PDA

View Full Version : NewScientist mag: Climate change: A guide for the perplexed



truthispower
07-30-2007, 06:37 PM
NewScientist magazine, a highly respected scientific weekly, published this article a couple months back.

It contains links (listed below) with information about common "misconceptions and myths" about climate change.


Climate change: A guide for the perplexed

* 17:00 16 May 2007
* NewScientist.com news service

snip

With so much at stake, it is right that climate science is subjected to the most intense scrutiny. What does not help is for the real issues to be muddied by discredited arguments or wild theories.

So for those who are not sure what to believe, here is our round-up of the 26 most common climate myths and misconceptions.

• Human CO2 emissions are too tiny to matter
• We can't do anything about climate change
• The 'hockey stick' graph has been proven wrong
• Chaotic systems are not predictable
• We can't trust computer models of climate
• They predicted global cooling in the 1970s
• It's been far warmer in the past, what's the big deal?
• It's too cold where I live - warming will be great
• Global warming is down to the Sun, not humans
• It’s all down to cosmic rays
• CO2 isn't the most important greenhouse gas
• The lower atmosphere is cooling, not warming
• Antarctica is getting cooler, not warmer, disproving global warming
• The oceans are cooling
• The cooling after 1940 shows CO2 does not cause warming
• It was warmer during the Medieval period, with vineyards in England
• We are simply recovering from the Little Ice Age
• Warming will cause an ice age in Europe
• Ice cores show CO2 increases lag behind temperature rises, disproving the link to global warming
• Ice cores show CO2 rising as temperatures fell
• Mars and Pluto are warming too
• Many leading scientists question climate change
• It's all a conspiracy
• Hurricane Katrina was caused by global warming
• Higher CO2 levels will boost plant growth and food production
• Polar bear numbers are increasing
http://environment.newscientist.com/article/dn11462

large
07-31-2007, 08:38 AM
Is this SPAM?

Loren Swelk
07-31-2007, 09:29 AM
Of course it is spam. It seems the Forum has been inundated with single interest spammers and flamers this last month. Just look at who has joined in June and July of 2007 and their history of posts.

large
07-31-2007, 11:29 AM
Hey, this is the "agenda" that I continue to speak of . . Couldn't hardly sell magazines unless you have a controversy, now could you . . ?

And the "Human Caused Global Warming" group doesn't need facts, they just need to argue that the human causes it . . The liberals never need facts, they just shout louder!

Look at their history . . Global Cooling, Over population, Nuclear War, Y2K, just to name a few . . But in each case, many people got rich, espousing their cause . . Books, Papers, TV . . They may have been wrong, but did they apologize and say "I was wrong" . . ? Nope, laughed all the way to the bank . . Pretty much the same as this clown will do . . After all, lots of Ignorant People believe this swill . . .

truthispower
07-31-2007, 11:32 AM
And the "Human Caused Global Warming" group doesn't need facts, they just need to argue that the human causes it . . The liberals never need facts, they just shout louder!

You honestly believe this is a "liberals" vs. Conservative/rightwing issue?

Or that there is no evidence supporting the conclusion that humans cause global warming?


Look at their history . . Global Cooling, Over population, Nuclear War, Y2K, just to name a few . .

What is it about those things you cite that reflects on the science of global warming today?

You seem upset about global warming, and your reaction is to attack people as liars and draw false comparisons.

Face reality, that's the measure of a man.

large
07-31-2007, 12:00 PM
I might be upset, but it isn't a natural change that would make me that way . . it's Liars like yourself who capitalize upon the ignorance of your fellow human being, creating fear to enlarge YOUR bank account . .

Again, those of us here understand that while the climate may change, we cannot be so egotistical as to believe we have great effect upon it . . and if we do, it's not because of any great amount of Carbon dioxide we generate . . nature generates far more than we on any given day . . and recompenses with photosynthetic oxygen releases from vegetation. The more CO2, the more vegetation, the more oxygen . . do your math . . and cease your sniveling until you do . .

I might mention, also, those aren't "False Comparisons" . . each author of the last predicted calamities had as much fact as You and your savior Al has, in some cases far more . . however, they, just like you, were proven wrong by not only scientific fact, but nature itself . .

Let me put it another way. When you can absolutely predict the local weather at a precise time in a precise location longer than 24 hours . . gimmee a call, I'll start respecting your predictions . .

Oh, one more thing . . Did you, ever, in all your learned knowledge, ever come to the conclusion, that, perhaps, because we have, all of a sudden acquired the ability to measure things precisely, things that we never understood and now understand less, of our complex systems than we did in, say, 1959, for lack of a better year . . ? E.G. Up to the time we found the Ozone Hole, we didn't know there was one, and currently, we still don't know if it's a natural occurrence, an anomaly, Human caused, perhaps, or what it's exact effect might be . . There's been over 100,000 papers written on this subject, and thousands of hours of research done . . it's still being debated by the scientific community 20 years later . .

Another cheap shot (because it's so easy) is this . . when you smart people start managing the forests wisely and quit having wildfires, etc . . Then you should get a chance at managing something a little more complex, like water resources, BUT NOT THE WEATHER!

Zen Curmudgeon
07-31-2007, 04:35 PM
The more CO2, the more vegetation, the more oxygen . . do your math . . and cease your sniveling until you do . ."Do your math". This from a guy who thought Washington, DC had a higher rate of death (http://www.koaa.com/community/listens/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=3475) by firearms than Baghdad.

ZC

large
07-31-2007, 05:03 PM
Sorry pal, I was reading the same wikkipedia you read and quote constantly . .

However if this is all you can offer, perhaps you should go set in the sun and wash bedpans . . You're a retired (and opinionated) nurse, not a weatherman . .

truthispower
07-31-2007, 06:14 PM
I might be upset, but it isn't a natural change that would make me that way . . it's Liars like yourself who capitalize upon the ignorance of your fellow human being, creating fear to enlarge YOUR bank account . .

I have no interest in enlarging my bank account. The information is provided as a reference, since I noticed there were some persons here unclear on the science of global warming.

You can attack me if you wish. It changes nothing.


Again, those of us here understand that while the climate may change, we cannot be so egotistical as to believe we have great effect upon it . . and if we do, it's not because of any great amount of Carbon dioxide we generate . . nature generates far more than we on any given day

It's hardly "egotistical" to accept that humans are affecting the climate. That is another attack on those who accept the science of global warming.
It's true that nature generates far more C02 than we do, but that doesn't change the fact that the C02 we generate is causing atmospheric C02 levels to increase year by year.

Perhaps you missed this graphic:
http://environment.newscientist.com/data/images/ns/cms/dn11638/dn11638-4_738.jpg

This information is available on the NewScientist magazine website link.
I believe it's in the "Human CO2 emissions are too tiny to matter" section.
You have been fooled by that particular myth, so you should read that section.


I might mention, also, those aren't "False Comparisons" . . each author of the last predicted calamities had as much fact as You and your savior Al has, in some cases far more . . however, they, just like you, were proven wrong by not only scientific fact, but nature itself . .

Actually they are false comparisons. Take the global cooling thing, for example. It's trotted out by the denial lobby to imply that scientists are climate flip-floppers. The reality is there was really no widespread peer-reviewed research or agreement or solid science to support the idea of global cooling happening. The fuss was created more by a couple of non-scientific media articles than anything else. Scientists were actually saying at the time that they couldn't predict anything one way or the other. You should be aware of this.
For what reason would you insist on making these false comparisons? For denial purposes?
And Al Gore is not my savior. Al Gore didn't come up with the idea of Global Warming. Why even bring the man into our exchange?
You are having an irrational partisan reaction to the whole topic it appears.

large
08-01-2007, 08:42 AM
The fuss was created more by a couple of non-scientific media articles than anything else. Scientists were actually saying at the time that they couldn't predict anything one way or the other.

And here we are again . . Human History, quite like geophysical history, repeats itself . . Every decade has their "Panic" generated by a PT Barnum or a group who will benefit from whatever scenario they can generate to frighten the masses and get them to buy whatever that group is selling . . and You're selling the idea that we need to quit breathing . . great!

As Mike Mason says, the earth has been warmer, and it has been cooler, many times throughout history. And because man wasn't there, we can exclude him from the picture, and we can only speculate what caused these radical changes in climate . . while we do contribute CO2, as has been postulated, nature contributes far more . . and as far as particulate generation, it's down considerable . . why? No large volcanic eruptions contributing ash to the upper atmospheric layers . . Atmospheric Scientists believe that in itself may be partially the reason for increased temperatures due to less "Planetary Dimming" from naturally occurring particulates.

Also, as a potential indicator that the temperature increases postulated by many scientists could be outworldly, in the last decade, the planet Mars has been undergoing a warming trend with observed polar ice area shrinkage and signs of water erosion in it's equatorial areas . . Sooo, my less than scientific friend, perhaps there's far more to this than man is capable of imagining (or measuring, currently) . . "Spose?

The fact that the planet's climates may be changing is not my argument . . The cause is . . The "Human caused Global Warming" crowd has agendas but no viable solutions . . nothing that doesn't require sacrifice and investment by the masses . . This is another grand scheme to enrich the "Chicken Littles" and to place power in the hands of a corporate few . . but no really viable answers . .

When you limit the USA's economy by restriction of energy output, but do nothing to slow the growth and globalization of Eastern Asia, you are doing no more than reshuffling the deck, and making half the world exempt from the rules . . In the name of "Saving the Planet" . .

And natural climate change will continue, ignoring man's folly and superego . .

truthispower
08-01-2007, 04:13 PM
Large, there's no question about it anymore.

We're causing global warming. Your hysterical insults are entertaining, and maybe you think you're scoring points against "liberals", who naturally are the only ones making noise about global warming, right?

Rely on science...unbiased and peer-reviewed science. That's all I can tell you.

large
08-01-2007, 04:38 PM
Perhaps the hot air you Chicken Littles exude add to a subtle temperature rise, but there's nothing remotely hysterical about my views . . I tolerate the handicapped and the slow . . it's the idiots that are harder to put up with . .

Anyone who dismisses a couple of billion years of geophysical history, and can believe for even a second, that man has caused, and can change the weather patterns on this planet is loonier than Owlsh*t . .

Go stop a forest fire first . . or fix a flood . . Man causes most of them . . with his know it all "Management" . . prove to me YOU can make a difference before you attempt to con me into buying your P.T. Barnum bullsh*t!

truthispower
08-01-2007, 06:10 PM
Ok large, whatever.

I'm just pointing out that it's not those who produce or accept the current global warming science who are being hysterical, it's the folks attacking them who are.

Look at yourself, for example. Read your last post.
Who's dismissing "a couple billion years of geophisical history"?
I need to "go stop a forest fire" or "fix a flood" to prove...what?

Al Gore is the devil and liberals have invented global warming.

You're irrational and hysterical. I'm sorry, but what can I say?

large
08-01-2007, 06:33 PM
One, I'm never upst, hysterical (unless I'm laughing at one of you) or even mildly disturbed . . I do this for sport . . and I don't sit and study Wikkipedia for answers . . Nor do I sit and nitpick spelling, grammar or math . .

But as I said I have a low tolerance for Idiots . or liars . . here allow me to elaborate on one of yours:


I have no interest in enlarging my bank account.

Which of the above are you?

And may I ask? Do you feel safer over here trying to pick on me? No matter where you want to confront me, you need to bring a full clip to the battle of wits . . I'd say you are down to blanks . . y'want to go play with Mason? He's no easier . . and your "fact machine" is broken . .

Stopping a forest fire or a flood is something you'd better be able to do before you begin to tinker with global weather . . as I said, You liberal Chicken Littles have shown the rest of the world what geniuses you are in the field of Forest Management, River and Flood Control Management, just to name a couple, and now you want to dick with the weather . . heh, heh . . good luck pal, Uh, . . can we blame you for the results?

truthispower
08-07-2007, 07:10 PM
And may I ask? Do you feel safer over here trying to pick on me?

I have hardly picked on you. You are the one doing most of the insulting and attacking. That's a typical tactic of the denial lobby: attack, and then complain that they're the ones being "silenced" and otherwise victimized.

Let's just forget the you and me in this.

The topic contains information about global warming.

The topic link provides answers to 20+ most common myths and deceits propagated by the global warming denial lobby.
(link: http://environment.newscientist.com/article/dn11462 )

If you wish to address the topic I will be happy to engage any respectful comments/questions.

regards.