PlayALLtheGames
Banned
What a fucktard.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Greenpeace co-founder: no scientific proof humans dominant cause of climate change
- Thread starter Zhengi
- Start date
- Status
XT Vengeance
Member
I'd love to see your arguments against nuclear energy.
Read a page or two back and your see them. Great "arguments".
Erm. The melting was the lowest ever recorded. There wasn't a high level of melting.
Didn't deny there wasn't any melting anyway.
Not all types of nuclear power. Thorium molten salt reactors are way safer.
That's the subject of the article, is it not? I'm asking for the researchers referenced in the quote you cited.
Oh. Not sure about that.
shakin_haitian
Banned
So what's your point then?
Well,,, it had been viewed that global warming was causing rapid melting in Antarctica, (at least west Antarctic, Pine islands), where as recent research claims that actually, no, it hadn't been caused by AGW. And in fact melting there has for the last few years been the lowest ever recorded.
My point is simply that, along with other things I mentioned, I wonder if effects caused by AGW aren't going to be quite as dramatic as some scenarios that have been reported through the years.
Well,,, it had been viewed that global warming was causing rapid melting in Antarctica, (at least west Antarctic, Pine islands), where as recent research claims that actually, no, it hadn't been caused by AGW. And in fact melting there has for the last few years been the lowest ever recorded.
My point is simply that, along with other things I mentioned, I wonder if effects caused by AGW aren't going to be quite as dramatic as some scenarios that have been reported through the years.
Global warming is causing melting in antarctica, just not of every piece of ice there. Land ice is losing mass and has been for quite awhile. It still has not been shown that climate scientists attributed melting at one particular location to global warming only to have it turn out to be other factors, as well as what this has to say about anything regarding global warming.
shakin_haitian
Banned
Well,,, it had been viewed that global warming was causing rapid melting in Antarctica, (at least west Antarctic, Pine islands), where as recent research claims that actually, no, it hadn't been caused by AGW. And in fact melting there has for the last few years been the lowest ever recorded.
My point is simply that, along with other things I mentioned, I wonder if effects caused by AGW aren't going to be quite as dramatic as some scenarios that have been reported through the years.
It is exceedingly difficult to predict specific consequences of specific regions in specific and narrow spans of time. Climate is general trends over large areas over many decades.
Journalists, specially non science journalists, tend to write in all or nothing type tones. The failure of a few predictions shouldn't preclude the entirety of the climate models.
https://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-models.htm
The location we're talking about is one that is stated to be the most effected. That being West Antarctica.
Well, I guess only time will tell...
Uncle Rupee
Banned
He's an ecologist, not a climatologist. And probably not a very good ecologist if he thinks global warming will be good for people. It doesn't take much more heat for droughts to affect crops and drinking water that could have disastrous effects on human populations, particularly those in the third world where resources are scarce to begin with. This wouldn't even be a story if not for his association with Greenpeace, which I'm guessing may be up for review shortly.
lol
What exactly am I saying?
I don't even know what your point is now. I will reiterate: What I am wondering, is not whether there has been warming over a specific period, I am wondering if the effects of AGW will be as great as some models seem to predict. Or how it has been sensationalised in the press.
shakin_haitian
Banned
Read the skeptical science link.
I read it. And I said, "I guess only time will tell". By that I mean the extent of it.
Nothing you have posted disproves anything about global warming. You posted something we found out about a glacier and are trotting it around like we should now be skeptical of global warming.Well,,, it had been viewed that global warming was causing rapid melting in Antarctica, (at least west Antarctic, Pine islands), where as recent research claims that actually, no, it hadn't been caused by AGW. And in fact melting there has for the last few years been the lowest ever recorded.
My point is simply that, along with other things I mentioned, I wonder if effects caused by AGW aren't going to be quite as dramatic as some scenarios that have been reported through the years.
If the Washington Times (that esteemed publication) is reporting it, then it's settled. Climate change is a myth! I'm gonna go spray all those cans of CFC laden aerosols that I've been saving up for the day that someone finally stuck it to those silly libs. Then I'll probably go shoot my gun and shout 'MURICA at the top of my lungs for a while.
(Sorry, GOP - no matter how desperately you don't want climate change to be real and man-made, it is. And yes, it will eventually cost you your poor, precious money to fix. Better to hand it over and fix it now than have it taken from you by force to help fix the problem later...)
(Sorry, GOP - no matter how desperately you don't want climate change to be real and man-made, it is. And yes, it will eventually cost you your poor, precious money to fix. Better to hand it over and fix it now than have it taken from you by force to help fix the problem later...)
Just read my posts.
HalfBakedProphet
Member
Guys, I saw a picture of Antarctica one time and there was still ice on it. Clearly, global warming is bullshit
I have
Guys! I don't actually know what the fuck he was saying because I didn't read his posts properly, but I'll just talk shit anyway.
Well, I guess you just have bad reading comprehension then.
Hardly although I am worried for you though if you think what you've posted is enough to think global warming won't be as bad as they say.
I am wondering if it will. And the reason I wonder isn't based simply on this, it is actually a continuation of things that have come out in recent times. People who have debated with me about this would know this, you obviously would not.
What I contest about your original post is that I was trying to 'disprove' global warming. I haven't argued that there hasn't been global warming within a specific time period. I say specific time period because clearly there has been both warming and cooling in the past.
Climate slowdown means extreme rates of warming 'not as likely'
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-22567023
Global warming pause 'central' to IPCC climate report
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-24173504
Global warming slowdown linked to cooler Pacific waters
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-23854904
I was wondering, just wondering, if we will see the kind of warming some have predicted, okay? It doesn't mean we won't. So you can kindly just fuck off,
HalfBakedProphet
Member
Any attempt to side step the science or taking a wait and see approach (which you clearly are) is just as bad as the out right deniers that want to stick their heads in the sand. You're on the wrong side of history.
Sensationalist press? We aren't making nearly as big of a deal about this as we should be. We're still burning our coal, driving our cars, drilling for our oil. Despite this over reactionary press you're referring to, we've done very little in the way of real change.
on nuclear power: waste is probably the biggest worry. something you have to store for 100,000 years really just kills the idea of using it in the long-term in a very proliferated manor. it's not such much where you put it, but how you make sure nobody gets to it after it's stored.
i saw a snippet of a documentary around drawing up safety procedures for disposing and storing nuclear waste, and there was a lot of back and forth over whether you would need to mark the site or not, and if people in 100,000 years or longer/less would even speak the same languages as us or use the same symbols. most interestingly was the idea of not putting a marker at all, to avoid drawing attention to the site, but how that still poses a risk of accidental drilling.
i saw a snippet of a documentary around drawing up safety procedures for disposing and storing nuclear waste, and there was a lot of back and forth over whether you would need to mark the site or not, and if people in 100,000 years or longer/less would even speak the same languages as us or use the same symbols. most interestingly was the idea of not putting a marker at all, to avoid drawing attention to the site, but how that still poses a risk of accidental drilling.
Battersea Power Station
Member
Yeah, that's what I'm saying. Man-made climate change is a theory, meaning we should accept it as present and do something about it. But it's not technically a fact. If scientists were to suddenly to call it a fact, it might negatively alter the path of future research.
How to abuse statistics and claim global warming slowed or stopped since 1998.
http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/comment.html?entrynum=2374
That should be right up your alley
So what? Nothing I say or do will ultimately effect the decisions of governments or climate panels on this.
I am just commenting on recent studies and wondering if it will be quite as dramatic as people have predicted. Or that we will see the temperature increases some models have predicted.
What about the Polar Bears? Surely we can't take them to the tropics with us.
Ironically, I posted an article from skeptical science about this in a previous thread,
See the links I posted? That's the BBC. It is not the Daily Mail.
Do you know what they were reporting? It was reportiing actual studies by climate scientists, Not some amateur climate denier.
This report here:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-24173504
This is about the IPCC discussing it. It was taken seriously enough for it to be properly discussed by the IPCC.
I hope your still holding back all these recent studies because I just posted why those three links you have have are inflammatory and mean nothing.
Did you even read what I linked?
I don't need to. This is the same thing skeptical science debunked, which ironically I posted in another thread.
What you're failing to see though, is that there has been a 'pause' or at least a 'slowdown'
As the IPCC refers to it. There is no body higher than the IPCC. So naturally I took it that there was a pause.
You realize that the IPCC addressed it because it's been misconstrued by people like you and climate deniers right?
Here us another article discussing the actual findings.
http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/comment.html?entrynum=2535
The pause is natural variability with the incredibly powerful El Niño of 1998 which skewed the data making some people misinterpret a pause
You're not reading the damn links or reading what I am saying.
Taken from the quote in my last post:
They were taking the 'pause' seriously. What this is trying to say is that there isn't really a pause it is skewed by the powerful El Nino in 1998. If that was the only reason they wouldn't still be trying to explain away the pause.
In fact I am being a bit disingenuous here because there was a more recent study trying to explain away the pause. They claimed it was due to the lack of data from certain regions.
Are you serious? I've read your links and you keep quoting stuff that has nothing to do with the IPCC. Those articles were written by a reporter and seem to have you confused. Meanwhile I posted information that actually discusses information that came out of the dam conference not just "what they were going to talk about". Yes they took the "pause" seriously because of climate change deniers and climate change skeptics like you. If you want to inform yourself be my guest. If you want to quote attention getting headlines then you can continue to live in denial.
From my links discussing this bump.
Punchy4486
Banned
I gained thirty pounds last year, but this year I only gained 5. I guess my eating habits had nothing to do with my weight gain.
travisbickle
Member
Is he talking about a time after the millions of people either die or are displaced by climate change?
Fnord
Member
Okay, I can't help but say that, just as every time some meteorologist or biologist comes out and says something about Global Warming (Climate Change) is "settled science," I have to also call BS on this dude, who is also not a climatologist. He's a public relations consultant, ffs.
SlipperySlope
Banned
I see somebody graduated from the college of "The Day after Tomorrow".
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/impacts-adaptation/international.html
Was this also in the movie? I don't remember.
shakin_haitian
Banned
Most of the world's population lives on coastal plains and is reliant on massive amounts of food grown in relatively smallish regions.
That is a cartogram of where crops are grown.
This is an image of projected rainfall patterns in the US. Notice any overlap?
The war for water will make WWII look like a couple of kids slap fighting if we don't do anything about ACC.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked