BBC finally takes steps against Climate Deniers

[Kaleredar]

Well, the climate is changing. But I don't really think that is the important question here.

Well you've got a fair chunk of the right wing beat just by saying that.

Is there anything more than observed correlation that links mankind's CO2 emissions to the alleged rapid rise in temperature?

It doesn't happen for no reason. There has to be a cause for a change in the earth's temperature, and if the only appreciable difference between models now and models at X date is the concentration of CO2 in the air...

[spinner981]

It doesn't happen for no reason. There has to be a cause for a change in the earth's temperature, and if the only appreciable difference between models now and models at X date is the concentration of CO2 in the air...

So, basically, that's a yes? What is X date by the way?

Well you've got a fair chunk of the right wing beat just by saying that.

The right wing beat? I acknowledge that climate has changed. Doesn't that make me not a climate change denier?

[Kaleredar]

So, basically, that's a yes? What is X date by the way?

"Dates" more accurately. I think Endus has posted that handy little graph at least 254 times in this thread alone.

[ciggy]

Shit like this is what is wrong with the world today. So much division, so much goddamn hate.

[spinner981]

"Dates" more accurately. I think Endus has posted that handy little graph at least 254 times in this thread alone.

So it would be around 1970 then? That is when we started taking mostly accurate readings on the earth's surface temperature?

What method did we use to determine the temperature just years before then? Were those methods almost as accurate?

At what point in time were we mostly accurately beginning to measure the temp of the earth's surface?

If our dating of the sources of those things that we use to determine the temperature of the earth in the past was wrong. Say that those rocks and what not were formed a shorter amount of time ago, just for the sake of argument. Wouldn't that then cause past changes in temperature to also be more sudden similar to that which we are experiencing now? It just seems that there is a disparity between our current techniques of temperature measurement and our methods of determining the temperature of the earth in the relatively distant past.

[Waniou]

It doesn't matter. The whole reason Mr. Gore had to change the global epidemic from "Global Warming" to "Global Climate Change".

Al Gore decides these things? Also, the term "climate change" is at least as old as "global warming".

Global Warming was happening on the rest of the planets in the solar system at the same time it was heating up the earth. How was our CO2 causing that?

No it wasn't, but that has nothing to do with anything anyway.

[Theinquisition]

Al Gore decides these things? Also, the term "climate change" is at least as old as "global warming".

No it wasn't, but that has nothing to do with anything anyway.

Al Gore is a hilarious hypocrite. I mean seriously, the posterboy for conservation, and having a small eco-footprint, but has a over 1200$ a month electric bill.

[Lolretadin]

Didn't watch video, but remember there is no such thing as sure science. Remember when earth was flat?

Edit: Watched the video. Really.... pretty stupid. Who cares what the BBC decides?

No one has believed that for almost 2000 years... I would also like to point out that if that is the entirety of your argument for the conclusion that "science is unreliable," then you don't have an argument.

[Deleted]

Al Gore decides these things? Also, the term "climate change" is at least as old as "global warming".

Al Gore is a victim of the anti climate change theory propaganda. He's a fervent supporter of the global warming theory, so the corporate propaganda started their mud smearing campaign for the stupid masses. It worked, so now people think Al Gore is a joke. It's pretty common actually: identify your opponent and dig up dirt on him, if you don't find any dirt just blow some minor stuff out of proportion, enough idiots will believe anything and then the word will spread like it was true.

[spinner981]

No one has believed that for almost 2000 years... I would also like to point out that if that is the entirety of your argument for the conclusion that "science is unreliable," then you don't have an argument.

Hindsight is 20/20. Nobody believing it for a long time doesn't negate the fact that the grand majority of people believed it a long time ago. A long time from now, in the future, whose to say people don't look back and say the same thing about things that we commonly accept as proven? That we teach to our children in schools as undeniable fact? Will the fact that people might not believe it for a long time negate the fact that many people believe it now?

Science is reliable. People are unreliable with science.

[Waniou]

Al Gore is a hilarious hypocrite. I mean seriously, the posterboy for conservation, and having a small eco-footprint, but has a over 1200$ a month electric bill.

He is really, but that has no real effect on the validity of climate science. Al Gore is an idiot, but that doesn't mean climate science is wrong.

[May90]

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=82160
According to NASA, Antarctic ice coverage maximum broke new records in 2012 and 2013. The opposite results in Arctic. North-South balance, doesn't resemble something? Something along the lines of Earth's rotational axis changing its angle with the orbit surface? Something about Ice Ages and the like?

And you ask why they changed "global warming" to "climate change"... "Climate change" is indisputable, it always changes, so there is kind of nothing to argue with. "Global warming", however, is easily disproved by any real sources, so they tend not to use it that much.

[Reverence]

Because its far too convenient for some people to not do the right thing but instead do the easy thing.

[Theinquisition]

He is really, but that has no real effect on the validity of climate science. Al Gore is an idiot, but that doesn't mean climate science is wrong.

I agree, Climate science is an important matter. It just seems like many on both sides aren't willing to see a compromise and meet some middle ground. Personally I think that if people were REALLY concerned about reducing our dependence on fossil fuels, we would focus our efforts on designing, implementing, and mass producing nuclear power plants (especially developing thorium technology). It's a proven, clean, and cheap source of energy.

[Deleted]

I agree, Climate science is an important matter. It just seems like many on both sides aren't willing to see a compromise and meet some middle ground. Personally I think that if people were REALLY concerned about reducing our dependence on fossil fuels, we would focus our efforts on designing, implementing, and mass producing nuclear power plants (especially developing thorium technology). It's a proven, clean, and cheap source of energy.

Until you need to get rid of the waste.

[Theinquisition]

Until you need to get rid of the waste.

There are ways of doing it.

Shit look at the French, something like 80% of their power is nuclear generated, and they have some of the lowest cost per capita for energy in the world. They must be doing something right.

I also see it like this. At least with Nuclear waste you can control how its disposed of and where. Fossil fuels...well it just goes up in the air.

[spinner981]

I agree, Climate science is an important matter. It just seems like many on both sides aren't willing to see a compromise and meet some middle ground. Personally I think that if people were REALLY concerned about reducing our dependence on fossil fuels, we would focus our efforts on designing, implementing, and mass producing nuclear power plants (especially developing thorium technology). It's a proven, clean, and cheap source of energy.

We should be aiming to increase all forms of effective energy production. I don't care what it is, wind, hydroelectric, nuclear, whatever, as long as it is effective, a greater benefit than its cost. But the answer is not to just reduce our reliance on electricity in general.

People act like mankind is destroying the environment. But the driving force behind climate change being bad is disasters and what not. It will not destroy the planet, but they use fear because of the things that they allege will kill humans. But reducing our electricity usage on a global scale is a greater and more immediate danger to humanity, especially when the whole climate change thing isn't definitively the cause of global warming, nor the alleged eventual effects of global warming being a perfectly accurate science.

[Theinquisition]

We should be aiming to increase all forms of effective energy production. I don't care what it is, wind, hydroelectric, nuclear, whatever, as long as it is effective, a greater benefit than its cost. But the answer is not to just reduce our reliance on electricity in general.

I agree

The problem with some of the "clean" energy sources is that it costs more to produce and maintain, then conventional methods of generation. Its all good and well to think about using clean energy, but when someone who is already struggling sees their electric bill double, its not really helping them much.

[Waniou]

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=82160
According to NASA, Antarctic ice coverage maximum broke new records in 2012 and 2013. The opposite results in Arctic. North-South balance, doesn't resemble something? Something along the lines of Earth's rotational axis changing its angle with the orbit surface? Something about Ice Ages and the like?

Sea ice. The stuff that comes off the cap ice. Which means cap ice is shrinking. Cap ice shrinks because of global warming. I think your source is disproving your own claim.

And you ask why they changed "global warming" to "climate change"... "Climate change" is indisputable, it always changes, so there is kind of nothing to argue with. "Global warming", however, is easily disproved by any real sources, so they tend not to use it that much.

http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/fea...ther_name.html

"The first decisive National Academy of Science study of carbon dioxide's impact on climate, published in 1979, abandoned "inadvertent climate modification." Often called the Charney Report for its chairman, Jule Charney of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Cambridge, declared: "if carbon dioxide continues to increase, [we find] no reason to doubt that climate changes will result and no reason to believe that these changes will be negligible."3

In place of inadvertent climate modification, Charney adopted Broecker's usage. When referring to surface temperature change, Charney used "global warming." When discussing the many other changes that would be induced by increasing carbon dioxide, Charney used "climate change." "

Both terms have been in use for nearly half a century. Both terms have completely different meanings. What you're doing is like trying to disprove electromagnetism by claiming that they changed the term to "quantum mechanics".

[Deleted]

Meanwhile, if you look in detail at some of the "evidence" presented for global warming,

The statistical methods used are invalid, and datasets used are easily manipulated to give the desired outcome - post-facto screening.

In short: There is much bad science in climatology.

But apparently, calling me a "cancer of society" for pointing out the problem is preferable to fixing it.