Is belief in global warming much different than religion?

Views: 1939

Replies are closed for this discussion.

Replies to This Discussion

"In contrast to the AMS survey, where all respondents are AMS meteorologists, a majority have Ph.D.s and fully 80% have a Ph.D. or Masters Degree, position statements by organizational bureaucracies carry little scientific weight. For example, a position statement recently published by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) and frequently cited as the “definitive” indication of scientific consensus on global warming was authored by a mere 23 persons. Of those 23 persons, only five had Ph.D.s in a field closely related to climate science, an equal number (5) were staffers for environmental activist groups, two were politicians, one was the EPA general counsel under the Clinton administration and 19 of the 23 had already spoken out on behalf of global warming alarmism prior to being chosen for the panel. Clearly the scientific weight of the NAS statement pales in comparison to the AMS meteorologist survey."

Yes, this is a bit ad hominem.

I just view this whole man-made weather crisis thing as unfinished business. I'm tired of rhetoric, it's like religion.

It's also a burden of proof thing for me. While some religious believers think I must disprove what is in bibles, I truly feel that extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

Also, courses of action require a basis.

How is climate change different than global warming? I don't even know what these people are saying!!



And let's not forget that 25 years ago we were supposed to get excited about global cooling.

Not really... That's an urban myth based on an article (I believ in Time magazine) in the late seventies. Try to check the source for that claim.

Yes, I have checked into that. It's another controversy magnet.

As a controversy magnet, I find myself feeling like Alice going down a rabbit hole. There are already people out there working furiously on both sides of the discussion.

At the end of the day, the lack of consensus and (nearly) religious fervor leads me to not buy into the extraordinary claim.

Global cooling, in the short term, is utter bullshit. There is no controversy about it. We will probably have another ice age in 10.000 years or so due to natural variations, but not in the next 100.

The real issue is that if we follow the temperature trend from 11,000 years ago to 1800 then currently we are supposed to be in the lowest 10% of temperatures for that time period with a possible ice age a few hundred years from now if that trend had continued. In the last 200 years the temperatures have skyrocketed up to the highest 75% over that same period.

Andy, I hope you understand that geological processes, which is what natural climate change is, don't work in a matter of centuries they work in periods of millennia. It's one of the reasons we know that this is human induced. The science behind it is sound. It's based on three simple principles: the carbon cycle, the greenhouse effect and radiative forcing (how much infrared energy a molecule reflects back to earth, or you can see it as the why behind the greenhouse effect).

It's all in that essay I wrote, have you read it yet?

No, sorry, didn't read your article as of yet.

I've also heard that solar activity matters. Your thoughts on solar activity as a climate factor?

The sun is generally getting brighter (thus hotter) as time goes on. In fact, in the future it will grow hot enough to scorch the inner planets of our solar system. That's why it's such a good thing that atmospheric CO2 has decreased a lot the last hundreds of millions of years, because the temperature of the Earth is determined by solar radiance and the amount of greenhouse gases (of which CO2 is a major component). Much like how warm your house is depends on how much heat you have on (sun) and the amount of insulation (greenhouse gases).

Except, for the last 150 years there's been an anomaly, the amount of CO2 has significantly increased. It's almost like someone's pumping the stuff out! 

Ok, going to read your essay now :)

There's doctrine and adherents on both sides. I'm letting them fight it out.

Really? A large nuclear exchange couldn't cool the atmosphere? Maybe a "nuclear winter" was a stretch, but we know that large volcanic eruptions have had cooling effect on the planet.


© 2018   Created by Rebel.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service