Jump to content

Welcome to canucks.com Vancouver Canucks homepage

Photo

Fox News Host Claims only "Corrupt Scientists" Believe in Climate Change


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
128 replies to this topic

#121 MadMonk

MadMonk

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 613 posts
  • Joined: 11-January 03

Posted 28 January 2013 - 12:55 PM

Not fake.. climatology is still a relatively new science so models aren't accurate enough nor is enough understood to make any significant changes that would in all likelihood adversely affect an economy.



As I have said in the past, you may not believe it but people have been thinking about planetary climate more than a century; in particular the idea that doubling CO2 will significantly increase global temperature originated in 1896, so this idea have survived a century of scrutiny.

The first comprehensive assessment of climate as in 1979 concluded that the warming due to a double of CO2 is likely to be 1.5-4.5 degrees. Most recent iteration of the IPCC report is 2.0-4.5 degrees. This estimation is obtained not just from climate models, but from current observations, and many paleoclimate data. So even if you discount climate models (which is unjustified), observations suggest there are significant consequences if fossil fuel use continues unabated.

Of course mitigating the effect of global warming will have economical consequences, but so will a 3 degree warming. Continuing to toe the "uncertainty" line while ignoring existing evidence is not a prudent move.

Problem is, green nuts are getting in the way of climate advances (which is a problem with other sciences as well when these people get their slimy politics in the way) trying to end debate by injecting their politically contrived agenda into what should be politically neutral advancement. "Shutting people up" as put by another poster on this page somewhere, is just one example of many.


That's a baseless assertion. "green nuts" (whatever that really means) don't do research. They don't review grants. They don't making funding decisions. They don't run scientific journals, nor do they run scientific conferences.

All activities involved in advancing science are done by scientists, so unless you are implying that climate scientists are green nuts, how exactly are "green nuts" getting in the way of science?

On the other hand there have been real impediments to the advance of science: frivolous FOIA requests and death threats from people who are certainly not "green nuts"

#122 Bertuzzi Babe

Bertuzzi Babe

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,239 posts
  • Joined: 03-May 03

Posted 28 January 2013 - 01:36 PM

Trolling? Just refusing to be a blind lamb.

*Personal remark removed*

Not everyone who disagrees is a troll.


A personal remark? You didn't learned anything in your absence?


People are in great denial who hold the opinion you express regarding global warming

Edited by Bertuzzi Babe, 28 January 2013 - 01:37 PM.

"Sursumredditio" non usquam in hac mea loquantur!



Ense petit placidam sub libertate quietem.....



#123 NuckNuckNucks

NuckNuckNucks

    Comets Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 338 posts
  • Joined: 31-March 12

Posted 28 January 2013 - 02:04 PM

Why don't we ask the Founder of Green Peace?


You have to be a true bandwagoneer if you buy Mike's line about looking for the right deal to trade Luongo.

True fans and hockey diehards know, that is double talk for, "Luongo is a high ticket commodity now or next year, we'll keep him around just in case Schneider turns out to be a lemon and chokes games."

And choke he will.

I know this. I'm never wrong.

#124 NuckNuckNucks

NuckNuckNucks

    Comets Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 338 posts
  • Joined: 31-March 12

Posted 28 January 2013 - 02:07 PM

The day they can predict the weather next week.......

Logical stuff.


You have to be a true bandwagoneer if you buy Mike's line about looking for the right deal to trade Luongo.

True fans and hockey diehards know, that is double talk for, "Luongo is a high ticket commodity now or next year, we'll keep him around just in case Schneider turns out to be a lemon and chokes games."

And choke he will.

I know this. I'm never wrong.

#125 Mr.DirtyDangles

Mr.DirtyDangles

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,897 posts
  • Joined: 04-April 10

Posted 28 January 2013 - 03:34 PM

I encourage everyone and anyone to watch this . This man (Jacque Fresco) and his ideas about the way we work , live and interact with nature is generations ahead of his time. The problem is most are not willing to change from the inside out. We are all so spoiled using antiquated traditions and ideals that will never progress the human race as a whole in a clean and natural fashion. We must co-exist with nature. Use it in its pure intended fashion as opposed to mutating or morphing it on every level to our misguided needs.


Edited by vanfan73, 28 January 2013 - 03:35 PM.

giphy.gif


#126 J.R.

J.R.

    Rainbow Butt Monkey

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,675 posts
  • Joined: 04-July 08

Posted 28 January 2013 - 04:01 PM

Read about this on the weekend - that bees are dying...and in China they are pollinating by hand... pollution is one of the suspects...



The report lists a number of factors which may be coming together to cause the decline and they include:
* Habitat degradation, including the loss of flowering plant species that provide food for bees;
* Some insecticides, including the so-called "systemic" insecticides which can migrate to the entire plant as it grows and be taken in by bees in nectar and pollen;
* Parasites and pests, such as the well-known Varroa mite;
* Air pollution, which may be interfering with the ability of bees to find flowering plants and thus food – scents that could travel more than 800 metres in the 1800s now reach less than 200 metres from a plant.

http://www.independe...ns-2237541.html


"However, bee diversity has declined markedly in Europe, with many species disappearing from much of their former range, and some species going extinct. The UK alone has lost three species of native bumblebee, and six more are listed as endangered. Four bumblebee species have gone extinct from the whole of Europe, and there is good evidence for similar declines in North America and China.

Pollinating animals fly in to our fields to pollinate crops from surrounding wild areas, but if there are no wild areas, or if the crops are doused in insecticides, then pollination will suffer and yields will decline.

China’s hand-pollinated orchards

Evidence from around the world points to falling and increasingly unpredictable yields of insect-pollinated crops, particularly in the areas with the most intensive farming. Where crops are grown in vast fields, there are not enough insects to go around. If insecticides are sprayed too frequently, then vital pollinators cannot survive.

The most dramatic example comes from the apple and pear orchards of south west China, where wild bees have been eradicated by excessive pesticide use and a lack of natural habitat. "

http://www.chinadial.../single/en/5193


Bee the change we wish to see...? :bigblush:
Posted Image
"Science is like an inoculation against charlatans who would have you believe whatever it is they tell you."
- Neil deGrasse Tyson

Posted ImagePosted Image

#127 WiDeN

WiDeN

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,754 posts
  • Joined: 08-December 06

Posted 28 January 2013 - 06:49 PM

The day they can predict the weather next week.......

Logical stuff.

http://youtu.be/aIXtb40nS7A

The Sun is the most ridiculous "news" in Canada. Don't get me started on their shortfalls.

This guy is disputing the science that he doesn't like, and repping the stuff that he does, and a lot of what he speculates on is utter BS.

Because I'll admit (as someone else might want to do to himself) that I don't know enough about the science behind the conversation, I'll wait for MadMonk to break down the first 5 min or so.

V a n c o u v e r C a n u c k s

MirandaKerr.jpg
2 0 1 5 S t a n l e y C u p C h a m p i o n s


#128 MadMonk

MadMonk

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 613 posts
  • Joined: 11-January 03

Posted 28 January 2013 - 10:12 PM

The day they can predict the weather next week.......

Logical stuff.

http://youtu.be/aIXtb40nS7A


There are lots of bad information out there, and I think one should generally check their sources very carefully.

00:25: First mistake. Just because John Robson's not up to date with climate science, doesn't mean we can't explain past events. For a great intro to the paleoclimate, please see Dr Richard Alley's talk
01:00: Nonsense about the hockey stick graph. The switch is clearly labeled and the two data sets are coloured differently.
01:10: He showed this graph:
Posted Image
This is actually dates back to 1982, and it is meant to be a schematic drawing. He further claims that the current temperature has not reached the Medieval Warm period, which is demonstrably false.

Posted Image
Turns out that the graph is a qualitative temperature of central England, not global temperature. If you add in the instrumental temperature, clearly his claim is false for central England. (source)

Now you may wonder, it is year 2011, why is he showing what is effectively a sketch from 1982? Is it because if you show a graph with modern proxy record it completely demolishes his claim?

Here's a more up to date graph of what we know for the past couple of millennia. Note that since 1998 the hockey stick has multiplied. They are based on different proxies and different methods, yet they all come to same conclusion that the current warming is unprecedented.
Posted Image

01:58: He claims since we can't use computer to model to past, we can't model the future. That's a silly point.

Computer runs are not cheap. It takes months to do a century long simulation. You'll also need data such as solar strength, which we don't have so we'll have to guess. Now even though proxy records are fine for temperature record, it is too sparse for verifying global climate models (GCM). If they match, maybe it's luck. If they don't maybe you have the wrong solar record. So you'll waste a year and learn nothing.

The real salient test, and the bench mark for GCMs, is whether it reproduces the climate for the past 100 years, since we have 10s of thousands of instrumental record, not just for temperature but also for pressure, wind speed, to check against.

02:17: One should be careful about bring in paleoclimate data, because if you actually look at them, what they suggest is that you can't makes sense of the earth's past climate history unless CO2 has significant impact.

- He brought up the ice ages in the Pleistocene. Now timings of ice ages are likely due to the earth's orbit, but the change in solar radiation is too small to explain the huge swings. Once you consider the changes in CO2 however, the magnitude of the swings starts to make sense. Turns out doubling of CO2 indeed matters.

- He tries to impress you with what appears to be wild swings in earth's climate, but these transitions actually occur over a much longer time scale. A real wild swing by paleoclimate standards will be the PETM event, which saw an excursion of 6 degrees over 20,000 (another estimate is 4 degrees over 10,000 years). Now keep in mind that we are talking about (4-6+ degrees over 1-200 years if we use up all fossil fuel). BTW, the most likely cause of PETM was greenhouse gas.

03:47: He commits the classical "climate has changed in the past" fallacy.

03:56: Younger Dryas (YD): 2 degrees per decade sounds terrifying, but what he neglected (or didn't know) was the it was a localized event to northern atlantic. The global temperature drop was more like 0.6 degrees (source).

05:00: Ah here's the kicker... He bring ups comic ray theory, which actually has NO scientific evidence that it matters in large-scale climate.

It's good that he stops with the "science" at this point.

Edited by MadMonk, 28 January 2013 - 10:22 PM.


#129 Kryten

Kryten

    Aladdin

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,417 posts
  • Joined: 02-February 12

Posted 29 January 2013 - 07:37 AM

This thread is great, lots of interesting info on this subject, thanks to the contributors who took the time. For those who need a little positivity about our future, there are some helpful technologies coming down the pipeline that if you are not aware of, has the potential to drastically cut the amount of pollution created by fossil fuels and nuclear power. Not to mention the professor of MIT in charge of this project is a Canadian!


Posted Image




Canucks.com is the official Web site of The Vancouver Canucks. The Vancouver Canucks and Canucks.com are trademarks of The Vancouver Canucks Limited Partnership.  NHL and the word mark and image of the Stanley Cup are registered trademarks and the NHL Shield and NHL Conference logos are trademarks of the National Hockey League. All NHL logos and marks and NHL team logos and marks as well as all other proprietary materials depicted herein are the property of the NHL and the respective NHL teams and may not be reproduced without the prior written consent of NHL Enterprises, L.P.  Copyright © 2009 The Vancouver Canucks Limited Partnership and the National Hockey League.  All Rights Reserved.