More Evidence of Global Warming

14 Responses to “More Evidence of Global Warming”

1. A Quantum Liberal on May 24th, 2007 11:49 am [#]

   This type (e.g. weather is climate) of cynicism is why conservatism is dying in Canada.

2. Tom Cerber on May 24th, 2007 12:14 pm [#]

   “Poland’s intellectual class is dying out,” “prophesied” Adolph Hitler as he went about killing them.

   Sorry to invoke Godwin’s law, Quantum Liberal, but you liberals at times really do sound like ideological killers.

3. R. Alexander on May 24th, 2007 4:41 pm [#]

   Well, it’s somewhat disingenuous to post the above link as I don’t think anybody claims global warming is based on heat in Toronto and cold in Calgary. It’s based on the theory that manmade events have very slowly and collectively increased the temperature of the planet. If in 2008 we had colder temperatures it wouldn’t debunk the global warming theory, just as if in 2008 we had record heat it wouldn’t prove it.

   What we do have are facts, and the facts tell us the surface temperature of our planet is increasing. Beyond that we have debate.

4. Aaron Unruh on May 24th, 2007 7:29 pm [#]

   “What we do have are facts, and the facts tell us the surface temperature of our planet is increasing.”

   Since the ’70s. Before then, global cooling was all the fad amongst Suzuki & The Trendy Hipsters.

5. Robert L on May 25th, 2007 2:20 am [#]

   “Since the ’70s. Before then, global cooling was all the fad amongst Suzuki & The Trendy Hipsters.”

   Wow it’s almost as if today’s scientists totally forgot about the 70s! Thanks for your single line rebuttal of many years of peer-reviewed evidence that supports global warming.

   The paper in 1971 that started that whole idea (S. Ichtiaque Rasool and Stephen H. Schneider) was made in a time where climatologists only considered two possible greenhouse gases: CO2 and water vapour. We of course know now how CFCs and methane and other pollutants can contribute to it. The idea of a cooling earth became obsolete by the 80s when better data was accumulated.

   You global warming deniers need to find a real SET of rebuttals that actually stand a chance against peer-reviewed science.

6. Tom Cerber on May 25th, 2007 8:22 am [#]

   Robert L: You’ve been Suzikified. Anybody who says the science has been settled is not a scientist but an ideologue. By holding up a sample, however large, of scientific findings that global warming is man-made, and claiming that’s the consensus, you’re simply acting like the ideologue shutting down debate. You’re hiding behind the cloak of scientific authority when you should be upholding free inquiry.

   Enough of my sermon. For goodness sakes, go read some of Bjorn Lomborg’s stuff. If you’re not convinced by his skepticism, at least pay heed to his argument that there are other world problems that humans are in a better position to fix, and it would be more responsible for us to fix those than flush down our money into Al Gore’s apocalyptic nightmare.

7. civitatensis on May 25th, 2007 9:06 am [#]

   Ideologues, indeed, and with no sense of humour at all.

8. Tom Cerber on May 25th, 2007 9:39 am [#]

   Civ: Who’s got time to laugh when the Gorian apocalypse is at hand?

9. civitatensis on May 25th, 2007 10:01 am [#]

   C’est triste!

10. Robert L on May 25th, 2007 11:54 am [#]

    I never claimed there was a consensus, but when the vast vast majority of climate research by hundreds of independent, peer-reviewed science all point to the same conclusion, it doesn’t matter what the people think. The nice thing about the scientific method is that evidence speaks for itself!

    Also thanks for assuming I’m a fan of David Suzuki and not even addressing the commonly used non-argument that some papers based off of obsolete evidence in the 70s thought there was a cooling trend.

11. Tom Cerber on May 25th, 2007 12:19 pm [#]

    “A survey of 530 climate scientists in 2003 asked them to what extent they agreed that climate change is mostly the result of anthropogenic causes. Their answers, ranked on a scale of one to seven (one being strong agreement, seven strong disagreement) yielded a mean of 3.62 — hardly evidence of any “consensus.” - letter in today’s National Post

    Is this the “vast majority” you were referring to?

12. Robert L on May 25th, 2007 12:42 pm [#]

    Congratulations on missing the point. No it is not the ‘vast majority’ I was referring to, if you had bothered to do more than skim my comment. Science != scientists.

    Also, funny thing about that National Post article is that it actually shows that at least climate scientists agree that climate change _exists_. All that survey shows is that the human contribution may require more study.

13. Tom Cerber on May 25th, 2007 12:52 pm [#]

    Robert L. You seem to think the scientific method exists independently from the scientists who use it, apply it, debate on what it is, and so on. You seem to treat it as a magic formula and that there’s no human dimension - including judgment, tacit knowledge, or imagination - to scientific inquiry. Most scientists I know do not regard the scientific method in this manner. Or think there is a single scientific method. You speak more as a scientistic fundamentalist than as a scientist. If I misinterpret you, perhaps you could state your view more lucidly.

    I apologize for thinking you consider man-made causes as unquestionable. My view was drawn from your statement: “We of course know now how CFCs and methane and other pollutants can contribute to it” in comment #5.

14. R. Alexander on May 25th, 2007 4:43 pm [#]

    As far as I am aware from the various reading I have done on global warming, it matters little whether the effects are manmade or natural. The prevalent theory currently is that we are likely headed for a period of drought and resources shortage worldwide. We should be preparing for the contingencies affected by global warming rather than wasting time on finger pointing. From what I understand, although I confess I am not a scientist, it wouldn’t matter if human beings stopped producing CO2 tomorrow, as the shift in global temperatures appears to be inevitably on an increasing scale and will continue to do so, presumably until by natural process the planet cools again.

    I think that research into global cooling is important because whether or not it is manmade, if we can find a way to keep our planet in a comfortable zone, it will be better for us all. The last thing Canada needs is to be in the position of rejecting or accepting millions of refugees from countries which have been devastated from climatological changes so severe that the country is void of drinking water.

    Even the most rightwing think tanks in the United States, including the military, are investigating the cause and effect of global warming, and what kind of negative repercussions it could have on the national security and economic power of the U.S. and the North American continent.

Got something to say?