South Africa Flag logo

South African Skeptics

July 16, 2019, 04:13:08 AM
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length
Go to mobile page.
News: Follow saskeptics on twitter.
   
   Skeptic Forum Board Index   Help Forum Rules Search GoogleTagged Login Register Chat Blogroll  
Pages: [1]   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic:

Global Warming

 (Read 774 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
johanvz
Newbie
*

Skeptical ability: +2/-0
Offline Offline

Posts: 24


« on: July 24, 2008, 21:14:30 PM »

I recently came across this article(Pouring cold water on hot air).

Quote from: http://ivo.co.za/
In a remarkable editorial over the weekend, Australian scientist David Evans renews his argument against government-mandated restrictions on carbon emissions, noting that there is little evidence to show they have anything to do with climate change


The four main points made are:
1. The greenhouse signature is missing. We have been looking and measuring for years, and cannot find it.
2. There is no evidence to support the idea that carbon emissions cause significant global warming.
3. The satellites that measure the world’s temperature all say that the warming trend ended in 2001
4. The new ice cores show that in the past six global warmings over the past half a million years, the temperature rises occurred on average 800 years before the accompanying rise in atmospheric carbon. Which says something important about which was cause and which was effect.

I don't know enough about global warming or climate change to dispute or confirm any of these claims, but would like to hear the opinion of other forum members on this topic.

Johan.
Logged
bluegray
Administrator
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +9/-3
Offline Offline

Posts: 1107



saskeptics
WWW
« Reply #1 on: July 26, 2008, 11:32:41 AM »

It seems to me that there will always be some disagreement on this topic. You have a hugely complicated system that is always changing and only a limited number of inputs to draw conclusions from. Add to that an enormous financial and political interest, and you have a recipe for disaster.

There are a few things that bother me about the article. But I am also not an expert, and I can only speculate at this time.
The author seems to me a bit too certain that carbon emissions don't cause global warming. There are a lot of papers and evidence to the contrary.
He pins a lot on the "greenhouse signature" that is missing. This I find dubious as well.

Evans is not the only global warming skeptic:
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2006/12/paper_claims_human_co2_emissio.php

I agree with the latest comment of Bob Park:
Suppose, I asked myself, that the deniers are right and the CO2 thing is a mistake? What will happen if the world takes the CO2 thing seriously, adopting common sense measures to counter anthropogenic warming and there never was any warming in the first place? 1) there will more nonrenewable resources to leave to our progeny; 2) we will breath cleaner air and see the stars again, the way we saw them half a century ago; 3) we could stop paving over the planet, and 4) cut down on the number of billionaires. If we're wrong we could have a party. We could have a party either way.


Logged
Wandapec
Sr. Member
****

Skeptical ability: +4/-0
Offline Offline

Posts: 431


100% Proud Atheist/Skeptic


« Reply #2 on: July 26, 2008, 21:56:24 PM »

Stephen Fry said pretty much the same thing as Bob Park in his blog - Getting Overheated. It is a long read but a good one.
Logged
bluegray
Administrator
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +9/-3
Offline Offline

Posts: 1107



saskeptics
WWW
« Reply #3 on: July 27, 2008, 03:59:32 AM »

It is a long read but a good one.
You weren't kidding  Shocked Wink
Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Up
  Print  


 
Jump to:  

Powered by SMF 1.1.11 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC
Page created in 0.446 seconds with 23 sceptic queries.
Google visited last this page March 20, 2019, 04:53:52 AM
Privacy Policy