Today's Front Page Article on Climate Change
Grab our Forum Feed

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 18 1 11 18 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 175

Thread: Today's Front Page Article on Climate Change

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Aurora, IL
    Posts
    847

    Default Today's Front Page Article on Climate Change

    http://gm-volt.com/2014/09/12/global...asa-scientist/

    In order to give proportional coverage to the issue of man-made climate change relative to the level of scientific consensus on the issue, I propose (only somewhat sarcastically) that the GM-Volt moderators post front-page articles explaining why the vast majority of scientist DO believe in anthropogenic global warming (i.e., man-made climate change) for the next 34 days straight.

    After all, 97.1% of peer-reviewed scientific studies that took a position on AGW from 1991-2011 support AGW, versus only 2.9% that reject AGW. So that's a ratio of 34 peer-reviewed papers in support of AGW for every 1 that rejects it. It only seems fair that such an overwhelming scientific consensus would get proportionally overwhelming coverage, right?


    Seriously, moderators, WTF were you thinking? This is an f'ing disgrace. It's one thing if Mr. Cobb wants to post this nonsense in a regular post, but to endorse his views by putting this as a featured daily article on the front page makes the whole site look like it's run by a bunch of loons.
    Last edited by WopOnTour; 2 Weeks Ago at 08:49 PM. Reason: edited title (for clarity and search engine)
    2013 #3197 - Blue Topaz Metallic

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Aurora, IL
    Posts
    847

    Default

    (continued...)

    There is so much wrong with this piece, that I hardly know where to start.

    First of all, the entire article is based on a piece from Breitbart.com (which, BTW, is repeatedly misspelled throughout the article. Nice one Mr. Cobb.). This is the equivalent of posting an expose on the dangers of vaccinations based entirely on a Facebook post from Jenny McCarthy. Breitbart is a rabidly partisan and ideologically biased site with virtually zero credibility on anything, let alone a complex subject like AGW.

    And the quotes themselves are just a series of lies, straw man arguments, and red herrings.

    “There is no reproducible scientific evidence CO2 has significantly increased in the last 100 years.”
    100% false. Of course there is. Direct measurements have been made consistently since 1958, and ice core bubbles allow us to measure CO2 concentrations going back hundreds of thousands of years.

    water is a much more powerful greenhouse gas and there is 20 time more of it in our atmosphere
    Totally misleading. Atmospheric water vapor is short-lived and self-regulating in concentration (i.e., rain) and absorbs different wavelengths of radiation than CO2. This "fact" does not at all discredit AGW from fossil fuel CO2.

    The Earth’s climate has been changing since time immemorial, that is since the Earth was formed 1,000 million years ago.
    Duh. In the words of the Geico commercials: "Everybody knows that". It's beside the point. (Also, incidentally, he's off on the age of the Earth by ~3,500 million years.)

    It’s absolutely stupid to blame floods on climate change.
    Straw man. Of course you can't put complete blame for individual weather events on climate change. Scientists don't make that claim. (You CAN plausibly blame AGW for making certain weather events more likely, but that's a rather complex subject.)

    If you tell me that you have a theory there is a teapot in orbit between the earth and the moon, it’s not up to me to prove it does not exist, it’s up to you to provide the reproducible scientific evidence for your theory. “Such evidence for the man-made climate change theory has not been forthcoming.
    Scientific fact #1: CO2 is a greenhouse gas -- it absorbs wavelengths of infrared radiation that would otherwise escape into space. (This is reproducible/provable in a lab setting as well as observable with satellite measurements.)

    Scientific fact #2: Human activity burning fossil fuels has released huge amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere. (This is reproducible/provable/obvious.)

    Scientific fact #3: CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere have gone up over 40% since the industrial revolution. (This is measurable.) And while we can't irrefutably say that 100% of this has been due to human activity, we can certainly estimate how much coal/oil/gas we've burned throughout history and correlate that with the observed increase.

    Scientific fact #4: The earth has warmed significantly over the last 100 years. (This is unequivocal and there is zero dissent in the scientific community on this point.)

    Beyond these *facts*, it's the work of climate scientists to understand the complexity of climate systems and the degree to which man-made CO2 contributes to the observed (and predicted) warming. But from this guy's statements, it sounds like he would demand multiple Earths undergoing a variety of double-blind experiments with multiple controlled variables to meet his standard of "evidence", which unfortunately is not possible.



    Anyone can interview a small handful of global warming dissenters (whilst ignoring the vast majority of those that support the scientific consensus view and the mountain of evidence on their side) and post it to the Internet. Breitbart.com is the appropriate site to host such garbage, not GM-Volt.com.
    2013 #3197 - Blue Topaz Metallic

  3. #3
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Flagstaff, AZ
    Posts
    204

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jsmay311 View Post

    After all, 97.1% of peer-reviewed scientific studies that took a position on AGW from 1991-2011 support AGW, versus only 2.9% that reject AGW. So that's a ratio of 34 peer-reviewed papers in support of AGW for every 1 that rejects it. It only seems fair that such an overwhelming scientific consensus would get proportionally overwhelming coverage, right?


    Seriously, moderators, WTF were you thinking? This is an f'ing disgrace. It's one thing if Mr. Cobb wants to post this nonsense in a regular post, but to endorse his views by putting this as a featured daily article on the front page makes the whole site look like it's run by a bunch of loons.
    Exhibit 1) Piltdown Man

    The fossilized remains of a previously unknown early human, were discovered in England in 1912. From 1912 to 1953, approximately 97.1% of peer-reviewed scientific studies confirmed that the finding was of a missing link to modern man.

    Here, as Paul Harvey use to say, is the rest of the story. The "bunch of loons" who for decades tried to convince the scientific community they were all part of a hoax, turned out to be right. In 1953, Piltdown Man was exposed as a forgery, consisting of the lower jawbone of an orangutan deliberately combined with the cranium of a fully developed modern human.

    I think there is a lesson here. Or maybe not.

    I've been enjoying this web site, which has quite a lot of scientific data on the subject of Global Warming. https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/...stevengoddard/

    Spoiler alert. None of the science on the site supports Global Warming. Oh no, now I have to sit through 34 posts supporting Global Warming.

  4.  

    Advertisement

  5. #4
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    8,519

    Default

    I posted in the article. Basically the whole controversy is contrived. Any high school chemistry class can do an experiment that proves global warming. It's pretty much like adding two and two. The first fact is that greenhouse gases absorb energy from infrared wavelengths and warm the atmosphere. This is so elementary it's pathetic that you have to even bother to say it. The second fact is that adding greenhouse gases increases energy absorption and raises the temperature. That you can prove with a test tube and a greenlight. Or you can just accept the science that, for a hundred years, has shown that, but for greenhouse gases, the earth's temperature would be 0F rather than the 59F it actually is. The third and final fact is that burning fossil fuels increases the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

    How freaking difficult is this? What part of adding two and two is so hard?

    Trying to rebut the irrefutable by resorting to an example from the 19th Century on a completely different subject is inane and merely serves to illustrate how little science there is backing up the claim that burning fossil fuels doesn't increase atmospheric temperatures.

    No doubt the website also argues that smoking doesn't cause cancer and that evolution doesn't exist.

  6. #5
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Flagstaff, AZ
    Posts
    204

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DonC View Post
    I posted in the article. Basically the whole controversy is contrived. Any high school chemistry class can do an experiment that proves global warming. It's pretty much like adding two and two. The first fact is that greenhouse gases absorb energy from infrared wavelengths and warm the atmosphere. This is so elementary it's pathetic that you have to even bother to say it. The second fact is that adding greenhouse gases increases energy absorption and raises the temperature. That you can prove with a test tube and a greenlight. Or you can just accept the science that, for a hundred years, has shown that, but for greenhouse gases, the earth's temperature would be 0F rather than the 59F it actually is. The third and final fact is that burning fossil fuels increases the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

    How freaking difficult is this? What part of adding two and two is so hard?

    Trying to rebut the irrefutable by resorting to an example from the 19th Century on a completely different subject is inane and merely serves to illustrate how little science there is backing up the claim that burning fossil fuels doesn't increase atmospheric temperatures.

    No doubt the website also argues that smoking doesn't cause cancer and that evolution doesn't exist.
    If you want to debate topics on the web site, you'd have to pull your head out of the clouds and go to the link, rather than mimic Al Gore and mock those who don't drink your Global Warming Kool-Aid.

    We can agree that spitting into the ocean will raise the level of the ocean. How much will it raise the ocean level? CO2 is part of our atmosphere. How big a part? 0.039%. That qualifies it as a trace gas. The really cool thing about being really small, is that even the slightest increase in your size can be characterized as a 10%, or maybe 20% increase. You have gone from being insignificant to being almost exactly as insignificant. Sort of like spitting in the ocean.

    Here's the best offer you will ever get on the subject. I'll agree to reject everything I believe to be true about Global Warming, and I will join the hysteric chicken littles, claiming the sky is falling, if you will agree there isn't a thing the U.S. can do that will make any difference at all in whatever the climate is changing into. With China and India, and a hundred other nations, going in the opposite direction as you would claim they must go in, we would essentially be standing on the deck of the Titanic with buckets, bailing water over the side, thinking it will prolong our lives. And it would, by the tiniest fraction of a single second. Just say we are well past the tipping point and it is time to move on and not saddle Americans with carbon taxes while the other 96% of the world grows their economies and takes even more of our work force into their countries. It's as simple as adding the square root of 2 and the square root of 2.

    And if I'm going to agee to drink that Kool-Aid of your, can we at least put a shot or two of rum in it?

  7. #6
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Flagstaff, AZ
    Posts
    204

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mister Dave View Post
    On the subject or consensus, this clinical study is very informative:


    Isn't that guy in the white shirt a young Al Gore? He never could add 2 plus 2.

  8. #7
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    8,519

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mister Dave View Post
    I think the planet's ecosystem is a bit more complex than 2+2, and a simple high school experiment doesn't address this complexity.
    This is a completely different argument than saying global warming doesn't exist. You're saying it exists but some other phenomenon will mitigate it, contradict it, or overwhelm it.

    That's fine, but my inclination is to control what I can, not sit back and suck my thumb, hoping that something will bail me out. To me quite similar to thinking that you shouldn't take responsible for your future by contributing to your 401K or investing because, who knows, maybe you'll win the lottery.

    Personally I don't think that developing countries can impact greenhouse gases appreciably. In fact global warming is not that high a priority for me. However, I don't see the benefit of denying the problem exists.

    FWIW, if you want a better example of a scientific consensus going off the rails, look at the recommendations for a low fat diet. That's more recent and a whole lot more on point. However, the great thing about science is that it will correct and it will ultimately find the better answer.

    The problem is that global warming deniers aren't for the most part scientifically motivated. They're politically motivated. The difference between "Politics" (capital P) and "politics" (small p) is what makes the global warming controversy VERY similar to the smoking/cancer link. Both Political.

  9. #8
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    washington
    Posts
    416

    Default

    Isn't it that our planet is self regulating? The more carbon dioxide there is the more plants growth is stimulated and starts converting it to oxygen. The process continues to keep a balance. That is of course if we don't keep destroying the rain Forrest's. I'm just asking here, I'm no scientist.
    Last edited by jljeeper; 2 Weeks Ago at 10:31 PM.

  10. #9
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Kansas
    Posts
    171

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jljeeper View Post
    Isn't it that our planet is self regulating? The more carbon dioxide the is the more plants growth is stimulated and starts converting it to oxygen. The process continues to keep a balance. That is of course if we don't keep destroying the rain Forrest's. I'm just asking here, I'm no scientist.
    ... and THAT is something the world should be focused on... saving old growth forests and rain forests. The rain forests in South America have been called the 'lungs of the world'. But there isn't any money in that for the politicians who just want to sell 'carbon credits' and enrich themselves. So, the global warming hoax will continue and biodiversity will be quietly destroyed without anyone lifting a finger to stop it.
    2014 Volt, Diamond White, Black Interior. Premium package, Safety 1 and 2, Bose.

  11.  

    Advertisement

  12. #10
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Berwyn, PA
    Posts
    1,766

    Default

    For those who would like to see an excellent synopsis of the data and debate, I recommend Wikipedia's article on the subject: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming. It contains great visuals and over 200 citations. Like all Wikipedia articles, it derives from a consensus process, which helps avoid bias.

    As to "trace" amounts of C02, this is a spurious argument. While indeed we are familiar with plenty of "bulk" chemical reactions, many (most?) important chemical reactions are based upon trace quantities. To infer that a trace amount is insignificant suggests a fundamental lack of knowledge of chemistry and chemical engineering. For example, the entire drug industry is based upon trace quantities. The crucial field of catalysis, by definition, is based on trace quantities. If there is any further doubt in your mind, try walking into a room filled with a "trace" of chlorine or ozone. Within minutes you will become a believer, although by then it won't matter, because you will have perished.
    Last edited by Slapshot28; 2 Weeks Ago at 06:37 AM.

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 18 1 11 18 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Volt currently on the front page of Reddit.com
    By ViperRT10Matt in forum Chevy Volt General Discussion, News, and Events
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 12-06-2013, 07:08 AM
  2. politics and the front page-
    By Paulacton84 in forum GM-VOLT.COM Site Suggestions
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 11-01-2013, 11:27 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts