global warming is not human caused paper

isenhand · Post by **isenhand** » 12 Oct 2007, 06:25

Here?s an interesting paper that argues that global warming is not human caused.

.ui

biffvernon · Post by **biffvernon** » 12 Oct 2007, 07:05

You don't actually believe any of that stuff, do you Isenhand?

Here is the rebuttle:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/ar ... -malarkey/

And here is the debunking Wiki:
http://www.realclimate.org/wiki/index.php?title=OISM

skeptik · Post by **skeptik** » 12 Oct 2007, 09:36

Wettest April on record. Coldest August on record. 11cm of rain since midnight. (now 10.36am) http://meteoxabia.com/flash.htm

I blame climate change!

(and I bet isenhand enjoyed poking ants nests with stick when he was a kid.)

isenhand · Post by **isenhand** » 12 Oct 2007, 10:45

biffvernon wrote:You don't actually believe any of that stuff, do you Isenhand?

Here is the rebuttle:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/ar ... -malarkey/

I don?t believe nor disbelieve. What I?m doing is looking for alternatives and other explanations for global warming for a talk I?m giving in November. That also included other peoples comments as well. I was hoping the people here would have some good comments.

biffvernon wrote: And here is the debunking Wiki:
http://www.realclimate.org/wiki/index.php?title=OISM

That's even better. Thanks.

.ui

isenhand · Post by **isenhand** » 12 Oct 2007, 10:48

skeptik wrote: (and I bet isenhand enjoyed poking ants nests with stick when he was a kid.)

I did a lot of studying ants. They are quite fascinating, especially their social structure and they have some interest from a robotics point of view but I don?t ever recall pocking them with stick but my son did do some investigation by putting his arm in an ant hill.

Post by **clv101** » 12 Oct 2007, 10:59

The thing that surprises me is the low quality of the anti-AGW arguments. My surprise is how such low quality material is able to sustain a position held by so many. If documentaries like Durkin?s The Great Global Warming Swindle and this paper are the best counter argument then there really isn?t a debate, is there?

MacG · Post by **MacG** » 12 Oct 2007, 11:04

clv101 wrote:The thing that surprises me is the low quality of the anti-AGW arguments. My surprise is how such low quality material is able to sustain a position held by so many. If documentaries like Durkin?s The Great Global Warming Swindle and this paper are the best counter argument then there really isn?t a debate, is there?

I'll give you one freaking big elephant of an argument why the IPCC models are fundamentally flawed: The oil and gas they assume we will burn is simply not there. Anyone remember ASPO? Founded by Colin Campbell, Jean Laherre and the like?

biffvernon · Post by **biffvernon** » 12 Oct 2007, 11:07

That's as opposed to the high quality of anti-evolution pro-ID arguement is it? Maybe it just ain't possible.

Hey, but AL GORE has just got the Nobel Peace Price, shared jointly with the IPCC.

(Guess Colin Campbell will have to wait till next year

)

SunnyJim · Post by **SunnyJim** » 12 Oct 2007, 11:08

How about what's left of the rain forest?

Even if we burn what Cambell thinks in left we still make climate change worse!

WolfattheDoor · Post by **WolfattheDoor** » 12 Oct 2007, 11:11

In the end it's irrelevant whether global warming is caused by man or not. If the steering on your car feels odd, do you assume it's just the dodgy road and hope that it will sort itself out later, or do you get it checked in the garage?

mkwin · Post by **mkwin** » 12 Oct 2007, 11:25

I have to say, from the layman?s point of view, it is pretty convincing.

Carbon is not a toxin it is an essential ingredient of life. The carbon locked into hydrocarbons was once life and therefore it must have been present in the atmosphere in previous times.

It is really a mute point anyway. Peak Oil and, maybe 15-20 years later, gas is going to reduce CO2 production vastly.

Post by **clv101** » 12 Oct 2007, 11:31

MacG wrote:
clv101 wrote:The thing that surprises me is the low quality of the anti-AGW arguments. My surprise is how such low quality material is able to sustain a position held by so many. If documentaries like Durkin?s The Great Global Warming Swindle and this paper are the best counter argument then there really isn?t a debate, is there?
I'll give you one freaking big elephant of an argument why the IPCC models are fundamentally flawed: The oil and gas they assume we will burn is simply not there. Anyone remember ASPO? Founded by Colin Campbell, Jean Laherre and the like?

Wow, I've never heard that point of view before...

syberberg · Post by **syberberg** » 12 Oct 2007, 12:21

MacG wrote:
clv101 wrote:The thing that surprises me is the low quality of the anti-AGW arguments. My surprise is how such low quality material is able to sustain a position held by so many. If documentaries like Durkin?s The Great Global Warming Swindle and this paper are the best counter argument then there really isn?t a debate, is there?
I'll give you one freaking big elephant of an argument why the IPCC models are fundamentally flawed: The oil and gas they assume we will burn is simply not there. Anyone remember ASPO? Founded by Colin Campbell, Jean Laherre and the like?

Oh for crying out loud. MacG are you being deliberately obtuse or what? The IPCC figures are based on current use of fossil fuels, the implied inference being that if we use more, things are going to get much worse and if we use less (regardless of whether that's because of PO or not), things will not be as bad/could be avoided.

There's a perfectly good reason why the IPCC aren't using any predictions of future fossil fuel use, either increased or decreased usage. I'm sure you're intelligent enough to figure out why.

MacG · Post by **MacG** » 12 Oct 2007, 14:26

syberberg wrote:There's a perfectly good reason why the IPCC aren't using any predictions of future fossil fuel use, either increased or decreased usage. I'm sure you're intelligent enough to figure out why.

I fail to understand this statement. The predictions from the IPCC are very clear - various degrees of increased use of oil and gas for at least a hundred years to come. Is there any other way to interpret figure 2a on p7?

http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc/spmpdf/sres-e.pdf

MacG · Post by **MacG** » 12 Oct 2007, 14:30

clv101 wrote:
MacG wrote:
clv101 wrote:The thing that surprises me is the low quality of the anti-AGW arguments. My surprise is how such low quality material is able to sustain a position held by so many. If documentaries like Durkin?s The Great Global Warming Swindle and this paper are the best counter argument then there really isn?t a debate, is there?
I'll give you one freaking big elephant of an argument why the IPCC models are fundamentally flawed: The oil and gas they assume we will burn is simply not there. Anyone remember ASPO? Founded by Colin Campbell, Jean Laherre and the like?
Wow, I've never heard that point of view before...

And have you reflected over the huge discrepancy between the views of the IPCC and ASPO? Could they both be right at the same time?

If you believe more in the IPCC than in the ASPO, well, then it might be time to shut down this site.