Top Japanese scientists disagree with Global Warming

I'm really getting tired of reading your 8 word nicknames, especially because they all have the word leftist in there somewhere. You can make your point without trying to degrade the other side of the fence, because that's exactly the attitude we DON'T need in this country.


You say mankind couldn't change the climate on purpose.... Prove it. Show me that, as mankind's general population has increased, the AVERAGE temperature of the earth has stayed the same.
 
Natural cycles, man, is my point
Click to expand...

Perhaps if we used them instead of driving cars we wouldn't have this problem.

Crap jokes apart, does the CO2 graph look anything like a natural cycle? What suddenly happened around 1oo years ago that didn't happen for the past 10000 at least?

GHG.gif


It's like one of those questions you get on the crappy game shows

  • Is It the sun suddenly warming after 10000 years of calm
  • Are Volcanoes suddenly erupting after 10000 years of calm
  • Or has some creature infested the planet with machines burning enough fossil fuel in the last 100 years that took 100 million to produce?
Difficult one eh?
 
Last edited:
perseus said:
Scientists rarely talk in certainties, only probabilities. Richard Dawkins says that his belief in God isn't exactly zero, just on par with there being fairies at the bottom of the garden! Except for perhaps Mathematical truths we are uncertain of everything.


It's just for the sake of practicality when you have a probabilty of say 99% as in the case of AGW one has to weigh the pros and cons of doing something and nothing.

If there was a 1-10% chance then it would be like an insurance policy for civilisation, but is is more like 90-99%, a no-brainer?

Incidentally looking back at the first CO2 graph over the 10000 year scale, and considering that the sudden surge is only covers the last 100 years, what would you say is the probability that this may have something to do with industrialisation, even if we know this can potentially happen naturally over geological timescales?
Click to expand...


Indeed however surely you have to concede that the refusal to say that this will happen is being used against it, when you go in to buy a "used car" or "insurance" nothing puts you on edge faster than the guy selling you the item not giving you definitive answers and global warming is just another example.
On one side you have "projected data indicates, likely causes, potential consequences" and on the other side you have "this is not going to happen" which sounds more certain to the layman?

As I was once told when I started work, "it doesn't matter how right you are if you can't communicate to your audience you will fail".
 
Monty

It's a big problem because the layman doesn't understand probabilities. Just it is, or it isn't.

This whole 'debate' is like having a prosecution (the skeptic) and someone who is fair and unbiased (the scientist) what does this mean? The whole trial is going to be biased in favour of the prosecution! So scientists are tempted to become a little less unbiased to even things out a bit, at least for the media, but this isn't good science.



Worse still, the skeptics are led by professional marketing types who are streetwise about human psychology
  • they know how to weave a conspiracy tale,
  • they know the consumer wants to spend without a bad conscience,
  • hell surely a bit of common sense is better than physics, statistics and equations so manipulate graphs and figures for the mathematically illiterate,
  • they know the public don't trust politicians hence spin it as a tax con
In short even though they barely have an element of evidence between them the fossil fuel industry and right wing groups with their public relations people can run rings around scientists.

There's heaps of information on their techniques here's just a bit

http://www.ucsusa.org/ssi/archive/climate-misinformation.html
 
Last edited:
Speaking from a laymans view here's what I think:

1. Mankind has had a significant impact on the planet, we've used its resources for our benefit, but we've not repleniched the resources, sooner or later we are going to be overdrawn in the resource bank.

2. Nature changes and moves through cycles - are the current patterns an anomaly or part of a cycle - I don't know, but I don't like it. So it feels like we're doing something to affect the situation.

3. I'm sick and tired of special interest groups with lots of money being in charge of supposedly "my" government! I want a voice, obviously therre is 1 every 4 years, but how often do these special interest groups in London & Washington get vote with their daily access to the peoples representatives?

In summary, I don't like where we're heading. I think that with a kick up the arse we could actually make better use of what we've got, but that will cost money. Where does that come from - potentially the people / groups that will lose out, as well as us the taxpayer. But since we're already paying subsidies so that the energy companies can report record profits, I'm in favour of making them work harder, so that my kids don't have to!
 
The truth is that we're all just whistling in the wind.

The eggheads, for all their expensive studies and equipment still can't even agree among themselves after how many years, because generally they are serving too many masters and all have their own personal agendas as do the "greens". Even those that agree that it is man made, argue over their pet reasons as to how it all comes about.

Because there is no proof, they all dig up selective information and try to use it to scare the PDP into jumping one way or the other realising that public support will get them more research grants, and that's mainly what it's all about,... money.

If there were even a slight chance that all of this was man made I'm sure that even the PDP could see it, let alone the eggheads. There wouldn't be any debate.
 
Partisan said:
Speaking from a laymans view here's what I think:

1. Mankind has had a significant impact on the planet, we've used its resources for our benefit, but we've not repleniched the resources, sooner or later we are going to be overdrawn in the resource bank.

2. Nature changes and moves through cycles - are the current patterns an anomaly or part of a cycle - I don't know, but I don't like it. So it feels like we're doing something to affect the situation.

3. I'm sick and tired of special interest groups with lots of money being in charge of supposedly "my" government! I want a voice, obviously therre is 1 every 4 years, but how often do these special interest groups in London & Washington get vote with their daily access to the peoples representatives?

In summary, I don't like where we're heading. I think that with a kick up the arse we could actually make better use of what we've got, but that will cost money. Where does that come from - potentially the people / groups that will lose out, as well as us the taxpayer. But since we're already paying subsidies so that the energy companies can report record profits, I'm in favour of making them work harder, so that my kids don't have to!
Click to expand...


This is all nifty but until the water is lapping at their door and people cant go outside without SPF100000000000 nothing is going to be done and even then it will be the usual lamenting cry "no one told me".

As far as your points go I agree completely but I have decided on a new course of action, I intend to do nothing as by the time this all kicks in and becomes so noticeable as to be irrefutable I will be 6 foot under ground (or water) so let the next generation sort it out or grow gills either way I don't care.
 
senojekips said:
The eggheads, for all their expensive studies and equipment still can't even agree among themselves after how many years, because generally they are serving too many masters and all have their own personal agendas as do the "greens". Even those that agree that it is man made, argue over their pet reasons as to how it all comes about.
Click to expand...

This just isn't true, it is a myth spun by the sceptical fossil fuel industry and their right wing associates.

With the release of the revised statement by the American Association of Petroleum Geologists in 2007, no remaining scientific body of national or international standing is known to reject the basic findings of human influence on recent climate change

96.2% of climatologists who are active in climate research believe that mean global temperatures have risen compared to pre-1800s levels, and 97.4% believe that human activity is a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures.
Click to expand...

Needless to say of the millions of working and x scientists, the sceptics are able to find plenty of non-specialists and retired types willing to sign a piece of paper, making it look like there is mass disagreement, but on further examination even this includes bogus references, including the dead and non-existent.
 
Last edited:
perseus said:
This just isn't true, it is a myth spun by the sceptical fossil fuel industry and their right wing associates.
Click to expand...
This just isn't true, it is a myth spun by the under employed "would be if could be" scientific community in search of another cash cow, and their left wing associates.

Check mate!!


You were saying???

I see another myth was dispelled the other day,... so much for our disappearing ice caps: http://www.ecoworld.com/blog/2009/04/30/antarctic-ice-increasing/

When are you scare mongers going to give up?
 
Last edited:
The politicians lean heavily on the IPCC to dilute their findings because they certainly don't want to spend anything. The IPCC are very nervous about saying anything sensational, hence the language is always toned down.

There is far more money in exploiting coal, gas, oil and oil shales than environmental research. In fact just about encouraging the greater use of anything has money in it. How much money is there in encouraging people to use less? If there were any credible evidence against AGW no doubt many scientists would be earning far more working for the likes of Exxon.

However even Exxon have thrown in the towel, so all we are now left with are individual Cranks.

The boss of ExxonMobil, the world's largest oil company, has called for a carbon tax to tackle global warming, marking a volte-face by the firm once described by Greenpeace as Climate Criminal No 1.
Click to expand...

The oil giant ExxonMobil has admitted that its support for lobby groups that question the science of climate change may have hindered action to tackle global warming. In its corporate citizenship report, released last week, ExxonMobil says it intends to cut funds to several groups that "divert attention" from the need to find new sources of clean energy.
Click to expand...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/may/28/climatechange.fossilfuels

How much more do you wan't, it's the equivalent of Bin Laden denouncing Islam in favour of "Good Christian American Values"!
 
Last edited:
Good on you Perseus! You have argued the case very well. The overwhelming scientific view (IPCC) is that the rapid climate change we are measuring over the past century (and continuing into the future) is most likely happening due to human activity.

Skeptics (and their are plenty on this forum) better look at the link below. Why do so many comments reflect "a chip on the shoulder" mentality about university educated people and research experts on climate change. Is it due to their inadequate education? If you can't have faith in your scientific community then who do you believe, the neo-conservative shock jocks in the media???

http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

Check out some of the above. It's not easy but some of you skeptics better try a little harder!

Senojekips, please look at the following on Antartica.

http://news.mongabay.com/2009/0423-hance_antarcticice.html

More on the Antarctic! It's warming!!!

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/01/state-of-antarctica-red-or-blue/
 
Last edited:
errol said:
Skeptics (and their are plenty on this forum) better look at the link below. Why do so many comments reflect "a chip on the shoulder" mentality about university educated people and research experts on climate change. Is it due to their inadequate education? If you can't have faith in your scientific community then who do you believe, the neo-conservative shock jocks in the media???
Click to expand...
Nothing to do with a chip on the shoulder mentality, it's more to do with having worked with some of these clowns. After a short while it becomes very apparent that a great many of them have feet of clay, and very large egos to support. I have worked with men who could do logrithmic calculations in their head, but couldn't scratch their own @rse without external advice. I am also aware of the "publish or perish" mentallity in academic circles, how many less than mediocre "scientists" retain their positions on the basis of papers they have published, often highly controversial and completely without merit.

No,... you believe your eyes and ears, and when the available reports don't match up with what you see evidence of, or, if you can find other reports that dispute it, you put it down to personal opinion.
 
It seems that some sections of academia are trying as hard as they can to make it a sin to make your own observations and form your own opinions of all the material available and weigh it up against what you see personally. They want blind obedience to their dogma.

The most obvious give away is the old con man's ruse of, "Hurry, hurry, you must make up your mind immediately, tomorrow it will be too late". This great bargain will not be available tomorrow,... Ring now!!! They suck 'em in every time. Next they will be offering a free set of steak knives to every convert.

Naaahhh,... 'fraid not. I'll leave it to those more emotive souls to do the hand wringing, weeping and wailing.
 
Last edited:
senojekips said:
It seems that some sections of academia are trying as hard as they can to make it a sin to make your own observations and form your own opinions of all the material available and weigh it up against what you see personally. They want blind obedience to their dogma.

The most obvious give away is the old con man's ruse of, "Hurry, hurry, you must make up your mind immediately, tomorrow it will be too late". This great bargain will not be available tomorrow,... Ring now!!! They suck 'em in every time. Next they will be offering a free set of steak knives to every convert.

Naaahhh,... 'fraid not. I'll leave it to those more emotive souls to do the hand wringing, weeping and wailing.
Click to expand...


Not really senojekips they are just attempting to steer you away from clever PR types who blatantly fabricate evidence such as John Tomlinson for example

First, the Michigan Mauler has walked all over the competition for the prestigious Christopher Booker Prize, ....the world's most misguided comments on climate change....

His first column averaged one misleading statement for every 26 words. This one delivers one per 21 words. I intend to submit his second column to the Guinness Book of Records as the most inaccurate article ever published in a newspaper
Click to expand...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environme...r/30/climate-change-scepticism-climate-change
 
I don't feel that debating with zealots is a good use of my time and effort or an honest thing to do. I'm not trying to convince you of my case, and I'm not particularly interested in anything you can show me as I have seen it all before,... ad nauseam. I have stated my case and the reasons for my opinions being what they are. I'm one of those souls who likes to make his own mistakes, as generally I find they are far fewer and much less painful than those of others.

If you wish to sell the snake oil, go for your life, my own skills of observation and interpretation have kept me clear of this type of shyster for 60+ years, and it's not like I haven't seen a few. It's about as "Classic Snake oil as you can get.
 
By being human beings in this earth, we are natural sinners. We overuse, pollute and harm our very own mother (earth).
These sort of activities will lead to our own doom.
But by practicing environmentalism we can find salvation from our sins and be forgiven from our guilt as human beings.
 
the_13th_redneck said:
By being human beings in this earth, we are natural sinners. We overuse, pollute and harm our very own mother (earth).
These sort of activities will lead to our own doom.
But by practicing environmentalism we can find salvation from our sins and be forgiven from our guilt as human beings.
Click to expand...
I see where you're coming from, but I still don't agree.

Maybe because I don't think completely like that, but whatever.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top