The Great Global Warming Debate


Assuming you’re familiar with the issues surrounding the debate I find it odd you never once correct a single claim made by AGW sceptics. Indeed all the corrections seem to end up being made by those on the pro side

Yeah yeah funny how the only ones interjecting religion are sceptics. They always show up to couch the discussion in religious terms where nobody has before. I have never yet seen a proponent of AGW make any religious claim whatsoever.


Your missing to point completely. The point is most scientists are dumped into the “skeptic” camp automatically when then produce some evidence that there may be effects at play other than man made CO2.

As for religion, anyone bringing that into play deserves to be dismissed, the point was the religious like behavior from both sides in dismissing and refusing to question their accepted theory.


This is simply true. I obviously can’t speak every comment relating to every scientific finding but from what I’ve seen scientists who get dumped onto the sceptic camp are there because they want to be. They are typically not climatologists are generally not well received not because they present evidence of other factors but because they don’t do so, instead repeating the same old tired points debunked again and again.

This is before you even get into the fact that the scientific consensus does not present human activity as the only factor in climate change, simply the main contributor. There are “other factors” and they are presented openly. The other “other factors” usually presented are the Sun (which we are obviously able to measure directly) and pretty exotic phenomenon like cosmic rays which lack good support.

This notion of scientific dissent being crushed appears in every science denial movement out there. The “it’s just a religion” one is common too.

Scientists by their nature will cheerfully question an accepted theory but you need evidence to do so. For the sceptics evidence is sorely lacking and so they rely on a number of tried and true tactics to avoid dealing with. When you buy into the “Both sides are bad” and “both sides act” religiously rhetoric you’re playing the game the side with no evidence wants you to play. They don’t want to deal with evidence or facts or analysis they want a “silver bullet” which kills AGW without them having to address any of that.

I rarely even get around to expressing an opinion on climate change, I spend 99.99% of my time in this discussions correcting basic factual errors made by sceptics and if you’ve read even just the few on this forum you’ll know it’s the same errors again and again. I don’t think it’s all that much to ask that people inform themselves on a topic before forming strong opinions on it.


Of course they are all going to be skeptics to anyone who’s beliefs they disrupt. Once again you compare people who question the accepted theory with “science deniers”. Not everyone who questions AGW is a nutwing FFS.

But your attempts to correct them contain basic factual errors themselves, that’s all I was really pointing out.


Global Cooling most certainly was a scare back in the 70’s-quick google will tell you what you want to know but will post chapter and verse within the next 24-to deny these realities totally invalidates your argument-I suppose peak oil was never mentioned back in the 70’s either-If I remember correctly it was supposed to run out about 10yrs ago. Like everything else generated by the scaremongers-Never happened


FYI Newsweek doesn’t count as a scientific source.

To prove your statement you’re going to need to demonstrate that predictions of “Global Cooling” were far more widespread in the 70s among climatologists than the above survey suggests.


sun spots are all the rage now apparently :smiley:
John Von Neumann wanted to spray the ice caps black to heat the planet up he reckoned we would be better off! … rds-again/

Now if someone can tell me practical ways of adapting civilisation to life with a kilometer of ice above us then I will change my mind about how a warmer world is a bad idea. … ceage.html


Im not concerned about a few degrees as it is not new territory for planet earth. Tell me about run away global warming and tipping points instead. While your at it you wouldnt mind taking what you see wrong with the newsweek article and factually disproving it instead of disregarding it. Its too convenient.


I’m not sure I understand your point. You appear to be saying that we should let global warming proceed because catastrophic cooling would be worse.


hell yeah :mrgreen: (dreams of sunny summers in Ireland)
ah but seriously there are things we dont understand as pointed out above and thats why its been changed from Global warming to “climate change” its possible that our impact may actually cause the catastrophic cooling. Some ice ages have come on in the space of a decade. To be honest I do think we can deal with limited warming but not with another ice age especially one that comes on in the space of a decade. See where Im coming from now?


You don’t seem to understand my point.

Sceptics of AGW claim we should not listen to scientists today concerning warming because “they” were saying in the 70s that we’d be experiencing global cooling. To support this claim they reference some articles in Newsweek i.e. a popular magazine not a scientific source. The point is that scientists were not claiming global cooling was going to happen and a review of scientific literature from the time supports this viewpoint.

The content of the Newsweek articles are irrelevant.


That’s an irrational viewpoint. You may as well say all the property we built in this country was a great idea because we didn’t use all that money to build nuclear weapons and then get into a nuclear war with Russia and so the top 50 developers actually saved us from nuclear holocaust.


Its not irrational, global warming is the safer option, your comparisons are irrational :nin
Heat the planet up! Ice ages are cyclical. How are we going to deal with the next ice age? Its coming for sure not like nuclear armed developers.


According to this thread, … -data.html

Full linked article here,


Like scientists can be trusted? There are as many who promote the idea of global warming as discount it. Newsweek might not be taken as a credible magazine by you but just like opportunistic ideologues-it’s been around for the last thirty years. For the Greens to promulgate certainties around this area marks them out as at best misguided and at worst, deeply cynical. Have only read headline of article-am sure after reading content it will quote scientific opinion about global cooling


New Scientist blog is full of baloney-“it appears there was not a scientific consensus about global cooling.” “It appears”-give me a break-not exactly scientific language.


This may disapoint many, but the reason the phrase Climate Change is used more often than Global warming is that it it is a more accurate term.

The scientific consensus is that the global climate is changing due ot anthropogenic influences.

This will resort in some areas becoming warmer/cooler/wetter/drier.

Hence the ‘Change’.

Society, infrastructure, migration, agriculture etc. have been designed for a climate that shortly will not be the case. Hence the reason why Climate Change is a bad thing and should be mitogated as much as possible. It’s worse than a cyclical ice age as the majority opinion is that the onset is faster, so the adaptation time is much less.

Now, why is the relvenet for people reading the pin? The analysis and information that is valued here is based on method, logic and rationality. Denying the scientific consensus without fact or with information that was proved in the 1990s to be false (Medievel Warming, The hockey stick ‘forgery’, the discrepency between terrestial and satellite data etc and other ‘studies’ carried out by Oil companies etc.) indicates that ones opinion on the issues discussed on the pin cannot be be relied upon. When such comments go unchallenged, that also calls into question rationality.

Unless of course one is being ironic or just trying to stir the shit. Not looking at anyone here in particualr… :slight_smile:


this is true but you need to understand that this is now used because the prior consensus on global warming has shown to have some lacunae, ie, it does actually cool sometimes as well. However, the question of how much humans have contributed to changes remains somewhat unclear as in no scientist with any brains will say we’re responsible for all of it, either which way, despite what many non-scientists would have you believe and the question that is particularly contentious is what are we going to do about it.

koya, I would also add that society changes in far faster ways than the climate generally does. I think many in the environmental movement do not adequately trust the resourcefulness of humans and this is rather sad really, and particularly misguided.


Here we see the nub of the problem

People hear that the globe may warm by an average of 2-5 degrees in the next 100 years

and think pffff 2-5c degrees how bad can that be!! Humans can easily adapt!!

When the average annual global temperature for the last 100 years is estimated to be at around 15 C* then this starts to improve our understanding.

Well there is little doubt that humans will survive
the question is in what population densities and in what geographies and with what political and social impact.

I suggest people read Collapse by Jared Diamond for evidence and examples of societies that have imploded as a result of their environmental impact and unfortunately the examples aren’t pretty.

Fresh Water and the availability of fresh water.
Agriculture suited for a particular climate
Soil erosion
Sea levels

They are the big issues.
If large areas of the planet which currently sustain the most people are affected by climate change then we could be in for some serious trouble.

Obviously the areas we have the highest population densities in are the ones that are most suited for human habitation, the borderline between suitable and non suitable is a fine one.

Now there may be a corresponding beneficial climate change in another area of the world but that will not render it immediately habitable.

So say for arguments sake that climate change reduces rainfall in china drastically. but in the sahara rainfall increases. It would take a lot longer to render the desert suitable for large scale human habitation than it could to cause serious damage to the agricultural basis in asia. And that’s aside from the obvious impossibility of large scale migration and political turmoil.

So the problem of climate change is one of Population and climate chage and how it effects humans.

If we were mere observers of the planet we could afford to say
“wow, it’s interesting to see how this will pan out” and not worry too much because on a grand scale life will go on and someday humans will be extinct anyway"

but we’re not, we need to recognise that we have the capacity to have such an impact on our environment that it can have a detrimental effect on our wellbeing in the future.

Prior to moving to cities human waste was not really an issue. It was collected and spread on the land as fertiliser keeping it well away from sources of drinking water.

When people first moved in to cities they didn’t recognise or couldn’t handle the expense of proper sewers and drains. The importance of proper sweage systems has been a lesson learned and relearned by societies the world over.
Global warming is a similar issue. Human habitation is at such a scale that we need to take more account of our effects on the planet’s ability to sustain us.

The evidence is suggesting that the speed and scale of global warming is such that it so unprecedented as to require severe corrective action or suffer the consequeences.

The facetious argument about ice ages is so peurile as to be laughable.

It’s like not putting out a house on fire in alaska in july because it’s going to be freezing in December.

As sharper and others point out there is an inconsistency between the supposed championing of rationality by Posters who refuse to accept some or all of the climate change problem as a real issue and their actual willingness to engage in debate based on rationality and science.


Its is not. Global warming may take a hundred years but an ice age can come on in a decade or two.
The little ice age came on in an estimated 10 years. This caused famine in Europe. … q=&f=false

Grain was grown in Greenland and Iceland over a thousand years ago … ge&f=false … 56,00.html
Greenland today

Now to start off the world aint that hot. We still arent where we were when the Romans could grow grapes in Southern England. Iceland and Greenland are improving (or deteriorating depending on your viewpoint). Greenland holds alot of potential farmland. Now we do need to get a handle on pollution and our impact on the environment but we are no doubt safer a few degrees warmer than we are now. A drop of a degree would really impact us hard as it did in 1315. Even worse now as our population density is much higher.

It has snowed in Ireland before in June. All it takes is a long cold winter with snowfall to linger. The albedo effect of the snow will decrease the effects of the sun and it becomes a feedback loop. Again I want to emphasise its currently not that hot/warm when there is permanent snow in places like Scotland:

Its not unusual to get frosts any month except in July and August here in Ireland.

Be pragmatic, we can deal with rising sea levels:
The Dutch reclaimed land from the sea with a project that began in 1918.

We can desalinate seawater and we can irrigate. Look at arizona:

Tundra in Russia, Canada, Scandanavia will become better farmland.

So whats better…letting the Earth warm up a few degrees or letting it drop even 1 degree?
Its this “runaway global warming” that has me intrigued. Or “climate change” where the result of pollution = global cooling! Now they sound like trouble :smiley: