On Climate Change skepticism

[HAL 9000]

A very well reasoned and argued opinion piece on the climate change controversy from Dr. Novella at Skepticblog (who also writes at Sciencebasedmedicine.org). You don’t see many of these so I thought it worth posting.

I particularly like this -

My challenge to those who consider themselves global warming skeptics is, if you wish to truly earn that mantle, is to focus on scientific arguments.

Some of the scientific arguments posted here and discussed in the main stream have been so poor as to be quite depressing. At the same time the AGW believers have also framed the debate very badly for the public.

http://skepticblog.org/2010/02/08/climate-skepticism/


Climate science has turned from an obscure and forgotten discipline to the center of a raging world-wide controversy – something I don’t think climate scientists were prepared for. It has also become the third rail of skepticism – don’t touch it unless you want to get burned.
The reason for this is probably obvious – skeptics are divided politically (this is an oversimplification but largely true) between liberals and libertarians, both of which seem to have strong and opposite opinions on the topic of global warming. As a result I have been simultaneously criticized for being too soft and too hard on global warming dissidents. I hope this means that I am striking an objective balance – but then, of course, I get criticized for striking a “false balance.” I have been told that I am losing my skeptical street cred, and that I have faith in global warming as a secular religion. Many people also seem to think they can divine my political persuasion from my opinions on global warming, but then proceed to make very incorrect assumptions on that score.
There has also been intense fighting on what to call global warming dissidents – the term I have settled on as the most accurate and neutral. Part of the problem is that dissidents come in a broad range of opinions. At one end of the spectrum there are what can only be described as deniers – those who engage in all the tactics of denialism against any notion of climate change. At the other end are those who accept the core scientific consensus of anthropogenic global warming (AGW), but are skeptical of some of the dire predictions and proposed fixes. And there is every permutation in between – defying easy categorization or labeling. So I use “dissidents” as a neutral catch-all.
What is most disappointing about the AGW controversy is the degree to which self-identified members of the skeptical community engage in less-than-skeptical discourse on this topic. I am mainly referring to the many dozens of e-mails I have received on the topic (every time I talk about it) but also on blogs and articles.
I would like to share with you an e-mail exchange I had recently with a global warming dissident. He is responding mainly to my recent discussion of “climategate” – which has really increased the nastiness of the discussion on AGW.
My personal understanding of the current state of climate science is this – the evidence is very solid that average global temperatures are trending up over the last century and that human forcing through CO2 production is the best current answer to explain this trend. If this trend continues (a somewhat big “if”) then there will likely be significant unwanted consequences – not for the earth, but for human civilization. Shifting around agriculture and shorelines will be inconvenient, to say the least. But there is admitted uncertainty in this, and we don’t know all the ways in which the environment will respond to CO2 and temperature increases. But, as is often the case with applied sciences, we have to act prior to certainty if we want to affect the outcome.
Further, the current plans for fixes to rising CO2 and climate change are as much political as scientific. I think the best solutions to focus on are those things that we would benefit from anyway. Let’s accelerate research and development into alternative energy sources and increased energy efficiency. Even if AGW is a non-issue, these will be good things. It’s a win-win.

I must admit I have not been impressed with those who have e-mailed me to try to convince me that AGW is pseudoscience, and that dissidents are the real skeptics. It seems that the more someone tries to convince me of this position, the more they push me in the opposite direction. The following e-mail exchange really is representative of what I receive. (Forgive the length of the exchange.)Steve, I was heartened to hear your softened position on Global Warming in the Year End SGU, even though Rebecca is still rabid. Eventually, all of you will come to realize who were the real skeptics on this issue, and who were the Denyers. A quote from below article – if the shoe fits:

“The secular religion of global warming has all the elements of a Religious Faith: original sin (we are polluting the planet), ritual (separate your waste for recycling), redemption (renounce economic growth) and the sale of indulgences (carbon offsets). We are told that we must have faith (all argument must end, as Al Gore likes to say) and must persecute heretics (global warming skeptics are like Holocaust deniers, we are told).

People in the grip of such a religious frenzy evidently feel justified in lying, concealing good evidence and plucking bad evidence from whatever flimsy source may be at hand. The rest of us, and judging from polls that includes most of the American people, are free to follow a more rational path.”

from: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/politics/How-climate-change-fanatics-corrupted-science-83396362.html

I responded with the opinion I outlined above, concluding:When you dig through all the nonsense and look at the actual data – in my opinion it supports the conclusion that the planet is warming and anthropogenic forcing is playing a significant role. Where this will lead and what to do about it are less clear. There is still uncertainty, but one thing is sure – if we wait until we are certain about AGW it will be too late to do anything about it. It’s like waiting to treat a patient with possible cancer until after you are sure it’s cancer, because it has spread and is now incurable.

Here is part of the e-mailer’s response:Thanks for the considered reply. We of course agree on many of the issues – I have always been in favor of pollution control, energy efficiency, alternative energy, recycling when efficient. But not Cap and Trade or Carbon Credits or other political/economic disasters. Regarding your cancer analogy, you don’t treat for cancer without the biopsy showing the actual cancer. If you saw the Walter Williams / John Coleman information I sent yesterday, the “warming” itself is now questionable because CRU dropped the coldest temperature data from the mix used to show global temps. And the anthropogenic forcing effect is very tenuous – and where we truly disagree on Truth and Relevance.

OK – this is where I like to dig in. Whenever I get a specific claim I investigate it for myself and try to find out what the real story is. It seems that when it comes to the AGW controversy the claims of the dissidents do not hold up under investigation. So, did the CRU drop data in order to create the false impression of global warming? Here is what I found.Your point about the CRU dropping the coldest temperature data is a good example of why I am not impressed with the criticisms of AGW dissidents. You seem to be accepting uncritically the claims of the extremists on one side. My approach is always to investigate the claims first, see what both sides are saying, and then come to a conclusion.

It did not take me long to find this: http://www.yaleclimatemediaforum.org/2010/01/kusi-noaa-nasa/

A very reasoned and referenced analysis of this claim.

First, as far as I can tell the claim comes from here: http://www.climategate.com/climatologists-drop-806-cold-weather-stations-in-a-single-year

The claim of dropped data results from anomaly hunting followed by admitted speculations:

“Absent any public statement from climatolgists for such a strange act, I can only speculate that this a deliberate attempt to cause an artificial warming of the data set. I can think of no other valid scientific reason.”

Ah – an argument from ignorance. Well, he should have investigated first.

It turns out that stations are not being dropped from the data. It takes years and even decades to put together the hand-collected data from many stations around the world. So as you look back in time, those stations whose data has not been made available yet “drop off”. As the author above explains – if you look at the number of stations providing data 30 years from now you may see a spike around 2010 in the number of stations. In other words – stations are not being dropped, there is just a delay in getting data from them.

Second – you need to ask what should be an obvious question – is there any evidence that the stations which are currently missing from the data (for whatever reason) would skew the temperature results in favor of a warming trend. The answer to this is a clear no, from multiple independent lines of evidence. First – satellite temperature data would increasingly depart from ground station data if the ground stations were being biased in one direction. No such trend exists.

Second, when you compare stations with current data and those without current data, there is no pattern or bias toward warmer or cooler temperatures. So the core claim that cooler temperatures are being systematically dropped is false.

As a side note, the claim is about the GHCN, not the CRU.
This is representative of the entire climategate affair, as far as I can tell – although I am reserving judgment until all the facts are in. It does seem the CRU scientists were not following the rules of transparency and had developed a bunker mentality. It remains to be seen if they were engaged in “pious fraud.” What I reject are the premature conclusions of dissidents who were quick to assume that climategate confirmed all of their most extreme opinions.
So far, when you dig down to the real information it turns out that the anomalies in the data were just an innocent part of the scientific process – in this case the lag in data collection. This is true anomaly hunting and confirmation bias.
I am still waiting to hear a legitimate scientific argument from AGW dissidents why we should reject the claim that global warming is happening and is likely anthropogenic. I am not impressed by political arguments, calling my position a religion, or weaving liberal conspiracy theories.
I may be wrong – if you think I am then let’s discuss the science. My challenge to those who consider themselves global warming skeptics is, if you wish to truly earn that mantle, is to focus on scientific arguments. My opinions can be changed on this topic, I really have no stake in the debate at all – except the one that every human on the planet has, which is only served by knowing the truth, whatever it is. I hope global warming is not happening, it is nothing but a major inconvenience and crimp in civilization. I would love to just continue burning fossil fuels and not have to worry about the consequences.
So if you disagree with me, show me some science. And spare me the name-calling and conspiracy theories.

[valvano]

i'd love to read this, but i'm busy shoveling a foot of global warming from my driveway..:D

[rirv]

i'd love to read this, but i'm busy shoveling a foot of global warming from my driveway..:D

Perhaps when you have finished shovelling that foot of global warming, you could stick your head in it. That way you don't have to see what else is going on.

[valvano]

Perhaps when you have finished shovelling that foot of global warming, you could stick your head in it. That way you don't have to see what else is going on.


Your co-patriots there in the UK dont even know for themselves what is going on with global warming and may be looking for a "do over":

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/02/11/uk-announces-independent-probe-climate-gate/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%253A+foxnews%252Fscitech+%2528Te xt+-+SciTech%2529

[Bob]

i'd love to read this, but i'm busy shoveling a foot of global warming from my driveway..:D

spoiler - stupid statements like that are the kinds of things that the article is complaining about

[Echewta]

The worst thing that Global Warming has going for it is its called "Global Warming." Those with basic skills think it only means that it gets hot where they are, not that it causes issues with the climate in general and can make places hotter than usual, have more snow/rain fall then usual, etc.

[yeahwho]

Both sides of the debate have now been infiltrated by the Reptilian Agenda (http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Reptilian_Agenda). My best advice to one and all is to stick with how your mind operated in Kindergarten, i.e. sharing, being kind to one another, cleaning up after yourselves, and living "a balanced life" of work, play, and learning.

[travesty]

Solid advice (y)

[yeahwho]

The worst thing that Global Warming has going for it is its called "Global Warming." Those with basic skills think it only means that it gets hot where they are, not that it causes issues with the climate in general and can make places hotter than usual, have more snow/rain fall then usual, etc.

This segment (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/#35340221)(with Bill Nye on Rachel Maddow) addresses what you are saying very well...

It's followed by a link to video of more than a dozen Republican members of Congress in D.C. swearing total hatred for everything in the stimulus plan – and then photos and newspaper headlines showing exactly the same hypocrites back in their home districts celebrating the stimulus monies for which they happily take credit.

[mikizee]

i'd love to read this, but i'm busy shoveling a foot of global warming from my driveway..:D

Colbert nailed this one -

"global warming doesn't exist because it's cold outside. simple equation: eyes + snow = science."

and

"hey, so much for global warming -- look at all this snow! and so much for global globalness, look how flat it is out there!"

Valvano, I dont think I have come across a more ignorant, idiotic human being. And in my line of work, that is staggering.

[valvano]

Colbert nailed this one -

"global warming doesn't exist because it's cold outside. simple equation: eyes + snow = science."

and

"hey, so much for global warming -- look at all this snow! and so much for global globalness, look how flat it is out there!"

Valvano, I dont think I have come across a more ignorant, idiotic human being. And in my line of work, that is staggering.

and you are using a tv show targetted to drunk sophomoric college stundents as a foundation for your views??? maybe you need to look at yourself in the mirror

[Adam]

wait, mikizee is stephen colbert? Wow!

I always want to stay away from this issue, it seems Sarah Palin has won and we just have to watch what happens.

I dread to think that if I have children, then grandchildren and had to look them in the eye and say - sorry - we kinda knew what was happening and we voted in the people who could ignore it most. Its our gift to that you have to clean up, I am truly sorry.

I thought we stopped calling it global warming anyway and now called it climate change?

For those who are having a cold winter and wonder why its not as warm as summer - remember, a one off event is not a trend. There has been a warming trend since the industrial revolution, when you take variables since then of what could and should happen as the climate is always up and down and doesn't follow a graph, the earth is still warmer than it should be overall. Extreme weather is the key - there seems to be more of it and the only extra thing we can account for is the extra carbon in the air. Instead of about 280 particles per million, there is now nearer 400. Yes, we need carbon in the air but the earth has trapped that and has for millions of years, we are putting it back in at an alarming rate, we have the technology for clean efficient energy for the whole globe but political will refuses it to happen. Why not do it anyway and hope we are wrong? I mean, the damage that we'll see to the earth for the next 30 years or so can't be reversed but after that, we have a chance if we act now and if in 30 years or so its still getting warmer then I'll eat my words.

All those who are concerned about the climate hope to be wrong and hope the deniers are right.

[valvano]

wait, mikizee is stephen colbert? Wow!

I always want to stay away from this issue, it seems Sarah Palin has won and we just have to watch what happens.

I dread to think that if I have children, then grandchildren and had to look them in the eye and say - sorry - we kinda knew what was happening and we voted in the people who could ignore it most. Its our gift to that you have to clean up, I am truly sorry.

I thought we stopped calling it global warming anyway and now called it climate change?

For those who are having a cold winter and wonder why its not as warm as summer - remember, a one off event is not a trend. There has been a warming trend since the industrial revolution, when you take variables since then of what could and should happen as the climate is always up and down and doesn't follow a graph, the earth is still warmer than it should be overall. Extreme weather is the key - there seems to be more of it and the only extra thing we can account for is the extra carbon in the air. Instead of about 280 particles per million, there is now nearer 400. Yes, we need carbon in the air but the earth has trapped that and has for millions of years, we are putting it back in at an alarming rate, we have the technology for clean efficient energy for the whole globe but political will refuses it to happen. Why not do it anyway and hope we are wrong? I mean, the damage that we'll see to the earth for the next 30 years or so can't be reversed but after that, we have a chance if we act now and if in 30 years or so its still getting warmer then I'll eat my words.

All those who are concerned about the climate hope to be wrong and hope the deniers are right.

your post seems to justify this great article on environmental alarmists :D:

http://article.nationalreview.com/424508/climate-gtterdmmerung/the-editors

[yeahwho]

That article is not great. It is the perfect example of which HAL 9000 sited for the topic of this thread. It is an article stating the IPCC and overwhelming amount of scientists alive, working in the field and presenting data have reversed their findings and now are joining the deniers.

Because the all of a sudden the global warming deniers have continually denied that the earth is warming, they denied and denied and denied until the major media reported they denied.

Due to all of this denial, the climate and greenhouse gases have reversed themselves.

This is the crux of the social status of this issue (very pressing issue) we are faced with. It is real the statistics overwhelmingly show it's real, the way the data stacks up it is actually tilting towards a more catastrophic event that a casual warming.

But don't let that alarm anybody, be sure you present it politically correct so no ones sensibilities are offended, find a fucked up Ed/Op piece from the National Review Online (with no scientific evidence, just postulation) then expect the data and physical evidence to magically change.

[mikizee]

and you are using a tv show targetted to drunk sophomoric college stundents as a foundation for your views??? maybe you need to look at yourself in the mirror

The fact that even a tv show that plays to 'drunk sophomoric college students' can successfully deconstruct and mock your views for the ignorance that they contain certainly doesn't bode well for you.

[QueenAdrock]

i'd love to read this, but i'm busy shoveling a foot of global warming from my driveway..:D

Well, if you want to wrongly base your assumptions of global warming on "weather" rather than "climate," then how about this? There's not enough snow in Vancouver and they had to truck snow in from neighboring mountains.

"Weather forecasters told the committee that events at Cypress would be imperiled only during a 1-in-100 winter.

“We got a 1-in-100 winter,” said VANOC Chief Executive John Furlong.

It was the warmest January in Vancouver history."

I'm sure that doesn't change your mind though, huh? It's COOLLLD where you live! That's proof enough!

[Adam]

And these once in every 100 events are starting to become once in every 50, 25, 10, 5 and then eventually every other year.

But no matter what, if we are alarmist or whatever there is still something happening. Trends say the UK will be hotter than what currently florida is by 2050 so we still need to do something and we might as well start by taking some of the carbon out of the air to get back to a level playing field to sort it out, if it has no effect then we accept our fate is gonna be the same as the dinosaurs unless we come up with another theory. There is no scientific evidence to say our stay on earth should be longer than any other extinct animal.

Ugh, last time I was in one of these thread Rob accused me of being a hypocrite because I bitched about the cost of water rates and council tax as I'm currently living in a far bigger house than for my needs. The link is very tenuous, but I need to remember be the change and try to ignore any negative outside influences.

[Schmeltz]

Those with basic skills

college stundents

You're giving valvano waaaayyy too much credit here, Echewta. What basic skills is he meant to possess, exactly?

[valvano]

i wish these scientist would make up their mind if we are supposed to scared of global warming, global cooling, or global change, or if the earth is even getting warmer or getting colder....makes it hard to know what environmental activist group i need to join up with

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7026317.ece

[Adam]

its climate change but global temperatures overall are getting warmer.

But you get more extreme weathers. Remember when reading that article - a one off event is not a trend.

But valvano is right - the climate is all out of whack so its getting less predictable, you don't have to join any groups, just limit your impact on the earth. But glad you've come round (y)

[drizl]

You can solve ALL of the worlds problems by seeking true and lasting sustainability, regardless if climate change is real or not. In my opinion the earth is always changing. We are a part of living earth organism. We are a part of nature, not seperate from it. We are acting like an organism out of control, causing sickness through our disturbance and interference in natural cycles. We are out of control in many ways, not just carbon emissions.

Care of the Earth
Care of the People
Share in the abundance.


This is the Ethic we need as a species, in order to transition into a more sustainable and resilient era. You can take the power away by dropping out. You can empower yourselves by creating positive solutions and cooperating, sharing information and growing with nature.

The universe is a constant unfolding, fractal pattern of suction and pressure. A myriad of forces, influences and capabilities. Align yourself with natures patterns, learn from the way she works and seek harmony with her being.

SIMPLE.

the possibilities are endless.

[drizl]

The whole argument over climate change reflects our unwillingness to change, to move forward, to confront our relationship within the greater Earth organism.

Our systems are failing. Economics, Environmental Ethics, Education, Social, Consumer models Etc.... And above all of that, the gatekeepers, our politicians, are failing us too.

Lets move forward.

[valvano]

its climate change but global temperatures overall are getting warmer.

But you get more extreme weathers. Remember when reading that article - a one off event is not a trend.

But valvano is right - the climate is all out of whack so its getting less predictable, you don't have to join any groups, just limit your impact on the earth. But glad you've come round (y)

you obviously can not sense sarcasm......:confused:

[Adam]

you obviously can not sense sarcasm......:confused:

ahem

I give as good as I get ;) Dude, I'm british - I know no other humour.

get it now?

[HAL 9000]

i wish these scientist would make up their mind if we are supposed to scared of global warming, global cooling, or global change, or if the earth is even getting warmer or getting colder....makes it hard to know what environmental activist group i need to join up with

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7026317.ece

This article quotes the views of John Christy of University of Alabama. John Christy, is skeptical of some of the claims of the impact of global warming (as am I). The important thing here is that Christy is one of the worlds leading experts on satelite temperature data.

His quotes in this article should be interpreted as him stating that scientists should place greater reliance in their models on his satelite data rather than gound based data. Indeed the view that satelite data is preferable to ground based measurement is not particularly controversial (because of the the urbanisation effect).

Christy's research (e.g. here - http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2007/2005JD006881.shtml) shows that a global publish warming effect is occuring but at a slower rate than observed on ground based measurements.

More recently Christy has ed reserach showing that CO2 while driving global temperature rises may not be the main driver and that the effect is therefore smaller than stated by IPCC (see here - http://www.nsstc.uah.edu/atmos/christy/2009_DouglassC_EE.pdf)

This is genuine climate change skepticism, backed by good research and data. These results will be robustly challenged through the peer review process and the scientific conxensus adjusted accordingly.

Yet look how his research is twisted by the press "World may not be warming" leads the link. But that headline, is a direct contradiction of the research conducted by Dr Christy who is interviewed in it (and which is linked to in this post). This is the problem and serves to verify the issue raised in the OP above.

[valvano]

Well, if you want to wrongly base your assumptions of global warming on "weather" rather than "climate," then how about this? There's not enough snow in Vancouver and they had to truck snow in from neighboring mountains.

"Weather forecasters told the committee that events at Cypress would be imperiled only during a 1-in-100 winter.

“We got a 1-in-100 winter,” said VANOC Chief Executive John Furlong.

It was the warmest January in Vancouver history."

I'm sure that doesn't change your mind though, huh? It's COOLLLD where you live! That's proof enough!

funny thing, they've gone from not enough snow to too much snow :D

http://www2.timesdispatch.com/rtd/sports/olympics/article/SNOWGAT16_20100216-092001/324629/

[yeahwho]

Here is a bit of information to add to Climate Change skepticism,

United Nations climate chief Yvo de Boer, who oversaw troubled climate talks in Copenhagen last year, is to resign from his post ahead of schedule, sparking calls for a swift replacement to advance negotiations on tackling global climate change.

Wall Street Journal article, here (http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20100218-710972.html?mod=WSJ_World_MIDDLEHeadlinesEurope).

So whatever style of skepticism one may have there is a lot of energy being espoused on the internets over this latest move.

[saz]

climate change skeptics = either receiving money from exxon-mobil or have been manipulated by them

[Adam]

The trouble with trusting complex science (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cif-green/2010/mar/08/belief-in-climate-change-science)

There is no simple way to battle public hostility to climate research. As the psychologists show, facts barely sway us anyway.

Its by a pro-climate change commentator but points out the problem in his arguments. And the comments has equal numbers of deniers and accepters so you all get a taste

[yeahwho]

How obvious do things have to be?

Icebreaker docked in Seattle to be refitted for duty (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2011312534_icebreaker11m.html)

Over the past 3 ½ years, Allen said, the Arctic has become "more ice-diminished every year in the summer." And that's changing how the Coast Guard looks at the region.

"For a long time, all we did in the Arctic was science," he said.

But now with more open water, there is increased viability for ecotourism and shipping.

And "the fact that 22 percent of the world's oil and gas reserves are in the arctic region — this has become an area of extreme focus."

Asked if the Coast Guard is operating on the premise that climate change is a certainty, Allen said, "Well, you know I'm not a scientist, I'm a sailor. And the most PC way for me to say this is I'm agnostic to the science. There's water where there didn't use to be and I'm responsible for it.

"Certain things are undeniable. The Arctic ice cap is shrinking. The parameters of our oceans are changing. Temperature is changing. Salinity is changing. We have carbon dioxide that's entering the water column right now making carbonic acid that has a significant impact on shellfish and the food chain. These are all undeniable."

Is the military is in cahoots with scientists cooking up CO2 numbers and shrinking arctic ice caps?

[RobMoney$]

The science is settled then!

[yeahwho]

The science has been settled for decades. The only question some have is why in this day and age is the CO2 levels on such a rapid rise?

Some think it may be due to something other than just Earths natural cycles.

Actual scientists (http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/americas/01/19/eco.globalwarmingsurvey/index.html) have a pretty solid grasp of how this is happening.

Some actual scientists are not sure, but most do believe the current global warming cycle will be settled and explained clearly in the next 10 to 20 years (http://stats.org/stories/2008/global_warming_survey_apr23_08.html).

[Adam]

If this thread teaches you anything, you can't put popular science ideas on those who refuse to believe it - the more you dig at it the more resistant is met. Its time to stop wasting time on others and use the majority support to make the changes you want to see.

You could start a thread on gravity - that is still a theory and one we hardly understand but we kinda except it as true but they'll be someone somewhere who doesn't believe it and will be very vocal on it and it deflects attention away from the fact that gravity is there.

We can't all be experts in everything - we have to trust the peer-review process, take our understanding from our social peers to and take others word for it, maybe sometimes you'll change peoples mind but that is only normally from a point of complete ignorance - not from one as an informed point of view (be it right or wrong).

[RobMoney$]

The science has been settled for decades. The only question some have is why in this day and age is the CO2 levels on such a rapid rise?

Some think it may be due to something other than just Earths natural cycles.

Actual scientists (http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/americas/01/19/eco.globalwarmingsurvey/index.html) have a pretty solid grasp of how this is happening.

Some actual scientists are not sure, but most do believe the current global warming cycle will be settled and explained clearly in the next 10 to 20 years (http://stats.org/stories/2008/global_warming_survey_apr23_08.html).

Oooh, PREDICTIONS!
I love predictions.

So actually, what you're trying to say is that it's not settled.
At All.
Not one tiny bit. Not even close.
In fact, there's not one fact that you can PROVE about AGW,
other than the fact that the climate is constantly changing.
Just as it has for the millions of years before man even existed.
And just like it will continue to be ever changing for millions of years after man is extinct.

Ok then, it's settled.


Please keep us updated if Capt. Ahab from the Coast Guard has anything else to add to the AGW debate.

[RobMoney$]

If this thread teaches you anything, you can't put popular science ideas on those who refuse to believe it - the more you dig at it the more resistant is met. Its time to stop wasting time on others and use the majority support to make the changes you want to see.

You could start a thread on gravity - that is still a theory and one we hardly understand but we kinda except it as true but they'll be someone somewhere who doesn't believe it and will be very vocal on it and it deflects attention away from the fact that gravity is there.

We can't all be experts in everything - we have to trust the peer-review process, take our understanding from our social peers to and take others word for it, maybe sometimes you'll change peoples mind but that is only normally from a point of complete ignorance - not from one as an informed point of view (be it right or wrong).


Yes, it really sucks when facts get in the way of popular scientific theories, doesn't it.

Silly flat-earthers.

[yeahwho]

I'm not trying to say anything. I'm pointing out statistics about climate change. You have a right in this country to say, be, do anything you would like to do.

I thought it might be a positive contribution to post the that USCG has decided to retro-fit the Polar Star due to climate change. That science, fact, current measure is what this topic is about. In the sense that it may be unrealistic to you it isn't to the US Military. The planet is warming and they are preparing for this.

But I'm willing to bet you dollars to nickels the current rapid rise in CO2 in the atmosphere and oceans will be due to more than just a small portion of humans contribution. What are you going to do about me having come to that conclusion? Tell me to stop it? Not talk about it? Re-write my posts?

No your going to have to just sit there while I and millions of other humans agree that it is beginning to look as though we've cooked the goose.

But if you would like to talk about a real threat that has been identified why don't we talk about the Great Pacific Garbage Patch (http://www.google.com/#hl=en&source=hp&q=Great+Pacific+Garbage+Patch&btnG=Google+Search&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=&fp=1dc62da33e2ff469) and all of the damage it is currently wreaking upon our survival.

[Adam]

Yes, it really sucks when facts get in the way of popular scientific theories, doesn't it.

Silly flat-earthers.

dude, I tried to be careful with my wording that it could used both sides of the coin. I wasn't having a go at your views, basically I was trying to say we all should just carry on with what we believe in rather carrying on such bickering (y)

Bumping these threads drags me in and makes us all bite, not healthy. No-one will change their mind but its human nature I suppose to always try to get the last word in.

Your turn ;)

[yeahwho]

There is really no reason to be defensive or offensive about the evidence being brought forth by science. It would be pretty weird to not be concerned about whether or not we as an occupant of earth were damaging our own eco-system.

[RobMoney$]

There is really no reason to be defensive or offensive about the evidence being brought forth by science. It would be pretty weird to not be concerned about whether or not we as an occupant of earth were damaging our own eco-system.


What evidence though?
Here's the first paragraph from the article:


Over eight out of ten American climate scientists believe that human activity contributes to global warming, according to a new survey released by the Statistical Assessment Service (STATS) at George Mason University. The researchers also report that belief in human-induced warming has more than doubled since the last major survey of American climate scientists in 1991. However, the survey finds that scientists are still debating the dynamics and dangers of global warming, and only three percent trust newspaper or television coverage of climate change.


Believe, contributes to,...sure doesn't sound settled to me?

Love the last sentence of the article too.
There's some irony in reading a news article about global warming where the subject of the article is quoted as NOT TRUSTING NEWS ARTICLES ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING!!!

[yeahwho]

You are more than entitled to your scientific conclusions. I find it encouraging you have so much faith in mankind that humans could not possibly harm our own planet through exploitation of carbon fuels and deforestation.

You and many others are bolstering humankind with all sort the positive vibes.

Do you think we should just call off all this Climate science now? Would it be fool hearty to try and connect humans with global warming?

Should we continue on with developing the planet the "Big Oil" way?

[RobMoney$]

We've been through this a million times.
To assume man has any control over weather, the earth's rotation, or the ability to somehow control warming and cooling trends of the earth is egotistical in the least, and in the end is simply nothing more than an exercise in futility.

Just as continuing to post articles that only reinforce the same talking points that have already been addressed in previous debates on the topic in here.

If you're tired of the same old responses from me, try bringing something different to the discussion.
Because I'm tired of rufuting the same old AGW battle cries.

[yeahwho]

That is an excellent arguing point. Lets stop discussing this and label me dumb and egotistical and you as super smart and humble.

I figured you would go with the option of stopping Climate Change studies and just settle it as a natural phenomena. This stuff happens all the time, rapid rise in CO2, rapid rise in population, rapid rise in consumption of carbon based products. It's a natural cycle the past 200 years.

[RobMoney$]

Oh, back to the "rising CO2 level" argument again?
Perhaps you'd like me to quote myself and show you where CO2 levels are actually lower than they ever have been in the history of the earth?
Which I assure you is much longer than 200 years, not to mention was long before the dawn of man. So no blaming the levels of CO2 on that.

Here:
http://www.beastieboys.com/bbs/showpost.php?p=1722754&postcount=42


Cambrian period (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambrian) - 542 - 488.3 million years ago
Mean atmospheric O2 content over period duration = 12.5 Vol %(63 % of modern level)
Mean atmospheric CO2 content over period duration = 4500 ppm (16 times pre-industrial level)
Mean surface temperature over period duration = 21 °C (7 °C above modern level)

Ordovician period (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ordovician) - 488.3-443.7 million years ago
Mean atmospheric O2 content over period duration = 13.5 Vol % (68 % of modern level)
Mean atmospheric CO2 content over period duration = 4200 ppm (15 times pre-industrial level)
Mean surface temperature over period duration = 16 °C (2 °C above modern level)

Silurian period (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silurian)-443.7-416 million years ago
Mean atmospheric O2 content over period duration = 14 Vol % (70 % of modern level)
Mean atmospheric CO2 content over period duration = 4500 ppm (16 times pre-industrial level)
Mean surface temperature over period duration = 17 °C (3 °C above modern level)

Devonian period (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devonian) - 416-359.2 million years ago
Mean atmospheric O2 content over period duration = 15 Vol % (75 % of modern level)
Mean atmospheric CO2 content over period duration = 2200 ppm (8 times pre-industrial level)
Mean surface temperature over period duration = 20 °C (6 °C above modern level)

Carboniferous period (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carboniferous) - 359.2-299 million years ago
Mean atmospheric O2 content over period duration = 32.5 Vol %(163 % of modern level)
Mean atmospheric CO2 content over period duration = 800 ppm (3 times pre-industrial level)
Mean surface temperature over period duration = 14 °C (0 °C above modern level)

Permian period (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permian) - 299-251 million years ago
Mean atmospheric O2 content over period duration = 23 Vol % (115 % of modern level)
Mean atmospheric CO2 content over period duration = 900 ppm (3 times pre-industrial level)
Mean surface temperature over period duration = 16 °C (2 °C above modern level)

Triassic period (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triassic) - 251-199.6 million years ago
Mean atmospheric O2 content over period duration = 16 Vol % (80 % of modern level)
Mean atmospheric CO2 content over period duration = 1750 ppm (6 times pre-industrial level)
Mean surface temperature over period duration = 17 °C (3 °C above modern level)

Jurassic period (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jurassic) - 199.6-145.5 million years ago
Mean atmospheric O2 content over period duration = 26 Vol %(130 % of modern level)
Mean atmospheric CO2 content over period duration = 1950 ppm (7 times pre-industrial level)
Mean surface temperature over period duration = 16.5 °C (3 °C above modern level)

Cretaceous period (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cretaceous) - 145.5-65.5 million years ago
Mean atmospheric O2 content over period duration = 30% (150 % of modern level)
Mean atmospheric CO2 content over period duration = 1700 ppm (6 times pre-industrial level)
Mean surface temperature over period duration = 18 °C (4 °C above modern level)

Paleogene period (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleogene) - 65.5-23.03 million years ago
Mean atmospheric O2 content over period duration = 26 Vol %(130 % of modern level)
Mean atmospheric CO2 content over period duration = 500 ppm (2 times pre-industrial level)
Mean surface temperature over period duration = 18 °C (4 °C above modern level)

Neogene period (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neogene) - 23.03-0 million years ago
Mean atmospheric O2 content over period duration = 21.5 Vol %(108 % of modern level)
Mean atmospheric CO2 content over period duration = 280 ppm (1 times pre-industrial level)
Mean surface temperature over period duration = 14 °C (0 °C above modern level)



Now, I ask you again, Sir.
Anything new to bring to the discussion?
And for the record, I wasn't labeling you dumb, or egotistical. I was labeling MAN itself dumb and egotistical for entertaining such ideas.
But how utterly egotistical of you to assume I was talking solely about you though.

[kaiser soze]

To assume man has any control over weather

nope not at all

http://www.edwardsaquifer.net/cloudseeding.html

http://www.nawcinc.com/wmfaq.html

http://science.howstuffworks.com/cloud-seeding1.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloud_seeding

Yes it might not be creating tornadoes, but it is still controlling weather in some respect. So please do not assume man has ZERO control over weather because you are definitely wrong.

[yeahwho]

Oh, back to the "rising CO2 level" argument again?
Perhaps you'd like me to quote myself and show you where CO2 levels are actually lower than they ever have been in the history of the earth?
Which I assure you is much longer than 200 years, not to mention was long before the dawn of man. So no blaming the levels of CO2 on that.

Here:
http://www.beastieboys.com/bbs/showpost.php?p=1722754&postcount=42



Now, I ask you again, Sir.
Anything new to bring to the discussion?
And for the record, I wasn't labeling you dumb, or egotistical. I was labeling MAN itself dumb and egotistical for entertaining such ideas.
But how utterly egotistical of you to assume I was talking solely about you though.

Did you ever actually read about the industrial age and population boom of the past few hundred years?

I'm a big dumb egomaniac and you are a philosophical supersmart giant brainiac who understands mankind. How can I ever grasp the knowledge and data you have bestowed upon me.

sir.

[RobMoney$]

Did you ever actually read about the industrial age and population boom of the past few hundred years?

Are you now calling me dumb?


Again, I wasn't trying to say YOU were dumb.
I was calling man dumb for entertaining the thought that we can somehow control climate.

[yeahwho]

I am asking you a direct question. Did you ever actually read about the industrial age and population boom of the past few hundred years?

Do you know how many accumulative years we have been reliant on fossil fuels?

Are you aware of how many bbls. of oil, tons of coal along with the consequential emissions that are exhausted into our own atmosphere daily? Those emissions do not fly out to space.

To say mankind is dumb to question the results of such actions is what? What exactly would such a statement be?

Stop all this egotistical nonsense and just not even try to understand what effect man has on the planet?

I haven't a clue as to why anyone would not want to find out more on any topic. I do know that for years Climate science was attacked by oil corporations. That made sense, but a guy who isn't making the worlds largest recorded profit margins should at least not be bothered by finding out more about the actual cycle of events that happens when carbons are being used as a standard for energy planet wide.

[RobMoney$]

I am asking you a direct question. Did you ever actually read about the industrial age and population boom of the past few hundred years?

Yes. I believe I passed 6th grade social studies with a solid "C".
Why is it pertinent?

Do you know how many accumulative years we have been reliant on fossil fuels?

Are you aware of how many bbls. of oil, tons of coal along with the consequential emissions that are exhausted into our own atmosphere daily? Those emissions do not fly out to space.

Why no, I don't know off-hand.
Tell me, how many accumulative years have we been reliant on fossil fuels?
How many bbls. of oil do we consume daily?
How many tons of coal?
How much emmissions are exhausted? (I assume you're talking about CO2 emmissions?)
And where do those "emmissions" go, if not out to space?

I assume you have the answers to all of these since you posed them to me, and I expect real answers.
And please, be specific.
You seem to be soo smart and I'm interested in learning more on the topic. :rolleyes:

To say mankind is dumb to question the results of such actions is what? What exactly would such a statement be?

I seriously don't know where you're going with this tangent?
For the third time.
I never said you were dumb.
I never said man was dumb for asking the question either.
Questioning is never dumb.
I said man was dumb and egotistical for assuming that we can significantly control climate change.

Now if you continue to fail to grasp what I said, then I will have no choice but to assume that you are dumb.

Stop all this egotistical nonsense and just not even try to understand what effect man has on the planet?

Have you ever considered that YOU are the one who is wrong, over-estimating man's effect on the earth's atmosphere and climate?
Perhaps you should stop citing internet news articles who use Coast Guard Captains as sources about AGW.

I haven't a clue as to why anyone would not want to find out more on any topic. I do know that for years Climate science was attacked by oil corporations. That made sense, but a guy who isn't making the worlds largest recorded profit margins should at least not be bothered by finding out more about the actual cycle of events that happens when carbons are being used as a standard for energy planet wide.


Are you serious, dude?
You need to stop taking yourself soo serious.
You are in no position to teach anyone anything about Climate change or AGW.
All you merely do is quote biased, marginally credible sources on the issue and post it here.
And you can't even do that using anything even resembling proper grammar.
You didn't even know what the term "AGW" meant before I introduced it to everyone in this forum.
Nigga please.

The simple fact that you've chosen to debate this topic the day before your mancrush Obama gets his vote on his abortion of a healthcare bill (pun intended) speaks volumes about your motives.
You're not really interested in debating an issue to learn about the opposite side.
You just want to be right.
I mean how many months will you continue to regurgitate the same points that have already been discussed ad-nauseum?
It bothers you to think that you were soo certain that you had AGW all figured out. But after debating it, and the fact that those nasty Phil Jones emails got leaked, and the entire AGW theory is being shot down in flames more and more everyday, that now you feel foolish.
You've dug yourself in too deep to be wrong now, haven't you?
You were wrong about AGW, just like you were wrong about Obama.
Just admit it and stop making yourself look ridiculous by necro-posting in old threads in attempt to somehow NOW be right, even though you're bringing absolutely no new information to the topic.

Just remember, it's not foolish to admit you were wrong and move foward.
It is foolish to continue fighting battle which you know you can't win.

[yeahwho]

The USCG captain said he was agnostic to the science.

The statistics I presented are numerous, more scientists believe in AGW than not.

I never once said I would provide you with any numbers about energy use. I can start here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Global_Carbon_Emission_by_Type_to_Y2004.png) and I'm sure it will provide to be very reliable.

You seem much more excited and rattled about all of this information than I am. You also have a tendency to discount my ability to understand the current status of where we are, where we're heading and what we aren't doing about CO2 emissions being released into our atmosphere. If we could reverse this trend starting with my generation I would like to be a part of that legacy.

I'm going to continue to think about ways to help our planet regardless of anything you may say. I have incredible faith in mankind.

[yeahwho]

Just remember, it's not foolish to admit you were wrong and move foward.
It is foolish to continue fighting battle which you know you can't win.

This isn't a contest for me RobMoney$, I'm not here to compete with anybody. If you think your in a contest you truly are wasting your time and effort.