Climate Change (2 Viewers)

[loquasagacious]

Released at a conference and not published in any journal that I could find... also the article does not present new data but reinterprets existing evidence to reach an opinion which is different to the vast majority of other people analyzing the same data.

EDIT: was published in Economic Analysis & Policy (Journal of the Economic Society of Australia - Queensland), 32(2), 107-202. Note that this is an economic not a scientific journal which seems strange from a "palaeontologist, stratigrapher, marine geologist and environmental scientist"...

 

[Kwayera]

Not to mention the fact that any peer-review process for that journal wouldn't apply to any "science" it discussed. Poor piece of "evidence", ekoolish. Try again.

 

[S.H.O.D.A.N.]

HAHHAHAHHA based on the neg (neutral) rep ekoolish just left for one of my posts he thinks that climate-change deniers are winning the debate???

Hah, I'd just write him off. He's a complete tool.

 

[JonathanM]

Why all the fuss? Climate change has truly made a positive impact on the safety of our shipping lines.

http://www.venganza.org/images/store/pirategraph_hiqual2.jpg

 

[*TRUE*]

I've been amused to meet persons who deny the fact of Climate Change - the question is not whether it is occuring but whether it is occuring due to anthropogenic or natural causes.
Tellingly, most naysayers don't seem able to articulate WHAT they deny and why.
For now, I think I'll place my confidence in peer reviewed scientific research.

 

[Jaylee42003]

If you believe in global warming, you'll believe in anything.
If you believe in climate change, you know your science.
Big difference between the two.

 

[David Spade]

tell us more please

 

[ComingUpForAir]

If you believe in global warming, you'll believe in anything.
If you believe in climate change, you know your science.

Your wrong on both counts as theories derived via the scientific method do not demand belief.

 

[Kwayera]

If you believe in global warming, you'll believe in anything.
If you believe in climate change, you know your science.
Big difference between the two.

Um.. well, not really. Climate change encompasses "global warming" which is a natural and necessary phenomenon. Climate change in this context however means abnormal climate change/global warming, (presumably) with an anthropogenic cause.

Couch your terms.

 

[zstar]

No Climate change is scam made up by a bunch of hippies and ultra leftists.

There is no Climate change.

Everything is fine so go back to buying your plastic cups and electric blender and quit worrying about a bunch of penguins.

 

[yoddle]

Uh, no. The IPCC collects and collates the thousands of individual research by climate and other scientists, and produces a coherent narrative from it (i.e. produces a theory from a collection of facts, like evolution, though in this case it's still technically a hypothesis). The IPCC do not engage in "basic guesswork".

Eurgh. I was quoting ekoolish when I said "basic guesswork", which is what he called their mandate.

Sorry, sarcasm has a hard time translating over the internet.

 

[Jaylee42003]

But 'climate change' is a fact of life, it occurs naturally, with or without human intervention.
'Global warming' -.- is usually used in the context as being due to the burning of fossils fuels, emitting green house gasses into the atmosphere.
Meh. I don't know. I am not a believer in human related causes (scandal sells). I believe it is due to a combination of events, including sun spot activity.
What on earth could make people think that us, tiny, insignificant beings could change the climate on earth?? Sure, the C02 : mean temperature graph kind of matches up when you squint a little, and adjust the scales, but so does the sun spot activity data. Our climate has been changing ever since the earth's beginning, and it has seen harsher warmings than this. It's funny how us humans jump to the conclusion that we control the earth's climate. We don't. We can't. Not at this stage, anyway.

 

[S.H.O.D.A.N.]

But 'climate change' is a fact of life, it occurs naturally, with or without human intervention.
'Global warming' -.- is usually used in the context as being due to the burning of fossils fuels, emitting green house gasses into the atmosphere.
Meh. I don't know. I am not a believer in human related causes (scandal sells). I believe it is due to a combination of events, including sun spot activity.
What on earth could make people think that us, tiny, insignificant beings could change the climate on earth?? Sure, the C02 : mean temperature graph kind of matches up when you squint a little, and adjust the scales, but so does the sun spot activity data. Our climate has been changing ever since the earth's beginning, and it has seen harsher warmings than this. It's funny how us humans jump to the conclusion that we control the earth's climate. We don't. We can't. Not at this stage, anyway.

It's not about 'belief' so I don't care whether you're a 'believer' in anthropogenic warming.

I do care that you're completely scientifically illiterate.

 

[Jaylee42003]

It's not about 'belief' so I don't care whether you're a 'believer' in anthropogenic warming.

I do care that you're completely scientifically illiterate.

Actually, it is all about belief.

Skeptic/Denier or Believer?

I am a skeptic.

 

[ComingUpForAir]

Actually, it is all about belief.



I am a skeptic.

U miss the point
Climatic changes occur, they are directly obserable, they are fact, therefor your 'belief' in climate change is not demanded.
Furthermore, one should not accept or reject 'global warming' on account of their 'beliefs' (which do not require evidence). There is currently sound evidence for 'global' warming', thus the hypothesis is accepted, nowhere does this demand belief.

 

[ad infinitum]

U miss the point
Climatic changes occur, they are directly obserable, they are fact, therefor your 'belief' in climate change is not demanded.
Furthermore, one should not accept or reject 'global warming' on account of their 'beliefs' (which do not require evidence). There is currently sound evidence for 'global' warming', thus the hypothesis is accepted, nowhere does this demand belief.

Changes in weather are directly observable whilst the 'climate' is an accumulated average of these observations over a long period of time, classically 30 years, hence is not directly observable. What 'sound evidence' are you referring to?'Climate' is really a modeled construct that is used to explain and predict systems. Your incoherent babble-response indicates a real non-understanding of the issue at hand. One cannot claim that they have an absolute understanding of all data and its causation; as many in todays political sphere appear to aspouse. The respectable position to hold is that of temporary agnosticism; until a more persuasive and holistic explanation can be demonstrated by either side. 'The aroma of your statements has that vague criminal stench of a Melbourne Uni 'Bk'.

 

[ComingUpForAir]

'The aroma of your statements has that vague criminal stench of a Melbourne Uni 'Bk'.

Ignoring the fact your comments exalt stupified medievil european peasants as mentally sturdy and resourceful, i'd much prefer that 'aroma' than that perculiar ''youtube 'ron-paul-bot' 'evolution-is-just-a-theory' conspirist' scent you exude.

 

[shady145]

i'm a bit late to this thread but neway, climate change is definitely happening true believer, source of info = physics teacher (genius) and the documentary an inconveinient truth, also the last 10 years have had like the 10 or 9 hottest days in ages

 

[Tangent]

i'm a bit late to this thread but neway, climate change is definitely happening true believer, source of info = physics teacher (genius) and the documentary an inconveinient truth, also the last 10 years have had like the 10 or 9 hottest days in ages

*Physics teachers can be wrong, just because you think they are a genius doesnt really mean anything.
*An inconvenient truth is based on truth. The polar ice caps are melting sure, but it cant be proved that greenhouse gas emissions made by humans caused this. Just because it is a doco, albeit a famous one, does not mean it is true.
*Please define ages, keeping in mind how long thermometers have been around for

 

[Kwayera]

*Physics teachers can be wrong, just because you think they are a genius doesnt really mean anything.
*An inconvenient truth is based on truth. The polar ice caps are melting sure, but it cant be proved that greenhouse gas emissions made by humans caused this. Just because it is a doco, albeit a famous one, does not mean it is true.
*Please define ages, keeping in mind how long thermometers have been around for

Nothing in science can ever be proved. We have a damned good idea, though.