The new climate change scandal

[Guy Fawkes]

People can question all they want. You can deny all you want. So long as over 98% of earth scientists and climatologists believe I will go with them over a bunch of un-scientific oil-funded lobbyists any day.

More and more of the predictions are beginning to come more and more true.

Occams razor, try applying it.

Once upon a time scientists belived the Earth was flat, were any doubters at the time who questioned the scientists getting abuse like those who are unconvinced by Global warming / climate change are now, did it make those who didn't belive wrong if the vast majority thought it was flat. Science evolves and new ideas and theories come along, and old views are thrown out and replaced so why is the argument regarding Climate change (Global warming before that until it didn't hold up) so clear cut and beyond question and those who investigate from an anti-point of view having their arguments and work dismissed?

Couldn't it be a case of more money being made available to scientists in favor of the case for climate change and therefore you have more scientist believing or at least not publicly questioning?

In regards to our recent climate experiences, have the scientific models taken into account the fact that ice was retreating a couple of hundred years ago when a large reservior of frozen ice was released from behind a natural dam in North America which dramatically affected the gulf stream and caused a mini ice age (hence the frozen Thames in Victorian times) and that the rapid changes could be the climate catching up to where it would have been naturally if that event hadn't happened? (event is mentioned in Al Gores An inconvenient truth)

Do the models used also factor in the changees in the Earths orbit as it passes through space or is it taken as being constant and unchanged each year (our orbit isn't regular, there are multiple changes in pitch, distance from the sun ect which cause natural events such as ice ages and periods with no ice at the poles such as in Viking times)

Also there have been numerous examples of figures being manipulated to fit what scientists what to back their argument for climate change when their dat a doesn't fit their model, this doesn't add to the credibility of those trying to convince people and adds more doubt about the whole issue, why not admit that their model failed?

Where is the proof it is completely man made as they are trying to make you belive and not natural? Why has the term Global Warming been abandoned and Climate Change now being used if more and more predictions are coming true? maybe because the models said that the temperature would have risen but actually dropped? were those questioning / denying global warming right after all?

 

[Curious Orange]

Once upon a time scientists belived the Earth was flat, were any doubters at the time who questioned the scientists getting abuse like those who are unconvinced by Global warming / climate change are now, did it make those who didn't belive wrong if the vast majority thought it was flat. Science evolves and new ideas and theories come along, and old views are thrown out and replaced so why is the argument regarding Climate change (Global warming before that until it didn't hold up) so clear cut and beyond question and those who investigate from an anti-point of view having their arguments and work dismissed?

Couldn't it be a case of more money being made available to scientists in favor of the case for climate change and therefore you have more scientist believing or at least not publicly questioning?

In regards to our recent climate experiences, have the scientific models taken into account the fact that ice was retreating a couple of hundred years ago when a large reservior of frozen ice was released from behind a natural dam in North America which dramatically affected the gulf stream and caused a mini ice age (hence the frozen Thames in Victorian times) and that the rapid changes could be the climate catching up to where it would have been naturally if that event hadn't happened? (event is mentioned in Al Gores An inconvenient truth)

Do the models used also factor in the changees in the Earths orbit as it passes through space or is it taken as being constant and unchanged each year (our orbit isn't regular, there are multiple changes in pitch, distance from the sun ect which cause natural events such as ice ages and periods with no ice at the poles such as in Viking times)

Also there have been numerous examples of figures being manipulated to fit what scientists what to back their argument for climate change when their dat a doesn't fit their model, this doesn't add to the credibility of those trying to convince people and adds more doubt about the whole issue, why not admit that their model failed?

Where is the proof it is completely man made as they are trying to make you belive and not natural? Why has the term Global Warming been abandoned and Climate Change now being used if more and more predictions are coming true? maybe because the models said that the temperature would have risen but actually dropped? were those questioning / denying global warming right after all?

Very well put, real science is about questioning, hypophesising, testing and proving. There is no need for the rather silly them and us attitudes that surround climate science.

The fact that the climate changes is undisputed, the fossil record proves it as has already been pointed out. What is still an unproved hypothesis is the extent to which man affects the change.

The two sides of the argument should stop being so closed-minded and start doing properly testable science.

 

[drew]

I didn't think climate change was actually disputed only whether it has un-naturally been accelerated by the activities of man. May be global warming is inevitable but if there is something we can do to minimise it's effects, including reducing greenhouse gases etc then so be it.

World food prices are on the up, the Amazon has had a 'once in a century' drought twice in the last 5 years. There are arguments that the amazon during that period produced more greenhouse gases than it absorbed.

Who do I believe, I'm not entirely sure. But am I likley to believe the oil companies and the governments sponsored by them, almost certainly not. Remember, once upon a time the tobacco companies, who had a vested interest, suggested that smoking was not harmful and they funded the rather aptly named FOREST to lobby that argument. Is there anyone who doesn't believe smoking is harmful!!!

 

[readingstockport]

Once upon a time scientists belived the Earth was flat, were any doubters at the time who questioned the scientists getting abuse like those who are unconvinced by Global warming / climate change are now, did it make those who didn't belive wrong if the vast majority thought it was flat. Science evolves and new ideas and theories come along, and old views are thrown out and replaced so why is the argument regarding Climate change (Global warming before that until it didn't hold up) so clear cut and beyond question and those who investigate from an anti-point of view having their arguments and work dismissed?

Couldn't it be a case of more money being made available to scientists in favor of the case for climate change and therefore you have more scientist believing or at least not publicly questioning?

In regards to our recent climate experiences, have the scientific models taken into account the fact that ice was retreating a couple of hundred years ago when a large reservior of frozen ice was released from behind a natural dam in North America which dramatically affected the gulf stream and caused a mini ice age (hence the frozen Thames in Victorian times) and that the rapid changes could be the climate catching up to where it would have been naturally if that event hadn't happened? (event is mentioned in Al Gores An inconvenient truth)

Do the models used also factor in the changees in the Earths orbit as it passes through space or is it taken as being constant and unchanged each year (our orbit isn't regular, there are multiple changes in pitch, distance from the sun ect which cause natural events such as ice ages and periods with no ice at the poles such as in Viking times)

Also there have been numerous examples of figures being manipulated to fit what scientists what to back their argument for climate change when their dat a doesn't fit their model, this doesn't add to the credibility of those trying to convince people and adds more doubt about the whole issue, why not admit that their model failed?

Where is the proof it is completely man made as they are trying to make you belive and not natural? Why has the term Global Warming been abandoned and Climate Change now being used if more and more predictions are coming true? maybe because the models said that the temperature would have risen but actually dropped? were those questioning / denying global warming right after all?

What absolute f***ing bollocks. That could be spoken only by someone who has no understanding at all of science or the scientific method.

Once upon a time a bunch of morons who believed a book of fairy tales believed the world was flat. That same bunch of f***ing morons believed the sun revolved around the earth and tortured Gallileo until he recanted his heresy that it didn't. Unfortunately for the f***ing morons they were wrong and Gallileo was right.

He used science. They used blind faith and belief in a bunch of f***ing fairy tales written by goat herders as if they were in some way divinely inspired.

It is no coincidence that many of the most prominent climate change deniers are also those who believe in a 2000 year old book of fairy tales that says their imaginary friend will never again destroy the planet.

And if you could be arsed to check things you would know damn well that global warming was a tabloid term, coined by the usual press 'organisations'. The VAST majority, 98%+, of scientists, those who have studied the evidence, have never used that phrase and have always refered to climate change not the simplistic 'global wamring'.

 

[Acker79]

"It must first be reiterated that with extraordinary few exceptions no educated person in the history of Western Civilization from the third century B.C. onward believed that the earth was flat." - http://www.veritas-ucsb.org/library/russell/FlatEarth.html


More
Myth of the Flat Earth - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

Its down to natural cycles, imo,

Fair enough, can you expand on this though. What science are you basing this on?