They are not climate change deniers. What they are proposing is that we may be entering a cooling period, thus seeing a change in climate. They disagree with other scientists that CO2 and other man released GHGs are the primary cause of the warming trend we have seen over the last 100 years or so.
They may be wrong and the data will show that fairly soon. Or they may be right and the data will also show that.
Habibullo Abdussamatov doesn't think the greenhouse effect exists.
Horst-Joachim_Lüdecke doesn't think that human forced CO2 increases have caused any of the warming we've seen.
It was hard to find much information on the third guy.
Needless to say, if that doesn't count as 'deniers', I don't know what would.
A lot of factors? Okay, name one that hasn't already been studied and excluded as being a significant cause of what is currently being experienced. You're apparently buying in to those that are tasked with spreading doubt.They aren't denying it exists. They are unsure of what is causing the change. There are a lot of factors that can cause climate change. Right or wrong, there is a difference between them denying climate change and them questioning the source of climate change. Like I've stated, I don't know what the true cause is. What I do know is that it certainly won't hurt to clean up our shit and use renewable energy where we can.
A lot of factors? Okay, name one that hasn't already been studied and excluded as being a significant cause of what is currently being experienced. You're apparently buying in to those that are tasked with spreading doubt.
Name one climate model that predicted the current status of temperature. To the best of my knowledge, no model has. That means there are factors/variables in play we do not fully understand and that the effect of those variables needs to be further studied to ascertain their role in global warming.
Man undeniably has contributed to global warming. The question is still how much?
Name one climate model that predicted the current status of temperature. To the best of my knowledge, no model has. That means there are factors/variables in play we do not fully understand and that the effect of those variables needs to be further studied to ascertain their role in global warming.
Man undeniably has contributed to global warming. The question is still how much?
These models take into account these variations but over a long time period. Thus there are many things they don't even try to predict in the short term. These models aren't made to forecast specific timing of short term trends. These trends are taken into account, but at an average scale.
Think of it like this take an increasing line, add a sine wave of changing freq on top of that. The models take into account the sine wave on average the model runs will average the sine wave out. So when it's increasing fast than the model or decreasing lower than the model that's fine because the model isn't trying to forecast the sine wave. It's going for the long term trend. If you were to find a run that had by accident the correct sine distribution. It would line up for the short term and long term trend.
Genetic modification could mean anything. In 20 years may have enough data to know if the specific genetic modifications we are doing now are safe, not that all possible genetic modifications are safe. In any case, it's probably safe, but it's not like we haven't been told a bunch of other stuff is perfectly safe only to later be told it's causing cancer or birth defects.
Certainly we need to be careful with how we manipulate our food supply. We have been genetically modifying food for 1000's of years. it is recent that we have been able to take it a huge step forward in the scope of how and what we can modify.
I have to trust the FDA and other agencies will ensure our food supply remains safe.
It's only been in the last 30 years we've been able to precisely modify our food with the traits we desire and limit the unintended consequences of random mutagenesis (which, by the way, we can sequence the entire genome of these transgenic plants to make sure we put the gene in the correct place). A common way to develop new traits in plants, that's been used for nearly 100 years, is to bombard seeds with X-rays and see what new traits develop. Of course, that's going to affect the entire plant genome instead of one or two traits we wish to alter or add (which can be done with genetic engineering). Did you know that the plants created through X-ray mutagenesis don't have the same regulatory hurdles that genetically modified plants do? And to top it off, it's not like "naturally" developed plants are inherently safer, take for example the poison potato: http://boingboing.net/2013/03/25/the-case-of-the-poison-potato.html
The whole 'we don't know if it's safe' is the precautionary principle taken way too far and ignores all the science in this realm.
I have no problem with GMOs. I have assessed for me a very low risk with GMOs such that I don't bother to look and see if a particular food was a GMO product or not.
I wasn't saying you did. It was more of a general response to some in this thread.
I think in another decade the hate train for GMO will pass and we will all look at anti-GMO as absolute nutters.
What they do though is increasingly seem to show that CO2 is not a primary driver of the warming we have seen over the last 150 years or so. And yes I am aware of ocean sequestering and other reasons why the rise in temperatures are not keeping the expected pace with increasing CO2 emissions.
In another decade, you or someone very close to you will be killed by GMO and you will be kicking yourself for being so blinded by the corporate propaganda. GMO is like cigarettes and asbestos and HFCS and fluoride and everything else. And in every case, you're always a frickin nutter right up until the point where "everyone" accepts that it was stupid to use these things. And in every case there is an army of paid shills arguing in favor of all these things, yet certain sectors of the population are still woefully unable to see these people for what they are.
In another decade, you or someone very close to you will be killed by GMO and you will be kicking yourself for being so blinded by the corporate propaganda. GMO is like cigarettes and asbestos and HFCS and fluoride and everything else. And in every case, you're always a frickin nutter right up until the point where "everyone" accepts that it was stupid to use these things. And in every case there is an army of paid shills arguing in favor of all these things, yet certain sectors of the population are still woefully unable to see these people for what they are.
Who is going to be kicking who over propaganda? Stewox alt account detected.
There is more than one infowars nutter out there. Most of them are smart enough not to admit it publicly. Stewox has no problem broadcasting his love of infowars. sm625 is too embarassed to admit he agrees with a lot of it. Thus, they are not the same. There are others among us.
Basically every food anyone eats is a GMO food. For some reason people who are against it draw distinctions between genetically modifying a plant or animal through selective breeding and genetically modifying it in other ways.
Science has spent a lot of time studying GMOs. There is no indication whatsoever that they are harmful. People who avoid them are denying science much like the people who dispute AGW are denying science.
That's the thing about accepting science, you don't get to believe it only when it tells you what you want to hear. Anti-GMO people and AGW denialists are cut from the same nutty cloth: they only hear what they want to hear.