PDA

View Full Version : do you trust the global warming deniers?



Paul Pless
02-09-2014, 10:57 AM
:D iii

bogdog
02-09-2014, 11:23 AM
The deniers are almost always either politically or religiously motivated.
In science it often happens that scientists say, "You know that's a really good argument; my position is mistaken," and then they would actually change their minds and you never hear that old view from them again. They really do it. It doesn't happen as often as it should, because scientists are human and change is sometimes painful. But it happens every day. I cannot recall the last time something like that happened in politics or religion.Carl Sagan

Paul Pless
02-09-2014, 11:27 AM
The deniers are almost always either politically or religiously motivated.or by money

David G
02-09-2014, 11:28 AM
Why would I trust someone who is arguing either out of greed (they've been bought and paid for), or from having been duped (not discerning enough to set their preconceptions aside and accept the best science)? Trust a crook... or trust a fool... I think not.

slug
02-09-2014, 11:31 AM
Sure.. I trust them. I just dont believe them.

every issue needs an opposite viewpoint .

this is how democracy works.

Soundbounder
02-09-2014, 11:31 AM
Great thread title :ycool:

Canoeyawl
02-09-2014, 11:33 AM
The deniers are almost always either politically or religiously motivated.


or by money

Is there a difference?

Chip-skiff
02-09-2014, 11:42 AM
. . .every issue needs an opposite viewpoint. . .
this is how democracy works.

Yet, who would argue that gravity doesn't exist, or magnetism?

Durnik
02-09-2014, 11:42 AM
http://forum.woodenboat.com/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Paul Pless http://forum.woodenboat.com/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://forum.woodenboat.com/showthread.php?p=4059688#post4059688)
or by money



Is there a difference?


not a bit..

enjoy
bobby

Reynard38
02-09-2014, 11:46 AM
Agree, deny it really doesn't matter. Either way there isn't squat we can do about it.
Good thing we've got boats.

Gerarddm
02-09-2014, 11:51 AM
I trust them to be wrong.

David G
02-09-2014, 12:00 PM
Here's a handy chart to illustrate what we can expect from various types of conservatives on various issues:

https://scontent-b-pao.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-frc3/t1/1908261_10151983179381275_1649264858_n.jpg

bogdog
02-09-2014, 12:20 PM
Here's graphic detailing who's in the climate change counter movement:
http://www.desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/Figure%204.png

Durnik
02-09-2014, 01:11 PM
^thanks, bogdog.. I followed that back to a site I wasn't aware of. Think a few forum denialistas might take the time to read it?


No?.
I figured (© Glen ;-))

enjoy
bobby

Paul Pless
02-09-2014, 01:14 PM
enjoy
bobby

you're no damned good

Durnik
02-09-2014, 01:23 PM
;-)

TomF
02-09-2014, 01:23 PM
Does it matter what I trust them to do?

stumpbumper
02-09-2014, 01:40 PM
Only if they trust Obamacare.

RodB
02-09-2014, 02:04 PM
So... all you experts.... is this BS too.... I'm just asking...

RodB



http://www.newsmax.com/Rahn/Global-Warming-Temperature-Data/2013/04/02/id/497516#ixzz2sqxLe7lm





Despite Data, Global Warming Backers Won't Admit They're Wrong

http://www.newsmax.com/CMSPages/GetFile.aspx?guid=277f69a6-43af-48a4-9881-4f0b5b223e0d&SiteName=Newsmax&maxsidesize=600


Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com http://www.newsmax.com/Rahn/Global-Warming-Temperature-Data/2013/04/02/id/497516#ixzz2sqxZwfI3
Urgent: Should Obamacare Be Repealed? Vote Here Now! (http://www.newsmax.com/surveys/Obama-Policies/Should-Congress-Repeal--Obama-s-Health-Plan-and-Ot/id/13/kw/default?PROMO_CODE=10EFE-1%22target=%22_blank%22)


Richard Rahn's Perspective: It’s hard for believers to admit they’re wrong.

Much of Northern Europe, including Britain, is suffering under the coldest winter and spring of the last 30 to 100 years. The Northeastern part of the United States has had a record cold March. The record cold in Europe has killed thousands and cost billions.
It was not supposed to be this way.

Back in 1998, scientist Michael Mann published a paper with the famous “hockey stick” showing a sharp rise in global temperatures. Mann and others argued that if global action was not taken immediately, then the temperature rise would be rapid and uncontrollable.

Much of Mann’s work was the basis for Al Gore’s famous film “An Inconvenient Truth.” What has turned out to be an inconvenient truth is that Mann and his allies were sloppy in their research and engaged in a campaign to disparage their critics.


The United Kingdom's Met Office has been a major source of global temperature data in recent decades, and has been heavily relied upon by global-warming proponents. On March 12, a report written by David Whitehouse and published by the Global Warming Policy Foundation concluded that “there has been no statistically significant increase in annual global temperatures since 1997.”

In the accompanying chart, using the same official data from the Met Office that the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change uses, it can be easily seen that global temperatures have not been rising as predicted by the best-known climate models.

According to the Global Warming Policy Foundation, “The report shows that the temperature standstill has been a much discussed topic in peer-reviewed scientific literature for years, but that this scientific debate has neither been followed by most of the media, nor acknowledged by climate campaigners, scientific societies and prominent scientists.” ...


Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com http://www.newsmax.com/Rahn/Global-Warming-Temperature-Data/2013/04/02/id/497516#ixzz2sqxLe7lm
Urgent: Should Obamacare Be Repealed? Vote Here Now! (http://www.newsmax.com/surveys/Obama-Policies/Should-Congress-Repeal--Obama-s-Health-Plan-and-Ot/id/13/kw/default?PROMO_CODE=10EFE-1%22target=%22_blank%22)

Canoeyawl
02-09-2014, 02:09 PM
Yup - total B.S.

Cuyahoga Chuck
02-09-2014, 02:19 PM
So... all you experts.... is this BS too.... I'm just asking...

RodB

To me you are an expert,Rod. You have Cut and Paste down to a science. I'll bet yuour keyboards last forever.

RodB
02-09-2014, 02:27 PM
http://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e239/Prestoboat/earthswarming.jpg

http://www.newsmax.com/Rahn/Global-Warming-Temperature-Data/2013/04/02/id/497516#ixzz2sqxLe7lm

Isn't this data the same data available to all.... and does this not show the predictions of the scientists.

RodB

Durnik
02-09-2014, 02:34 PM
Without checking for corroboration, seems reasonable to me. Do you know what '95% certainty' & '75% certainty' mean?

BTW, the text in the article you quoted is about weather, not climate.

enjoy
bobby

Peerie Maa
02-09-2014, 02:38 PM
Yes the data is available to everyone. Here is the big but - you need to be suitably qualified and have the correct tools to understand why and how, and others are paid to mislead RodB into thinking that it means other than the truth.

AnalogKid
02-09-2014, 02:43 PM
But Rod, on the other thread you latest position is that man made CO2 is a real contributor to climate change and it's the effects that you dispute, and here you are denying that the climate is changing again.

Please try to be consistent in your delusions.

Chip-skiff
02-09-2014, 02:45 PM
Richard Rahn is a right-wing economist and columnist, not in any wise a climate scientist. The Cato Institute is on the graphic of climate denial financing in post #13, part of a well-financed network of disinformation.

Richard W. Rahn (born January 9, 1942, in Rochester, New York (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rochester,_New_York)) is an American (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States) economist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economist) who frequently writes for The Washington Times (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Washington_Times). He was the Vice President and Chief Economist of the United States Chamber of Commerce (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Chamber_of_Commerce) during the Reagan Administration (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reagan_Administration) and remains a staunch advocate of supply-side economics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supply-side_economics), small government (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Small_government), and classical liberalism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism). A senior fellow of the Cato Institute (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cato_Institute), Rahn received his M.B.A. from Florida State University (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida_State_University), his Ph.D. from Columbia University (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columbia_University), and an honorary Doctor of Laws (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctor_of_Laws) from Pepperdine University (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pepperdine_University).[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_W._Rahn#cite_note-1)

His articles have appeared in many newspapers and magazines, including The New York Times (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_New_York_Times), The Wall Street Journal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wall_Street_Journal), The American Spectator (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_American_Spectator), National Review (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Review), and international publications. From 2002 to 2008, he served on the Board of Directors of the Cayman Islands Monetary Authority (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cayman_Islands_Monetary_Authority).[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_W._Rahn#cite_note-2)

Rahn is currently chairman of the Institute for Global Economic Growth, an organization that assists nations in implementing supply-side or "pro-growth" reforms.[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_W._Rahn#cite_note-3) According to his profile on the IGEG website he is a member of the Mont Pelerin Society (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mont_Pelerin_Society), sits on the boards of numerous think-tanks and advocacy groups, and has testified on economic issues before the U.S. Congress (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Congress) over seventy-five times.[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_W._Rahn#cite_note-4) Rahn is also an Adjunct Professor at the Institute of World Politics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institute_of_World_Politics).[5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_W._Rahn#cite_note-5)

RodB
02-09-2014, 03:42 PM
But Rod, on the other thread you latest position is that man made CO2 is a real contributor to climate change and it's the effects that you dispute, and here you are denying that the climate is changing again.

Please try to be consistent in your delusions.

I simply showed the GW case and also stated that I can believe man created CO2 causes some warming, but the issue seems to be how much warming will occur and with it cause catastrophic warming of our climate.

RodB

LeeG
02-09-2014, 03:54 PM
So... all you experts.... is this BS too.... I'm just asking...

RodB



Why do you ask? You haven't processed any of the rebuttals before. Do you understand the recorded temp is within a 95% range of accuracy? How about this RodB, how much risk are willing to take for a 95% certainty?

Have you processed that the chart isn't measuring water temps and the oceans holds at least 10x the heat energy of the atmosphere?

oznabrag
02-09-2014, 04:05 PM
Hooked him, Paul.

Again.

At LEAST three pages!

RodB
02-09-2014, 04:29 PM
So.... I did a search and found this first link from forbes.com on "Global warming" ... I then perused the articles... now the politicization of the global warming issue I knew about but to such a degree raises a red flag for me.... also some of the other articles are quite interesting. The article on "Dark Money Funds to promote Global Warming Alarmism Dwarf Warming DenierResearch" is quite interesting when you see how much money is spent promoting the global warming alarmism compared the the skeptic side of the issue. It's an incredible difference.

Come on fellas, where theres smoke, there some fire. The deck is so stacked against the GW skeptics and there has been so much dishonesty from the GW crowd in both manipulation of data to back up their claims to just lying to demonize skeptics. And, yes, I do see exaggeration and falsehoods from the skeptics.

Now I am just looking at this issue for the past month or so, but you gotta admit, its hard to convince the public to make sacrifices and spend hundreds of millions of tax dollars to ward off the prediction of catastrophic global warming with just so much conflicting and shady stuff going on related to this issue.

Do you think that the enormous amount of money spent on global warming alarmism is simply because of these benefactors love of the planet and all us people?

Do you think all skeptics are only skeptics because of money paid to them from oil companies. I'm curious as to whether this is as similar to politics in this country where the libs are always right and of course the right is always wrong.

Just wondering.

RodB



http://www.forbes.com/search/?q=global+warming+funding
http://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e239/Prestoboat/ForbesonGW2.jpg

PeterSibley
02-09-2014, 04:33 PM
There is just zero logic in your statement Rod, the only industry with serious money that is interested in promoting GW theory is thee insurance industry and they're worried . All the rest are in with the old and the fossil fuel industries are powerful beyond words.

Canoez
02-09-2014, 04:38 PM
or by money

Like the man said - religion.

Chip-skiff
02-09-2014, 04:39 PM
Your primary sources seem to be The Washington Times, Forbes, and Chevron.com. You might try looking at a broader range of material, particularly genuine scientific reports.

George Jung
02-09-2014, 04:39 PM
Hooked him, Paul.

Again.

At LEAST three pages!


Who has hooked who? Me, I'm going back to watching the Olympics ..... man, that cross country ski race was great! Heeheehee! I was laughing so hard, describing it to my wife (hey! someone has to work! Food doesn't 'make itself!'), I had tears streaming down my face...

PeterSibley
02-09-2014, 04:40 PM
Insurance Companies Feeling the Effects of Climate Changehttp://oilprice.com/The-Environment/Global-Warming/Insurance-Companies-Feeling-The-Effects-Of-Climate-Change.html
Environmentalists are not the only ones who worry as projections about climate change keep getting worse and worse. So do insurance companies, which feel the effects financially as the pace of climate-related disasters accelerates. It is telling that, even as some business groups oppose climate-change legislation in Washington, many of the companies with the most to lose from global warming are treating it as a reality – and pricing their products accordingly.
Losses from extreme weather related to climate change are no longer chump change. Allstate CEO Tom Wilson this year told investors that catastrophic weather losses beyond hurricanes and earthquakes had risen four-fold over the last three years, to $2 billion. Premiums for homeowners were rising 7 percent this year, Wilson said, noting that a big driver is roof damage from hail and wind.







“If you had asked me did I think we could have a $355 million hailstorm in Arizona [in 2010], I wouldn’t have thought that hail could be that bad in Arizona,’’ Wilson said in one meeting. Wilson said pricing premiums to account for increased extreme weather events “is permanent.’’
Other insurers are seeing the same patterns. German insurance giant Munich Re estimated that in the first half of 2011, the world suffered a record $265 billion economic loss from severe natural catastrophes. Most of the economic losses came with the earthquakes in Japan and New Zealand, but the biggest weather-related economic losses were still enormous — the $15 billion in the United States from the tornadoes and severe thunderstorms that swept across the Midwest and the South.
Perhaps those who aren’t yet concerned about climate change will be persuaded by hail on their roofs or cracks in the very foundations of their homes. “Unfortunately, a year like 2011 does our work for us,’’ said Sharlene Leurig, insurance analyst for Ceres, the Boston-based nonprofit that promotes corporate responsibility on climate change. “Insurers think it is a crisis unfolding. Real estate experts are starting to recalculate the value of real estate in areas of frequent extreme weather. We’re getting to the point where climate destabilization is really beginning to destabilize the real lives of people.’’

Lew Barrett
02-09-2014, 04:41 PM
Rod, have you checked the pro formas of the authors of the articles you linked to? Is Forbes a science journal?


"Do you think all skeptics are only skeptics because of money paid to them from oil companies."

When they are Mark Hendrickson and James Taylor, there will be political and economic motives to deny the science.
They are commentators, not scientists.

PeterSibley
02-09-2014, 05:05 PM
Rod , you have occasionally taken aim at the global warming "alarmists" for pointing out that if the warming proceeds as is currently expected and feedback loops kick in it will lead to truly catastrophic heating of the planet. You don't seem to think that possible. On this we differ.

But bearing in mind the US's reaction last time it saw itself seriously threatened, the Cold War, have you ever considered the amount of money that was spent most to save the political system from a possible rival. Now consider the effects on the US and the world of you being wrong about GW.

How do you feel about the gamble you are taking ?

PhaseLockedLoop
02-09-2014, 06:05 PM
Rod...consider the effects on the US and the world of you being wrong about GW....

Oh, hell--the effects of Rod being wrong would be immeasurably small. It looks to me as though the large number of GW folks who are right (scientists, environmentalist, reasonable people) aren't having much effect either. The blazing growth of corporate profits would fizzle if GW were giving more than lip service.

htom
02-09-2014, 06:33 PM
Should have been a poll. "No", for pretty much the same reasons I don't trust the denier-deniers. Science doesn't (or at least shouldn't) need political advocates.

Joe Dupere
02-09-2014, 07:33 PM
So... all you experts.... is this BS too.... I'm just asking...

RodB



http://www.newsmax.com/Rahn/Global-Warming-Temperature-Data/2013/04/02/id/497516#ixzz2sqxLe7lm

Looks like genglandoh managed to convince somebody with that chart.

PeterSibley
02-09-2014, 07:40 PM
Oh, hell--the effects of Rod being wrong would be immeasurably small. It looks to me as though the large number of GW folks who are right (scientists, environmentalist, reasonable people) aren't having much effect either. The blazing growth of corporate profits would fizzle if GW were giving more than lip service.

:D Yes, I happily concede that whether Rod is wrong or not is not a matter of great import. He does however seem to be representative of a large group who really hope GW is a hoax and have therefore convinced themselves that that which they hope for is thus true.

I also hope that their hope is true but feel that given the weight of evidence thus far they are deluding themselves.... with a little help from the world's industrial muscle .

RodB
02-09-2014, 07:42 PM
I don't doubt that serious problems with climate change could change life as we know it. Being completely convinced of the likelihood is another thing. I have no problem with continuing my education to decide that for myself.

I think its in my personality to question anything that seems similar to political correctness in its character and presentation. Additionally, I have developed a strong habit of almost universally disagreeing with liberals.

I will continue to reserve judgment until I have time to do more homework on this issue. Perhaps with my degree in science, I can understand the concepts. I have enjoyed the discourse but its funny no one has yet made a concise and cogent argument for global warming. Its all been bits and pieces mixed in with lots of arrogance and personal attacks.

I'll figure it out for myself and cease and desist on this subject. I have enjoyed the interchange but was disappointed with the substance of the answers. If I was arguing for all that the global warming consensus calls for, I'd like to think I could lay it out fairly straight forward as to why I agreed with said consensus. Further, I would like to think my argument would hold up for people who would be significantly affected by the proposed legislation in quality of life and financial resources.

RodB

Michael D. Storey
02-09-2014, 07:45 PM
Should have been a poll. "No", for pretty much the same reasons I don't trust the denier-deniers. Science doesn't (or at least shouldn't) need political advocates.

I would say that science remains an untrusted and foreign language to many people, including many who make decisions in Washington that effect billions of lives. To make science understandable, and to help people become interested in their new understandings clearly requires an advocate. Like Carl Sagan. But one who is alive.

PeterSibley
02-09-2014, 07:50 PM
I don't doubt that serious problems with climate change could change life as we know it. Being completely convinced of the likelihood is another thing. I have no problem with continuing my education to decide for that for myself.

I think its in my personality to question anything that seems similar to political correctness in its character and presentation. Additionally, I have developed a strong habit of almost universally disagreeing with liberals.

I will continue to reserve judgment until I have time to do more homework on this issue. Perhaps with my degree in science, I can understand the concepts. I have enjoyed the discourse but its funny no one has yet made a concise and cogent argument for global warming. Its all been bits and pieces mixed in with lots of arrogance and personal attacks.

I'll figure it out for myself and cease and desist on this subject. I have enjoyed the interchange but was disappointed with the substance of the answers. If I was arguing for all that the global warming consensus calls for, I'd like to think I could lay it out fairly straight forward as to why I agreed with said consensus. Further, I would like to think my argument would hold up for people who would be significantly affected by the proposed legislation in quality of life and financial resources.

RodB

Do you have a similar problem with "information" that can be directly tracked to a fossil fuel corporations? Can you detach from your political beliefs sufficiently to examine the science ? GW isn't a question about politics at all.

switters
02-09-2014, 07:55 PM
I don't doubt that serious problems with climate change could change life as we know it. Being completely convinced of the likelihood is another thing. I have no problem with continuing my education to decide for that for myself.

I think its in my personality to question anything that seems similar to political correctness in its character and presentation. Additionally, I have developed a strong habit of almost universally disagreeing with liberals.

I will continue to reserve judgment until I have time to do more homework on this issue. Perhaps with my degree in science, I can understand the concepts. I have enjoyed the discourse but its funny no one has yet made a concise and cogent argument for global warming. Its all been bits and pieces mixed in with lots of arrogance and personal attacks.

I'll figure it out for myself and cease and desist on this subject. I have enjoyed the interchange but was disappointed with the substance of the answers. If I was arguing for all that the global warming consensus calls for, I'd like to think I could lay it out fairly straight forward as to why I agreed with said consensus. Further, I would like to think my argument would hold up for people who would be significantly affected by the proposed legislation in quality of life and financial resources.

RodB

In order to give substance to this conversation, we need to know if your degree in science included an understanding of greenhouse effect and green house gases.

If you answer in the affirmative then the ensuing conversation should be rather brief.

It would be helpful if the concept of carbon based fuels give of CO2 in a gas from were also something you understand as scientific fact.

In the end understanding the science about AGW is not about graphs, and it is not about measuring the temperature for the last 130 years or even the extent of arctic ice sheets at one pole but not the other. It is about the increasing amount of man made green house gas.

RodB
02-09-2014, 09:09 PM
In order to give substance to this conversation, we need to know if your degree in science included an understanding of greenhouse effect and green house gases.

If you answer in the affirmative then the ensuing conversation should be rather brief.

It would be helpful if the concept of carbon based fuels give of CO2 in a gas from were also something you understand as scientific fact.

In the end understanding the science about AGW is not about graphs, and it is not about measuring the temperature for the last 130 years or even the extent of arctic ice sheets at one pole but not the other. It is about the increasing amount of man made green house gas.


Since your teaching kindergarden here, I'll pass... it will obviously be way over my head. Your wrong, its not just about the amount of greenhouse gasses we are putting into the atmosphere but whether or not the increased CO2 will cause catastrophic global warming and if so, when.

RodB

Chip-skiff
02-09-2014, 09:13 PM
A reflection: if you want to understand climate science, why do you limit your research to the right-wing economists, lobbyists, and corporate flacks?

If you had a toothache, would you consult a proctologist?

PeterSibley
02-09-2014, 09:19 PM
Since your teaching kindergarden here, I'll pass... it will obviously be way over my head. Your wrong, its not just about the amount of greenhouse gasses we are putting into the atmosphere but whether or not the increased CO2 will cause catastrophic global warming and if so, when.

RodB

The science is pretty straight forward on this one Rod.

David G
02-09-2014, 09:29 PM
A reflection: if you want to understand climate science, why do you limit your research to the right-wing economists, lobbyists, and corporate flacks?

If you had a toothache, would you consult a proctologist?

There are certain instances when this would be an appropriate first step, eh Rod?

RodB
02-09-2014, 09:34 PM
Originally posted by htom:Should have been a poll. "No", for pretty much the same reasons I don't trust the denier-deniers. Science doesn't (or at least shouldn't) need political advocates.

I have wondered all along why the "settled science" for the real risk of catastrophic global warming was not just laid out as simple as possible and in such a manner that there was no debate.... the science shows this... and this... is what we need to do. I'm guessing its the "educated guesses/predictions" that have allowed the growth of the skeptic side of this issue.


RodB

Durnik
02-09-2014, 09:35 PM
Since your teaching kindergarden here, I'll pass... it will obviously be way over my head. Your wrong, its not just about the amount of greenhouse gasses we are putting into the atmosphere but whether or not the increased CO2 will cause catastrophic global warming and if so, when.

RodB

Settled science, from a link (http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/papers/2006/6/energy%20easterbrook/20060517.pdf) (PDF, dated Mar 2006) posted by ljb on another thread -



Case Closed: The Debate about Global Warming is Over

...


The Scientific Verdict Is In

When global-warming concerns became widespread, many argued that more scientific research was needed before any policy decisions. This was hardly just the contention of oil-company executives. "There is no evidence yet" of dangerous climate change, the National Academy of Sciences declared in 1991. A 1992 survey of members of the American Geophysical Union and American Meteorological Society, two professional groups of climatologists, found only 17 percent believed there was a sufficient ground to declare an artificial greenhouse effect in progress. In 1993 Thomas Karl, director of the National Climatic Data Center, said there exists "a great range of uncertainty" regarding whether the world is warming. My own contrarian 1995 book about environmental issues, A Moment on the Earth, spent 39 pages reviewing the nascent state of climate science and concluded that rising temperatures "might be an omen or might mean nothing." Like others, I called for more research.

That research is now in, and the scientific uncertainty that once justified skepticism has been replaced by near-unanimity among credentialed researchers that an artificially warming world is a real phenomenon posing real danger. The American Geophysical Union and American Meteorological Society, skeptical in 1992, in 2003 both issued statements calling signs of global warming compelling. In 2004 the American Association for the Advancement of Science declared in its technical journal Science that there is no longer any "substantive disagreement in the scientific community" that artificial global warming is happening and could become dangerous. In 2005, the National Academy of Sciences joined the science academies of the United Kingdom, Japan, Germany, China and other nations in a joint statement saying, "There is now strong evidence that Data Center said research now supports "a substantial human impact on global temperature
increases." And this month the Climate Change Science Program, the George W. Bush Administration's coordinating agency for global-warming research, declared it had found "clear evidence of human influences on the climate system."
Case closed.
In roughly the last decade, the evidence of artificial global warming has gone from sketchy to overpowering.

perhaps you are hasty in shunning kindergarten..

enjoy
bobby

PeterSibley
02-09-2014, 09:46 PM
Settled science, from a link (http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/papers/2006/6/energy%20easterbrook/20060517.pdf) (PDF, dated Mar 2006) posted by ljb on another thread -




perhaps you are hasty in shunning kindergarten..

enjoy
bobby

Rod acknowledges human induced warming but wants to know if it will have any "catastrophic effects", is that correct Rod?

The potential effects seem pretty clear here in Australia with the Southern half of the continent drying and receiving far less rain now than was historically the case. Bushfires are very attention grabbing.

Perhaps in the US in winter it's hard to imagine the effects of an excess of heat and changing rainfall patterns ?

RodB
02-09-2014, 10:16 PM
Yes Peter, I'm wondering how they compute the "risk" of catastrophic global warming and how certain that would be. There are many comments I've seen saying the climate being a little warmer would be a good thing for the activities of man.

Whats the side effects if our mean temp raises a couple degrees? What is the rate of warming observed and does it have a direct relationship with the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere? I'm assuming natural segments of our climatic system likely cause the amount of CO2 to not be in a direct relationship with the rise in temp. Do the scientists agree that all this put together points out a very high risk of catastrophic global warming within a certain amount of years at the present rate of CO2 being put into the atmosphere?

These are the questions that need to be answered to seriously affect people's lives and living conditions and taxes etc with GW legislation.

RodB

Durnik
02-09-2014, 10:36 PM
Peter,

Rod goes back-n-forth. From other things he's written, it seems clearly a political (social/religious) thing to him.

As for signs here - California is now obviously & admittedly in a drought - still a few years to catch up with parts of Aus, but a severe drought none-the-less. We, too, are having issues with brush/forest fires. Other climatic changes are apparent in the U.S., & have been for many years. It's too easy for denialistas to label these simply 'weather' (oh, the irony - to label 'weather', 'climate' & 'climate', 'weather'!) & ignore their relationship to increasing CO2 in the atmosphere - ntm, ignoring completely the effects of acidification of the worlds waters. But they are apparent to any who care to look. That later is important. You have to really want to. Our right wing propaganda network will willingly destroy anything to maintain power - power being their only aim. The stories people hear about Fox are unbelievable.. but the reality is even more fantastic.

You seem a reasonable, patient & hopeful man. I freely admit I lost my patience & hope (I still claim 'reasonable' ;-)) some years back. Seeing RodB's on every street corner & watching the actions of people they vote into power will do that to a fellow. On another thread (http://forum.woodenboat.com/showthread.php?173704-Anyone-see-any-coverage-of-this), the excesses of N.C. are being discussed - take a gander & remember, the situation is likely many times worse than you can imagine. The saying "My own belief is the universe is not only queerer than I imagine, it is queerer than I _can_ imagine" comes to mind!

So, while I admire your (& others) patience, please understand that I have been worn down - I find it difficult to have patience with supposedly sane adults who refuse to use reason.

ntm, the 'kindergarten' reference was his own, tossed lightly back. ;-)

enjoy
bobby

Lew Barrett
02-09-2014, 10:38 PM
I've seen saying the climate being a little warmer would be a good thing for the activities of man.

Few scientists would agree with what you've been saying


Whats the side effects if our mean temp raises a couple degrees? What is the rate of warming observed and does it have a direct relationship with the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere?

The "side effects" (they are actually direct effects) of a rise in CO2 is the release of additional methane into the atmosphere, among other things.
You are very focused on C02 but might wish to identify the impact of the other greenhouse gases as well as the already observable effects of sea level rise.

Here's a good place to start (http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/) that identifies other environmental catalysts.


These are the questions that need to be answered to seriously affect people's lives and living conditions and taxes etc with GW legislation.


We already know what is happening and what will continue to happen. As it is with cancer, early detection is critical for a cure. Unfortunately, it's too late to say any detection will be early, and yet there are those who still refuse to understand. The politics of this lies entirely in denial.

Yes, repair if possible requires change, some of it implicitly demanding changes in routine.

WX
02-09-2014, 11:17 PM
Yes Peter, I'm wondering how they compute the "risk" of catastrophic global warming and how certain that would be. There are many comments I've seen saying the climate being a little warmer would be a good thing for the activities of man.

Whats the side effects if our mean temp raises a couple degrees? What is the rate of warming observed and does it have a direct relationship with the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere? I'm assuming natural segments of our climatic system likely cause the amount of CO2 to not be in a direct relationship with the rise in temp. Do the scientists agree that all this put together points out a very high risk of catastrophic global warming within a certain amount of years at the present rate of CO2 being put into the atmosphere?

These are the questions that need to be answered to seriously affect people's lives and living conditions and taxes etc with GW legislation.

RodB

You should try putting those question into a google search Rod.
Regarding the effect of the mean temp rising 2 degrees.
Here's a history of the research into CO2 and it's effects on temperature rise and fall.

Hulburt's own calculations supported Arrhenius's estimate that doubling or halving CO2 would bring something like a 4°C rise or fall of surface temperature, and thus "the carbon dioxide theory of the ice ages... is a possible theory."(11) (http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm#N_11_) Hardly anyone noticed this paper. Hulburt was an obscure worker at the U.S. Naval Research Laboratory, and he published in a journal, the Physical Review, that few meteorologists read.


In the late 1950s a few American scientists, starting with Plass, tentatively began to inform the public that greenhouse gases might become a problem within the foreseeable future. Revelle in particular warned journalists and government officials that greenhouse warming deserved serious attention. The stakes were revealed when Bolin and Eriksson pursued the consequences of their calculation to the end. They assumed industrial production would climb exponentially, and figured that atmospheric CO2 would rise some 25% by the year 2000. That was a far swifter rise than anyone before had suggested. As the New York Times reported in a brief note, Bolin suggested that the effect on climate "might be radical."(34a) (http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm#N_34a_) In 1962, a still stronger (although also little heeded) warning was sounded by the Russian climate expert Mikhail Budyko. His calculations of the exponential growth of industrial civilization suggested a drastic global warming within the next century or so.


Another unusual disturbance had begun. The proof was in the Vostok team’s 1987 report of their analysis of ice cores reaching back through the entire previous glacial period and into the warm time before. (And the drill was still only partway down; by the time they stopped drilling a dozen years later, the team had recovered ice going back 400,000 years, through four complete glacial cycles.) The CO2 levels in their record got as low as 180 parts per million in the cold periods and reached 280 in the warm periods, never higher. But in the air above the ice, the level of the gas had reached 350 — far above anything seen in this geological era and still climbing.(53) (http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm#N_53_)
Yes I am cherry picking but only to summarise the history behind the research.

Sky Blue
02-09-2014, 11:45 PM
What is this "settled science" business? If the matter is "settled" it is no longer science, it is de facto religion (with various articles of faith).

If there is a scientific "consensus" it is no longer science, it is de facto religion (with various articles of faith).

If 97% of the scientists "agree" we no longer are doing science, we are confirming articles of faith.

If this was science (and not politics), the hypothesis would now be that while the global temperature is indeed increasing, the cause of the increase is NOT anthropogenic. And you would then test. Whose is going to fund this? Big oil? What happens to your academic career if you work for big oil? What happens to your career if you concluded a non-anthropogenic temperature increase?

Skepticism is increasing because the narrative is failing. The relationship between carbon levels and the global temperature is not sufficiently understood; hence the failed modeling. Until the models become more accurate predictors, skepticism will remain, and increase.

Why is Australia's drought and heat wave "climate not weather"? Why is America's coldest winter in decades "weather not climate"? Why if the polar ice is melting it is "climate not weather?" Why if the polar sea ice is increasing it is "weather not climate?"

If this was truly science, and not politics, the hypothesis would be that carbon is not the cause and the science would be exploring other causes. If none could be found, then we might have something.

George Jung
02-10-2014, 12:00 AM
SB, ya oughta be in Agriculture.... cuz you got 'a load' that needs selling (before it starts smelling up the place)

Sky Blue
02-10-2014, 12:18 AM
I get your point, ljb5, and I anticipate that AGW will eventually bear out.

Right now, however, the narrative is failing as polls show skepticism is on the rise for the first time in decade. If the relationship between carbon output and temperature increase was better understood, this would not be a problem, and the President himself would not need to proclaim at the SOTU that "climate change is real" (an absurd statement, as the climate is in a perpetual state of flux).

But do promise me that you are not, at this stage of the science, conflating gravity with AGW. Gravity is not science, it is physics (you could perhaps call it physical science, in the same manner one might refer to, say, computer science).

Lew Barrett
02-10-2014, 12:29 AM
Skepticism is increasing because the narrative is failing.


Why do you say that skepticism is on the rise? It is just the opposite as long as you are a scientist and not reading populist polls.

Your precis regarding the polar ice situation is also arguable against the prevailing trends.
Ice data (https://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/)

Lew Barrett
02-10-2014, 12:32 AM
Gravity is not science, it is physics (you could perhaps call it physical science, in the same manner one might refer to, say, computer science).

Pure obfuscation.

Paul Girouard
02-10-2014, 12:51 AM
Pure obfuscation.


Wouldn't trying to pass off a law of physics, gravity, as science, be more obfuscation than straightening out the facts?

Oh, wait, "we" think Sky Blue is a old formite posing as a new member so "we" need to gang up on him, carry on.

elf
02-10-2014, 12:55 AM
You see, that's the difference. Polls have nothing to do with science. People who believe polls have no clue about science. There is no "opinion" in science, only collection of data to enable the testing of hypotheses.

The hypothesis about global climate change has been being researched and tested now for more than 30 years. There is no longer any doubt. The data confirms the process as well as the source of the problem.

RodB
02-10-2014, 01:30 AM
Originally posted by elf: You see, that's the difference. Polls have nothing to do with science. People who believe polls have no clue about science. There is no "opinion" in science, only collection of data to enable the testing of hypotheses.

The hypothesis about global climate change has been being researched and tested now for more than 30 years. There is no longer any doubt. The data confirms the process as well as the source of the problem.

I just read that summation of what we know about GW and what they recommend. The point you guys and gals always leave out that they actually say... they do not know what will happen at what temp and CO2 level as the current processes continue...and that their educated guess is its risky to not do anything....and safer to do everything we can to minimize the level of CO2 in our atmosphere (green house gases).

http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/res...k/20060517.pdf (http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/papers/2006/6/energy%20easterbrook/20060517.pdf)

RodB

David G
02-10-2014, 01:30 AM
Yes, there is such a thing as 'settled science'. And, yes, every scientific conclusion is subject to modification if/when new information comes into play, or a new way of looking at a problem is conceived. It may be true that the 'common knowledge' amongst the knowledgeable once was that the sun orbited the earth, and that the earth was flat, and that bleeding a patient was a panaceas for many ailments. It's also true that science has come a long way since those early errors. There are still lots of things we don't understand, but our methodology and our tools have advanced dramatically.

I have a friend who studied engineering, then meteorology. Most of his career, he worked for the National Weather Service. He's a natural born skeptic, and shades toward the conservative. For a number of years, he was doubtful of the growing consensus. Over the course of a couple of decades, he read books. he went to conferences. He heard skeptics, and proponents, and debates between the two. And all the while, studies continued to be done. Scientists continues to test each others work. The data collection and the power of the modeling software increased. And... gradually... he came to realize that all the data... all the study... all the information we have available... were leading him, inexorably, and against his will, to two conclusions. First - climate change, beyond the normal fluctuations found in nature, WERE happening. Second - the human race's influence in that change was obvious.

Now... I'm not well-informed enough, nor technically trained enough, to judge the studies. Neither are most of us. But I can read science journals that explain why scientists have come to this almost-unanimous conclusion. And I'm smart enough to listen when my friend talks about his skeptical journey... and his final conclusions. At this point - I can only speculate that anyone who is still a skeptic is operating out of stubborn (perhaps ideological) ignorance... or has a financial stake in spreading disinformation.

To trot out the notion that 'settled science' is nothing more than a religious belief is just silly.

RodB
02-10-2014, 01:39 AM
First - climate change, beyond the normal fluctuations found in nature, WERE happening. Second - the human race's influence in that change was obvious.

What about the real question.... the third question.... what is the chance that if things proceed as they are... we will experience catastrophic global warming.


Question #3 is the important one and the one they admit they do not know... they just say it seems a serious risk to take from what they have observed from climate data from the past and what they have found out on the CO2 levels and increased temps over the past 15-20 or so years.


RodB

WX
02-10-2014, 04:34 AM
What about the real question.... the third question.... what is the chance that if things proceed as they are... we will experience catastrophic global warming.


Question #3 is the important one and the one they admit they do not know... they just say it seems a serious risk to take from what they have observed from climate data from the past and what they have found out on the CO2 levels and increased temps over the past 15-20 or so years.


RodB

2 degrees most of us will cope. 3-4 degrees will see serious depopulation. However 2 degrees will change the world as we know. Some countries will cease to exist and many of the worlds major coastal cities will be lost.

PeterSibley
02-10-2014, 04:52 AM
What about the real question.... the third question.... what is the chance that if things proceed as they are... we will experience catastrophic global warming.


Question #3 is the important one and the one they admit they do not know... they just say it seems a serious risk to take from what they have observed from climate data from the past and what they have found out on the CO2 levels and increased temps over the past 15-20 or so years.


RodB

We're about to find out Rod, as I said earlier, I hope the naysayers you have been quoting are right. If I'm right we're in serious trouble.

slug
02-10-2014, 06:35 AM
Nobody can know. All predictions are based on models and theory. It would be foolish to discount the theory.

Peerie Maa
02-10-2014, 07:11 AM
Nobody can know. All predictions are based on models and theory. It would be foolish to discount the theory.Therer are loads of possibles, the disruption of the system of ocean currents for one. If that happens you add another layer of uncertainty to the possible outcomes. Whatever the actual effects, there will be massive disruption to agriculture world wide, the fishing industry will suffer a hit as species move or die out, and so on. The system is chaotic (in a mathematical sence) which makes it hard to be precice and detailed in the predictions.

slug
02-10-2014, 07:24 AM
This is why scientists use models...to help policy makers form long term strategies.

We know the climate is changing and we know that society must respond with appropriate defenses .....regardless of defects in the climate models.

We know that certain areas of the world will suffer badly.

we know that mass migration of people from affected areas will happen.

we know that this will cause civil unrest.

we know many things.

LeeG
02-10-2014, 07:32 AM
This is why scientists use models...to help policy makers form long term strategies.



Yea but according to RodB a model that has been 95% accurate isn't good enough

Peerie Maa
02-10-2014, 07:40 AM
Met Office: Evidence 'suggests climate change link to storms' Climate change is likely to be a factor in the extreme weather that has hit much of the UK in recent months, the Met Office's chief scientist has said. Dame Julia Slingo said the variable UK climate meant there was "no definitive answer" to what caused the storms. "But all the evidence suggests there is a link to climate change," she added. "There is no evidence to counter the basic premise that a warmer world will lead to more intense daily and hourly rain events. "More than 130 severe flood warnings - indicating a threat to life - have been issued since December. In contrast, there were only nine in the whole of 2012. From http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-26084625 This has a direct effect on farming as the ground is too sodden to be worked, even if it is not actually flooded. So the first effects of climate change are being felt in the UK now.

elf
02-10-2014, 07:45 AM
Just in case Rod wants to risk checking out "liberal" sources of information, Terry Gross interviewed this interesting author the week before last on the subject of what kind of planning the business community is making for climate change.

He can listen to that interview here:

http://www.npr.org/2014/01/28/267082833/entrepreneurs-looking-for-windfall-cash-in-on-climate-change

slug
02-10-2014, 08:09 AM
The climate change skeptics will say that climate change is natural.

Natural or man made....who cares ? the effects are the same.

Failure to plan ahead is irresponsible.

What climate deniers fear is that they must change their lifestyle.

what they don't seem to understand is that its possible enjoy a high quality of life, while limiting CO 2 pollution , resource depletion and defend against the effects of climate change.

A high speed train rather than a city air shuttle...is this a lifestyle changing event ?

is an efficient automobile instead of. Yank tank a big sacrifice ?

Is a normal size home rather than a McMansion a big deal ?

will a 100 hp bass boat rather than a 300 hp bass boat ruin society ?

LeeG
02-10-2014, 08:57 AM
What climate deniers fear is that they must change their lifestyle.
?

I don't think people have that hard of time changing when the need presents itself but the problem here is changing before the need is critical and acute and that starts with changing the model in ones head first, changing the stories we live by. I think that is the hardest thing. Infinite horizons, expanding resources, moving on to the next fertile field when this one is depleted is the story that's worked for 1000's of years and it went into tremendous acceleration with burning fossil fuels.

oznabrag
02-10-2014, 09:20 AM
I just read that summation of what we know about GW and what they recommend. The point you guys and gals always leave out it that they actually say they do not know what will happen at what temp and CO2 level as the current processes continue...and that their educated guess is its risky to not do anything....and safer to do everything we can to minimize the level of CO2 in our atmosphere (green house gases).

http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/res...k/20060517.pdf (http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/papers/2006/6/energy%20easterbrook/20060517.pdf)

RodB

Hold the phone.

Look, if you were in the basement with an old engineer, and he said that if he couldn't shut down the boiler or open the relief valve that the thing was going to explode; if he told you he did not know WHEN it was going off, but that it was DEFINITELY going off, and that he needed you to run upstairs and tell everybody to get out in the hope that it would not be too late, would you just stand there and do nothing because he coild not tell you when it was going up?

Do you not understand that we have released enough carbon back into the atmosphere to tip the balance so that, as the Earth warms up, the frozen bogs of the Arctic will begin to thaw and rot releasing trillions of tons of methane?

That the worse it gets the worse it gets, faster.

You seem like a nice enough guy, Rod, please stop deluding yourself.

slug
02-10-2014, 09:48 AM
I don't think people have that hard of time changing when the need presents itself but the problem here is changing before the need is critical and acute and that starts with changing the model in ones head first, changing the stories we live by. I think that is the hardest thing. Infinite horizons, expanding resources, moving on to the next fertile field when this one is depleted is the story that's worked for 1000's of years and it went into tremendous acceleration with burning fossil fuels.


America is a lost cause. Freedom and all that mumbo jumbo.

Its not just rednecks in pickup trucks.

http://s23.postimg.org/4ybunxud7/image.jpg (http://postimage.org/)
subir imagen (http://postimage.org/index.php?lang=spanish)


How will America reduce the energy use of the military industrial complex ? They are the single largest energy user in the world.



america will be the dirty man , The rest of the world will lead the way.

Dan McCosh
02-10-2014, 09:50 AM
The climate change skeptics will say that climate change is natural.

Natural or man made....who cares ? the effects are the same.

Failure to plan ahead is irresponsible.

What climate deniers fear is that they must change their lifestyle.

what they don't seem to understand is that its possible enjoy a high quality of life, while limiting CO 2 pollution , resource depletion and defend against the effects of climate change.

A high speed train rather than a city air shuttle...is this a lifestyle changing event ?

is an efficient automobile instead of. Yank tank a big sacrifice ?

Is a normal size home rather than a McMansion a big deal ?

will a 100 hp bass boat rather than a 300 hp bass boat ruin society ? Do you really think the changes you note would reduce the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere?

Michael D. Storey
02-10-2014, 09:57 AM
I don't think people have that hard of time changing when the need presents itself but the problem here is changing before the need is critical and acute and that starts with changing the model in ones head first, changing the stories we live by. I think that is the hardest thing. Infinite horizons, expanding resources, moving on to the next fertile field when this one is depleted is the story that's worked for 1000's of years and it went into tremendous acceleration with burning fossil fuels.

Well said and an important point. The 'I know that it will lead to blindness, but I'll just do it until I need glasses' approach is as sublimely foolish as the argument of what is the definition of acute and critical, and the blaming and the contradictory 'studies' that support opposing camps.

The fact is that less trash in the air is a social benefit. The fact is that paying less for energy because you use less is a benefit. The fact is that making aluminum out of scrap uses 5% of the energy that making it out of bauxite is a benefit.

Modifying behaviour that would do these things makes things better whether or not there is any warming, or cooling, for that matter, in the earth's climate.

When I drive over the Bay Bridge, I can look north and see the orange/brown scum cloud over Baltimore. It's there. It fouls the water, makes the air rotten to breath. True facts. has nothing to do with climate. It is a bad thing to have there. And reckon that every city in the world has the same scarf knotted around its neck.

Why do we need to even consider climate to find the motivation to change this? There is money to be made in new equipment, new fuels. As if another incentive were actually needed.

What would changing the economy from an expansionist paradigm to a sustainable one take?

Lew Barrett
02-10-2014, 10:02 AM
Wouldn't trying to pass off a law of physics, gravity, as science, be more obfuscation than straightening out the facts?
.

No. If expounding on the topic of physics, might it be wise to leave complicated issues like "is physics science" to those who have taken a course of study on the subject?

Michael D. Storey
02-10-2014, 10:17 AM
No. If expounding on the topic of physics, might it be wise to leave complicated issues like "is physics science" to those who have taken a course of study on the subject?

Should such a conversation be the private domain of those who have had a course of study?
It's like saying that the issue of contaminated water in West Virginia is too complicated for the water-drinkers to understand.
I personally do not think that there is a field of thought that is too difficult to be broken into a form that a person of average intelligence, with a public education and with intellectual curiosity could understand.
Knowledge should be the glue that brings people together, not a barrier to inclusion

slug
02-10-2014, 10:20 AM
What do you think ? Energy use and co2 pollution are linked.

America is 5 percent of the worlds population yet you consume 25 percent of the worlds energy.

americas transport energy use is 75 percent higher than Europe


http://s17.postimg.org/vts6typ67/image.jpg (http://postimage.org/)sube imagenes (http://postimage.org/index.php?lang=spanish)



Americas households use three times more energy than German households.


http://s9.postimg.org/mtn9om0kv/image.jpg (http://postimage.org/)
hosting imagenes (http://postimage.org/index.php?lang=spanish)

LeeG
02-10-2014, 10:39 AM
What would changing the economy from an expansionist paradigm to a sustainable one take?

A paradigm that policy is based on?

I'm afraid that paradigm will take hold in the context of collapse as a coping strategy just as denial is the one at work now.

You can look at how we are adjusting our narrative for oil supply limits as a clue how we'll incorporate AGW into limiting CO2 emissions. We are being hit right now by the limits of world oil production and higher prices, we're ten years into it and our policies are some variation on "get more" with no attempts to sacrifice present income for future security. We're simply stripping through our reserves faster, pretending that CAFE efficiency standards will make a difference when it'll takes decades to replace the vehicles on the road. We are refusing to raise fuel taxes which is a necessity to maintain our infrastructure, let alone replace it but most importantly if there was any evidence there had been a paradigm shift recognizing limits of world oil supply we would raise the Fed tax on fuel as THE LEAST EXPENSIVE method to prepare our society for declining oil supplies. And we aren't doing it.
AGW is so far away from feeling acute compared to what happened with the 2008 oil price crisis that I can't see the paradigm of sustainability taking hold on a policy level. People are talking about it though.

Todd D
02-10-2014, 11:00 AM
A great deal of the problem with the study of climate change is that the system is very complex. Consequently, to really understand the global climate system it is neccesary to know quite a lot about a number of disciplines. For a variety of reasons "science" is compartmentalized into rather narrow areas. Even within a given dicispline there are sub discplines that people specialize in. The result is that no one person has a sufficient understanding of all the areas of "science" to fully understand the global climate system. Consequently, individual scientific studies are rather narrow in scope and often completely neglect work in other areas. The result is that those narrow studies don't adequately describe the total system. This allows the denier "cult" to grab those inadequate descriptions (and predictions) and use the failures of those studies as fuel for their denial. Given the structure of modern science, I don't see this changing much. I also don't see any one individual adequately mastering the variety of disciplines needed to fully understant the global climate system. Those areas of study include, but are not limited to:

Astrophysics (specifically solar physics) to understand the processes that occur in the sun and their temporal variations as expressed in variations of insolation at the location of the Earth in the solar system.

Atmospheric Physics to understand the dynamics of the atmosphere system. This, of course, requires an understanding of the interactiosn of the atmosphere with incident solar radiation. That understanding requires an understanding of the chemical composition variations withing the atmosphere AND the dynamics of movement/interaction of the various chemical constituents of the atmosphere.

Oceanography to understand the dynamics of the ocean systems (currents, physical, chemical and thermal variations) and the interaction of the ocean system with the atmosphere.

Geology to provide data on previous changes in global climate and "some" of the parameters that were possible drivers of those changes. Withing geology, the subdiciplines included are sedimentology, glaciology, petrology (primarily igneous and sedimentary), geochemistry and isotope geochemistry. In addition to providing historical data, geological studies also provide information on chemical and energy fluxes between the various Earth systems (atmosphere, oceans, sediments and the deep Earth) that are essential to understading the total system.

Biology to provide understanding of the response of the biological system to changes in global climate and to provide a basis of biological sinks for various materials as well as biological fluxes of materials between biological systems (plans and animals) and the oceans, atmosphere and land surfaces of the Earth.

All of these disciplines require an adequate background in basic chemistry, physics and mathematics.

All of these areas of science are divided into sub-diciplines that people specialize in. Unfortunately, the complexity of the infdividual specializations is such that most become a life study for the scientists involved. It is essentially impossible for one person to develop the level of understanding of all of the disiplines needed to fully understand the global climate system. So the study of the system will remain compartmentalized. Then there are the people that study the interactions between the various scientific disciplines. I am not saying that we cannot develop a full understanding of global climate. Rather I am saying that the structure of science guarantees that there will be mistakes made because individual researchers simply don't know enough about areas out of their specializations to adequately incorporate results from other diciplines into their work. The skeptics and deniers will jump on those mistakes. Furthermore, communicating the science to the public (including politicians) is very difficult because the general public is woefully ignorant of even basic science. So the results of scientific studies have to be simplified dramatically to make them comprehensible to the public. That simplification will often, perhaps invariably, gloss over important aspects of the results.

Lew Barrett
02-10-2014, 11:06 AM
Should such a conversation be the private domain of those who have had a course of study?


You entirely miss the point. Perhaps it was too subtle. It's hard to discuss this in earnest with folks who don't identify physics as a science. Of course you don't need to go to school for any discussion of climate change, although education helps to be grounded in the facts and even more, methods. But you do need to understand the distinctions between science, method and fantasy. You can teach that to yourself as Einstein did, or you can defend comments like physics isn't a science.

Lew Barrett
02-10-2014, 11:25 AM
I really feel like these two statements deserve a lot more consideration and discussion.

If this gibberish is what passes for scientific thought in denier community, we're in much deeper trouble than I thought.

It appears they are not the only people who fail to identify basic conventions such as how human knowledge is divided into disciplines for the purpose of study and discussion. Three thousand years of observation and progress tossed out the window by the suggestion that all opinions carry equal weight regardless of the observed and proven data.

Sky Blue
02-10-2014, 11:32 AM
Now who is obfuscating. The larger point is that gravity as a physical law is so immutable that the issue as to whether or not it exists is no longer studied as such. Inasmuch as that is true, to posit AGW as akin to gravity itself as a matter of scientific consensus is so ludicrous as to merit no further discussion here.

Sky Blue
02-10-2014, 11:34 AM
Moreover, I acknowledged, in spite of the above, lbj5's larger point. I get it.

bobbys
02-10-2014, 11:35 AM
:D iii
I do not trust anyone over 30, not wait.40, never mind,50., nope.60. Ok anyone over 61.

Sky Blue
02-10-2014, 11:43 AM
No. 90 may be the most intelligent thing that has been said in both threads on the topic. Rather than being wasted here in the bilge, maybe it should be c&p'd to the NY Times' Op-Ed page.

I have just one question about the fragmentation described in No. 90. If that is true, how can those creating the failed models even do so? Why do so? I state again that the relationship between carbon inputs and temperature increase is not sufficiently understood to make accurate prediction models at this time. If folks can't in turn see why this is a problem, and how it plays into the hands of the deniers, well, then there really isn't much more to say on that.

Rick-Mi
02-10-2014, 11:45 AM
to posit AGW as akin to gravity itself as a matter of scientific consensus is so ludicrous as to merit no further discussion here.


Of course, but it does demonstrate how deep the alarmist hooks are imbedded into a handful of cult like true believers.

Lew Barrett
02-10-2014, 11:46 AM
Now who is obfuscating. The larger point is that gravity as a physical law is so immutable that the issue as to whether or not it exists is no longer studied as such. Inasmuch as that is true, to posit AGW as akin to gravity itself as a matter of scientific consensus is so ludicrous as to merit no further discussion here.

You're backtracking yet again. Your comment was an effort to obfuscate physics and science; to suggest that one scientific principle , gravity remains a fact of science that is so easily observed as to be plain to those without any scientific founding and therefore of no further consequence. You ignore, for example, how important a thorough understanding of gravity is both complex and important. You can observe and dare not deny it so you pass it off as "simple" and not a fundamental science of consequence any longer. In the context of space travel, flight, construction and ballistics it is far less "simple" and remains a topic of study to this day.

Obfuscation.

Sky Blue
02-10-2014, 11:58 AM
Lew, this is a waste of both of our time, so I'll leave it with this. lbj5 brought the issue of gravity up (I didn't), essentially comparing AGW to gravity in terms of its immutabilty as a factual matter.

I suggest we are headed there (which I conceded to lbj5), but even scientists studying AGW would not, I submit, stake their lives on its existence as they might with gravity. Not yet.

Accordingly, to conflate the two, is wrong as this point in the science. If you want to have an argument as to whether the study of gravity is science or not, well, that may be an interesting semantical debate, but not very illuminating for the present purposes of this thread.

Lew Barrett
02-10-2014, 11:59 AM
Moreover, I acknowledged, in spite of the above, lbj5's larger point. I get it.

Progress, then.

Lew Barrett
02-10-2014, 12:01 PM
Lew, this is a waste of both of our time, so I'll leave it with this. lbj5 brought the issue of gravity up (I didn't), essentially comparing AGW to gravity in terms of its immutabilty as a factual matter.

I suggest we are headed there (which I conceded to lbj5), but even scientists studying AGW would not, I submit, stake their lives on its existence as they might with gravity. Not yet.

Accordingly, to conflate the two, is wrong as this point in the science. If you want to have an argument as to whether the study of gravity is science or not, well, that may be an interesting semantical debate, but not very illuminating for the present purposes of this thread.

We'll leave it where it is. I keyed on the comment that "physics" isn't science. I'd agree this sub topic has run its course.

LeeG
02-10-2014, 12:34 PM
No. 90 may be the most intelligent thing that has been said in both threads on the topic. Rather than being wasted here in the bilge, maybe it should be c&p'd to the NY Times' Op-Ed page.

I have just one question about the fragmentation described in No. 90. If that is true, how can those creating the failed models even do so? Why do so? I state again that the relationship between carbon inputs and temperature increase is not sufficiently understood to make accurate prediction models at this time. If folks can't in turn see why this is a problem, and how it plays into the hands of the deniers, well, then there really isn't much more to say on that.

So far the temp model is 95% accurate, you need greater precision?

Ian McColgin
02-10-2014, 12:36 PM
Sky Blue presents as clueless about the complexities of the theories (note the plural) of gravitation. If he or she has any "science" training it's like too many in medicine or engineering, empirical and a bit weak on its epistemological basis.

Canoeyawl
02-10-2014, 12:39 PM
Regresives have not gone easy on Science over the years. Right up to the present date there is a long list of "Wacko scientists" that have been ridiculed or even killed for speaking or writing "the unmentionable"
Science is scary, why should regressives stop now? To be included among the elite members of the parties that have silenced some of the great minds through the years must be flattering. Perhaps there is money in it. Maybe they could get their teeth fixed, or some of the extra fingers or toes amputated.

Socrates
Archimedes
Michael Servetus
Galileo Galilei
Giordano Bruno
Ludwig Boltzmann
Albert Einstein
George Zweig

CWSmith
02-10-2014, 12:47 PM
I am coming to this late as when I read the title I initially just laughed and moved on.

Here is my question: Does anyone see the deniers putting the same degree and effort of theory, experiment and simulation into their efforts as those scientists who have concluded it is real? I find the latter hard at work with very detailed models and making laboratory studies to better understand the complex atmospheric chemistry needed to better analyze the observations. I don't see that from the detractors.

varadero
02-10-2014, 12:55 PM
Nice to see Boltzmann on your list...


Regresives have not gone easy on Science over the years. Right up to the present date there is a long list of "Wacko scientists" that have been ridiculed or even killed for speaking or writing "the unmentionable"
Science is scary, why should regressives stop now? To be included among the elite members of the parties that have silenced some of the great minds through the years must be flattering. Perhaps there is money in it. Maybe they could get their teeth fixed, or some of the extra fingers or toes amputated.

Socrates
Archimedes
Michael Servetus
Galileo Galilei
Giordano Bruno
Ludwig Boltzmann
Albert Einstein
George Zweig

Rick-Mi
02-10-2014, 12:59 PM
Yea, the stunning accuracy of the alarmists!

Where do I send a check to buy carbon credits so Al Gore and Goldman Sachs can solve the problem?


http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2014/01/clip_image022.jpg

Sky Blue
02-10-2014, 01:02 PM
Sky Blue presents as clueless about the complexities of the theories (note the plural) of gravitation. If he or she has any "science" training it's like too many in medicine or engineering, empirical and a bit weak on its epistemological basis.


Well, Ian, we were discussing "gravity" (not various and sundry theories and sub-disciplines thereof), the example of which suggested a cliff jump to test the theory. In this example, then only the most rudimentary "theory" of gravity is required: that all objects in the universe are mutually attracted.

If you had read the thread more closely, you would see that greater "complexities" were not implicated by the hypothetical posed.


Matt

Sky Blue
02-10-2014, 01:15 PM
Why should he delete it, ljb5? If you are so brilliant (and I concede that you may well be), certainly you could provide the contrary evidence proving its falsity, rather than simply trying to silence what appears to be a factual claim.

The modeling is bad in some cases. The denial of this constitutes a new genre of "deniers."

TomF
02-10-2014, 01:16 PM
My FIL tells me that one of his first projects with the Geological Survey of Canada (as it as then), was to take a trip to various places in the world accompanying a terribly sensitive instrument, to measure the differing amounts of gravity at this or that location. Part of the data-taking was to inform research into the effects of underlying rock structures on gravity - partly, who knows?

Nobody questioned whether gravity would actually exist in those different places, of course. Even in the medieval days of the early 1960s. :D What they wanted was some data to help them identify variation from the present models, and help build better ones.

Now, scientists sometimes do end up being wrong en masse, and an entire paradigm stands on its head within a generation. That's happened with theories of continental drift, of asteroid-caused extinctions, etc. It is conceivable that someday, something like that will stand the current consensus about AGW on its head too.

It is far more likely, however, that things will progress more akin to my FIL's research project on gravity. That we're not about to find the equivalent of locations on Earth where gravity doesn't exist after all ... but will find richer data to help develop models which are more closely descriptive (and predictive).

Sky Blue
02-10-2014, 01:21 PM
Thank you TomF. Reasonable as always. I believe I will admit to being somewhat out of depth and will elect to leap off the cliff of this thread. Hope I sprout wings!

Chip-skiff
02-10-2014, 01:25 PM
Yet, who would argue that gravity doesn't exist, or magnetism?


Lew, this is a waste of both of our time, so I'll leave it with this. lbj5 brought the issue of gravity up (I didn't), essentially comparing AGW to gravity in terms of its immutabilty as a factual matter.

Actually, I brought it up on the first page.

A striking difference between actual climate science and the disinformation industry is that the scientists are constantly collecting data, which gives them a grounding in the real world. The accuracy of various projective models is certainly a matter for argument, but the published data from the field, not an economic or political agenda, should be the basis for that argument.

Sky Blue
02-10-2014, 01:27 PM
Agreed

Rick-Mi
02-10-2014, 01:49 PM
I understand the interests of the bureaucrats and scientists creating alarm for funding purposes, the UN for people control and scammers like Al Gore and Goldman Sachs who stood to make billions of dollars off the elaborate con before it fell apart. What doesn't make sense is the "useful idiots" clamoring to make themselves human cattle and ATM machines. Fortunately, the alarmists have cried wolf one too many times and the numbers of "true believers" are low enough as to be inconsequential when it comes to forcing the AGW agenda down our throats. At this point, you dupes are just howling at the moon.....

Chip-skiff
02-10-2014, 01:55 PM
At this point, you dupes are just howling at the moon.....

The moon is real, and the howls are, too.

TomF
02-10-2014, 01:57 PM
Rick,

Wouldn't the ones "forcing AGW down our throats" actually be people whose lifestyles re-introduc fossilized carbon into the modern carbon cycle? That is, people like me (and probably you)?

You'd rather not know that your lifestyle (and mine) is producing negative effects for our kids and grandkids to experience?

Canoeyawl
02-10-2014, 01:58 PM
The problem with gravity...

Modified_Newtonian_dynamics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modified_Newtonian_dynamics)

Lew Barrett
02-10-2014, 02:00 PM
Why should he delete it, ljb5? If you are so brilliant (and I concede that you may well be), certainly you could provide the contrary evidence proving its falsity, rather than simply trying to silence what appears to be a factual claim.

The modeling is bad in some cases. The denial of this constitutes a new genre of "deniers."

It's totally wrong for several reasons, one (at least) already called out by LJB. "Observations" of future events are not possible at our level of existence.;) Maybe in some alternate reality we have yet to discover, but not in this one as yet.

Second, it shows both the "predictions" and observations as perfectly straight lines; something they are not and additionally, something you almost never see in the observable universe.

It's bogus on the face of it.

George Jung
02-10-2014, 02:03 PM
It's totally wrong for several reasons, one (at least) already called out by LJB. "Observations" of future events are not possible at our level of existence.;) Maybe in some alternate reality we have yet to discover, but not in this one as yet.

Second, it shows both the "predictions" and observations as perfectly straight lines; something they are not and additionally, something you almost never see in the observable universe.

It's bogus on the face of it.

Actually, if you wander on around, it's bogus there, too!

http://ts3.mm.bing.net/th?id=HN.607988303378909810&w=216&h=176&c=7&rs=1&qlt=80&pid=1.7

David G
02-10-2014, 02:06 PM
It's interesting to see how people approach this topic.

Growing up - my family was part of a plywood mill. A worker-owned, worker-managed plywood mill. My first shop was such a venture. I was general manager of another. I was on the board of directors of another. I taught Managing Collectives and Cooperatives at a local college.

Some of the discussion here reminds me of one of the ongoing issues that needs to be faced and addressed in any worker-managed firm. Sometimes it's called the Democratic Fallacy. That is - the notion that equal ownership of the venture implies equal competence to make decisions. It is most often expressed as a resistance to formal leadership, and decision-making by committees or individuals... as opposed to the whole firm by consensus. It's a seductive and understandable attitude. But the fact is: on any given topic, my ignorance should not carry the same weight as your in-depth knowledge. And visa versa. Democracy does NOT mean that we are all equal in every way, and that we're all equipped to make good decisions on every topic - esp. technical ones. To act as if it does will hamstring any organization... as it is hamstringing discussion here, and timely decision-making on the national level.

CWSmith
02-10-2014, 02:14 PM
... like Al Gore ... who stood to make billions of dollars off the elaborate con before it fell apart...

I just have to ask, "How was Gore going to make lots of money off this?" I realize he wrote a book, but you don't get rich writing books unless it contains wizards and spells.

Sky Blue
02-10-2014, 02:24 PM
Thank you, David G. You've just made an outstanding case for dramatically reducing the voting franchise substantially. :)

Sky Blue
02-10-2014, 02:40 PM
Henceforth all deniers should no longer have a vote, and given the shoddy syntax used in the above post, perhaps I should be first in the surrender line...

Lew Barrett
02-10-2014, 02:41 PM
Thank you, David G. You've just made an outstanding case for dramatically reducing the voting franchise substantially. :)

This franchise is quite happily a singular place where everyone's vote is or should be equal. One should not mistake that equality for intellectual capacity or the deductive processes involved in decision making.

Chip-skiff
02-10-2014, 02:47 PM
The idea that anyone is presently getting rich as a result of global climate change is pretty damned silly.

My judgement is strongly influenced by my longtime collection of field data that show strong trends. For instance, I took part in a GPS survey of Knife Point Glacier in the Wind River Range, WY that documented the rate of recession and the loss of ice mass. Here's the glacier. I was the packbeast and that early GPS gear was not lightweight. We set up the earth station on the nunatak (exposed black rock area on the right) and did a series of traverses from the upper part to the terminus. The survey was compared with air photos from earlier dates to determine the rate of recession, which combined with our elevation data established the loss-rate of ice mass.
http://lukeparsonsphoto.files.wordpress.com/2011/09/knife-point-glacier.jpg
Here are paired photos that clearly show the recession. The nunatak in center of the left photo is no longer surrounded with ice in the righthand one. Striking and to me, scary. The work was done by friends and I was paid a small per diem, with free food, danger, and suffering.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-NlO23DX0ClU/UEbN3mT7hQI/AAAAAAAAA4E/vzFzXObj1rA/s1600/Glacier%2BPhoto%2BPair.jpg

I also collected temperature profiles of alpine lakes, which involved using a float-tube or small raft and lowering a temperature probe to record both temp data and stratification. By the time I left the study, both the surface temps and the degree of stratification had increased markedly. We also collected data on the alpine snowpack. My pay rate topped out at GS-7 step 3.

Recently, I designed and built gear for two expeditions collecting temperature and volumetric data on the melting of the Greenland Icecap, and establishing spectral signatures for satellite mapping.

https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-kq6lIaXqGSw/URRQw3tw1_I/AAAAAAAADhI/IiSL9ymXB38/s799/g-land1.jpg

Total income, as a contractor, about $3500.

Summed up, my experience accords with the fact that the temperatures, both average and peak, in a number of places and natural systems do reflect a real warming trend that can be observed in glacial recessions, loss of ice mass, warmer ocean temperatures, et many ceterae.

But I'm not getting rich, nor is any field scientist I've ever known. We do get to take some great trips.

Lew Barrett
02-10-2014, 02:47 PM
Actually, if you wander on around, it's bogus there, too!

http://ts3.mm.bing.net/th?id=HN.607988303378909810&w=216&h=176&c=7&rs=1&qlt=80&pid=1.7

Ah! In this image we are observing the hind end of the object. At least we are not being asked to believe the noises it makes are equal in weight to the ones coming from the mouth!

Sky Blue
02-10-2014, 02:53 PM
Chip-skiff: that Wind River job sounds very cool. You got paid for that?! Didn't you sometime back tell a story about nearly freezing to death on that trip and some cute, young researcher jumped into your bag and saved your life? Riches are not always measure in money.

Chip-skiff
02-10-2014, 02:56 PM
Chip-skiff: that Wind River job sounds very cool. You got paid for that?! Didn't you sometime back tell a story about nearly freezing to death on that trip and some cute, young researcher jumped into your bag and saved your life? Riches are not always measure in money.

Actually, I was semi-groggy with hypothermia and she helped me get out of the drysuit and into my sleeping bag, and brewed me hot chocolate.

It was a while ago I posted that.

What was your screen name then?

Sky Blue
02-10-2014, 03:00 PM
(sigh)

Rick-Mi
02-10-2014, 03:02 PM
I just have to ask, "How was Gore going to make lots of money off this?" I realize he wrote a book, but you don't get rich writing books unless it contains wizards and spells.


Blood And Gore: Making A Killing On Anti-Carbon Investment Hype

(Al)Gore and (David) Blood, the former chief of Goldman Sachs Asset Management (GSAM), co-founded London-based GIM in 2004. Between 2008 and 2011 the company had raised profits of nearly $218 million from institutions and wealthy investors. By 2008 Gore was able to put $35 million into hedge funds and private partnerships through the Capricorn Investment Group, a Palo Alto company founded by his Canadian billionaire buddy Jeffrey Skoll, the first president of EBay Inc. It was Skoll’s Participant Media that produced Gore’s feverishly frightening 2006 horror film, “An Inconvenient Truth”.

Optimistic that a Democrat-controlled Congress would pass cap-and-trade legislation Gore lobbied for, GIM and David Blood’s old GSAM firm took big stakes in the Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX) for carbon trading. Accordingly, CCX was poised to make windfall profits selling CO2 offsets if and when cap-and-trade was passed. Speaking before a 2007 Joint House Hearing of the Energy Science Committee, Gore told members: “As soon as carbon has a price, you’re going to see a wave [of investment] in it…There will be unchained investment.”

After all, what better way to reduce evil carbon than to make it a profitable commodity?

http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2013/11/03/blood-and-gore-making-a-killing-on-anti-carbon-investment-hype/

Keith Wilson
02-10-2014, 03:07 PM
Hey! I want to make some 'observations' of the period from today through 2050 too! How do you do that?


.. like Al Gore ... who stood to make billions of dollars off the elaborate con before it fell apart... Once again, if you want to attribute ideas about climate change to greed, follow the money. How much money is being made from present fossil fuel use? How much can be made from arguing in favor of reducing CO2 emissions? Who has the greatest financial incentive to lie?

John of Phoenix
02-10-2014, 03:18 PM
do you trust the global warming deniers?


These guys would burn Galileo at the stake.

And remember, "We create our own reality."

Sky Blue
02-10-2014, 03:19 PM
Nah, Keith, why bother with the observations? The models all say Bangladesh will be underwater, the earth will be uninhabitable, etc. Al and his cronies tells us this is so. In fact, if AGW is such a sure thing, let's just forget the science altogether right now. What more do we really need to know? Let's just forget coal, oil, LP gas, and all the rest of it. Never mind Fukushima. Now what?

TomF
02-10-2014, 03:21 PM
good time to build a boat.

Sky Blue
02-10-2014, 03:23 PM
Yes. :)

Rick-Mi
02-10-2014, 03:23 PM
Rick,

Wouldn't the ones "forcing AGW down our throats" actually be people whose lifestyles re-introduc fossilized carbon into the modern carbon cycle? That is, people like me (and probably you)?

You'd rather not know that your lifestyle (and mine) is producing negative effects for our kids and grandkids to experience?


Tom, IMO these global elite scammers, void of any conscience, attempted to use our desire for proper stewardship of our environment against us. What they are interested in is money & power and they don't care how they get it.

It may be true with you and it definitely is with me, my carbon footprint has been going down, down down without paying any slavery tax or bureaucrat taking control of my thermostat. Let's get real, when do you think the last time Al Gore had a set of oars in his hands rowing out in big water? The inconvenient truth is he gallivants around the world in a private jet and lives in a nine million dollar mansion! What do you think his utility bills and fuel consumption look like?

Lew Barrett
02-10-2014, 03:28 PM
Calling out Gore for his contradictions is not the same as understanding the dynamics of the problem. One can resent Gore with full blessings while still understanding that AGW is not an invented phenomenon.

skuthorp
02-10-2014, 03:32 PM
Rick I think you jus described man in general……..
"Tom, IMO these global elite scammers, void of any conscience, attempted to use our desire for proper stewardship of our environment against us. What they are interested in is money & power and they don't care how they get it. "

Description works for both sides. There'll always be scammers until the boiling frog syndrome, or an ice age, get's us all.
But you know that I think it's just inertia and resistance to change and that in the longer run all this heated discussion is just so much hot air and quite pointless. It's already too late.

Keith Wilson
02-10-2014, 03:40 PM
Nah, Keith, why bother with the observations?Excuse me? Rod posted a chart, purporting to show that the 'observations' from 2000 to 2050 didn't match the predictions. Whoever made those 'observations' either knows something important that we don't, or the chart is complete BS.

One point that often gets missed is that there are several quite separate questions:
- Is the earth getting warmer?
- Is is because of increasing CO2 concentration?
- Is the increased CO2 because we're burning so much fossil fuel?
- What is likely to happen in the future from various courses of action?
- What, if anything, should we do about it?

The answers to #1-3 are almost certainly yes. There's some disagreement about #4; predictions about complex systems are difficult. Reasonable people may differ about #5.

LeeG
02-10-2014, 03:49 PM
Tom, IMO these global elite scammers, void of any conscience, attempted to use our desire for proper stewardship of our environment against us. What they are interested in is money & power and they don't care how they get it.

It may be true with you and it definitely is with me, my carbon footprint has been going down, down down without paying any slavery tax or bureaucrat taking control of my thermostat. Let's get real, when do you think the last time Al Gore had a set of oars in his hands rowing out in big water? The inconvenient truth is he gallivants around the world in a private jet and lives in a nine million dollar mansion! What do you think his utility bills and fuel consumption look like?

RickMi, what do you mean proper stewardship?

Right now we're blasting through tight oil as fast as we can and it's going right into the atmosphere leaving little for our grandkids except the old fields depleting at 6%/yr, shrinking imports because world exports are shrinking and tight oil that will require prices higher than $100/barrel. Now Harold Hamm has made billions in the Bakken but that has no bearing on the geological reality of depletion anymore than Gores investments have any bearing on AGW.

slug
02-10-2014, 04:26 PM
An aggresive energy tax is needed to force people to reduce energy use and build up revenue to address climate change . Moving cities inland, compensating farmers for weather events, fighting malaria and invasive species , ....these things cost money and they will happen.

David G
02-10-2014, 04:31 PM
Thank you, David G. You've just made an outstanding case for dramatically reducing the voting franchise substantially. :)

No, not at all... but if that is the best you can do at interpreting information... then maybe you should voluntarily abstain.

Michael D. Storey
02-10-2014, 04:45 PM
You entirely miss the point. Perhaps it was too subtle. It's hard to discuss this in earnest with folks who don't identify physics as a science. Of course you don't need to go to school for any discussion of climate change, although education helps to be grounded in the facts and even more, methods. But you do need to understand the distinctions between science, method and fantasy. You can teach that to yourself as Einstein did, or you can defend comments like physics isn't a science.

Hearing someone say that physics is not a science would be a strong reason to end the conversation. A person who feels that physics is not a science has a poor public education, no intellectual curiosity and most likely reads little more than billboards and text messages. My point was that the topic on many levels is inclusive, and a lack of an advanced degree should not be considered as a reason to not discuss physics, even astrophysics with a person.

Lew Barrett
02-10-2014, 05:08 PM
....Hearing someone say that physics is not a science would be a strong reason to end the conversation. ....... a lack of an advanced degree should not be considered as a reason to not discuss physics, even astrophysics with a person.

I think either you misunderstood me or I wasn't very clear in respect to something we might otherwise agree on. I believe the exact point being made (not by me) was that physics isn't science: it's physics. More on this probably isn't needed, but I'm prepared to discuss it if you feel it worthwhile.
We don't disagree otherwise.

Sky Blue
02-10-2014, 05:53 PM
Hearing someone say that physics is not a science would be a strong reason to end the conversation

In the abstract, yes. In the context of the above discussion points and hypotheticals posed, no.

Physics is a natural "science," yes. Some might even call it the first science or foundational science with principles applicable to all of the other "hard" sciences.

But the statement was not made in the abstract; it was made in the context of comparing AGW proofs with the concept of gravity. Some here are now using the statement as a red herring abstraction, and so we are getting bogged down in semantics rather than considering the context in which the principle was employed further up in this thread.

If one jumps off a cliff, today, all things otherwise being equal, we could expect with 100% certainty that the individual would proceed downward, like Wile E. Coyote, rather than just, say, floating off into space. This is b/c of gravity, a physical law. Accordingly, if you decide to jump, you are not "doing science" (i.e. gathering data based on a hypothesis), because it would be utterly absurd to conduct such an experiment, knowing what we now know.

Accordingly, if you jump, you aren't doing science, you are in fact conducting a physical proof (because you know you are going down, 100% - there is no data to gather as to that limited fact).

So let us not seize on sloppily-worded text to avoid the larger point being made: AGW science (in the context of the hypothetical posed), being what it is, is not yet as certain as the basic law of gravity applicable to such a leap.

Indeed, to suggest it is, is itself a leap (at the present time). Those that will not admit this are practicing religion.

And finally, I concede that I do not have the knowledge as many here seem to possess. Thank you.

Chip-skiff
02-10-2014, 06:53 PM
And finally, I concede that I do not have the knowledge as many here seem to possess.

Indeed. Would you like an amen on that?

Sky Blue
02-10-2014, 07:02 PM
Oh c'mon, Chip-Skiff, I've no quarrel with you. When someone wants to concede, admit and largely withdraw, etiquette suggests that you ought to let them, with dignity. There's no cause set forth above to justify a rub in.
.

Flying Orca
02-10-2014, 07:07 PM
Oh c'mon, Chip-Skiff, I've no quarrel with you. When someone wants to concede, admit and largely withdraw, etiquette suggests that you ought to let them, with dignity. There's no cause set forth above to justify a rub in.
.

And here I thought you said you'd been around for a while. :D

Sky Blue
02-10-2014, 07:08 PM
Well done. :)

Flying Orca
02-10-2014, 07:10 PM
Well done. :)

Just joshing, if that's not clear from the smiley. ;)

Lew Barrett
02-10-2014, 07:31 PM
Semantics count in any discussion in the bilge especially when they become semantics after the fact.

Sky Blue
02-10-2014, 07:53 PM
Semantics count in any discussion in the bilge especially when they become semantics after the fact.

"grimace" - WHACK "thank you sir, may I have another!" WHACK "thank you sir, may I have another" WHACK...

RodB
02-10-2014, 07:55 PM
A great deal of the problem with the study of climate change is that the system is very complex. Consequently, to really understand the global climate system it is neccesary to know quite a lot about a number of disciplines. For a variety of reasons "science" is compartmentalized into rather narrow areas. Even within a given dicispline there are sub discplines that people specialize in. The result is that no one person has a sufficient understanding of all the areas of "science" to fully understand the global climate system. Consequently, individual scientific studies are rather narrow in scope and often completely neglect work in other areas. The result is that those narrow studies don't adequately describe the total system. This allows the denier "cult" to grab those inadequate descriptions (and predictions) and use the failures of those studies as fuel for their denial. Given the structure of modern science, I don't see this changing much. I also don't see any one individual adequately mastering the variety of disciplines needed to fully understant the global climate system. Those areas of study include, but are not limited to:

Astrophysics (specifically solar physics) to understand the processes that occur in the sun and their temporal variations as expressed in variations of insolation at the location of the Earth in the solar system.

Atmospheric Physics to understand the dynamics of the atmosphere system. This, of course, requires an understanding of the interactiosn of the atmosphere with incident solar radiation. That understanding requires an understanding of the chemical composition variations withing the atmosphere AND the dynamics of movement/interaction of the various chemical constituents of the atmosphere.

Oceanography to understand the dynamics of the ocean systems (currents, physical, chemical and thermal variations) and the interaction of the ocean system with the atmosphere.

Geology to provide data on previous changes in global climate and "some" of the parameters that were possible drivers of those changes. Withing geology, the subdiciplines included are sedimentology, glaciology, petrology (primarily igneous and sedimentary), geochemistry and isotope geochemistry. In addition to providing historical data, geological studies also provide information on chemical and energy fluxes between the various Earth systems (atmosphere, oceans, sediments and the deep Earth) that are essential to understading the total system.

Biology to provide understanding of the response of the biological system to changes in global climate and to provide a basis of biological sinks for various materials as well as biological fluxes of materials between biological systems (plans and animals) and the oceans, atmosphere and land surfaces of the Earth.

All of these disciplines require an adequate background in basic chemistry, physics and mathematics.

All of these areas of science are divided into sub-diciplines that people specialize in. Unfortunately, the complexity of the infdividual specializations is such that most become a life study for the scientists involved. It is essentially impossible for one person to develop the level of understanding of all of the disiplines needed to fully understand the global climate system. So the study of the system will remain compartmentalized. Then there are the people that study the interactions between the various scientific disciplines. I am not saying that we cannot develop a full understanding of global climate. Rather I am saying that the structure of science guarantees that there will be mistakes made because individual researchers simply don't know enough about areas out of their specializations to adequately incorporate results from other diciplines into their work. The skeptics and deniers will jump on those mistakes. Furthermore, communicating the science to the public (including politicians) is very difficult because the general public is woefully ignorant of even basic science. So the results of scientific studies have to be simplified dramatically to make them comprehensible to the public. That simplification will often, perhaps invariably, gloss over important aspects of the results.

This excellent post explains why there is conflicting information on the subject of GW and the reasons why the subject is not completely understood by many. Further, this post pretty much points out the fact that my decent BS in science consisting of biology 75 hours, chemistry 16 hours, physics 8 hours , math 12 hrs etc... is really a glorified high school diploma when you are approaching such a broad range of disciplines.

I'd like to be pointed to those scientists/scientific entities who have made a quality effort to tie the disciplines together and offer a reasonable explaintion for the "serious risk" we undertake if nothing is done at all.

I'd appreciate recommendations of solid sources...not in bed with Al Gore if you know what I mean. If you recommend a poor source... I'll sic Lord Christopher Monckton on you.... The Global Warming Con... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tNJrtR9i6WA
|:)

RodB

PeterSibley
02-10-2014, 08:04 PM
I recommend this site Rod, it seems to my untutored eye the best out there. http://www.realclimate.org/

Flying Orca
02-10-2014, 08:04 PM
I'd appreciate recommendations of solid sources.

It's called the Intra-governmental Panel on Climate Change, or IPCC, and short of reading various related journals yourself, it is the source for the scientific perspective on climate change. While its procedures tend by their very nature to produce conservative results and underestimate the rate and impact of climate change, it is the best single source out there, because it is an apolitical (inasmuch as that's possible) international expert body charged with coordinating, interpreting, and reporting on the state of climate science to the UN and to the governments of its member countries.

Michael D. Storey
02-10-2014, 08:05 PM
In the abstract, yes. In the context of the above discussion points and hypotheticals posed, no.

Physics is a natural "science," yes. Some might even call it the first science or foundational science with principles applicable to all of the other "hard" sciences.

But the statement was not made in the abstract; it was made in the context of comparing AGW proofs with the concept of gravity. Some here are now using the statement as a red herring abstraction, and so we are getting bogged down in semantics rather than considering the context in which the principle was employed further up in this thread.

If one jumps off a cliff, today, all things otherwise being equal, we could expect with 100% certainty that the individual would proceed downward, like Wile E. Coyote, rather than just, say, floating off into space. This is b/c of gravity, a physical law. Accordingly, if you decide to jump, you are not "doing science" (i.e. gathering data based on a hypothesis), because it would be utterly absurd to conduct such an experiment, knowing what we now know.

Accordingly, if you jump, you aren't doing science, you are in fact conducting a physical proof (because you know you are going down, 100% - there is no data to gather as to that limited fact).

So let us not seize on sloppily-worded text to avoid the larger point being made: AGW science (in the context of the hypothetical posed), being what it is, is not yet as certain as the basic law of gravity applicable to such a leap.

Indeed, to suggest it is, is itself a leap (at the present time). Those that will not admit this are practicing religion.

And finally, I concede that I do not have the knowledge as many here seem to possess. Thank you.

I'm good with this. I f you have read many of my postings, you know that i am a practical man with a poetic sense and a chip on my shoulder.

The thing is that in the context of the regular passage of time, earthly events and human events are often difficult to compare. (Pardon me while I dwell on the obvious) It is acceptable, based on science and the physics of geology to say that Yellowstone is ready to turn into a yacht club. It is ready to disappear and become a giant hole in the ground. Good science; good geology and good physics say so.
When the human concept of the passage of time gets thrown in, it becomes, 'Well, we went there last year, for the 43rd year in a row, and we're here to talk about it. So forget all this exploding national park hooey!' How about financial science, which, in fact is not such a bad parallel: 'past record is not a
proof of future performance'.
I happen to think that this is the core of the argument. people are waiting around in the human experience of the passage of time and calling the bluff of persons who are saying that this scenario is entire possible, very probable and a sure bet sometime soon, in the calendar of the earth.
Much of the argument is centered around the apparent inability of some to see beyond their own lifetimes, and using present day, real time methods of determining the future.

LeeG
02-10-2014, 08:11 PM
It's called the Intra-governmental Panel on Climate Change, or IPCC, and short of reading various related journals yourself, it is the source for the scientific perspective on climate change. While its procedures tend by their very nature to produce conservative results and underestimate the rate and impact of climate change, it is the best single source out there, because it is an apolitical (inasmuch as that's possible) international expert body charged with coordinating, interpreting, and reporting on the state of climate science to the UN and to the governments of its member countries.

Now you did it.

Flying Orca
02-10-2014, 08:13 PM
Now you did it.

Hey, he asked. "You can lead a horticulture..."

RodB
02-10-2014, 08:21 PM
It's called the Intra-governmental Panel on Climate Change, or IPCC, and short of reading various related journals yourself, it is the source for the scientific perspective on climate change. While its procedures tend by their very nature to produce conservative results and underestimate the rate and impact of climate change, it is the best single source out there, because it is an apolitical (inasmuch as that's possible) international expert body charged with coordinating, interpreting, and reporting on the state of climate science to the UN and to the governments of its member countries.

Flying Orca.... that is the single most criticized entity for mistakes and mis information in the past.... and I have little regard for the UN anyway. I must say I'd have a bunch healthy skepticism with their info... but I'll take a look.


http://www.realclimate.org/

Peter, I'll try it.. thanks

RodB

LeeG
02-10-2014, 08:23 PM
flying orca.... That is the single most criticized entity for mistakes and mis information in the past.... And i have little regard for the un anyway. I must say i'd have a bunch healthy skepticism with their info.


http://www.realclimate.org/

peter, i'll try it.. Thanks

rodb

woopwoopwoopwoop!

So Rod, is it the international aspect that bothers you? Is it that there are scientists involved instead of pundits ? Come on man, if you want to learn something why not go to the people who research the topic?

George Jung
02-10-2014, 08:29 PM
woopwoopwoopwoop!

So Rod, is it the international aspect that bothers you? Is it that there are scientists involved instead of pundits ? Come on man, if you want to learn something why not go to the people who research the topic?

Therein lies the rub. Agenda-based vs knowledge-based.

And btw, that quote ends '.... but you can't make her think.' , credited to Dorothy Parker? Quite the wit.

LeeG
02-10-2014, 08:32 PM
I feel like we've come full circle! This has been so satisfying, it truly doesn't get better than this.

Lew Barrett
02-10-2014, 09:35 PM
"grimace" - WHACK "thank you sir, may I have another!" WHACK "thank you sir, may I have another" WHACK...

You've taken enough on this one to win your sweater;)

Lew Barrett
02-10-2014, 09:48 PM
By the way, Blue, I thought about that (my comment) and was going to expunge it as superfluous but by the time I'd come back it was already recorded as a quote for posterity. So take this as the retraction with a ten yard penalty for unnecessary roughness.

George Jung
02-10-2014, 09:57 PM
We back to the red leather 'accessories', Lew?

Sky Blue
02-10-2014, 10:17 PM
Lew: all is well. It is hard at times, but credibility sometimes lies more in recognizing when you are out of your depth. An attempt at a graceful withdrawal will preserve more dignity than continuing on when you are seriously outgunned.

"If you find yourself in hole, stop digging!"

Lew Barrett
02-10-2014, 10:21 PM
We back to the red leather 'accessories', Lew?
Have they been ordered yet? I promise to wear them at home when Lindy is out and to share them when/if you visit. Remember tight, but tailored to make the most of my physique. I have complete confidence in your taste in these matters, George!

David G
02-10-2014, 10:33 PM
TMI

Lew Barrett
02-10-2014, 10:34 PM
Lew: all is well.

Excellent!

Lew Barrett
02-10-2014, 10:35 PM
TMI

A fitting end. If we're at the end, you're invited to the fitting.

George Jung
02-10-2014, 11:43 PM
Gives new meaning to 'hoisted on (his) petard', eh, Lew?

Chip-skiff
02-10-2014, 11:53 PM
Gives new meaning to 'hoisted on (his) petard', eh, Lew?

Petard comes from the Middle French (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_French) peter, to break wind, from pet expulsion of intestinal gas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flatulence), from the Latin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin) peditus, past participle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Past_participle) of pedere, to break wind, akin to the Greek (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_language) bdein, to break wind (Merriam-Webster (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merriam-Webster)). Petard is a modern French word, meaning a firecracker (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firecracker) (it is the basis for the word for firecracker in several other European languages).

Petardiers were used during sieges of castles or fortified cities. The petard, a rather primitive and exceedingly dangerous explosive device, consisted of a brass or iron bell-shaped device filled with gunpowder fixed to a wooden base called a madrier. This was attached to a wall or gate using hooks and rings, the fuse lit and, if successful, the resulting explosive force, concentrated at the target point, would blow a hole in the obstruction, allowing assault troops to enter.

The word remains in modern usage in the phrase hoist with one's own petard, which means "to be harmed by one's own plan to harm someone else" or "to fall into one's own trap," implying that one could be lifted up (hoist, or blown upward) by one's own bomb.


It also means being embarrassed by farting at the wrong time, i.e. when one is making a serious point in a conversation. A definite problem for those who are full of gas (methane).

A scientific discussion may be found at: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v344/n6266/abs/344529a0.html

Relative contributions of greenhouse gas emissions to global warming
Daniel A. Lashof* & Dilip R. Ahuja†‡

We find, for example, that methane has, per mole, a global warming potential 3.7 times that of carbon dioxide. On this basis, carbon dioxide emissions account for 80% of the contribution to global warming of current greenhouse gas emissions, as compared with 57% of the increase in radiative forcing for the 1980s.

Sky Blue
02-11-2014, 12:00 AM
it also means embarrassed by farting at the wrong time, i.e. when one is making a serious point in a conversation. A definite problem for those who are full of gas.


Yes, indeed. Absolutely. Uhh huh. Couldn't agree more. Serious point, you say? Gaseous? Wrong time? Yes, Chip-Skiff, so right, so right.

Chip-skiff
02-11-2014, 12:04 AM
Is this what you mean by withdrawing with grace?

Sky Blue
02-11-2014, 12:07 AM
We'll, if I won't be allowed to do so, I'm not going to sit idly by for the hit parade. Least until bedtime that is. Nitey-Nite!

Chip-skiff
02-11-2014, 12:18 AM
Allowed by whom?

I'll yield the floor to you. Do you have something to say that's not a cheap shot?

Sky Blue
02-11-2014, 12:31 AM
bluebonnet, if you must know, big-boy. Nigh-Nigh!

pipefitter
02-11-2014, 01:20 PM
Funny that, when it comes to creationism, the deniers of such argue the scientific proof of a planet that is billions of years old, yet when they want to perpetuate the science of AGW, it conveniently becomes much younger.

I particularly enjoy the scientific measures of an ideal, sustainable, climatic "norm," which essentially revolves around human convenience as if we are the most important parasite on this rock.

Peerie Maa
02-11-2014, 01:24 PM
Funny that, when it comes to creationism, the deniers of such argue the scientific proof of a planet that is billions of years old, yet when they want to perpetuate the science of AGW, it conveniently becomes much younger.
What are you talking about?

Lew Barrett
02-11-2014, 01:26 PM
Funny that, when it comes to creationism, the deniers of such argue the scientific proof of a planet that is billions of years old, yet when they want to perpetuate the science of AGW, it conveniently becomes much younger.

I particularly enjoy the scientific measures of an ideal, sustainable, climatic "norm," which essentially revolves around human convenience as if we are the most important parasite on this rock.

I am very unclear what you are trying to express here.

AnalogKid
02-11-2014, 02:36 PM
Funny that, when it comes to creationism, the deniers of such argue the scientific proof of a planet that is billions of years old, yet when they want to perpetuate the science of AGW, it conveniently becomes much younger.

I particularly enjoy the scientific measures of an ideal, sustainable, climatic "norm," which essentially revolves around human convenience as if we are the most important parasite on this rock.

Are you suggesting that the extreme climates of young Earth - snowball Earth or an almost entirely molten crust - should be considered viable alternatives to the current, life-supporting climate?

David G
02-11-2014, 02:43 PM
It's hard to tell what he's getting at.

Pipes... I, too, am interested in your thoughts. Can you elaborate?

Flying Orca
02-11-2014, 02:50 PM
Flying Orca.... that is the single most criticized entity for mistakes and mis information in the past....

Well, of course it is. It is the world's scientific authority on the matter, so it's the obvious target for people who don't like the science.

switters
02-11-2014, 04:55 PM
Have they been ordered yet? I promise to wear them at home when Lindy is out and to share them when/if you visit. Remember tight, but tailored to make the most of my physique. I have complete confidence in your taste in these matters, George!

And I was about to comment that I will be back in Seattle sans GF in March. It is gonna take a lot of rum now Lew.

RodB
02-11-2014, 09:24 PM
This denier certainly has the education and experience to have an educated opinion... and he makes a lot of sense to many...

Excellent debate by very knowledgable fellows... and I'm sure one of your heroes....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AgZU5uvM5Ok

Denier science
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oINJcFa8XwE (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oINJcFa8XwE)

http://notrickszone.com/2011/08/08/joe-bastardi-calls-manmade-co2-global-warming-an-obvious-fraud/



And this...

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/BASTARDI_STORY.pdf

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/01/19/global-temps-in-a-crash-as-agw-proponents-crash-the-economy/

http://www.statecollege.com/news/columns/can-america-last-only-if-we-use-the-lessons-of-the-past,792940/

Interesting guy with a very relevant background.

RodB

LeeG
02-11-2014, 09:45 PM
Well bless his heart

RodB
02-11-2014, 10:23 PM
The first link is a debate with a real science guy... you should watch it...

R

RodB
02-11-2014, 10:33 PM
The debate above is with a real scientist and worth watching. Your wasting your time EVER to quote Media Matters to me... they are a hard core POS propaganda machine.

R

LeeG
02-11-2014, 11:00 PM
It's time to start a spring garden thread, something real. RodB's time in the sun is over, his hours acquiring a BS evaporated into memory.

Lew Barrett
02-11-2014, 11:05 PM
It is gonna take a lot of rum now Lew.

We can manage that!

George hasn't sent the garments yet so you may be spared!

George Jung
02-11-2014, 11:26 PM
Patience, Lew - it ain't easy finding that much red leather!

pipefitter
02-12-2014, 01:35 AM
It's hard to tell what he's getting at.

Pipes... I, too, am interested in your thoughts. Can you elaborate?

I started to elaborate but there is no point and it would take a lot of typing and I am kinda burnt at the moment and we've been over this a hundred times at least. Basically I am saying there are a lot of ironies with regard to science and it's deniers. Also with religion and science and what it really amounts to in the grand scheme of all things human.

Above it all is the consideration that our sun is not getting any younger, which according to science, has us at, regardless of our ways, a finite existence on this planet, or any of the others in our 'solar' system, for that matter. At times it occurs to me to question what is an acceptable termination date, and to who?

I am not a global warming denier. I have seen scientific evidence of it having gotten increasingly warmer for 20,000 years or so. I actually expect the increase in warming to be exponential as time goes on, regardless of what we do, or have done. Chronologically speaking in Earth age terms, a couple thousand years give or take, seems rather insignificant to me.

As far as pollution is concerned, I tend to take the immediate perils more seriously than a futuristic view of global warming. I drilled potable water wells for a number of years and saw some alarming, irreversible changes with water quality in a short time. The thought of using even semi-potable water to flush turds down the tube, freaks me out a whole lot more than rising oceans or severe weather patterns do.

Chip-skiff
02-12-2014, 01:41 AM
There's really a Fox News climate expert named Bastardi?

http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/bastardi5.jpg

Thanks for a good laugh. . .

Might as well post a link to a good piece on the guy: http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2011/08/10/257881/joe-bastardi-charlie-sheen-fox-news-climate-science/

David G
02-12-2014, 01:46 AM
No... not at all. But, apparently, there's a Fox news climate "expert" by that name.

Peerie Maa
02-12-2014, 03:36 AM
I started to elaborate but there is no point and it would take a lot of typing and I am kinda burnt at the moment and we've been over this a hundred times at least. Basically I am saying there are a lot of ironies with regard to science and it's deniers. Also with religion and science and what it really amounts to in the grand scheme of all things human. Above it all is the consideration that our sun is not getting any younger, which according to science, has us at, regardless of our ways, a finite existence on this planet, or any of the others in our 'solar' system, for that matter. At times it occurs to me to question what is an acceptable termination date, and to who?I am not a global warming denier. I have seen scientific evidence of it having gotten increasingly warmer for 20,000 years or so. I actually expect the increase in warming to be exponential as time goes on, regardless of what we do, or have done. Chronologically speaking in Earth age terms, a couple thousand years give or take, seems rather insignificant to me.As far as pollution is concerned, I tend to take the immediate perils more seriously than a futuristic view of global warming. I drilled potable water wells for a number of years and saw some alarming, irreversible changes with water quality in a short time. The thought of using even semi-potable water to flush turds down the tube, freaks me out a whole lot more than rising oceans or severe weather patterns do.OK, Fairy Nuff. :D

Reynard38
02-12-2014, 08:51 AM
They never should have used the term "global warming". Global Climate Change would have been better.
It's obvious some places will get hotter, others colder as things shift.
With every winter blast we get I constantly hear "global warming, hah", but most folks agree it is changing.

Bad marketing Al.

elf
02-12-2014, 08:58 AM
The debate above is with a real scientist and worth watching. Your wasting your time EVER to quote Media Matters to me... they are a hard core POS propaganda machine.

R
The surefire way to learn nothing is to close your mind.

Congrats.

Todd D
02-12-2014, 09:14 AM
I hate to tell you this Rod, but Bastardi only has a B.S. in meteorology. That means he is NOT a scientist. He is a weather forecaster, nothing more. His statements in the links posted show definitively that he science knowledge is nil. His credibility to an actual scientist is ZERO.

WX
02-12-2014, 11:45 PM
Looks like this thread has reached the shovelling water stage.

RodB
02-20-2014, 07:10 PM
Time for more credibility.... the politicization of the GW issue to the max....

RodB





The climate change strategy




As you may know, things are not going too well for the Obama administration. The President's job approval rating around 40 percent, lower than Bush the younger's in the middle of the problematic Iraq war.
So the President must raise his positive profile. But that's not going to be easy. The economy will not improve any time soon. Foreign policy shaky with Iran now signaling it may go back on the nuke treaty and Obamacare continues to be very problematic.
Enter global warming a fervent liberal cause. On Sunday, Secretary of State John Kerry said this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JOHN KERRY, SECRETARY OF STATE: Climate change can now be considered another weapon of mass destruction, perhaps even the world's most fierce weapon of mass destruction.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
O'REILLY: Mr. Kerry setting the table for an all out climate change campaign. That is that all severe weather in the USA will now be blamed on global warming. President Obama picked that up theme when he visited drought stricken California on Valentine's Day.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
OBAMA: A change in climate means that weather related disasters like droughts, wildfires, storms, floods are potentially going to be costlier and they're going to be harsher. Droughts have obviously been a part of life out here in the West since before any of us were around and water politics in California have always been complicated. But scientific evidence shows that a change in climate is going to make them more intense.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
O'REILLY: Well, we know of no specific scientific evidence that California's current drought is an offshoot of global warming. But there is evidence that the world is getting hotter; 2013 was the seventh warmest year since 1880. However, the rate of warming is slowing down, according to the United Nations' intergovernmental panel on climate change. That slowdown was not predicted by the scientists.
"Talking Points" has maintained that no one -- no one knows for certain what causes climate fluctuations. But every human being who cares about the earth should want it to be cleaner. Therefore, we should all, all of us work together to make that happen whether you believe in global warming or not. That is the sane, s-a-n-e, sane position.
Unfortunately countries like China and India don't care they are polluting the planet in a record rate to make money and President Obama can't stop that. So if the USA punishes its own people like holding up the Keystone Pipeline which would provide jobs being foolish.
By the way, studies say that Keystone will not be a pollutant. The Obama administration well understands that it can gain a favorable response from the left primarily by pushing the climate change agenda and so it does. And will up the ante to obscure other problems like the economy and Obamacare which it's not fixing. That is called politics.
And that is called "The Memo."
- You can catch Bill O'Reilly's "Talking Points Memo" weeknights at 8 and 11 p.m. ET on the Fox News Channel and any time on foxnews.com/oreilly. Send your comments to: oreilly@foxnews.com.
Transcript Date:
Wed, 02/19/2014


Transcript Show Name:
O'Reilly Factor


Transcript Talent Byline:
Bill O'Reilly

LeeG
02-20-2014, 07:26 PM
Give it up RodB, or buy a damn book on the topic.

AnalogKid
02-20-2014, 07:34 PM
Time for more credibility.... the politicization of the GW issue to the max....

RodB

So you've demonstrated that a right-wing 'journalist' is politicising climate change because a Democrat President and Secretary of State referred to it in context. I'm not sure where the credibility bit comes in though.

Face it Rod, it doesn't matter how you vote, and whether or not you believe in it - Climate Change is happening and AGW is real.

TomF
02-20-2014, 07:55 PM
Change you can believe in.

PeterSibley
02-21-2014, 12:14 AM
Rod. all you've done since the start of this thread is concentrate on the politics of GW and totally avoided the science ! ;):D:D

WX
02-21-2014, 12:18 AM
Time for more credibility.... the politicization of the GW issue to the max....

RodB
Rod the climate doesn't give two flying expletives for politics of any colour.