Tuesday, 2 September 2008

Warming causes cooling

This is nuts.

Belief in global warming really has become a quasi-religious phenomenon that transcends the need for evidence.

3 comments:

The Pook said...

Belief in global warming really has become a quasi-religious phenomenon that transcends the need for evidence.
Denial of global warming really has become a quasi-religious phenomenon that transcends the presence of reasonable evidence by requiring the kind of absolute evidence that tobacco companies once demanded for the link between smoking and cancer. Global warming doesn't mean it gets warmer everywhere everytime. It's an average. The world is a complex place. If it is happening, it WILL result in some places getting colder. For example, if the Gulf Stream diverts further South because of the decrease in salinity of the Arctic seas, Britain will become like Siberia.

Which is more reasonable and likely? That burning more than half the world's fossil fuels in under two centuries whilst simultaneously chopping down more than half the world's forests would:
a) have no effect whatever on the planet
b) cause a buildup of carbon dioxide and other gases that are making the average temperature rise.

Besides, even if the climate change skeptics are right, what's so bad about doing things that involve less pollution and destruction of the environment that we are responsible for? Even if it's not true, I would want to see less reliance on burning stuff and making things that turn the earth into a garbage dump and more use of renewable energies and renewable products. Climate change skepticism is driven by right wing commercial interests, not science.

imanuelcostigan said...

"Global warming doesn't mean it gets warmer everywhere everytime. It's an average."

You clearly don't understand statistics and modelling. Oh well. And you also don't understand climate science. There are plenty of scientists who support anthropogenic global warming and disagree its effect is global, but rather local.

"Which is more reasonable and likely? That burning more than half the world's fossil fuels in under two centuries whilst simultaneously chopping down more than half the world's forests would:
a) have no effect whatever on the planet
b) cause a buildup of carbon dioxide and other gases that are making the average temperature rise. "

Strawman alert.

"Besides, even if the climate change skeptics are right, what's so bad about doing things that involve less pollution and destruction of the environment that we are responsible for?"

You were so hot on science before. Then you went and used "destruction". That isn't a scientific word. Feel free to elaborate.

"Climate change skepticism is driven by right wing commercial interests, not science."

Also clear you don't understand economics. Right wing commercial interests are not profiteering from the global warming craze. It's left wing loonies like Al Gore who made squillions on An Inconvenient Truth and subsequently on the investments his millenium fund are making.

The Pook said...

ic - Your criticism of what I said is nothing more than name calling with no substance and doesn't warrant a serious answer.