Peak Oil & Climate Change (merged)

[dorlomin]

1. Your childish (and churlish) ad hominem attacks only betray your lack of substantive rebuttal;

2. The onus is on those who claim a theory to prove it, not the other way around. Anthropogenic Global Warming theory has not been proven. Just because you take it as an article of faith does not mean the rest of us must subscribe to it;

3. I know a thing or two about AGW. I used to believe it myself, until a few years ago, when I started to dig a bit deeper. I encourage you to do likewise. Look at what Allegre et al have to say on topic, then we may have an intelligent debate.

The AGW movement is motivated and informed by politics, not science. Science has gone out the window, unfortunately.

Nice, no facts all opinion.

When you post some facts for us to look at then we can see who has science on there side. But until then do carry on.

Oh have you looked at the arctic recently...... seems someone forgot to tell the ice its not getting warmer.

[Valdemar]

1. Your childish (and churlish) ad hominem attacks only betray your lack of substantive rebuttal;

2. The onus is on those who claim a theory to prove it, not the other way around. Anthropogenic Global Warming theory has not been proven. Just because you take it as an article of faith does not mean the rest of us must subscribe to it;

3. I know a thing or two about AGW. I used to believe it myself, until a few years ago, when I started to dig a bit deeper. I encourage you to do likewise. Look at what Allegre et al have to say on topic, then we may have an intelligent debate.

The AGW movement is motivated and informed by politics, not science. Science has gone out the window, unfortunately.

Hmm, I was expecting a rebuttal to the IPCC and related organisations' reports. I guess you'd rather not deal with that, since you're proving more adept at dodging the issue and making unbacked assertions.

Let me know when you have substance. Until then, you're a party clown without a stage here. You get extra points, though, for the hilarious "I used to be like you, but I saw the light!" comment. It's as old and unimpressive as the false Darwin renouncing his theory at death story.

[NoWorries]

1. Your childish (and churlish) ad hominem attacks only betray your lack of substantive rebuttal;

2. The onus is on those who claim a theory to prove it, not the other way around. Anthropogenic Global Warming theory has not been proven. Just because you take it as an article of faith does not mean the rest of us must subscribe to it;

3. I know a thing or two about AGW. I used to believe it myself, until a few years ago, when I started to dig a bit deeper. I encourage you to do likewise. Look at what Allegre et al have to say on topic, then we may have an intelligent debate.

The AGW movement is motivated and informed by politics, not science. Science has gone out the window, unfortunately.

Nice, no facts all opinion.

When you post some facts for us to look at then we can see who has science on there side. But until then do carry on.

Oh have you looked at the arctic recently...... seems someone forgot to tell the ice its not getting warmer.[/quote]


1. There's an abundance of facts, if you do a little research. Again, you can start with Professor Allegre, since he is credited with being the "father" of AGW. His analysis is long, but it is well worth it;

2. To poster #2 -- The burden is on the person making the allegation, not the person rebutting it. Again, Anthropogenic Global Warming theory has never been scientifically proven. It is a theory. Should me one credible scientist in the IPCC who has provided proof. Give us a link;

3. As for your comment regarding the Arctic ice melt, I will repeat again: Earth's temperature has increased. But that does not mean it is because of human activity.

[Lore]

3. As for your comment regarding the Arctic ice melt, I will repeat again: Earth's temperature has increased. But that does not mean it is because of human activity.

So you have some other peer-reviewed scientific theory that replaces AGW for the recent rapid increase in global warming?

[wxman]

Anthropogenic Global Warming theory has never been scientifically proven. It is a theory.

What kind of proof do you need? It isn't exactly like we have a "test Earth" to perform experiments on.

[Heineken]

People who have some understanding of the scientific method recognize that theory is one short step removed from fact. Many theories function essentially as facts, and can be heavily relied on to be accurate. The theory of evolution is a case in point.

Many theories remain theories because of political, religious and economic factors that, obviously, have nothing to do with science.

Anthropogenic global warming will probably remain a theory until New York City is under water.

The human mind, it seems, can rebel even against the most natural common sense. It blinds itself to facts and the evidence of the senses, just so it can keep marching in time with preconceived constructs.

[dorlomin]

AGW is not a theory it is the theory to explain the current warming trend. The other bits and peices can at best be described as hypothesis'. AGW comfortably meets the criteria of a scientificaly valid theory. It presents a falsifiable hypothesis with testable predictions. Those predictions have been successfuly tested so far.

Like evolution through natural selection, relativity and plate tectonics it can never ultimately be anything more than a theory. And like those others it is always open to revision and updating. However until someone can come up with an alternative hypothises for a forcing mechanism that produces predictions that better map onto the observible facts and fits occams razor over AGW, AGW will be the most likely explanation.

There is no guarentee that CO2 forcing will ultimately prove to have been responsible for the measured climate temperature trend. There are difficulties with some parts of the theory, these are most likely to be just gaps in data or yet to be fully integrated forcing mechanisms esepcialy in terms of feedback loops such as clouds, ice and the like.

Basicaly according to the hugely influecial scientific philospher Karl Popper, a theory can never be proven true. So the question of proving AGW is basicaly a false premise.

[Cashmere]

AGW is not a theory it is the theory to explain the current warming trend.

There is no current warming trend. It's currently cooling.

It's one theory to explain it.

Another one is that the earth periodically cools and heats.

20,000 years ago, a 200 foot thick ice sheet covered 1/2 of New York City.

[Ibon]

Everybody seems to enjoy to clusterfxxk around their favorite theories and then hunker down and defend them. Somewhere in there science does eventually wiggle through and irrevocable evidence wins out in the end. Remember the fight over plate tectonics the scientific community had 40 years ago?

Climate change like peak oil will rise and fall as a "popular" item on peoples radar when events affect them personally and immediately. That is how humans and unfortunately our economic system is hard wired. But it is not caste in stone.

Evolution, whether cultural or biological is such a wonderful thing. Selective pressures in our external environments result in populations evolving in response. Well folks, all this emotional debate is rather futile as we stand at the doorstep of profound changes.

It is not either or. Two years ago it was global warming. The past several months it has been the emergence of peak oil due to high gas prices.

Who ever said the denial phase was going to be brief? I say we are still in the early phases and the main reason why is that in spite of all the cracks in the system things are going along pretty grand out there.

Damn is mother nature resilient. She was supposed to start the ball rolling already.

The science of climate change is very compelling if you study this empirically. Once it becomes politicized even the science becomes compromised. The same applies to Peak Oil. Science isn't enough to break through the status quo and change culture.

We haven't broken the yoke of religion and belief in the invisible man in the sky with all that science out there. And we thought that the science of climate change would be different?

Climate change will melt the icecaps faster than it melt our resistance to change. But in the end change we will.

[Valdemar]

There is no current warming trend. It's currently cooling.

It's one theory to explain it.

Another one is that the earth periodically cools and heats.

20,000 years ago, a 200 foot thick ice sheet covered 1/2 of New York City.

Strawman. The idea that the Earth periodically warms and cools is not disputed by climate change scientists. It's the rate of warming that is at stake here, and always has been. And as for the cooling trend, I heard the same story in '98, right before we got back on track.

Look at the long term trend. What you just said is like me saying peak oil is a myth because oil prices fell this month, ergo, no price spikes ever, just cycles.

[dorlomin]

AGW is not a theory it is the theory to explain the current warming trend.

There is no current warming trend. It's currently cooling.

No your wrong, unless you have a better dataset availaible.


http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/diagnostics/comparison.html

[graphicconception]

So you have some other peer-reviewed scientific theory that replaces AGW for the recent rapid increase in global warming?

As I understand it, there is a very strong correlation between levels of CO2 and the mean surface temperature of the earth. Al Gore's film pointed this out and I do not believe that it is contentious.

Re-examination of the data using smaller time intervals suggested that the temperature changes lead the initial (and final) CO2 changes.

I am prepared to accept that between the start and finish of an upwards or downwards trend this does not prove causation in either direction.

However, does anyone know what is causing the initial temperature changes because it does not look as if CO2 is?

Could whatever is causing this initial temperature change be causing, or at least be a contributor to, "the recent rapid increase in global warming"?
_________________

[NoWorries]

Solar cycles. There is a positive correlation in the literature between more active solar cycles and temperature change. There's been volumes published on this, but it doesn't get the attention in the mainstream media because it's not sexy. There are no villains, no room for argument, and no room for quasi-religious convictions (i.e.--no one to blame).

The attention span of your average American won't endure a discussion of solar cycles for more than 5 minutes.

[Ludi]

And of course the professional climatologists just completely ignore the solar cycles when making their models of climate trends.

[wxman]

Solar cycles. There is a positive correlation in the literature between more active solar cycles and temperature change. There's been volumes published on this, but it doesn't get the attention in the mainstream media because it's not sexy. There are no villains, no room for argument, and no room for quasi-religious convictions (i.e.--no one to blame).

The attention span of your average American won't endure a discussion of solar cycles for more than 5 minutes.

Solar can't explain the late 20th century warming. Period. That is why it doesn't get play.

[wxman]

AGW is not a theory it is the theory to explain the current warming trend.

There is no current warming trend. It's currently cooling.

It's one theory to explain it.

Another one is that the earth periodically cools and heats.

20,000 years ago, a 200 foot thick ice sheet covered 1/2 of New York City.

Since you obviously like to talk about short-term trends rather than climatically significant long-term trends, you must know that the La-Nina induced cooling of the past year has ended, and it is warming again, right?

[NoWorries]

AGW is not a theory it is the theory to explain the current warming trend.

There is no current warming trend. It's currently cooling.

It's one theory to explain it.

Another one is that the earth periodically cools and heats.

20,000 years ago, a 200 foot thick ice sheet covered 1/2 of New York City.

Since you obviously like to talk about short-term trends rather than climatically significant long-term trends, you must know that the La-Nina induced cooling of the past year has ended, and it is warming again, right?

You're wrong. There have been numerous scientific studies on point establishing the role of solar cycles in global warming. If you even bothered to do 30 seconds' worth of googling you would know this:

http://www.hno.harvard.edu/gazette/1997 ... gSuni.html

[xironman]

NoWorries, you posted an article from 1997 in a campus website as being the edge of what we know about climate? We are doomed.

[graham]

The current solar cycle is at its lowest point, yet there has not been an significant degree of cooling. All of the arguments against man made climate change are rebutted here:

http://environment.newscientist.com/cha ... th/dn11462

The current cooling is due in part to the solar cycle being at its lowest point. However the primary reason is a result of the shutting down of the gulf stream conveyor belt. Bear in mind that there hasn't been a single peer reveiwed scientific paper in the last 20 years that has disputed manmade climate change.

[wxman]

You're wrong. There have been numerous scientific studies on point establishing the role of solar cycles in global warming. If you even bothered to do 30 seconds' worth of googling you would know this:

http://www.hno.harvard.edu/gazette/1997 ... gSuni.html

Your 11 year old paper was already pointed out, but it should also be noted that Soon and co. are absolutely the peak of the skeptic machine, running a website called co2science and emphasizing the virtues of putting more CO2 in the atmosphere. I don't normally like playing the big oil card, but they are the ones that have been significantly funded by Exxon and company.

You might like this graph. Even solar scientists admit that the sun can't explain the late century surge in temperature.