bloodyminded Posted January 10, 2011 Report Share Posted January 10, 2011 There is an argument whether the Midieval Warm Period was warmer than today. The importance of the MWP is that it was warm - and it was followed by the Little Ice Age - a period of cooling that lasted until about 1850.....and that has been followed by another warming period that we are still experiencing. Temperature has gone up and down and up again.....very naturally. Humans have contributed somewhat to the most recent warming but to what extent is still very much open to debate. Alarmists say it is the major driver and will result in catastrophic warming...Sceptics say that it's not a significant driver. Because the earth is warming, it's not surprising that the most recent decades are among the warmest. Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age Just a small point of order: it's not "alarmists" vs "sceptics"; it's "alarmists" vs "deniers." That's just fair debating rules. I don't think we should discuss "pro-lifers" vs "babykillers," or "pro-choicers" vs. "women-haters" either. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted January 10, 2011 Report Share Posted January 10, 2011 Just a small point of order: it's not "alarmists" vs "sceptics"; it's "alarmists" vs "deniers." That's just fair debating rules. I don't think we should discuss "pro-lifers" vs "babykillers," or "pro-choicers" vs. "women-haters" either. Maybe you could use "proponents" and "skeptics" too, if you wanted to. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bloodyminded Posted January 10, 2011 Report Share Posted January 10, 2011 (edited) Maybe you could use "proponents" and "skeptics" too, if you wanted to. Right! I was searching my mind for a workable term. That one works. But actually, "Sceptic" only works in the narrow sense that it has been popularized during this debate. There are actual scientific "sceptics," long pre-existing this debate, of course (one can find magazines, websites, and so on), and they tend to be rather "sceptical" about the AGW "sceptics." Edited January 10, 2011 by bloodyminded Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saipan Posted January 10, 2011 Report Share Posted January 10, 2011 There are actual scientific "sceptics," And there are no gays in Iran. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bloodyminded Posted January 10, 2011 Report Share Posted January 10, 2011 And there are no gays in Iran. My friendly and helpful suggestion to you is to think before you post. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saipan Posted January 10, 2011 Report Share Posted January 10, 2011 My friendly and helpful suggestion to you is to think before you post. Good advice. Take it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest TrueMetis Posted January 10, 2011 Report Share Posted January 10, 2011 My friendly and helpful suggestion to you is to think before you post. Have you paid attention to his posting history? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saipan Posted January 10, 2011 Report Share Posted January 10, 2011 That's right. Forget about the "global" warm up, forget Scientists Challenge UN and Gore. Concentrate on Saipan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bloodyminded Posted January 10, 2011 Report Share Posted January 10, 2011 Have you paid attention to his posting history? You make a good point, sir. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bloodyminded Posted January 10, 2011 Report Share Posted January 10, 2011 That's right. Forget about the "global" warm up, forget Scientists Challenge UN and Gore. Concentrate on Saipan Well, you see, you responded to my remark about scientific sceptics with soem unrelated jibe about "gays in Iran." I don't know why. But when you start trying to have an honest debate--with irrelevant one-liners relegated to the occasional, rather than the usual--you might find people more willing to engage you sensibly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
noahbody Posted January 10, 2011 Report Share Posted January 10, 2011 Just a small point of order: it's not "alarmists" vs "sceptics"; it's "alarmists" vs "deniers." I've always considered the alarmists to be the deniers as they deny the probability of global cooling. Both sides acknowledge the earth warms. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bloodyminded Posted January 10, 2011 Report Share Posted January 10, 2011 I've always considered the alarmists to be the deniers as they deny the probability of global cooling. Both sides acknowledge the earth warms. Well, if the "alarmists" are actually the "deniers," then what are what we currently refer to as the "deniers"? Alarmists? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saipan Posted January 10, 2011 Report Share Posted January 10, 2011 Well, you see, you responded to my remark about scientific sceptics with soem unrelated jibe about "gays in Iran." I don't know why. Same type of claim. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saipan Posted January 10, 2011 Report Share Posted January 10, 2011 what we currently refer to as the "deniers"? Alarmists? People who deny climate was, is, and will always be changing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bloodyminded Posted January 10, 2011 Report Share Posted January 10, 2011 Same type of claim. Really? that there are scientists who call themselves "sceptics" and who disagree with the deniers? That's just an objective fact, Saipan. I understand you don't agree with them...but that doesn't mean they don't exist! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saipan Posted January 10, 2011 Report Share Posted January 10, 2011 Really? that there are scientists who call themselves "sceptics" and who disagree with the deniers? Define "deniers". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keepitsimple Posted January 10, 2011 Report Share Posted January 10, 2011 (edited) What a bunch of hooey. I'm a sceptic.....and like almost all sceptics, I believe that the world is warming - it goes up and down, up and down....but there's been an overall upward drift since at least 1850 and history shows that it will continue its staggered march. CO2 plays a role on warming and humans contribute to the prevalence of C02.....but this sceptic - as with most sceptics - believes that the role of CO2 has been grossly over-stated and thus the human contribution is but a small part of any warming. Sceptics therefore in general deny nothing - other than being sceptical about the degree to which CO2 and by extention, humans - contribute to warming the planet. Alarmists on the other hand deny that natural elements (sun, clouds, decadal currents, etc) could ever be more influential than CO2. CO2 is the major driver of warming - there is no other explanation. There is no room for debate. And yet it goes on. Edited January 10, 2011 by Keepitsimple Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bloodyminded Posted January 10, 2011 Report Share Posted January 10, 2011 (edited) What a bunch of hooey. I'm a sceptic.....and like almost all sceptics, I believe No, it's not "hooey," and you could check it out yourself with a few seconds of googling. Scientific scepticism is very old, it predates this debate by a hell of a long time, and it's interested in many, many topics. It's not relegated to this one, even if you think you somehow "own" the word "sceptic," in the way that religious conservatives think they "own" the word "marriage." further, while many of these sceptics--and I'm talking about scientists here, simple, not yourself--are indeed sceptical of AGW, many, many sceptics are not sceptical of AGW, and are in fact sceptical of the deniers' claims. Like I told Saipan, you don't agree with them, that's fine. but they exist. they're real. And though you don't know it...you got the term "sceptic" from them. Many of whom disagree with you. Edited January 10, 2011 by bloodyminded Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted January 10, 2011 Report Share Posted January 10, 2011 There is an argument whether the Midieval Warm Period was warmer than today. The importance of the MWP is that it was warm - and it was followed by the Little Ice Age - a period of cooling that lasted until about 1850.....and that has been followed by another warming period that we are still experiencing. Temperature has gone up and down and up again.....very naturally. Humans have contributed somewhat to the most recent warming but to what extent is still very much open to debate. Alarmists say it is the major driver and will result in catastrophic warming...Sceptics say that it's not a significant driver. Because the earth is warming, it's not surprising that the most recent decades are among the warmest. blathering nonsense! Even if you could show the MWP was more than a regional phenomenon (which you can't), even if you could show the MWP temperatures were warmer than global temperature today (which you can't)... there is scientifically accepted consensus on what caused the warming of the MWP; specifically, it was attributed to increased natural variations in the form of higher than average solar radiation, reduced volcanic activity and changes in ocean circulation patterns that particularly influenced the North Atlantic affecting adjacent land areas. Obviously MWP warming can't be attributed to man. Alternatively, no natural variations can account for the warming... the accelerated warming... of the relatively recent post 1850 period. Current warming can only be accounted for when CO2 radiative forcing is factored - current increases in atmospheric CO2 levels are most definitely, most absolutely, attributed to mankind's burning of fossil-fuels. as always, Simple... don't hesitate to step forward and attribute today's accelerated warming to any natural variations... or haven't you checked the denialsphere for today's latest and greatest smoking-gun, "AGW killer"? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted January 10, 2011 Report Share Posted January 10, 2011 What a bunch of hooey. I'm a sceptic.....and like almost all sceptics, I believe that the world is warming - it goes up and down, up and down.... bullshit - you're a concern troll. Your posting history is a testament to your denial. given the recent flurry of MLW posts with an emphasis on 'climate change advocacy labels', the following is receiving emphatic interest! It's particularly biting to a certain segment of so-called "skeptics" since they lose the emphasis of their favoured "alarmist" dig while, equally, having to back-peddle and accept a degree of warming. Effectively, the definitions align with the real significant area of contention; i.e.; climate sensitivity - that is to say, the climate systems measure of temperature response to a change in the radiative forcing... usually expressed as the temperature change associated with a doubling of the concentration of atmospheric CO2. - labels with respect to degrees of acceptance to climate sensitivity levels: idiotati:<= 1° C lukewarmer: > 1° C and <= 3° C warmist: > 3° C and <= 6° C alarmist: >= 6° C (in passing comment I will note it was TimG who has the relatively recent MLW posting history advocating for a climate sensitivity of less than 1° C. I will also note we had some interesting discussion over the Lindzen/Choi 2009 paper (yes, Lindzen, the 'darling' of skeptics/deniers)... where Lindzen/Choi published results asserting a climate sensitivity < 1° C. To Lindzen's credit, after the significant and founded criticism the paper took, Lindzen formally acknowledged his mistakes and advised a "re-do" would be forthcoming... still waiting!) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saipan Posted January 11, 2011 Report Share Posted January 11, 2011 Even if you could show the MWP was more than a regional phenomenon (which you can't), even if you could show the MWP temperatures were warmer than global temperature today (which you can't)... there is scientifically accepted consensus on what caused the warming of the MWP; specifically, it was attributed to increased natural variations in the form of higher than average solar radiation, reduced volcanic activity and changes in ocean circulation patterns that particularly influenced the North Atlantic affecting adjacent land areas. So he can't show MWP was warmer, but the "scientists" already know why it was warmer. They have "consensus" to explain it away. That's the best one to date Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keepitsimple Posted January 11, 2011 Report Share Posted January 11, 2011 So he can't show MWP was warmer, but the "scientists" already know why it was warmer. They have "consensus" to explain it away. That's the best one to date I didn't say it was warmer - I said it was warm.....my point being that even if it wasn't quite as warm as today (open to debate), the fact is the world went into a cooling phase following the MWP until approximately 1850 and we've had zig-zag warning and cooling that has drifted us upwards in temperature to where we are today - much like the upward drift that allowed us to arrive at the MWP way back then. It's happened before and it will happen again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saipan Posted January 11, 2011 Report Share Posted January 11, 2011 Exactly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted January 11, 2011 Report Share Posted January 11, 2011 ...the fact is the world went into a cooling phase following the MWP until approximately 1850 and we've had zig-zag warming and cooling that has drifted us upwards in temperature to where we are today (waldo edit: Eureka! The "warmup"!)Exactly. hey Simple... since you appear able to speak Saipanese, don't hesitate to emphasize, to the exacting Saipan standards, that there truly has been a "warmup"... the poor lil' guy has forlornly been seeking the "warmup" over at least a brazillion of his earlier MLW posts. While you're doing that, equally, don't hesitate to attribute that warming, that "warmup". Just what has been causing the post-1850 accelerated warming, hey Simple? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wyly Posted January 11, 2011 Report Share Posted January 11, 2011 hey Simple... since you appear able to speak Saipanese, don't hesitate to emphasize, to the exacting Saipan standards, that there truly has been a "warmup"... the poor lil' guy has forlornly been seeking the "warmup" over at least a brazillion of his earlier MLW posts. While you're doing that, equally, don't hesitate to attribute that warming, that "warmup". Just what has been causing the post-1850 accelerated warming, hey Simple? everyone knows "warm ups" happen for no apparent reason it's a unexplainable scientific fact just ask saipan or his grapes.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.