Ipcc Says Global Warming

I think it means demeaning bad ideas. If I could completely detach the bad ideas from the person I would. These are contagious memes. It's malicious software operating on your hardware. It's easy to contract these bad ideas. There's a herd mentality that reinforces the veracity of one's convictions. Most of the people you talk to will reaffirm your presumptions on race egalitarianism and global warming and the benign nature of Islam.

As TV became more and more dominant and media is owned by fewer and fewer people, the narrative on these various issues was more easily controlled. For about 50 years we were all members of the congregation of the church of TV. We learned that there were things you talked about in a box, and things you didn't outside the box. Outside the box are things like manipulation of global warming data, the Federal Reserve, Race, malignant strains of Islam, the Talmud, AIPAC, US Imperialism, and the bought nature of politicians.

I'm attacking people's attachment to these ideas. Their tendency to parrot the convictions of their neighbors without ever truly seeking the evidence.

 

Is anyone willing to answer these questions? They're fairly straightforward.

How much have we warmed since 2000? What have the past 15 years looked like?

If temperatures stay stagnant going forward, if they're approximately the same in 2020, and 2030. If there's no increase after 500ppm and 600ppm, what should happen then?

 

hey whats up, i wanted to get in on this debate you guys are having.

so from what i read, it seems you dont believe that co2 rising effects the global climate, but the other way around? ive seen some graphs in the past that illustrate this the way your explaining because the temperature seems to lead the CO2 data.

having said that, there are a few experiments that do prove CO2 does have a greenhouse effect and creates warmer temperatures:

check out this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pPRd5GT0v0I

and

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bX4eOg2LaSY


weather or not co2 is to blame for climate change, i do think we need to regulate how much "pollution" is put out by countries. weather or not we should consider co2 pollution is a matter for scientists, but i think regulating chemicals that are put out by other countries can go a long way to minimizing the damage we do to our environment.

there is an argument that the united states has been burning fossil fuels for so long and now that we are a developed country we can afford other forms of cleaner energy, but developing countries never had that opportunity.

 

The problem I have with this whole debate is how the counter opinion has been assigned a name, "deniers". I admit some indeed deny it all, sure. But the bulk of the people being called deniers are really just "Disagree-ers" which is very different from denial.

If we are to properly vet this issue, all sides have to be considered. None can be dismissed out of hand. And the childish name assignments have to go away.

 

i have some disagreements about co2 being the main or only cause of global warming, but i still think its a good idea to regulate anything we put into the atmosphere.

 

All of the ten warmest years on record have occurred since 1998.

 

cite your source, please.

 

You don't seem to understand what denialism is, and you probably didn't read the link I posted.

Here it is again:

http://eurpub.oxfordjournals.org/content/19/1/2.full?ijkey=d3addb6f9b7f1b98c8221bf9b46bd1c3faad0ac6&keytype2=tf_ipsecsha

There are 5 key attributes to denialism:

1. Identification of conspiracies (such as the new world order/tax conspiracy).
2. The use of fake experts (such as the weatherman with no science background in the OP).
3. Selectivity, drawing on isolated papers that challenge the dominant consensus or highlighting the flaws in the weakest papers among those that support it as a means of discrediting the entire field. (ignoring that the models are more effective with long-term predictions than short term.)
4. Creation of impossible expectations of what science can deliver (why didn't the models predict the slowdown? All science is useless!).
5. Misrepresentation and logical fallacies (stop calling these people names, you're being childish, everyone's opinion is equally good).

So no, not all sides have to be considered, because not all theories are equal, not all studies are equal and despite what the oil industry has paid Marc Morano and friends to say, AGW isn't really a theory that is up for debate any more than the theory of gravity or the theory of evolution.

You're falling for the old 'teach the controversy' strategy, famously used by the religious right in an attempt to get creationism taught side by side with evolution in science class. These theories are not scientific equals, and do not deserve equal consideration. It's the same with AGW vs. 'the warming is caused by anything but CO2', AGW vs. 'it's cooling', etc.

In this discussion, you have on the one hand the strongest, best, most logical and most repeatedly observed explanation for a warming trend that has also been observed over and over, and on the other hand you have junk science that is meant to confuse, distract, undermine and otherwise sow doubt in the minds of the general public.

People who believe the former aren't necessarily smarter or more educated than people who believe the latter, but they DO have the majority of mainstream scientists supporting their beliefs. The latter have the oil industry, right-wing politics, and a handful of contrarians and shills supporting their beliefs.

Denier is the proper term.

 

It's pretty common knowledge:

http://climate.nasa.gov/blog/2224
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2013/13
http://time.com/3656646/2014-hottest-year/
http://phys.org/news/2015-01-record-breaking-hottest-modern-history-noaa.html

 

Conspiracies are bullshit. Anyone who speaks too openly and too vociferously about them should be ostricized, and if necessary, eliminated.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4JnQiE4q4Lg

"For we are opposed around the world by a monolithic, and ruthless conspiracy, that relies primarily on covet means for expanding its sphere of influence........It is a system which has conscripted vast human and material resources into the building of a tightly knit, highly efficient machine that combines military, diplomatic, intelligence, economic, scientific, and political operations."

 

Here's an interesting article written by Richard Muller:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/30/opinion/the-conversion-of-a-climate-change-skeptic.html?pagewanted=all

 

No, conspiracies exist.

The tobacco industry conspired to hide the negative effects of smoking for decades (the people who helped them with their PR now deny climate change).

But the one that you're describing is so insanely improbable that the odds of it actually being real are probably astronomical.

 

i dont think anyone here disagrees that a climate change exists, because, well thats what the climate does, it changes.


the real question is, is this current fluctuation normal? and is something different causing this fluctuation (like human activity).


i think the current fluctuation is still in a normal range, and that opinion just comes from all the graphs ive ever seen (long term over thousands of years).


so i think by your definition i might be a denier. all data shows that co2 trends follow temperature not the other way around. but i still think that human activity and putting more co2 in the atmosphere can cause a warming effect, but i just dont think it is the biggest factor in climate change.


in my opinion the biggest factors are the earths shifting axis, and activity of the sun. unfortunately those factors seem to be out of our hands for now.

 

You need to read the latest IPCC report. You will change your mind, I hope.

 

I don't think you're a denier, you just need to read about the subject more.

Unless you're a climatologist yourself, it's mostly a question about who you want to believe and your reasons for believing them. ALL of the reputable publications clearly support AGW theory... denialism tends to be found only on places like youtube, private blogs, and right wing media.

The IPCC has clearly rejected the sun's role in climate change:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2015/02/23/no-the-sun-isnt-driving-global-warming/

Solar irradiance has been decreasing.

Of course the climate changes naturally-- no one is denying that it does.
But the current warming trend cannot be explained by anything except emissions.

 

I trust honest science. I don't believe for a second that the IPCC is honest, and all their predictions have been horribly inaccurate.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LOyBfihjQvI#t=31m36s



Wait, wait, wait, wait. You guys haven't seen one single convincing graph have you? You haven't looked into the reports yourself. You haven't charted any changes or spotted any patterns in data form. The entire basis of your argument is "listen to the IPCC"

Make your predictions so that we might judge them against what actually happens. Here are mine.
As CO2 levels surpass 500ppm we will not see mean global temperature rise more than 1 degree centigrade compared to 2000 mean global temperature.
As CO2 levels surpass 600ppm we will still not see mean global temperature rise more than 1 degree centigrade compared to 2000 mean global temperature.
As CO2 levels surpass 700ppm we will still not see mean global temperature rise more than 1 degree centigrade compared to 2000 mean global temperature.
As CO2 levels surpass 800ppm we will still not see mean global temperature rise more than 1 degree centigrade compared to 2000 mean global temperature.

 

it isn't.
As I mentioned prior, methane is probably the biggest "greenhouse gas" and bovine belches/farts are the largest source of methane on the planet thanks to domestication.
But let's not forget about some of the other splenderific human activity that needs to be thrown into this mix.
the deforestation of the rainforests around the world is probably the next biggest contributing factor to climate change after gas emissions.
Remember the rainforests are essentially the air filtration system for the planet, the rain forests die out, then CO2 levels increase and oxygen levels decrease.
The same phenomena holds true for marine algae and diatoms, they die off and it has a huge impact on the levels of dissolved oxygen/CO2 in the oceans, not to mention the domino effect that would have/has across the entire food chain.
plankton dies off, the planet dies off.

and lets also consider the probably billions of acres of land that has been converted from cool grass/vegetation to heat retaining asphalt, cement and concrete.

then we also should consider that our stockpiling water in dams and reservoirs has altered the rotational speed of the planet and also has had impact on local climate as as well.
you divert rivers and stockpile trillions of gallons of water in a place it wasn't before, you change the local climate.


so yeah, nerd, you and other go right ahead and continue to believe human activity has had no impact on the climate........
and remember, smoking two packs of cigarettes a day will give you the strength and stamina of a 17 year old and erections as hard as diamond.

 

Therefore, you post random youtube videos of some bald guy with glasses making videos in his living room.

Are you for real?

 

Corbett always sources his arguments and sticks to the evidence. He's actually an extremely reliable source of information. He doesn't jump to wild conclusions, but he calls out anyone who's dishonest or disingenuous. Prove him to be dishonest in any way and I'll bow to you.

It would also be great if you weren't so scared to make your predictions so that we might judge them against what actually happens. Here are mine.
As CO2 levels surpass 500ppm we will not see mean global temperature rise more than 1 degree centigrade compared to 2000 mean global temperature.
As CO2 levels surpass 600ppm we will still not see mean global temperature rise more than 1 degree centigrade compared to 2000 mean global temperature.
As CO2 levels surpass 700ppm we will still not see mean global temperature rise more than 1 degree centigrade compared to 2000 mean global temperature.
As CO2 levels surpass 800ppm we will still not see mean global temperature rise more than 1 degree centigrade compared to 2000 mean global temperature.

 

I already responded to this... I showed you a graph and said that it seemed legit.

Your predictions are utterly meaningless because I for one do not intend to be participating in this conversation when we hit 800 ppm some time around the year 2100, or even 600 ppm in the year 2030.

Chances are, I'll be dead and/or doing something much better than participating in this thread.

Maybe both at the same time.