Climate Deniers Have No Scientific Credibility

Post Reply New Topic

So I was looking for a project for the weekend, and this guy already did it, so I'll just post the link. The results were much more one sided than I was expecting.

click here for the link

The real problem are those who are so afraid of any kind of change that they panic about just thinking about change.

Climates change. They have always changed and they will always change. If the climate stops changing, then the planet will have long since been completely uninhabitable.

If history teaches us anything, it is that warm is good. It is no accident that man's first steps toward civilization occurred at a time when it was even warmer than today -- a time during which northern Mexico was wet, the Sahara Desert was green, and the Gobi Desert was a forest.

What would really kill people is Global Cooling. We have been in an ice age for a couple of million years or so (some people confuse a period of glaciation with an ice age). You can bet that when the Holocene ends and the next period of glaciation begins, the carrying capacity of this planet is going to decline enormously -- so much that starvation and death by starvation will be everyday occurrences throughout the world. Even another Little Ice Age could result in a great deal of hunger in large parts of the world.

If Global Warming should put an end to this ice age, mankind will be much the better off for it.

So I'm very much in favor of Global Warming -- it means life, health, prosperity, and happiness. The only scary thing about Global Warming is the notion that it might not be happening.

Global Warming -- bring it on. Embrace the change.

You're using something written on Desmogblog as as accurate?
I'm sorry, these guys are seriously confused.

Here is a true scientific paper that shows the opposite.
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm? ... id=1871503

Professor Dan M. Kahan and his team surveyed 1540 US adults and determined that people with more education in natural sciences and mathematics tend to be more skeptical of AGW climate science. Of course this means that people will less education are more apt to be duped by it.

Please don't believe anything on Desmog, they are lunatics.

What isn't talked about much is how much of a role the sun plays in the climate.
All the planets in the solar system are experiencing recent changes.

He read 14,000 peer-reviewed scientific articles, just for this article?
Come on.

Bring back Global Warming!

I think its going to be a cold winter, when they measured the Polar Ice field this year that Global Warming camp say are melting so fast that all the Polar bears will drown,( LINK) it was found to be 60% bigger than the same time last year.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/10294082/Global-warming-No-actually-were-cooling-claim-scientists.html

http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2013/08/27/earth-gains-38000-manhattans-of-sea-ice-blows-away-the-record/

I love science but I hate the science catastrophizing this warming trend. It is a trend and nothing more, and the scientists that have jumped on this man-made global warming movement/bandwagon have lost all my respect. There are no records that can honestly claim that warming will bring cataclysmic results. There is no evidence that exists that can convince me that this warming trend is anything but normal in the macrocosmic scheme of the earth. There is plenty of the earth's history that is yet irretrievable from the ocean floor, not to mention thousands of underwater volcanoes that have only recently been discovered that likely contribute to climate trends. There is no way they can understand how the continents' movement over millennia have affected global climate with any accuracy. There is no evidence that the climates they have charted hundreds of thousands--much less millions!--of years ago can even be anything close to accurate, not having known all the conditions that were in play at the time. Even the accuracy of the temperature charting over the past hundreds of years is contestable.

And Al Gore winning a Nobel Prize for this nonsense? It severely cheapened the Nobel Prize. I was disgusted by the whole political agenda that was running behind it. The scientific community needs to seriously redeem itself.

He wasn't the first to do it, just the most recent (that I could find), and all he did was review them to see if they met his definition of climate change deniers. Just a review of whether the scientific community believed that global warming was happening. I make no claims as to the accuracy or the implications of the blog, I just found it interesting.

Climate change is happening. What you believe is causing it and whether or not humanity plays a role is something that is still up for debate.

I personally think that human activities have a large influence on climate change, but not nearly as much as the "sky is falling" crowd would have you believe. As for the results of climate change, I think that the biggest impacts will be on weather patterns and localized and specialized ecosystems (although whether they are positive or negative changes will remain to be seen by future generations).

Because super-storms, heat waves, droughts and floods never killed anyone let's embrace global warming, yay... Oh wait..., they did kill a lot of peoples...
But surelly we can reassure ourself on that changes already happened on earth on thousands or even millions of years rather than decades... Oh wait..., the time scale do make a difference, and this time this not nature but us that are the culprit. Well, it's not like catastrophic changes happened, oh wait... it did happen. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permian%E2%80%93Triassic_extinction_event
Well it's not like the climate models are perfect either, oh wait..., the reality is almost always WORST that what is predicted by the models. Whatever, it's not like magical thinking never protected us from catastrophe, oh wait... it totally don't.

Do you have anything to prove that they will be worse with Global Warming?

Some research at MIT finds that major hurricanes may be less likely with Global Warming because of more disturbances in the atmosphere interfering with their development.

More droughts AND floods? In reality, many places that are extremely dry would likely receive rain and green to some degree. In some cases quite green.

Remember the Anasazi dwellings in the desert southwest? One common conjecture for why the Anasazi people moved away was because climate changed and it dried out to the point that they could no longer grow their crops. What happened to the climate back then? It was changing from fairly warm to cooler as we began to enter a cool period known as the Little Ice Age.

Ask yourself where the driest places on Earth are located? Hot places like the Sahara Desert? No -- they do get some rain, but less than an inch a year. Not much, but some rain. There are, in fact, reports that the Sahara is starting to green a bit -- perhaps a consequence of a warmer climate.

There are, in reality, places that the only moisture in the vast majority of years is from fog. For example, in the Atacama Desert in Peru and Chile, there are places where rain is exceedingly rare. From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atacama_Desert:

For that matter, the driest continent is Antarctica. There is even a region in Antarctica that receives so little precipitation that it doesn't have any snow or ice on the ground.

From http://www.universetoday.com/15031/driest-place-on-earth/:



It's not that unusual for changes to occur quite quickly. It is thought, for example, that the previous warm period between glaciations ended in 400 years or less.

The magical thinking is on the part of those who are concerned about Global Warming. Instead of looking to see what actually happened during periods in the past when climate was changing, they just assume that any change is bad.

What is really crazy are those who look at the past, not to learn from it, but to try to force a massive reinterpretation of what happened in order to claim that it was really Global Warming /Climate Change that caused all of the problems.

Freeman Dyson, a physicist who was on par with Richard Feynman finds climate science (so-called) defective in its methodology.

See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_CM9YR6PZKo

Dyson proved that the method of Feynman Diagrams was equivalent to Schwinger's mode of renormalizing the infinities in quantum electrodynamics.

So does Freeman Dyson lack scientific credibility?

ruveyn

Dyson does not lack credibility. He does not deny that climate change is happening and does not refute the fact that human CO2 emission is a major contributor. His issue is with their models for future effects of global warming. I actually have very similar views on the subject myself.

He says, "we're having some effect on the climate, it's not clear whether it's good or bad"
That is an incredible leap to saying that human CO2 emission is a major contributor [to climate change/global warming].

Here is another article on Dyson's views: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/04/05/f ... and-fudge/

Methodologies of calculating climates millions of years ago is fundamentally flawed. Scientists base their theories on ice core data (flawed: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/reports/ ... -cores.pdf), tree ring data: http://www.academia.edu/1906327/Uncerta ... chronology and http://www.allaboutarchaeology.org/carbon-dating-2.htm and radiocarbon dating http://www.nytimes.com/1990/05/31/us/er ... ating.html.

You should read what Dyson has written, not what others have written about what he has written. He freely agrees that humanity contributes to increased CO2 emissions. He does not believe that CO2 emission is 1) the only factor or 2) that CO2 levels are a major indicator for future climate and weather models.

His point is that the effects of CO2 emissions on climate change and climate change itself are probably not anywhere near the drastic predictions of the future effects currently being thrown around and that there are so many other issues that are much more important to focus our time, energy, and resources on.

I don't dispute that he says humans contribute to increased CO2 emissions. By very fact that we breathe, we contribute CO2 to the atmosphere. By very fact that there are more humans on the planet breathing, also is indsiputable that we are emitting more CO2. However, you said earlier that he "does not refute the fact that human CO2 emission is a major contributor". The issue I have with your statement is the word "major" and its implications to the issue of climate change/global warming.