Global Warming Denialism a Just Foolishness,a Scientist Peter Raven Says

Apr 1, 2012 | Posted by: Palawa | Full story: abcnews.go.com

One of the world's most widely known and respected senior scientists tells ABC News that current denial about the basic daunting realities of manmade global warming is "just foolishness." He also reports that the rest of the world has now "pretty well given up" on its hope for U.S. leadership in dealing with global climate change.

Comments

Showing posts 1 - 20 of86
< prev page
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:

Since: Dec 10

Perth, Australia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1
Apr 1, 2012
 

Since: Dec 10

Perth, Australia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2
Apr 1, 2012
 

Judged:

5

4

4

Hey that link is as authentic as the psuedo science trying to link global warming to climate change....clutching at straws to defend a world wide carbon tax so the rich can get richer and that includes the scientist that support it...Oh, and all the dumb knobs that believe that we can have any effect on the outcome on the climate of our planed should be immediately certified...

Since: Nov 10

Southern California

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3
Apr 1, 2012
 

Judged:

5

5

4

Ahomana wrote:
Crazy ass fool. Your paycheck probably depends on CO2 pollution. US leadership please. Rightwing Jesus freaks dont believe in evolution. I gave you peanut Cuz your nuts.

Since: Nov 10

Southern California

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4
Apr 1, 2012
 

Judged:

3

3

2

Peter Raven if you are OZ as an American WE APOLOGIZE. Our planet is cooking. Ice caps melting. Polar bears drowning. Record high temps. Species will die. Droughts. Famine. Sometimes Americans are WRONG. World is selfish.

Since: Dec 10

Perth, Australia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5
Apr 1, 2012
 

Judged:

3

3

2

Mr Humbert wrote:
Peter Raven if you are OZ as an American WE APOLOGIZE. Our planet is cooking. Ice caps melting. Polar bears drowning. Record high temps. Species will die. Droughts. Famine. Sometimes Americans are WRONG. World is selfish.
So we are experiencing a climate change...not a global warming change you brainwashed nutter...you are the reason this world needs people that aren't in the pocket of governments or big corporations and aren't reliant on grants ....someone who has not been bought off to sell us this shit.....You are the first person I recommend to be certified nuts humbug...for buying what they were selling...silly sausage you!
Claude

Roslindale, MA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6
Apr 1, 2012
 

Judged:

3

2

2

Mr Humbert wrote:
Peter Raven if you are OZ as an American WE APOLOGIZE. Our planet is cooking. Ice caps melting. Polar bears drowning. Record high temps. Species will die. Droughts. Famine. Sometimes Americans are WRONG. World is selfish.
What do you expect to happen during an interglacial period? The article says a MAJORITY of climate scientists subscribe to ONLY the BASIC TENETS ... These are pretty carefully chosen words, don't you think? When I read them it says to me that that climate scientist disagree about the cause of global warming.

Since: Apr 11

Roma, QLD

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#7
Apr 1, 2012
 

Judged:

5

4

3

Mr Humbert wrote:
Peter Raven if you are OZ as an American WE APOLOGIZE. Our planet is cooking. Ice caps melting. Polar bears drowning. Record high temps. Species will die. Droughts. Famine. Sometimes Americans are WRONG. World is selfish.
natural cycle, the more the glaciers melt the more probable they'll shut down the great conveyer belt and send the planet spiralling into an ice age.
Northie

Spokane, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8
Apr 3, 2012
 

Judged:

5

5

3

Claude wrote:
<quoted text>
What do you expect to happen during an interglacial period? The article says a MAJORITY of climate scientists subscribe to ONLY the BASIC TENETS ... These are pretty carefully chosen words, don't you think? When I read them it says to me that that climate scientist disagree about the cause of global warming.
You're reading what you want to read, nothing more. The "basic tenets" of global warming are that it is happening and it is our responsibility, about which no significant scientific disagreement remains.

As for interglacials, ours was following the usual pattern for the past 8,000 years, slowly, steadily cooling from the initial peak...until now, when that slow decline has suddenly transformed into a vertical wall of rising temperatures and CO2 levels.
Don Kosloff

Jefferson City, MO

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#9
Apr 4, 2012
 

Judged:

3

3

2

The only people who really believe in global warming are demanding that more nuclear power plant be built.
Claude

Jamaica Plain, MA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#10
Apr 5, 2012
 

Judged:

3

3

3

Northie wrote:
<quoted text>
You're reading what you want to read, nothing more. The "basic tenets" of global warming are that it is happening and it is our responsibility, about which no significant scientific disagreement remains.
As for interglacials, ours was following the usual pattern for the past 8,000 years, slowly, steadily cooling from the initial peak...until now, when that slow decline has suddenly transformed into a vertical wall of rising temperatures and CO2 levels.
Northie -

I know what I read. A majority means some did not sign so therefore some disagree. The implication is that those who did sign signed a document containing just the basic tenets - whatever that means - the article was not explicit. Usually, when someone wants to make a point they're explicit almost to a fault. This language sounded like real-estate-ese.(If it doesn't say it has a basement, IT DOESN'T)

As far as interglacials go, they're called interglacials because temperatures rise and melt the ice. Climate scientists don't have a handle on what causes ice ages and interglacials and can't predict when they will begin and end. About the only things certain are that they have been going on for a very long time (40 million years) and whatever controls these cycles has nothing to do with human activity.

When this interglacial started about 15,000 years ago, temperaturres started warming up but then suddenly reversed direction about 13,000 years ago. In just 20 years we were back in the ice age and stayed there for another 1,000 years. Then we came out of it almost as abruptly. My point is that periods of rapid warming and rapid cooling have happened many times in the past. What's happening today is hardly unusual.

But the real kicker in all of this is that today's climate scientists don't have a clue - none at all - what causes these rapid changes of the past. Look up the "Youger Dryas" period in Greenland ice core data if you want to know more about the one I just described.

So, if climate scientists are unable to explain rapid warming events of the past, including an event that occurred as recently as the same interglacial we now live in, how much confidence should we have in their ability to predict future climate change, let alone the effect humans have on it?

I know what I read. This is a S T R E T C H.

“Happy, warm and comfortable”

Since: Oct 10

Mountain hideaway, SE Spain

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#12
Apr 6, 2012
 

Judged:

3

2

1

Claude, well put!

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#13
Apr 6, 2012
 

Judged:

3

3

2

Claude wrote:
<quoted text>
Northie -
I know what I read. A majority means some did not sign so therefore some disagree. The implication is that those who did sign signed a document containing just the basic tenets - whatever that means - the article was not explicit. Usually, when someone wants to make a point they're explicit almost to a fault. This language sounded like real-estate-ese.(If it doesn't say it has a basement, IT DOESN'T)
As far as interglacials go, they're called interglacials because temperatures rise and melt the ice. Climate scientists don't have a handle on what causes ice ages and interglacials and can't predict when they will begin and end. About the only things certain are that they have been going on for a very long time (40 million years) and whatever controls these cycles has nothing to do with human activity.
When this interglacial started about 15,000 years ago, temperaturres started warming up but then suddenly reversed direction about 13,000 years ago. In just 20 years we were back in the ice age and stayed there for another 1,000 years. Then we came out of it almost as abruptly. My point is that periods of rapid warming and rapid cooling have happened many times in the past. What's happening today is hardly unusual.
But the real kicker in all of this is that today's climate scientists don't have a clue - none at all - what causes these rapid changes of the past. Look up the "Youger Dryas" period in Greenland ice core data if you want to know more about the one I just described.
So, if climate scientists are unable to explain rapid warming events of the past, including an event that occurred as recently as the same interglacial we now live in, how much confidence should we have in their ability to predict future climate change, let alone the effect humans have on it?
I know what I read. This is a S T R E T C H.
http://lmgtfy.com/...
Claude

Boston, MA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#14
Apr 6, 2012
 

Judged:

4

4

3

Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
http://lmgtfy.com/...
Fair game -

Not sure what your point is. The google search you provided shows there's no consensus and also some weird opinions out there concerning possible causes of the Younger Dryas. Including a suggestion that it may have been caused by an impact of some kind (meteor or comet)- but WITHOUT so much as a SHRED OF EVIDENCE.

When the debate about the causes of the Younger Dryas includes hypotheses like this, I think a fair description of the level of understanding of these events is what I stated before: they have no clue - none at all - what causes rapid warming and cooling events of the past.

Fun Facts

Las Cruces, NM

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#15
Apr 6, 2012
 

Judged:

5

3

1

Claude wrote:
<quoted text>
Fair game -
Not sure what your point is. The google search you provided shows there's no consensus and also some weird opinions out there concerning possible causes of the Younger Dryas. Including a suggestion that it may have been caused by an impact of some kind (meteor or comet)- but WITHOUT so much as a SHRED OF EVIDENCE.
When the debate about the causes of the Younger Dryas includes hypotheses like this, I think a fair description of the level of understanding of these events is what I stated before: they have no clue - none at all - what causes rapid warming and cooling events of the past.
The hypothesis of a comet 'explosion' causing the Younger Dryas is a result of finding iridium in about 50 locations throughout north america at the time period of the onset of glaciation.

It is an hypothesis not a theory. One big issue is there is no impact site. Altho there does appear to be an 'orgination point', eastern Canada. Advocates point out the abundance of ice and snow at the time of the proposed impact would have obscured an impact site. They cite the Siberian comet explosion above the surface that occurred in the early 20th century as a possible example of what happened in the Younger Dryas time period.

What actually caused the Younger Dryas is thought to be the shut down of the MOC. Specifically what we call the Gulf Stream. It is the 'driver' of the event that is still under investigation.

I agree with your premise, we know the MWP was warm and we know the Romans lived in a warmer climate. We also know that the Minoans lived in a warmer climate and the Egyptians. Except for about 200 years at one point when it got really cold and cannibalism was evident in what we would call civilized communities. Then there's the Little Ice Age and the Dark Ages Cold Period. So what caused all of those climate ups and downs.

If we can't answer that question, then we do not have a basis for detemining what we see today.
Northie

Spokane, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#16
Apr 6, 2012
 

Judged:

4

4

3

Claude wrote:
<quoted text>
Northie -
I know what I read. A majority means some did not sign so therefore some disagree. The implication is that those who did sign signed a document containing just the basic tenets - whatever that means - the article was not explicit. Usually, when someone wants to make a point they're explicit almost to a fault. This language sounded like real-estate-ese.(If it doesn't say it has a basement, IT DOESN'T)
As far as interglacials go, they're called interglacials because temperatures rise and melt the ice. Climate scientists don't have a handle on what causes ice ages and interglacials and can't predict when they will begin and end. About the only things certain are that they have been going on for a very long time (40 million years) and whatever controls these cycles has nothing to do with human activity.
When this interglacial started about 15,000 years ago, temperaturres started warming up but then suddenly reversed direction about 13,000 years ago. In just 20 years we were back in the ice age and stayed there for another 1,000 years. Then we came out of it almost as abruptly. My point is that periods of rapid warming and rapid cooling have happened many times in the past. What's happening today is hardly unusual.
But the real kicker in all of this is that today's climate scientists don't have a clue - none at all - what causes these rapid changes of the past. Look up the "Youger Dryas" period in Greenland ice core data if you want to know more about the one I just described.
So, if climate scientists are unable to explain rapid warming events of the past, including an event that occurred as recently as the same interglacial we now live in, how much confidence should we have in their ability to predict future climate change, let alone the effect humans have on it?
I know what I read. This is a S T R E T C H.
"Some did not sign"? Sign what, exactly?

If you mean endorsement of the basic tenets that global warming is happening and we are responsible for it, every major national scientific academy and every relevant scientific society on Earth has signed on. There are no exceptions.

Simply put, no significant disagreement remains among experts, nor has there been any for the past ten years. Instead, what remains is political disagreement stirred up by the world's largest industry, which is doing its best to delay regulation by dividing us against one another.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warmin...
Claude

Boston, MA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#17
Apr 6, 2012
 

Judged:

4

3

3

Northie wrote:
<quoted text>
... every major national scientific academy and every relevant scientific society on Earth has signed on. There are no exceptions.
Simply put, no significant disagreement remains among experts...

http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warmin...
Northie,

That IS simply put - and a distortion of what the article said, although the article contained some distortions of it's own in this area. In fact, the article was quick to point out that those who disagree have less standing in the climate science community than those who signed on. By who's reckoning, do you suppose?
Apparently there are "dummies" in the climate science community who have not yet seen the light. Disagreement is out there Northie, whether you want to admit it or not.

And when you say no SIGNIFICANT disagreement remains isn't that because those who disagree don't happen to agree with you? Is that what them insignificant? Like the article you seek to marginalize them. The EXPERTS you refer to are scientists. In science all disagreement is significant; there is NONE that is otherwise. Science deals in facts – not opinion, and as long as there is contradictory data that refutes an hypothesis, it will not advance to the level of a theory. In this case, contradictory and confounding data abounds – it isn’t even close. There's disagreement out there allright - and there SHOULD BE or it's not SCIENCE!



SWEET SWEETY CHEEKS

Bayonne, NJ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#18
Apr 6, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

HERE we go again with the name CALLING and PUT DOWN TALK.IF these warmers were so sure in their GLOBAL WARMING CAUSE THERE would be NO NEED for NAME CALLING. WE CALL IT LITTLE SCHOOL YARD PUNK YAK TRAP TALK.
Northie

Spokane, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#19
Apr 6, 2012
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Claude wrote:
<quoted text>
Northie,
That IS simply put - and a distortion of what the article said, although the article contained some distortions of it's own in this area. In fact, the article was quick to point out that those who disagree have less standing in the climate science community than those who signed on. By who's reckoning, do you suppose?
Apparently there are "dummies" in the climate science community who have not yet seen the light. Disagreement is out there Northie, whether you want to admit it or not.
And when you say no SIGNIFICANT disagreement remains isn't that because those who disagree don't happen to agree with you? Is that what them insignificant? Like the article you seek to marginalize them. The EXPERTS you refer to are scientists. In science all disagreement is significant; there is NONE that is otherwise. Science deals in facts – not opinion, and as long as there is contradictory data that refutes an hypothesis, it will not advance to the level of a theory. In this case, contradictory and confounding data abounds – it isn’t even close. There's disagreement out there allright - and there SHOULD BE or it's not SCIENCE!
Again, "Some did not sign"? Sign what, exactly? Do you think the scientific consensus is the result of some statement being passed around that individual scientists either sign or refuse to sign?

That's not the way it works. No single individual has the breadth of expertise to judge evidence across a really large cross-disciplinary subject like this. That's why national academies and scientific societies were created. The US National Academy of Sciences was founded by Lincoln because even 150 years ago science had moved beyond the grasp of individuals. Like most national academies, the NAAS elects the nation's top researchers to be the nation's final arbiter of scientific evidence much the way the Supreme Court weighs legal evidence.
Claude

Boston, MA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#20
Apr 6, 2012
 

Judged:

2

2

1

Northie wrote:
<quoted text>
Again, "Some did not sign"? Sign what, exactly? Do you think the scientific consensus is the result of some statement being passed around that individual scientists either sign or refuse to sign?
That's not the way it works. No single individual has the breadth of expertise to judge evidence across a really large cross-disciplinary subject like this. That's why national academies and scientific societies were created. The US National Academy of Sciences was founded by Lincoln because even 150 years ago science had moved beyond the grasp of individuals. Like most national academies, the NAAS elects the nation's top researchers to be the nation's final arbiter of scientific evidence much the way the Supreme Court weighs legal evidence.
Just read the article you posted. It says there is disagreement but tries to marginalize those who disagree by claiming they are of lesser standing. What BS!

So according to you science is now conducted by panels of judges?
You know what you're talking about - right?
Claude

Mansfield, MA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#22
Apr 7, 2012
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Northie wrote:
<quoted text>

Like most national academies, the NAAS elects the nation's top researchers to be the nation's final arbiter of scientific evidence much the way the Supreme Court weighs legal evidence.
Northie –

This statement is complete and total BS! Now I KNOW you don’t have a clue.

NAAS is part of the infrastructure of science, it does not actually conduct science. Where the rubber meets the road in scientific research is at universities, research organizations, hospitals, hi-tech businesses, agri-businesses, etc. The people at NAAS are the administrators, organizers, facilitators, publishers, fundraisers, etc. Most of their employees are not scientists. They organize events – symposia and other venues at which scientists can meet and exchange ideas, present papers, etc. They publish these proceedings. They raise funds and oversee grants, fellowships, and other distributions for research.

NAAS is a little special in that sometimes it is called upon to advise government about scientific matters. When this happens they organize and convene panels of scientists to discuss and recommend; then write and publish reports, etc. They arbitrate NOTHING!! If congress wants a recommendation, they will provide it in the manner I just described using the best available information – even though the SCIENTIFIC PROOF is lacking.

Where the rubber meets the road, the scientists are doing science – research and always questioning the hypotheses in their fields to see if the data they find will add additional support or will refute these hypotheses. This is where disagreement about AGW exists – and there’s plenty of it. And there should be because this is what science IS and DOES!

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 1 - 20 of86
< prev page
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Other Recent Kwazulu/Natal, South Africa Discussions

Search the Kwazulu/Natal, South Africa Forum:
Topic Updated Last By Comments
Four-year-old cut up, hidden in church Jul 7 kolokoti 1
Indian believes that African colleagues are "mo... (Apr '10) Jun 27 Thobza 87
Jehovah's Witness girl saved by court Jun 24 ohreally 275
Pill to put pep into men's sex lives (Feb '13) Jun 24 Bert 9
looking 4ward 2 meat new ppl cz it a new day Jun 21 mzet 1
South African group to trace roots in India (Oct '10) Jun 16 Truth alone Triumphs 10
Life term for rapist prosecutor Jun '14 Arse 1
•••
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••