.pdf

In a Geological Society of America abstract, Dr. Don Easterbrook, Professor of Geology at Western Washington University, presents data showing that the global warming cycle from 1977 to 1998 is now over and we have entered into a new global cooling period that should last for the next three decades.