General Poker Discussion Poker Forums

It is my belief that man made Global warming is occurring. I have followed many of the debates and read many articles in the science press and think on my part this seems to be a reasonable assumption.

One thing that does really worry me is the way some people working in this area are getting attacked or undermined and this is not going to help. I cannot understand why researchers would not use the best models to hand to attempt predictions for the near future. OK it is possible that some scientists may want, in some way, to be the doom merchants but in general they just want to do a good job and the overall consensus in these models does indicate there will be problems in the near future.

The UK MET office was set up in 1854 and I can't really see why it would hold any particular bias toward GW and their computer models are predicting: "ranging from 1.6-4.3C (2.9-7.7F) in the current best estimates using a mid-range emissions scenario. ". These predictions are done using large computers and with hundreds of people working on them, see here
These people are trying to produce a model that accurately predicts the future ranges of any change. I can easily believe that they are really chuffed the closer to reality they get. The models will be getting tested and refined in many ways over time and data from the earlier past is used to see if it predicts the more recent past changes. Why would these people be ineterested in putting anything into their model (or removing anything) that makes the model not predict better? If I was working on it/them I would be really pleased the closer it got to reality, this seems only natural. The modellers won't be really interested in what is making the change, increased sun output/ man made emmissions only the effect each has on the predictions.
I have seen both the Swindle and Gore films but I am far more convinced by all these porgrammers, mathematicians and scientists trying to get a good model going on these computers than any film or documentary. These people aren't stupid or likely to be overly devious, they are always likely to know much more about it than me.

Right I just meant some experimental testing like make a model world with a light source on it, create an atmosphere around it with equivalent earth gases and mess with the CO2 content to see how heat retention, etc is effected. I assume this is somehow a terrible/impossible experiment to carry out though as it hasn't yet, but if we were able to do it that would obviously be amazing as we could study CO2 changes in a controlled experimental environment.

Basically I don't understand if a chemical has certain properties (however CO2 is meant to heat up the earth) we can't easily test for the properties experimentally, rather the looking at all this complicated data from history/nature which is full of noise and outside influences. Like if I tell you ice is cold we can test that, and don't have to look at global temperature compared to the size of ice caps to work this out (although that's one way you could do it).

You should just watch the links I posted earlier. It is pretty trivial to do the experiments.

I am guaranteed to be caught up in an endless cycle of back-n-forth. A bit distracting from my work/studies right now.

So you started a debate thread only to say, "Why do you people keep bothering me! I'm busy!" lol

Tecmo, I posted the video that changed my thinking on the subject, and I do not see a need to repeat everything. There are a bunch of smart people on this thread. The ones I am interested in listening to, are the ones that might also be more skeptical or neutral. Not people who are just going to read their talking points, and have me argue the points.
Watch the video in the OP.

====================
BTW Techmo, if you have nothing intelligent to add, and you just want to troll me, please stay out of the thread. I read your other post. You are kind of being a jerk, with nothing to add to this discussion

Does your argument extend beyond "watch the video and shut up"? Because I'm not watching some terrible piece of propaganda for the sake of an argument on the internet.

The ones I am interested in listening to, are the ones that might also be more skeptical or neutral.

So you're flat out admitting that you aren't interested in listening to anyone who is not on your side? My apologies Pope Sneakers. I thought you started this thread to discuss the topic of Global Warming, not just feed your pre-existing beliefs.

There was also a Medieval Warming Period when apparently England was full of Vinyards. This is still noted by vinyard type names for some streets in London. Not sure if vinyards are common in England today. Anyone know?

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11644-climate-myths-it-was-warmer-during-the-medieval-period-with-vineyards-in-england.html

And yes, we do have vineyards in England.

Here's an idea - present your argument in a logical form using words and citations. Present your evidence for your beliefs and we can all benefit from an adult discussion as opposed to someone spouting off "Pope Gore is crooked!" which serves no purpose.

Does your argument extend beyond "watch the video and shut up"? Because I'm not watching some terrible piece of propaganda for the sake of an argument on the internet.

No it does not. But it also does not have to be about me spoon feeding anyone.
I have not told anyone to shut up. That is silly. Honestly, I prefer to just watch the dialogue of others. Admittedly, in the past I have not done so well, with big debates.

It is true that anyone can look at opposing views, and write it off as propoganda. I guess I probably also do the same regarding opposing information that seems absurd to me. Al Gore says a lot of extreme stuff.....like comparing Skeptics to "slavery owners, holocoust deniers. Complete isolating shut-down-the-debate tactics.

Again, as I am busy, I am more interested in other neutral opinions on the validity of both sides of the argument. I've already given my position, and don't have time/energy to become an advocate for either side.

Here's an idea - present your argument in a logical form using words and citations. Present your evidence for your beliefs and we can all benefit from an adult discussion as opposed to someone spouting off "Pope Gore is crooked!" which serves no purpose.

Techmo, you are just trolling me. I posted one single video, and it is my opinion today. Watch it if you like, but please stop harrassing me. I already get it. You do not like my debates in the past. I am not going back and arguing those.

NOTE: this is exactly what I am talking about. A bunch of wasted time with uneccesary posts.

Call me a snob but I tend not to get my science off youtube, fox news or similar. The one time I did watch something 'science' based from fox I nearly tore out my eyeballs.

You're conflating your deep rooted dislike of al gore (who is no just a bloody film presenter) with the ideas he's presenting. I've not watched his film either.

p.s. It's very disingenuous of you to say you're not advocating either side when you clearly are.

Oh god, I just realised that movie was made by Martin Durkin LOL. He's a well known fraud and propaganda merchant.

In 1997 television producer Martin Durkin from the TV company Kugelblitz made a series for Channel 4 called Against Nature, which targeted environmentalists, presenting them as 'the new enemy of science' and as comparable to the Nazis. They were responsible, the series argued, for the deprivation and death of millions in the Third World. (Crimes against Nature , The Revolution Has Been Televised )

Channel Four had to broadcast a prime-time apology after Against Nature drew the wrath of the Independent Television Commission which ruled, 'Comparison of the unedited and edited transcripts confirmed that the editing of the interviews with [the environmentalists who contributed] had indeed distorted or misrepresented their known views. It was also found that the production company had misled them... as to the format, subject matter and purpose of these programs.'

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11644-climate-myths-it-was-warmer-during-the-medieval-period-with-vineyards-in-england.html

And yes, we do have vineyards in England.

Yes, i actually was a little confused on that point. The video clearly said it was much warmer during that period. But, when I looked up the period (wiki), it showed a graph that showed different stats....not as warm as 2004. I am not really sure what to make of that. Propoganda from both sides. Which is correct?

Yes, i actually was a little confused on that point. The video clearly said it was much warmer during that period. But, when I looked up the period (wiki), it showed a graph that showed different stats....not as warm as 2004. I am not really sure what to make of that. Propoganda from both sides. Which is correct?

I'd trust the new scientist and even wikipedia over a guy who's being paid to misrepresent facts, positions and research in order to put forward an opinion. I wouldn't call new scientist or wikipedia propaganda either.

Tbh though, I've never looked at any original research on the matter.

I kinda of agree the video wasn't as compelling as I expected it to be. That's not to say it's terrible or useless but I viewed it as a pretty decent introduction to one side of the issue.

Also as a minor side point I dislike the limitations languages imposes on skepticism. The strict definition does follow that someone who is skeptical is a skeptic, someone who doubts... but I see being a skeptic overall is just a way of applying critical thinking and evidence to things. Being a skeptic isn't a position, it's reasonable that there are skeptics on both sides of some issues, and of course some in the middle. So when I see the title it irks me a little that at least to me skeptic kind of goes a long a lot more with science/rationality etc and belief more attached to faith/religion. Not sure if you were going for that Sneakers, and like I said it's obv not a big deal and that's just my interpretation of it. I guess this is just a rant on our lack/ambiguity of language for these things. And sorry for saying skeptic so much it certainly can be an annoying word misused in my cases ("hey man I'm just asking questions about the moon landing... I'm a skeptic!")