HOME  |  NEWS  |  BLOGS  |  MESSAGES  |  FEATURES  |  VIDEOS  |  WEBINARS  |  INDUSTRIES  |  FOCUS ON FUNDAMENTALS
REGISTER   |   LOGIN   |   HELP
Blogs
Captain Hybrid

Global Warming: Are the Skeptics Right?

Page 1 / 3 Next >
View Comments: Newest First|Oldest First|Threaded View
<<  <  Page 3/54  >  >>
jcbond_mi
User Rank
Gold
Re: Any Disagreement with Global Warming
jcbond_mi   12/4/2013 12:08:25 PM
Since you asked Paul:

The contention here is that humans are causing the climate to change.  However, millions of years before humans were on the scene, the earth was warmer than it is now.

Have you considered that earth may be at it's natural temperature for this period of time?  That if human activity never existed, we might still be at this same temperature right now?

There is a level of hubris in taking responsibility for current partially perceived state of system that is both massive and complex and only partially understood.  30 years ago, these same global warming advocates (and advocates they are) were decrying the coming ice age.

ambasssador
User Rank
Silver
Re: Update your post with science and balance, Mr. Murray
ambasssador   12/4/2013 11:50:37 AM
In my opinion, this is the balance.  If you added up the number of dissenting scientists as a percentage of believing scientists, and then you add up the number of dissenting articles, against the unbalanced believing articles, TV shows, books etc. I think the percentages would be pretty close.  I here your tone being political, which in my opinion is the problem.  This has become more of a political issue than a scientific one.

ambasssador
User Rank
Silver
Re: Global Warming
ambasssador   12/4/2013 11:46:19 AM
I am not one who disbelieves in globel climate change, but I am also a scientist and do not believe you have read the article correctly.  The article did not conclude that putting tons of CO2 in the atmosphere does not have unforseen affects, it just says there are dissenting opinions that don't believe it does what the supporters of global climate change are saying.  That includes both degree and malevolence.  THey say the data is inconclusive.  

That is the answer they would give to your question, and it is a scientifically valid answer.  It has not been proven scientifically to the level as such things as 1st and 2nd law of thermodynamics etc.  THe problem lies in the ramifications of us being wrong.  If most are wrong about global climate change, then we have been hurt economically for a short period.  If most are correct, then we are in for some large trouble.  It makes sense to me to try to fix even potential problems.

paulzad
User Rank
Iron
Re: Any Disagreement with Global Warming
paulzad   12/4/2013 11:18:29 AM
NO RATINGS
Can you answer Kyoshi's question?

Kyoshi
User Rank
Silver
Global Warming
Kyoshi   12/4/2013 11:03:15 AM
It is true that global warming is not universally accepted by all scientists, just like the moon landing is not believed by all the general public.  But can anyone make a coherent argument that releasing millons of years of sequestered carbon into our atmosphere cannot be expected to have unforseen consequences?

jcbond_mi
User Rank
Gold
Any Disagreement with Global Warming
jcbond_mi   12/4/2013 10:53:33 AM
NO RATINGS
Interesting article.  For those of you defending the viewpoint presented to the angry global warming proponents who will accept no disent, I'd say don't bother.  Clearly, with these people it is at the point of radicalized religion.  Any attempt to debate this will shouted down with name-calling.  Anybody who disagrees is simply ignorant or worse.

CharlesM
User Rank
Silver
Update your post with science and balance, Mr. Murray
CharlesM   12/4/2013 10:26:55 AM
UBM gets a new black eye for dishonesty, anti-science, and biased journalism every time it re-spams the link to this deplorable post, as it did again today. If it or Charles Murray had an ounce of integrity they would update this with a corrected post that is accurate and honest to science.

A more balanced post would at least counterbalance your post about 16 scientists believing "no," with reporting at least equal weight to 255 real climate scientists who say "yes," the science of global warming is indeed incontrovertible.  It would only add to the interest of readers to point out that the Wall Street Journal refused to publish the rebuttal from these 255 scientists. Do you care, Mr. Murray?

As it stands, UBM and Charles Murray are just toeing the line for right-wing politics and the fossil fuel lobby.  That's no way for a legitimate media organization to operate.

William K.
User Rank
Platinum
What about the Maunder Minimum?
William K.   10/28/2013 10:16:54 PM
NO RATINGS
One very interesting thing that I came across recently pointed out thet toward the end of the 1600s(1645) and a bit into the 1700s(1715) there was a period of very few sunspots, and places froze that had not frozen before. There was another cycle of sunspot activity proposed, based on observed data, the Gleissburg cycle, which appears to be 87 years. The cooling of the earth at that time would appear to have been due to a lower output of solar energy, although what was recorded was the number of sunspots. It is lots eassier to count sunspots than to accurately measure solar energy flux, even today. 

This bit of old information backs up my assertion that our weather system is far more complex than what some folks believe, and also allows for activities for which we understand neither the cause nor the mechanism very well. So to assert that one clearly knows both what is happening and exactly why it is happening is not a very good way to achieve credibility.

William K.
User Rank
Platinum
Re: Fix this deceitful post, UBM!
William K.   10/25/2013 7:53:33 PM
NO RATINGS
The fact is that the total system of climatre and weather is incredibly complex and not really understood as well as is needed. The reality is that much is not understood at all, while some things that are understood it may be that which is cause and which is effect is not really known. It is not that likely that correct results can be obtained using an incomplete model. 

Besides all of that fact, there is still the unanswered question about changes in the sun's energy output, and the time lag between a small change and a measureable effect. And since it is quite unlikely that any records that go back very far show the solar enegry delivered to earth with enough accuracy to detect a change of 0.1%, which is all that it would take to produce some changes such as we see today. And the fact is that neither Bush nor Clinton can be blamed for any such changes in solar output. We know that there are sunspot cycles because we can see them and observe the effects. It seems likely that there are other cycles as well, but we don't know how to see them just yet. There are lots of unanswered questions.

And it is very likely that there could be 255 people with similar agendas, or more likely, about 20 with a serious agenda and a whole bunch that are just too apathetic to raise an argument with them. There are lots of apathetic people around, you know.

CharlesM
User Rank
Silver
Re: Fix this deceitful post, UBM!
CharlesM   10/22/2013 11:48:34 AM
NO RATINGS
Do you think the thousands of real climate scientists (about 97% or more of them recognizing the reality and cause of climate change) and the 255 members of the National Academies of Science who submitted the essay to the Wall Street Journal on the realities of climate change are just "a collection of people who call themselves scientists," and not real or valid scientists?

Also, do you think science is a noble profession where honesty, ethics, and transparency are fundamental, or does it generally attract fear-mongers and political opportunists with hidden agendas?

And it seems that you are not aware of a fairly common propoganda trick of associating things not related.

Thanks for the clarification of what you are doing.

<<  <  Page 3/54  >  >>
Partner Zone
More Blogs from Captain Hybrid
A pure electric car with a lithium-ion battery can lose as much as 57% of its range when the temperature dips and 33% when the mercury rises, a new AAA study says.
Volkswagen AG is developing a lithium-air battery that could triple the range of its electric cars, but industry experts believe it could be a long time before that chemistry is ready for production vehicles.
After reading all the recent news reports about Tesla Motorsí proposed ďGigafactory,Ē itís hard not to wonder about the future of battery-electric cars, and how low their costs can really go.
Californiaís plan to mandate an electric vehicle market isnít the first such undertaking and certainly wonít be the last. But as the Golden State ratchets up for its next big step toward zero-emission vehicle status in 2018, it might be wise to consider a bit of history.
Tesla Motors plans to build a huge battery factory in hopes of making electric cars affordable for the general public.
Design News Webinar Series
3/27/2014 11:00 a.m. California / 2:00 p.m. New York / 7:00 p.m. London
2/27/2014 11:00 a.m. California / 2:00 p.m. New York / 7:00 p.m. London
12/18/2013 Available On Demand
11/20/2013 Available On Demand
Quick Poll
The Continuing Education Center offers engineers an entirely new way to get the education they need to formulate next-generation solutions.
Apr 21 - 25, Creating & Testing Your First RTOS Application Using MQX
SEMESTERS: 1  |  2  |  3  |  4  |  5


Focus on Fundamentals consists of 45-minute on-line classes that cover a host of technologies. You learn without leaving the comfort of your desk. All classes are taught by subject-matter experts and all are archived. So if you can't attend live, attend at your convenience.
Next Class: April 29 - Day 1
Sponsored by maxon precision motors
Learn More   |   Login   |   Archived Classes
Twitter Feed
Design News Twitter Feed
Like Us on Facebook

Sponsored Content

Technology Marketplace

Datasheets.com Parts Search

185 million searchable parts
(please enter a part number or hit search to begin)
Copyright © 2014 UBM Canon, A UBM company, All rights reserved. Privacy Policy | Terms of Service