The Case Against Global-Warming Skepticism (1 Viewer)

[MaxThreshold]

Well, this thread has taken a turn. A few pages ago people were being ridiculed, insulted, mocked and laughed at for speaking against global warming.

If you don't accept that the globe is warming, you should be ridiculed.

Again - no one doubts it has been warming. The sticking point is the cause of that warming. I'm not sure if you're deliberately being obtuse here or if you're just making a joke.

 

[DrJ]

I avoid this topic here because the discussion seems sophomoric compared to other sites, and I felt Shining Path expressed my thinking. I'm posting because I'm the rarity who has changed his mind.

My work with greenhouses gave me indirect daily association with the topic. Drought, renewable energy, sustainable growing practices, desertification, changing temperatures -- these are topics the big brains I dealt with dealt with daily. There's some idiocy in this thread regarding CO2 and plants, btw.

My dad was a meteorologist, Department of Defense, China Lake Naval Weapons Center, Research Department, Division of Sciences, Code 60 Weather Modification (badass stuff they could have called weather weaponization). His work was top secret until Carter declassified it. Cool for me because I have it, but thankfully the juicy stuff was reclassified by Reagan. Dad was brilliant, but not as brilliant as his boss.

For me the turning point on the warming debate was seeing my dad's old boss's name and his genius son's name on a long list of scientists opposing the alarmist claims coming from the United Nations and associates. At first I figured their conservative military backgrounds had them choosing sides ideologically like so many do. But I knew these men. I knew they were wicked smart. I doubted they would sign something they didn't believe. So I talked to the son who graduated HS with me. He had a calm screed on the topic that lasted about three minutes. I took mental notes and started thinking for myself instead of being wooed by bad science. I think Shining Path was wrong. I think had he stayed with us, he would have eventually arrived at the same. This is already tldr, but I've gone from thinking some were near heroic to sound the alarm a decade+ ago to thinking DrJ, tommyboy, Jnmx pretty much have it right. So I guess it does happen, internet blowhards change their minds. And I thought I should at least let them know it isn't futile but it takes a lot of information and probably is a waste of time.

Thanks for this post. I definitely think we all need to do what we can to limit our impact on the environment. If I had my way I'd reduce my "personal footprint" to almost nothing - there's almost no reason for me to leave the house with the work that I do and my awesome Internet connection. And I really don't like maintaining my lawn either. I could do without that too. Except I'm pretty sure there's some city ordinance that demands that I do. I've even looked into outfitting myself with solar, mainly because I'd like increased energy independence. Even with heavy subsidy it doesn't make much sense unless you're going plan to be somewhere for a couple of decades. And you're probably not going to achieve true independence, times like now I'd probably still have to pull from the grid. Eventually someone's going to find an energy source that makes sense and you don't have to force feed to people though. And I'm fairly certain that day will be "before the planet is destroyed". If you can make it so I don't need to buy energy from other people anymore in the process, I'm in.

 

[Chaos Commish]

Well, this thread has taken a turn. A few pages ago people were being ridiculed, insulted, mocked and laughed at for speaking against global warming.

If you don't accept that the globe is warming, you should be ridiculed.

Again - no one doubts it has been warming. The sticking point is the cause of that warming. I'm not sure if you're deliberately being obtuse here or if you're just making a joke.

You've got to be kidding

I haven't read it all, but if there's someone in this thread who doubts it has been warming, I'd like to know who?

 

[timschochet]

No. The ridicule should apply to anyone who doesn't believe that it's man made.

 

[Cliff Clavin]

No. The ridicule should apply to anyone who doesn't believe that it's man made.

Shouldn't we also ridicule the idiots that claim to understand the science but really don't have a clue?

 

[MaxThreshold]

No. The ridicule should apply to anyone who doesn't believe that it's man made.

Sure, Tim. Whatever you say. You're the expert.

 

[MaxThreshold]

The liberals used a period of warming that ended 17 years ago and attributed it all to CO2 to gin up global warming fear, when a large portion of that warming was due to other natural factors. Everyone agrees the fear was overblown and we were lied to by the likes of Gore, etc. Now we are 17 years into a period of cooling that 1) stopped the inertia of the warming, which is in itself quite impressive and 2) is not yet over, which means we could be cooling for quite some time, perhaps decades. Bottom line CO2 is one half or much less of the threat we were led to believe, I believe it is at he insignificant noise level of threat because of the earths natural emergent thermostats (equatorial clouds, etc). Computer models don't model natural thermostats, they model forcings.

I don't think spreagle is denying that there is warming here. I think what he's saying is that the warming has been way overblown and has actually even slowed down during this "warming" period.

It's possible you yourself might need to slow down to read the posts a little better. No one is saying that the earth isn't warming. Again - it's the cause of that warming that is being disputed.

 

[Chaos Commish]

The liberals used a period of warming that ended 17 years ago and attributed it all to CO2 to gin up global warming fear, when a large portion of that warming was due to other natural factors. Everyone agrees the fear was overblown and we were lied to by the likes of Gore, etc. Now we are 17 years into a period of cooling that 1) stopped the inertia of the warming, which is in itself quite impressive and 2) is not yet over, which means we could be cooling for quite some time, perhaps decades. Bottom line CO2 is one half or much less of the threat we were led to believe, I believe it is at he insignificant noise level of threat because of the earths natural emergent thermostats (equatorial clouds, etc). Computer models don't model natural thermostats, they model forcings.

And? He's basically agreeing it had been warming and the trend since 97 has been cooling. They're both small insignificant samples. While we're warmer than we have been in decades, we are trending to lower recently. Including the spikes in 98 and 12 we're still on a cooling trend.

Major climate research centres now accept that there has been a “pause” in global warming since 1997

It's a low brow question but since CO2 emissions have done nothing but increase since 97 how come warming has paused?

 

[timschochet]

No. The ridicule should apply to anyone who doesn't believe that it's man made.

Shouldn't we also ridicule the idiots that claim to understand the science but really don't have a clue?

I understand it fine in layman's terms. I can't explain it to you in scientific terms any more than I can explain the theory of relativity to you in scientific terms, or how macroevolution works in scientific terms. But in all of these cases, I can tell the difference, usually, between pseudoscience and the real thing.

 

[MaxThreshold]

No. The ridicule should apply to anyone who doesn't believe that it's man made.

Shouldn't we also ridicule the idiots that claim to understand the science but really don't have a clue?

I understand it fine in layman's terms. I can't explain it to you in scientific terms any more than I can explain the theory of relativity to you in scientific terms, or how macroevolution works in scientific terms. But in all of these cases, I can tell the difference, usually, between pseudoscience and the real thing.

I believe whatever I'm force-fed by the talking points.

Fixed that for you, Tim.

 

[timschochet]

The liberals used a period of warming that ended 17 years ago and attributed it all to CO2 to gin up global warming fear, when a large portion of that warming was due to other natural factors. Everyone agrees the fear was overblown and we were lied to by the likes of Gore, etc. Now we are 17 years into a period of cooling that 1) stopped the inertia of the warming, which is in itself quite impressive and 2) is not yet over, which means we could be cooling for quite some time, perhaps decades. Bottom line CO2 is one half or much less of the threat we were led to believe, I believe it is at he insignificant noise level of threat because of the earths natural emergent thermostats (equatorial clouds, etc). Computer models don't model natural thermostats, they model forcings.

And? He's basically agreeing it had been warming and the trend since 97 has been cooling. They're both small insignificant samples. While we're warmer than we have been in decades, we are trending to lower recently. Including the spikes in 98 and 12 we're still on a cooling trend.

Major climate research centres now accept that there has been a “pause” in global warming since 1997

It's a low brow question but since CO2 emissions have done nothing but increase since 97 how come warming has paused?

Yes it is a low brow question, and I've also already posted the two major theories that answer it. But here's what's important: there are NO scientists on the IPCC, and no reputable scientists anywhere that I have been able to find, that now believe that this pause means that global warming is not happening (and not about to resume in more noticeable ways.) Furthermore, I can't find any reputable scientists who have looked at this pause and said, "Gee, that means the sample size is too small, or that means global warming isn't severe, or that means global warming isn't man-made." These arguments are being made only by people who already doubted man-made global warming for non-scientific reasons.

But I'm willing to change my mind. Find me a reputable scientist who believed in man-made global warming, but now has changed his mind as a result of this pause. Not a layman, not a scientist in a field that has nothing to do with climate testing. Somebody who specializes in this subject, and now doubts global warming BECAUSE of the pause. If you guys can link me to that person, I'll read what they have to say and who knows? Maybe I'll be with you.

 

[Mario Kart]

No. The ridicule should apply to anyone who doesn't believe that it's man made.

Shouldn't we also ridicule the idiots that claim to understand the science but really don't have a clue?

I understand it fine in layman's terms. I can't explain it to you in scientific terms any more than I can explain the theory of relativity to you in scientific terms, or how macroevolution works in scientific terms. But in all of these cases, I can tell the difference, usually, between pseudoscience and the real thing.

Holy crap.

 

[DrJ]

The liberals used a period of warming that ended 17 years ago and attributed it all to CO2 to gin up global warming fear, when a large portion of that warming was due to other natural factors. Everyone agrees the fear was overblown and we were lied to by the likes of Gore, etc. Now we are 17 years into a period of cooling that 1) stopped the inertia of the warming, which is in itself quite impressive and 2) is not yet over, which means we could be cooling for quite some time, perhaps decades. Bottom line CO2 is one half or much less of the threat we were led to believe, I believe it is at he insignificant noise level of threat because of the earths natural emergent thermostats (equatorial clouds, etc). Computer models don't model natural thermostats, they model forcings.

And? He's basically agreeing it had been warming and the trend since 97 has been cooling. They're both small insignificant samples. While we're warmer than we have been in decades, we are trending to lower recently. Including the spikes in 98 and 12 we're still on a cooling trend.

Major climate research centres now accept that there has been a “pause” in global warming since 1997

It's a low brow question but since CO2 emissions have done nothing but increase since 97 how come warming has paused?

Yes it is a low brow question, and I've also already posted the two major theories that answer it. But here's what's important: there are NO scientists on the IPCC, and no reputable scientists anywhere that I have been able to find, that now believe that this pause means that global warming is not happening (and not about to resume in more noticeable ways.) Furthermore, I can't find any reputable scientists who have looked at this pause and said, "Gee, that means the sample size is too small, or that means global warming isn't severe, or that means global warming isn't man-made." These arguments are being made only by people who already doubted man-made global warming for non-scientific reasons.

But I'm willing to change my mind. Find me a reputable scientist who believed in man-made global warming, but now has changed his mind as a result of this pause. Not a layman, not a scientist in a field that has nothing to do with climate testing. Somebody who specializes in this subject, and now doubts global warming BECAUSE of the pause. If you guys can link me to that person, I'll read what they have to say and who knows? Maybe I'll be with you.

How do you distinguish between the reputable and non reputable scientists on this issue?

 

[MaxThreshold]

The liberals used a period of warming that ended 17 years ago and attributed it all to CO2 to gin up global warming fear, when a large portion of that warming was due to other natural factors. Everyone agrees the fear was overblown and we were lied to by the likes of Gore, etc. Now we are 17 years into a period of cooling that 1) stopped the inertia of the warming, which is in itself quite impressive and 2) is not yet over, which means we could be cooling for quite some time, perhaps decades. Bottom line CO2 is one half or much less of the threat we were led to believe, I believe it is at he insignificant noise level of threat because of the earths natural emergent thermostats (equatorial clouds, etc). Computer models don't model natural thermostats, they model forcings.

And? He's basically agreeing it had been warming and the trend since 97 has been cooling. They're both small insignificant samples. While we're warmer than we have been in decades, we are trending to lower recently. Including the spikes in 98 and 12 we're still on a cooling trend.

Major climate research centres now accept that there has been a “pause” in global warming since 1997

It's a low brow question but since CO2 emissions have done nothing but increase since 97 how come warming has paused?

Yes it is a low brow question, and I've also already posted the two major theories that answer it. But here's what's important: there are NO scientists on the IPCC, and no reputable scientists anywhere that I have been able to find, that now believe that this pause means that global warming is not happening (and not about to resume in more noticeable ways.) Furthermore, I can't find any reputable scientists who have looked at this pause and said, "Gee, that means the sample size is too small, or that means global warming isn't severe, or that means global warming isn't man-made." These arguments are being made only by people who already doubted man-made global warming for non-scientific reasons.

But I'm willing to change my mind. Find me a reputable scientist who believed in man-made global warming, but now has changed his mind as a result of this pause. Not a layman, not a scientist in a field that has nothing to do with climate testing. Somebody who specializes in this subject, and now doubts global warming BECAUSE of the pause. If you guys can link me to that person, I'll read what they have to say and who knows? Maybe I'll be with you.

How do you distinguish between the reputable and non reputable scientists on this issue?

I'll answer for Tim:

reputable = scientists that only agree with Tim

non-reputable = scientists that don't agree with Tim

 

[The_Man]

Why is 17 years ago such a magic number, especially when so many of the warming skeptics say that even hundreds of years of data aren't meaningful when compared to the thousands of years over which change occurs?

Because 1998 is a cherry-picked year. The strongest El Nino ever helped produce a temporary increase in Pacific water temperatures that produced the highest temps ever on record (subsequently slightly beaten by 2005 and 2010). From 2005-12, there have been La Ninas every year, helping keep the worldwide temps cool. So if you draw a straight-line of global surface temps from 98 to 2012, it shows little global warming increase. But pick any year before 98, and any year after, you see a global warming trend. As Dr. Masters from Weather Underground says, "The choice of 1998 is a deliberate abuse of statistics in an attempt to manipulate people into drawing a false conclusion on global temperature trends."

Of course there is variation from year to year in temperatures. Unfortunately, that variation is beginning to become the difference between hot years and very hot years. Nine of the 10 hottest years in recorded history have happened since 2002, and 2013 is on pace to be the 4th hottest year (final stats to be released by NOAA on Jan. 14). Since the 1950s, each decade has been hotter than the last, and the 2000s were the hottest decade since record keeping started in the 1850s.

I remember when Republicans made fun of Bill Clinton's budgets in the 90s, saying that a decrease in the rate that you're increasing spending is not a cut. I feel the same way about global warming. Just because the planet is warming less rapidly than previously predicted, it's still getting warmer, and is demonstrably not cooling.

 

[timschochet]

Why is 17 years ago such a magic number, especially when so many of the warming skeptics say that even hundreds of years of data aren't meaningful when compared to the thousands of years over which change occurs?

Because 1998 is a cherry-picked year. The strongest El Nino ever helped produce a temporary increase in Pacific water temperatures that produced the highest temps ever on record (subsequently slightly beaten by 2005 and 2010). From 2005-12, there have been La Ninas every year, helping keep the worldwide temps cool. So if you draw a straight-line of global surface temps from 98 to 2012, it shows little global warming increase. But pick any year before 98, and any year after, you see a global warming trend. As Dr. Masters from Weather Underground says, "The choice of 1998 is a deliberate abuse of statistics in an attempt to manipulate people into drawing a false conclusion on global temperature trends."

Of course there is variation from year to year in temperatures. Unfortunately, that variation is beginning to become the difference between hot years and very hot years. Nine of the 10 hottest years in recorded history have happened since 2002, and 2013 is on pace to be the 4th hottest year (final stats to be released by NOAA on Jan. 14). Since the 1950s, each decade has been hotter than the last, and the 2000s were the hottest decade since record keeping started in the 1850s.

I remember when Republicans made fun of Bill Clinton's budgets in the 90s, saying that a decrease in the rate that you're increasing spending is not a cut. I feel the same way about global warming. Just because the planet is warming less rapidly than previously predicted, it's still getting warmer, and is demonstrably not cooling.

Exactly. I pointed this out earlier.

 

[timschochet]

The liberals used a period of warming that ended 17 years ago and attributed it all to CO2 to gin up global warming fear, when a large portion of that warming was due to other natural factors. Everyone agrees the fear was overblown and we were lied to by the likes of Gore, etc. Now we are 17 years into a period of cooling that 1) stopped the inertia of the warming, which is in itself quite impressive and 2) is not yet over, which means we could be cooling for quite some time, perhaps decades. Bottom line CO2 is one half or much less of the threat we were led to believe, I believe it is at he insignificant noise level of threat because of the earths natural emergent thermostats (equatorial clouds, etc). Computer models don't model natural thermostats, they model forcings.

And? He's basically agreeing it had been warming and the trend since 97 has been cooling. They're both small insignificant samples. While we're warmer than we have been in decades, we are trending to lower recently. Including the spikes in 98 and 12 we're still on a cooling trend.

Major climate research centres now accept that there has been a “pause” in global warming since 1997

It's a low brow question but since CO2 emissions have done nothing but increase since 97 how come warming has paused?

Yes it is a low brow question, and I've also already posted the two major theories that answer it. But here's what's important: there are NO scientists on the IPCC, and no reputable scientists anywhere that I have been able to find, that now believe that this pause means that global warming is not happening (and not about to resume in more noticeable ways.) Furthermore, I can't find any reputable scientists who have looked at this pause and said, "Gee, that means the sample size is too small, or that means global warming isn't severe, or that means global warming isn't man-made." These arguments are being made only by people who already doubted man-made global warming for non-scientific reasons.

But I'm willing to change my mind. Find me a reputable scientist who believed in man-made global warming, but now has changed his mind as a result of this pause. Not a layman, not a scientist in a field that has nothing to do with climate testing. Somebody who specializes in this subject, and now doubts global warming BECAUSE of the pause. If you guys can link me to that person, I'll read what they have to say and who knows? Maybe I'll be with you.

How do you distinguish between the reputable and non reputable scientists on this issue?

Very simple:

1. An accredited scientist, who submits his work to peer review.

2. Specializes in climatology or a field directly related to this issue.

3. Has not received any monies from oil or coal companies or related conservative groups.

4. Per my above post, has changed his or her mind on this issue as a result of the pause, and not before it.

 

[DrJ]

A reputable scientist debunks the myth that global warming is decreasing:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MmoYStB-Rzw

 

[DiStefano]

From the mid 1940's to the mid 1970's, global temperatures went down even though the amount of carbon dioxide in the air increased by approximately 10%. Then for the next 20 years, temperatures rose as the amount of carbon dioxide increased by approximately 10%. For the last 15 years or so, the amount of carbon dioxide has increased by a further 10%, but temperatures have been relatively stable.

Interesting.

 

[The_Man]

From the mid 1940's to the mid 1970's, global temperatures went down even though the amount of carbon dioxide in the air increased by approximately 10%. Then for the next 20 years, temperatures rose as the amount of carbon dioxide increased by approximately 10%. For the last 15 years or so, the amount of carbon dioxide has increased by a further 10%, but temperatures have been relatively stable.

Interesting.

That's not exactly accurate.

As this decade-by-decade chart (which takes out a little of the noise created by year-to-year variation) produced by the World Meterological Organization shows, global temps were virtually static from 1940-1980, and have soared since then. Temps have clearly not been relatively stable for the past 15 years or so.

This chart would suggest to me that in the 80s perhaps we passed some tipping point where the amount of carbon dioxide became so great that it began affecting the climate.

 

[DrJ]

From the mid 1940's to the mid 1970's, global temperatures went down even though the amount of carbon dioxide in the air increased by approximately 10%. Then for the next 20 years, temperatures rose as the amount of carbon dioxide increased by approximately 10%. For the last 15 years or so, the amount of carbon dioxide has increased by a further 10%, but temperatures have been relatively stable.

Interesting.

That's not exactly accurate.

As this decade-by-decade chart (which takes out a little of the noise created by year-to-year variation) produced by the World Meterological Organization shows, global temps were virtually static from 1940-1980, and have soared since then. Temps have clearly not been relatively stable for the past 15 years or so.

This chart would suggest to me that in the 80s perhaps we passed some tipping point where the amount of carbon dioxide became so great that it began affecting the climate.

Nah, the warming in 1900 - 1940 were man made too. We just took a 40 year pause.

 

[timschochet]

A reputable scientist debunks the myth that global warming is decreasing:

That was great. He makes total sense. Did you watch?

 

[DrJ]

A reputable scientist debunks the myth that global warming is decreasing:

Yes, I figured he'd appeal to you. And he seems really smart.

 

[timschochet]

A reputable scientist debunks the myth that global warming is decreasing:

He doesn't appeal to me. I hate that this is happening. I hate it when the environmentalists are right. Because inevitably it means some kind of restriction on human freedom. I wish with all my heart that your side was correct here- that's what makes it so ironic that all of you depend so much time mocking me. But facts are facts.

 

[DrJ]

A reputable scientist debunks the myth that global warming is decreasing:

Like Obamacare, you'll just have to accept that it's here to stay so we might as well make the best of it. I propose bikini Fridays.

 

[RCon]

The liberals used a period of warming that ended 17 years ago and attributed it all to CO2 to gin up global warming fear, when a large portion of that warming was due to other natural factors. Everyone agrees the fear was overblown and we were lied to by the likes of Gore, etc. Now we are 17 years into a period of cooling that 1) stopped the inertia of the warming, which is in itself quite impressive and 2) is not yet over, which means we could be cooling for quite some time, perhaps decades. Bottom line CO2 is one half or much less of the threat we were led to believe, I believe it is at he insignificant noise level of threat because of the earths natural emergent thermostats (equatorial clouds, etc). Computer models don't model natural thermostats, they model forcings.

And? He's basically agreeing it had been warming and the trend since 97 has been cooling. They're both small insignificant samples. While we're warmer than we have been in decades, we are trending to lower recently. Including the spikes in 98 and 12 we're still on a cooling trend.

Major climate research centres now accept that there has been a “pause” in global warming since 1997

It's a low brow question but since CO2 emissions have done nothing but increase since 97 how come warming has paused?

Yes it is a low brow question, and I've also already posted the two major theories that answer it. But here's what's important: there are NO scientists on the IPCC, and no reputable scientists anywhere that I have been able to find, that now believe that this pause means that global warming is not happening (and not about to resume in more noticeable ways.) Furthermore, I can't find any reputable scientists who have looked at this pause and said, "Gee, that means the sample size is too small, or that means global warming isn't severe, or that means global warming isn't man-made." These arguments are being made only by people who already doubted man-made global warming for non-scientific reasons.

But I'm willing to change my mind. Find me a reputable scientist who believed in man-made global warming, but now has changed his mind as a result of this pause. Not a layman, not a scientist in a field that has nothing to do with climate testing. Somebody who specializes in this subject, and now doubts global warming BECAUSE of the pause. If you guys can link me to that person, I'll read what they have to say and who knows? Maybe I'll be with you.

I think part of your problem is that you define "reputable" as "agrees with me". You also appear to define "negative consequences" as "different from the status quo".

I'm in Camp 3 from the earlier list, but I can recognize that:

1) The science on exactly what portion of the warming is man-made is far from settled.

2) Climate change will likely have a number of consequences, some positive, some negative, and mostly both positive and negative depending on who you are.

3) There are issues with the "consensus research" that can't explain everything that's happened over the past N years. There are lots of theories, but no definitive proof. This doesn't mean that humans aren't causing some portion of the warming, but scientists who claim it is clearly N% and have models to prove it are full of crap.

4) There is something wrong with the way we award and reward science grants, that creates perverse incentives with regard to what is discovered. This is not to say that all, or even most, scientists are lying, but there is always a possibility that some are falsifying data, steering research in wrong directions, etc.

5) Perhaps most importantly, there are no policy changes the US can do alone that will make a difference.

 

[Chaos Commish]

I avoid this topic here because the discussion seems sophomoric compared to other sites, and I felt Shining Path expressed my thinking. I'm posting because I'm the rarity who has changed his mind.

My work with greenhouses gave me indirect daily association with the topic. Drought, renewable energy, sustainable growing practices, desertification, changing temperatures -- these are topics the big brains I dealt with dealt with daily. There's some idiocy in this thread regarding CO2 and plants, btw.

Thanks for this post. I definitely think we all need to do what we can to limit our impact on the environment. If I had my way I'd reduce my "personal footprint" to almost nothing - there's almost no reason for me to leave the house with the work that I do and my awesome Internet connection. And I really don't like maintaining my lawn either. I could do without that too. Except I'm pretty sure there's some city ordinance that demands that I do. I've even looked into outfitting myself with solar, mainly because I'd like increased energy independence. Even with heavy subsidy it doesn't make much sense unless you're going plan to be somewhere for a couple of decades. And you're probably not going to achieve true independence, times like now I'd probably still have to pull from the grid. Eventually someone's going to find an energy source that makes sense and you don't have to force feed to people though. And I'm fairly certain that day will be "before the planet is destroyed". If you can make it so I don't need to buy energy from other people anymore in the process, I'm in.

I'm pretty much a California tree hugger. My solar panels paid for themselves in 7.5 years and I have some stupid low electricity bills now. I drive a hybrid. My landscapes are xeriscaped. I do not believe in growing grass for appearances. If I water something it has to produce something I can eat, unless something else eats it that I can eat. I compost everything compostable, recycle and re-purpose as much as possible.

My issue is with pseudoscience, the pompous creeps driving it, their fear mongering, disinformation and media lemmings.

 

[Cliff Clavin]

No. The ridicule should apply to anyone who doesn't believe that it's man made.

Shouldn't we also ridicule the idiots that claim to understand the science but really don't have a clue?

I understand it fine in layman's terms. I can't explain it to you in scientific terms any more than I can explain the theory of relativity to you in scientific terms, or how macroevolution works in scientific terms. But in all of these cases, I can tell the difference, usually, between pseudoscience and the real thing.

Odd. I'd figure a person who is a staunch advocate for reform would have a good grasp on the science behind the issue. If you can't explain something in "scientific terms" how can you tell the difference between "pseudoscience and the real thing"?

I mean, it would be one thing to agree with the consensus on an issue without knowing much of the background. But to go around calling people ignorant and idiots?

 

[tommyboy]

No. The ridicule should apply to anyone who doesn't believe that it's man made.

This is wrong, greviously so.

 

[Chaos Commish]

The liberals used a period of warming that ended 17 years ago and attributed it all to CO2 to gin up global warming fear, when a large portion of that warming was due to other natural factors. Everyone agrees the fear was overblown and we were lied to by the likes of Gore, etc. Now we are 17 years into a period of cooling that 1) stopped the inertia of the warming, which is in itself quite impressive and 2) is not yet over, which means we could be cooling for quite some time, perhaps decades. Bottom line CO2 is one half or much less of the threat we were led to believe, I believe it is at he insignificant noise level of threat because of the earths natural emergent thermostats (equatorial clouds, etc). Computer models don't model natural thermostats, they model forcings.

And? He's basically agreeing it had been warming and the trend since 97 has been cooling. They're both small insignificant samples. While we're warmer than we have been in decades, we are trending to lower recently. Including the spikes in 98 and 12 we're still on a cooling trend.

Major climate research centres now accept that there has been a “pause” in global warming since 1997

It's a low brow question but since CO2 emissions have done nothing but increase since 97 how come warming has paused?

It hasn't paused. It's only paused if you discount 3/4 of the earths surface area. The oceans absorb the majority of CO2, and are getting warmer and more acidic as a result. In 1998, the strong El Niño caused a massive transfer of energy from the ocean to the atmosphere, which is why 1998 shows the spike.

Air temperatures have declined from a peak that was used for fear-mongering from which little has proven true. Ocean temps have risen back to levels from the 1940s. Ocean warming is regional. The Pacific is cooling. I think that's one of the bigger regions.

 

[timschochet]

No. The ridicule should apply to anyone who doesn't believe that it's man made.

Shouldn't we also ridicule the idiots that claim to understand the science but really don't have a clue?

I understand it fine in layman's terms. I can't explain it to you in scientific terms any more than I can explain the theory of relativity to you in scientific terms, or how macroevolution works in scientific terms. But in all of these cases, I can tell the difference, usually, between pseudoscience and the real thing.

Odd. I'd figure a person who is a staunch advocate for reform would have a good grasp on the science behind the issue. If you can't explain something in "scientific terms" how can you tell the difference between "pseudoscience and the real thing"?

I mean, it would be one thing to agree with the consensus on an issue without knowing much of the background. But to go around calling people ignorant and idiots?

It seems as if your intent here is to rip me rather than honestly discuss the issue involved. Pretty weak, but whatever.

 

[GibbyGarcia]

The liberals used a period of warming that ended 17 years ago and attributed it all to CO2 to gin up global warming fear, when a large portion of that warming was due to other natural factors. Everyone agrees the fear was overblown and we were lied to by the likes of Gore, etc. Now we are 17 years into a period of cooling that 1) stopped the inertia of the warming, which is in itself quite impressive and 2) is not yet over, which means we could be cooling for quite some time, perhaps decades. Bottom line CO2 is one half or much less of the threat we were led to believe, I believe it is at he insignificant noise level of threat because of the earths natural emergent thermostats (equatorial clouds, etc). Computer models don't model natural thermostats, they model forcings.

And? He's basically agreeing it had been warming and the trend since 97 has been cooling. They're both small insignificant samples. While we're warmer than we have been in decades, we are trending to lower recently. Including the spikes in 98 and 12 we're still on a cooling trend.

Major climate research centres now accept that there has been a “pause” in global warming since 1997

It's a low brow question but since CO2 emissions have done nothing but increase since 97 how come warming has paused?

It hasn't paused. It's only paused if you discount 3/4 of the earths surface area. The oceans absorb the majority of CO2, and are getting warmer and more acidic as a result. In 1998, the strong El Niño caused a massive transfer of energy from the ocean to the atmosphere, which is why 1998 shows the spike.

Air temperatures have declined from a peak that was used for fear-mongering from which little has proven true. Ocean temps have risen back to levels from the 1940s. Ocean warming is regional. The Pacific is cooling. I think that's one of the bigger regions.

I'm not sure I got the same warm and fuzzy from the source Nature article that you did.

There's no telling how long this cool phase will persist. But the previous Pacific cool phase, which started in the 1940s, lasted about 30 years. It can't last forever; the ocean will eventually return to a warm phase, "and when that happens, we will be seeing unprecedented rates of climate warming," he says. Not only will we get the natural heat wave, but on top of that we'll also get all the warming from greenhouse gases that have been building up during this cold cycle

That sounds like hard core fear mongering to me.

 

[timschochet]

The liberals used a period of warming that ended 17 years ago and attributed it all to CO2 to gin up global warming fear, when a large portion of that warming was due to other natural factors. Everyone agrees the fear was overblown and we were lied to by the likes of Gore, etc. Now we are 17 years into a period of cooling that 1) stopped the inertia of the warming, which is in itself quite impressive and 2) is not yet over, which means we could be cooling for quite some time, perhaps decades. Bottom line CO2 is one half or much less of the threat we were led to believe, I believe it is at he insignificant noise level of threat because of the earths natural emergent thermostats (equatorial clouds, etc). Computer models don't model natural thermostats, they model forcings.

And? He's basically agreeing it had been warming and the trend since 97 has been cooling. They're both small insignificant samples. While we're warmer than we have been in decades, we are trending to lower recently. Including the spikes in 98 and 12 we're still on a cooling trend.

Major climate research centres now accept that there has been a “pause” in global warming since 1997

It's a low brow question but since CO2 emissions have done nothing but increase since 97 how come warming has paused?

Yes it is a low brow question, and I've also already posted the two major theories that answer it. But here's what's important: there are NO scientists on the IPCC, and no reputable scientists anywhere that I have been able to find, that now believe that this pause means that global warming is not happening (and not about to resume in more noticeable ways.) Furthermore, I can't find any reputable scientists who have looked at this pause and said, "Gee, that means the sample size is too small, or that means global warming isn't severe, or that means global warming isn't man-made." These arguments are being made only by people who already doubted man-made global warming for non-scientific reasons.

But I'm willing to change my mind. Find me a reputable scientist who believed in man-made global warming, but now has changed his mind as a result of this pause. Not a layman, not a scientist in a field that has nothing to do with climate testing. Somebody who specializes in this subject, and now doubts global warming BECAUSE of the pause. If you guys can link me to that person, I'll read what they have to say and who knows? Maybe I'll be with you.

I think part of your problem is that you define "reputable" as "agrees with me". You also appear to define "negative consequences" as "different from the status quo".

I'm in Camp 3 from the earlier list, but I can recognize that:

1) The science on exactly what portion of the warming is man-made is far from settled.

2) Climate change will likely have a number of consequences, some positive, some negative, and mostly both positive and negative depending on who you are.

3) There are issues with the "consensus research" that can't explain everything that's happened over the past N years. There are lots of theories, but no definitive proof. This doesn't mean that humans aren't causing some portion of the warming, but scientists who claim it is clearly N% and have models to prove it are full of crap.

4) There is something wrong with the way we award and reward science grants, that creates perverse incentives with regard to what is discovered. This is not to say that all, or even most, scientists are lying, but there is always a possibility that some are falsifying data, steering research in wrong directions, etc.

5) Perhaps most importantly, there are no policy changes the US can do alone that will make a difference.

First off, I defined what I thought a reputable scientist was, in exact terms. If you have any issue with my definition, please state it- you can find it on the page before this one.

As to your points:

1. That's true, but it's not unsettled in terms of 0% vs. 51%. It's more like 70% vs. 80%. No reputable scientist (again, please see my definition) doubts that a strong majority of this is man-made.

2. No. In terms of human life on this planet (which should be our main concern) climate change caused by the use of fossil fuels is almost wholly negative, according to the scientists.

3. No, they're not full of crap. We've been over the pause and the possible reasons for it, but none of these reasons are remotely connected to the idea that the scientists are wrong about global warming as a whole.

4. That's why we have peer review. It's kind of bizarre to be suspicious about these scientists, when the vast majority of those "scientists" who deny global warming are in the pay of the oil and coal companies and do not expose their findings to peer review.

5. You may be right. But it's not pertinent to the question of whether or not man-made global warming is happening.

 

[timschochet]

I avoid this topic here because the discussion seems sophomoric compared to other sites, and I felt Shining Path expressed my thinking. I'm posting because I'm the rarity who has changed his mind.

My work with greenhouses gave me indirect daily association with the topic. Drought, renewable energy, sustainable growing practices, desertification, changing temperatures -- these are topics the big brains I dealt with dealt with daily. There's some idiocy in this thread regarding CO2 and plants, btw.

Thanks for this post. I definitely think we all need to do what we can to limit our impact on the environment. If I had my way I'd reduce my "personal footprint" to almost nothing - there's almost no reason for me to leave the house with the work that I do and my awesome Internet connection. And I really don't like maintaining my lawn either. I could do without that too. Except I'm pretty sure there's some city ordinance that demands that I do. I've even looked into outfitting myself with solar, mainly because I'd like increased energy independence. Even with heavy subsidy it doesn't make much sense unless you're going plan to be somewhere for a couple of decades. And you're probably not going to achieve true independence, times like now I'd probably still have to pull from the grid. Eventually someone's going to find an energy source that makes sense and you don't have to force feed to people though. And I'm fairly certain that day will be "before the planet is destroyed". If you can make it so I don't need to buy energy from other people anymore in the process, I'm in.

I'm pretty much a California tree hugger. My solar panels paid for themselves in 7.5 years and I have some stupid low electricity bills now. I drive a hybrid. My landscapes are xeriscaped. I do not believe in growing grass for appearances. If I water something it has to produce something I can eat, unless something else eats it that I can eat. I compost everything compostable, recycle and re-purpose as much as possible.

My issue is with pseudoscience, the pompous creeps driving it, their fear mongering, disinformation and media lemmings.

Chaos Commish is a smart guy, even if he does have me on ignore. But this last sentence reads like he's living in a bizarro planet. Nearly all of the scientists who are warning us about global warming submit their findings to peer review, which is extremely critical. Almost none of that small minority of scientists who deny global warming submit their findings to peer review, and almost all of them are highly paid by oil and coal companies. Yet to Chaos Commish, it is the former group that is practicing pseudoscience, fear mongering, and disinformation. Unreal.

 

[jonessed]

The liberals used a period of warming that ended 17 years ago and attributed it all to CO2 to gin up global warming fear, when a large portion of that warming was due to other natural factors. Everyone agrees the fear was overblown and we were lied to by the likes of Gore, etc. Now we are 17 years into a period of cooling that 1) stopped the inertia of the warming, which is in itself quite impressive and 2) is not yet over, which means we could be cooling for quite some time, perhaps decades. Bottom line CO2 is one half or much less of the threat we were led to believe, I believe it is at he insignificant noise level of threat because of the earths natural emergent thermostats (equatorial clouds, etc). Computer models don't model natural thermostats, they model forcings.

And? He's basically agreeing it had been warming and the trend since 97 has been cooling. They're both small insignificant samples. While we're warmer than we have been in decades, we are trending to lower recently. Including the spikes in 98 and 12 we're still on a cooling trend.

Major climate research centres now accept that there has been a pause in global warming since 1997

It's a low brow question but since CO2 emissions have done nothing but increase since 97 how come warming has paused?

It hasn't paused. It's only paused if you discount 3/4 of the earths surface area. The oceans absorb the majority of CO2, and are getting warmer and more acidic as a result. In 1998, the strong El Niño caused a massive transfer of energy from the ocean to the atmosphere, which is why 1998 shows the spike.

This is a new theory based on the model failures and still being debated amongst scientists.Even the authors of the study mentioned in the article point out inconsistencies in their findings due to the difficulty in reconstructing historic temperatures with current ones. They are forced to use different baselines which isn't reliable.

It's going to be a while before this is fully vetted within the scientific community.

 

[RCon]

The liberals used a period of warming that ended 17 years ago and attributed it all to CO2 to gin up global warming fear, when a large portion of that warming was due to other natural factors. Everyone agrees the fear was overblown and we were lied to by the likes of Gore, etc. Now we are 17 years into a period of cooling that 1) stopped the inertia of the warming, which is in itself quite impressive and 2) is not yet over, which means we could be cooling for quite some time, perhaps decades. Bottom line CO2 is one half or much less of the threat we were led to believe, I believe it is at he insignificant noise level of threat because of the earths natural emergent thermostats (equatorial clouds, etc). Computer models don't model natural thermostats, they model forcings.

And? He's basically agreeing it had been warming and the trend since 97 has been cooling. They're both small insignificant samples. While we're warmer than we have been in decades, we are trending to lower recently. Including the spikes in 98 and 12 we're still on a cooling trend.

Major climate research centres now accept that there has been a “pause” in global warming since 1997

It's a low brow question but since CO2 emissions have done nothing but increase since 97 how come warming has paused?

Yes it is a low brow question, and I've also already posted the two major theories that answer it. But here's what's important: there are NO scientists on the IPCC, and no reputable scientists anywhere that I have been able to find, that now believe that this pause means that global warming is not happening (and not about to resume in more noticeable ways.) Furthermore, I can't find any reputable scientists who have looked at this pause and said, "Gee, that means the sample size is too small, or that means global warming isn't severe, or that means global warming isn't man-made." These arguments are being made only by people who already doubted man-made global warming for non-scientific reasons.

But I'm willing to change my mind. Find me a reputable scientist who believed in man-made global warming, but now has changed his mind as a result of this pause. Not a layman, not a scientist in a field that has nothing to do with climate testing. Somebody who specializes in this subject, and now doubts global warming BECAUSE of the pause. If you guys can link me to that person, I'll read what they have to say and who knows? Maybe I'll be with you.

I think part of your problem is that you define "reputable" as "agrees with me". You also appear to define "negative consequences" as "different from the status quo".

I'm in Camp 3 from the earlier list, but I can recognize that:

1) The science on exactly what portion of the warming is man-made is far from settled.

2) Climate change will likely have a number of consequences, some positive, some negative, and mostly both positive and negative depending on who you are.

3) There are issues with the "consensus research" that can't explain everything that's happened over the past N years. There are lots of theories, but no definitive proof. This doesn't mean that humans aren't causing some portion of the warming, but scientists who claim it is clearly N% and have models to prove it are full of crap.

4) There is something wrong with the way we award and reward science grants, that creates perverse incentives with regard to what is discovered. This is not to say that all, or even most, scientists are lying, but there is always a possibility that some are falsifying data, steering research in wrong directions, etc.

5) Perhaps most importantly, there are no policy changes the US can do alone that will make a difference.

First off, I defined what I thought a reputable scientist was, in exact terms. If you have any issue with my definition, please state it- you can find it on the page before this one.

As to your points:

1. That's true, but it's not unsettled in terms of 0% vs. 51%. It's more like 70% vs. 80%. No reputable scientist (again, please see my definition) doubts that a strong majority of this is man-made.

2. No. In terms of human life on this planet (which should be our main concern) climate change caused by the use of fossil fuels is almost wholly negative, according to the scientists.

3. No, they're not full of crap. We've been over the pause and the possible reasons for it, but none of these reasons are remotely connected to the idea that the scientists are wrong about global warming as a whole.

4. That's why we have peer review. It's kind of bizarre to be suspicious about these scientists, when the vast majority of those "scientists" who deny global warming are in the pay of the oil and coal companies and do not expose their findings to peer review.

5. You may be right. But it's not pertinent to the question of whether or not man-made global warming is happening.

I started to write a whole response to this, but it's not worth it. You've made up your mind and refuse to listen to any response that doesn't 100% agree with your over-the-top beliefs.

 

[Stinger Ray]

The liberals used a period of warming that ended 17 years ago and attributed it all to CO2 to gin up global warming fear, when a large portion of that warming was due to other natural factors. Everyone agrees the fear was overblown and we were lied to by the likes of Gore, etc. Now we are 17 years into a period of cooling that 1) stopped the inertia of the warming, which is in itself quite impressive and 2) is not yet over, which means we could be cooling for quite some time, perhaps decades. Bottom line CO2 is one half or much less of the threat we were led to believe, I believe it is at he insignificant noise level of threat because of the earths natural emergent thermostats (equatorial clouds, etc). Computer models don't model natural thermostats, they model forcings.

And? He's basically agreeing it had been warming and the trend since 97 has been cooling. They're both small insignificant samples. While we're warmer than we have been in decades, we are trending to lower recently. Including the spikes in 98 and 12 we're still on a cooling trend.

Major climate research centres now accept that there has been a “pause” in global warming since 1997

It's a low brow question but since CO2 emissions have done nothing but increase since 97 how come warming has paused?

Yes it is a low brow question, and I've also already posted the two major theories that answer it. But here's what's important: there are NO scientists on the IPCC, and no reputable scientists anywhere that I have been able to find, that now believe that this pause means that global warming is not happening (and not about to resume in more noticeable ways.) Furthermore, I can't find any reputable scientists who have looked at this pause and said, "Gee, that means the sample size is too small, or that means global warming isn't severe, or that means global warming isn't man-made." These arguments are being made only by people who already doubted man-made global warming for non-scientific reasons.

But I'm willing to change my mind. Find me a reputable scientist who believed in man-made global warming, but now has changed his mind as a result of this pause. Not a layman, not a scientist in a field that has nothing to do with climate testing. Somebody who specializes in this subject, and now doubts global warming BECAUSE of the pause. If you guys can link me to that person, I'll read what they have to say and who knows? Maybe I'll be with you.

I think part of your problem is that you define "reputable" as "agrees with me". You also appear to define "negative consequences" as "different from the status quo".

I'm in Camp 3 from the earlier list, but I can recognize that:

1) The science on exactly what portion of the warming is man-made is far from settled.

2) Climate change will likely have a number of consequences, some positive, some negative, and mostly both positive and negative depending on who you are.

3) There are issues with the "consensus research" that can't explain everything that's happened over the past N years. There are lots of theories, but no definitive proof. This doesn't mean that humans aren't causing some portion of the warming, but scientists who claim it is clearly N% and have models to prove it are full of crap.

4) There is something wrong with the way we award and reward science grants, that creates perverse incentives with regard to what is discovered. This is not to say that all, or even most, scientists are lying, but there is always a possibility that some are falsifying data, steering research in wrong directions, etc.

5) Perhaps most importantly, there are no policy changes the US can do alone that will make a difference.

1. That's true, but it's not unsettled in terms of 0% vs. 51%. It's more like 70% vs. 80%. No reputable scientist (again, please see my definition) doubts that a strong majority of this is man-made.

So every scientist that has studied this thinks the strong majority of climate change is man made?

 

[Dr Oadi]

The liberals used a period of warming that ended 17 years ago and attributed it all to CO2 to gin up global warming fear, when a large portion of that warming was due to other natural factors. Everyone agrees the fear was overblown and we were lied to by the likes of Gore, etc. Now we are 17 years into a period of cooling that 1) stopped the inertia of the warming, which is in itself quite impressive and 2) is not yet over, which means we could be cooling for quite some time, perhaps decades. Bottom line CO2 is one half or much less of the threat we were led to believe, I believe it is at he insignificant noise level of threat because of the earths natural emergent thermostats (equatorial clouds, etc). Computer models don't model natural thermostats, they model forcings.

And? He's basically agreeing it had been warming and the trend since 97 has been cooling. They're both small insignificant samples. While we're warmer than we have been in decades, we are trending to lower recently. Including the spikes in 98 and 12 we're still on a cooling trend.

Major climate research centres now accept that there has been a “pause” in global warming since 1997

It's a low brow question but since CO2 emissions have done nothing but increase since 97 how come warming has paused?

Yes it is a low brow question, and I've also already posted the two major theories that answer it. But here's what's important: there are NO scientists on the IPCC, and no reputable scientists anywhere that I have been able to find, that now believe that this pause means that global warming is not happening (and not about to resume in more noticeable ways.) Furthermore, I can't find any reputable scientists who have looked at this pause and said, "Gee, that means the sample size is too small, or that means global warming isn't severe, or that means global warming isn't man-made." These arguments are being made only by people who already doubted man-made global warming for non-scientific reasons.But I'm willing to change my mind. Find me a reputable scientist who believed in man-made global warming, but now has changed his mind as a result of this pause. Not a layman, not a scientist in a field that has nothing to do with climate testing. Somebody who specializes in this subject, and now doubts global warming BECAUSE of the pause. If you guys can link me to that person, I'll read what they have to say and who knows? Maybe I'll be with you.

I think part of your problem is that you define "reputable" as "agrees with me". You also appear to define "negative consequences" as "different from the status quo".I'm in Camp 3 from the earlier list, but I can recognize that:

1) The science on exactly what portion of the warming is man-made is far from settled.

2) Climate change will likely have a number of consequences, some positive, some negative, and mostly both positive and negative depending on who you are.

3) There are issues with the "consensus research" that can't explain everything that's happened over the past N years. There are lots of theories, but no definitive proof. This doesn't mean that humans aren't causing some portion of the warming, but scientists who claim it is clearly N% and have models to prove it are full of crap.

4) There is something wrong with the way we award and reward science grants, that creates perverse incentives with regard to what is discovered. This is not to say that all, or even most, scientists are lying, but there is always a possibility that some are falsifying data, steering research in wrong directions, etc.

5) Perhaps most importantly, there are no policy changes the US can do alone that will make a difference.

1. That's true, but it's not unsettled in terms of 0% vs. 51%. It's more like 70% vs. 80%. No reputable scientist (again, please see my definition) doubts that a strong majority of this is man-made.

So every scientist that has studied this thinks the strong majority of climate change is man made?

The science is settled.

 

[timschochet]

The liberals used a period of warming that ended 17 years ago and attributed it all to CO2 to gin up global warming fear, when a large portion of that warming was due to other natural factors. Everyone agrees the fear was overblown and we were lied to by the likes of Gore, etc. Now we are 17 years into a period of cooling that 1) stopped the inertia of the warming, which is in itself quite impressive and 2) is not yet over, which means we could be cooling for quite some time, perhaps decades. Bottom line CO2 is one half or much less of the threat we were led to believe, I believe it is at he insignificant noise level of threat because of the earths natural emergent thermostats (equatorial clouds, etc). Computer models don't model natural thermostats, they model forcings.

And? He's basically agreeing it had been warming and the trend since 97 has been cooling. They're both small insignificant samples. While we're warmer than we have been in decades, we are trending to lower recently. Including the spikes in 98 and 12 we're still on a cooling trend.

Major climate research centres now accept that there has been a “pause” in global warming since 1997

It's a low brow question but since CO2 emissions have done nothing but increase since 97 how come warming has paused?

Yes it is a low brow question, and I've also already posted the two major theories that answer it. But here's what's important: there are NO scientists on the IPCC, and no reputable scientists anywhere that I have been able to find, that now believe that this pause means that global warming is not happening (and not about to resume in more noticeable ways.) Furthermore, I can't find any reputable scientists who have looked at this pause and said, "Gee, that means the sample size is too small, or that means global warming isn't severe, or that means global warming isn't man-made." These arguments are being made only by people who already doubted man-made global warming for non-scientific reasons.

But I'm willing to change my mind. Find me a reputable scientist who believed in man-made global warming, but now has changed his mind as a result of this pause. Not a layman, not a scientist in a field that has nothing to do with climate testing. Somebody who specializes in this subject, and now doubts global warming BECAUSE of the pause. If you guys can link me to that person, I'll read what they have to say and who knows? Maybe I'll be with you.

I think part of your problem is that you define "reputable" as "agrees with me". You also appear to define "negative consequences" as "different from the status quo".

I'm in Camp 3 from the earlier list, but I can recognize that:

1) The science on exactly what portion of the warming is man-made is far from settled.

2) Climate change will likely have a number of consequences, some positive, some negative, and mostly both positive and negative depending on who you are.

3) There are issues with the "consensus research" that can't explain everything that's happened over the past N years. There are lots of theories, but no definitive proof. This doesn't mean that humans aren't causing some portion of the warming, but scientists who claim it is clearly N% and have models to prove it are full of crap.

4) There is something wrong with the way we award and reward science grants, that creates perverse incentives with regard to what is discovered. This is not to say that all, or even most, scientists are lying, but there is always a possibility that some are falsifying data, steering research in wrong directions, etc.

5) Perhaps most importantly, there are no policy changes the US can do alone that will make a difference.

First off, I defined what I thought a reputable scientist was, in exact terms. If you have any issue with my definition, please state it- you can find it on the page before this one.

As to your points:

1. That's true, but it's not unsettled in terms of 0% vs. 51%. It's more like 70% vs. 80%. No reputable scientist (again, please see my definition) doubts that a strong majority of this is man-made.

2. No. In terms of human life on this planet (which should be our main concern) climate change caused by the use of fossil fuels is almost wholly negative, according to the scientists.

3. No, they're not full of crap. We've been over the pause and the possible reasons for it, but none of these reasons are remotely connected to the idea that the scientists are wrong about global warming as a whole.

4. That's why we have peer review. It's kind of bizarre to be suspicious about these scientists, when the vast majority of those "scientists" who deny global warming are in the pay of the oil and coal companies and do not expose their findings to peer review.

5. You may be right. But it's not pertinent to the question of whether or not man-made global warming is happening.

I started to write a whole response to this, but it's not worth it. You've made up your mind and refuse to listen to any response that doesn't 100% agree with your over-the-top beliefs.

But this isn't true, Rich. Find me a scientist who specializes in this topic, who is open to peer review, and who is not paid by the oil companies and I will listen to whatever they have to say. Honestly I will. I NEVER make up my mind against the facts.

 

[timschochet]

The liberals used a period of warming that ended 17 years ago and attributed it all to CO2 to gin up global warming fear, when a large portion of that warming was due to other natural factors. Everyone agrees the fear was overblown and we were lied to by the likes of Gore, etc. Now we are 17 years into a period of cooling that 1) stopped the inertia of the warming, which is in itself quite impressive and 2) is not yet over, which means we could be cooling for quite some time, perhaps decades. Bottom line CO2 is one half or much less of the threat we were led to believe, I believe it is at he insignificant noise level of threat because of the earths natural emergent thermostats (equatorial clouds, etc). Computer models don't model natural thermostats, they model forcings.

And? He's basically agreeing it had been warming and the trend since 97 has been cooling. They're both small insignificant samples. While we're warmer than we have been in decades, we are trending to lower recently. Including the spikes in 98 and 12 we're still on a cooling trend.

Major climate research centres now accept that there has been a “pause” in global warming since 1997

It's a low brow question but since CO2 emissions have done nothing but increase since 97 how come warming has paused?

Yes it is a low brow question, and I've also already posted the two major theories that answer it. But here's what's important: there are NO scientists on the IPCC, and no reputable scientists anywhere that I have been able to find, that now believe that this pause means that global warming is not happening (and not about to resume in more noticeable ways.) Furthermore, I can't find any reputable scientists who have looked at this pause and said, "Gee, that means the sample size is too small, or that means global warming isn't severe, or that means global warming isn't man-made." These arguments are being made only by people who already doubted man-made global warming for non-scientific reasons.

But I'm willing to change my mind. Find me a reputable scientist who believed in man-made global warming, but now has changed his mind as a result of this pause. Not a layman, not a scientist in a field that has nothing to do with climate testing. Somebody who specializes in this subject, and now doubts global warming BECAUSE of the pause. If you guys can link me to that person, I'll read what they have to say and who knows? Maybe I'll be with you.

I think part of your problem is that you define "reputable" as "agrees with me". You also appear to define "negative consequences" as "different from the status quo".

I'm in Camp 3 from the earlier list, but I can recognize that:

1) The science on exactly what portion of the warming is man-made is far from settled.

2) Climate change will likely have a number of consequences, some positive, some negative, and mostly both positive and negative depending on who you are.

3) There are issues with the "consensus research" that can't explain everything that's happened over the past N years. There are lots of theories, but no definitive proof. This doesn't mean that humans aren't causing some portion of the warming, but scientists who claim it is clearly N% and have models to prove it are full of crap.

4) There is something wrong with the way we award and reward science grants, that creates perverse incentives with regard to what is discovered. This is not to say that all, or even most, scientists are lying, but there is always a possibility that some are falsifying data, steering research in wrong directions, etc.

5) Perhaps most importantly, there are no policy changes the US can do alone that will make a difference.

1. That's true, but it's not unsettled in terms of 0% vs. 51%. It's more like 70% vs. 80%. No reputable scientist (again, please see my definition) doubts that a strong majority of this is man-made.

So every scientist that has studied this thinks the strong majority of climate change is man made?

Every reputable scientist, per my criteria, yes. If you object to my criteria, tell me what's wrong with it.

 

[RCon]

How do you distinguish between the reputable and non reputable scientists on this issue?

Very simple:

1. An accredited scientist, who submits his work to peer review.

2. Specializes in climatology or a field directly related to this issue.

3. Has not received any monies from oil or coal companies or related conservative groups.

4. Per my above post, has changed his or her mind on this issue as a result of the pause, and not before it.

1. Meh. I'm not terribly enamored with the peer review process in general. It's horribly flawed and wrongly incentivized in general, even more so in this particular area. I agree that all the work should be made public for peer review, and I'd be skeptical to the point of dismissal of any that hasn't been made available. However, just because work is submitted for peer review does not mean said work has been properly reviewed and vetted.

2. Fair enough, although science is science and math is math. Either the experiments are right or they're not, regardless of who performs them.

3. Meh. Everyone gets money from somewhere, and that somewhere ALWAYS has an agenda.

4. Wait, what? What in the hell are you talking about?

 

[timschochet]

How do you distinguish between the reputable and non reputable scientists on this issue?

Very simple:

1. An accredited scientist, who submits his work to peer review.

2. Specializes in climatology or a field directly related to this issue.

3. Has not received any monies from oil or coal companies or related conservative groups.

4. Per my above post, has changed his or her mind on this issue as a result of the pause, and not before it.

1. Meh. I'm not terribly enamored with the peer review process in general. It's horribly flawed and wrongly incentivized in general, even more so in this particular area. I agree that all the work should be made public for peer review, and I'd be skeptical to the point of dismissal of any that hasn't been made available. However, just because work is submitted for peer review does not mean said work has been properly reviewed and vetted.

2. Fair enough, although science is science and math is math. Either the experiments are right or they're not, regardless of who performs them.

3. Meh. Everyone gets money from somewhere, and that somewhere ALWAYS has an agenda.

4. Wait, what? What in the hell are you talking about?

Strongly disagree with you on points #1 and #3, and I doubt we're going to get much further if we don't agree on the importance of those points. To me these are essential items. If they're not essential to you, then we don't have much to talk about on this issue.

As far as point #4, that is directly related to the claim that, because the scientists are having trouble explaining the current pause, that means that the whole theory of global warming is in doubt. Several posters here have made this exact claim. My response is: OK, find me one reputable scientist (under my first 3 points) who has changed his or her mind due to the pause. I haven't been able to find one. Yes they are puzzled by the pause and offer various theories on why it's happening (I posted a few of these earlier) but none have questioned the existence of man-made global warming as a result of the pause. It's cherry picking and pseudoscience, and real scientists don't practice those.

 

[DrJ]

The liberals used a period of warming that ended 17 years ago and attributed it all to CO2 to gin up global warming fear, when a large portion of that warming was due to other natural factors. Everyone agrees the fear was overblown and we were lied to by the likes of Gore, etc. Now we are 17 years into a period of cooling that 1) stopped the inertia of the warming, which is in itself quite impressive and 2) is not yet over, which means we could be cooling for quite some time, perhaps decades. Bottom line CO2 is one half or much less of the threat we were led to believe, I believe it is at he insignificant noise level of threat because of the earths natural emergent thermostats (equatorial clouds, etc). Computer models don't model natural thermostats, they model forcings.

And? He's basically agreeing it had been warming and the trend since 97 has been cooling. They're both small insignificant samples. While we're warmer than we have been in decades, we are trending to lower recently. Including the spikes in 98 and 12 we're still on a cooling trend.

Major climate research centres now accept that there has been a “pause” in global warming since 1997

It's a low brow question but since CO2 emissions have done nothing but increase since 97 how come warming has paused?

Yes it is a low brow question, and I've also already posted the two major theories that answer it. But here's what's important: there are NO scientists on the IPCC, and no reputable scientists anywhere that I have been able to find, that now believe that this pause means that global warming is not happening (and not about to resume in more noticeable ways.) Furthermore, I can't find any reputable scientists who have looked at this pause and said, "Gee, that means the sample size is too small, or that means global warming isn't severe, or that means global warming isn't man-made." These arguments are being made only by people who already doubted man-made global warming for non-scientific reasons.

But I'm willing to change my mind. Find me a reputable scientist who believed in man-made global warming, but now has changed his mind as a result of this pause. Not a layman, not a scientist in a field that has nothing to do with climate testing. Somebody who specializes in this subject, and now doubts global warming BECAUSE of the pause. If you guys can link me to that person, I'll read what they have to say and who knows? Maybe I'll be with you.

I think part of your problem is that you define "reputable" as "agrees with me". You also appear to define "negative consequences" as "different from the status quo".

I'm in Camp 3 from the earlier list, but I can recognize that:

1) The science on exactly what portion of the warming is man-made is far from settled.

2) Climate change will likely have a number of consequences, some positive, some negative, and mostly both positive and negative depending on who you are.

3) There are issues with the "consensus research" that can't explain everything that's happened over the past N years. There are lots of theories, but no definitive proof. This doesn't mean that humans aren't causing some portion of the warming, but scientists who claim it is clearly N% and have models to prove it are full of crap.

4) There is something wrong with the way we award and reward science grants, that creates perverse incentives with regard to what is discovered. This is not to say that all, or even most, scientists are lying, but there is always a possibility that some are falsifying data, steering research in wrong directions, etc.

5) Perhaps most importantly, there are no policy changes the US can do alone that will make a difference.

First off, I defined what I thought a reputable scientist was, in exact terms. If you have any issue with my definition, please state it- you can find it on the page before this one.

As to your points:

1. That's true, but it's not unsettled in terms of 0% vs. 51%. It's more like 70% vs. 80%. No reputable scientist (again, please see my definition) doubts that a strong majority of this is man-made.

2. No. In terms of human life on this planet (which should be our main concern) climate change caused by the use of fossil fuels is almost wholly negative, according to the scientists.

3. No, they're not full of crap. We've been over the pause and the possible reasons for it, but none of these reasons are remotely connected to the idea that the scientists are wrong about global warming as a whole.

4. That's why we have peer review. It's kind of bizarre to be suspicious about these scientists, when the vast majority of those "scientists" who deny global warming are in the pay of the oil and coal companies and do not expose their findings to peer review.

5. You may be right. But it's not pertinent to the question of whether or not man-made global warming is happening.

http://sppiblog.org/tag/judith-curry

 

[DrJ]

The liberals used a period of warming that ended 17 years ago and attributed it all to CO2 to gin up global warming fear, when a large portion of that warming was due to other natural factors. Everyone agrees the fear was overblown and we were lied to by the likes of Gore, etc. Now we are 17 years into a period of cooling that 1) stopped the inertia of the warming, which is in itself quite impressive and 2) is not yet over, which means we could be cooling for quite some time, perhaps decades. Bottom line CO2 is one half or much less of the threat we were led to believe, I believe it is at he insignificant noise level of threat because of the earths natural emergent thermostats (equatorial clouds, etc). Computer models don't model natural thermostats, they model forcings.

And? He's basically agreeing it had been warming and the trend since 97 has been cooling. They're both small insignificant samples. While we're warmer than we have been in decades, we are trending to lower recently. Including the spikes in 98 and 12 we're still on a cooling trend.

Major climate research centres now accept that there has been a “pause” in global warming since 1997

It's a low brow question but since CO2 emissions have done nothing but increase since 97 how come warming has paused?

Yes it is a low brow question, and I've also already posted the two major theories that answer it. But here's what's important: there are NO scientists on the IPCC, and no reputable scientists anywhere that I have been able to find, that now believe that this pause means that global warming is not happening (and not about to resume in more noticeable ways.) Furthermore, I can't find any reputable scientists who have looked at this pause and said, "Gee, that means the sample size is too small, or that means global warming isn't severe, or that means global warming isn't man-made." These arguments are being made only by people who already doubted man-made global warming for non-scientific reasons.

But I'm willing to change my mind. Find me a reputable scientist who believed in man-made global warming, but now has changed his mind as a result of this pause. Not a layman, not a scientist in a field that has nothing to do with climate testing. Somebody who specializes in this subject, and now doubts global warming BECAUSE of the pause. If you guys can link me to that person, I'll read what they have to say and who knows? Maybe I'll be with you.

I think part of your problem is that you define "reputable" as "agrees with me". You also appear to define "negative consequences" as "different from the status quo".

I'm in Camp 3 from the earlier list, but I can recognize that:

1) The science on exactly what portion of the warming is man-made is far from settled.

2) Climate change will likely have a number of consequences, some positive, some negative, and mostly both positive and negative depending on who you are.

3) There are issues with the "consensus research" that can't explain everything that's happened over the past N years. There are lots of theories, but no definitive proof. This doesn't mean that humans aren't causing some portion of the warming, but scientists who claim it is clearly N% and have models to prove it are full of crap.

4) There is something wrong with the way we award and reward science grants, that creates perverse incentives with regard to what is discovered. This is not to say that all, or even most, scientists are lying, but there is always a possibility that some are falsifying data, steering research in wrong directions, etc.

5) Perhaps most importantly, there are no policy changes the US can do alone that will make a difference.

First off, I defined what I thought a reputable scientist was, in exact terms. If you have any issue with my definition, please state it- you can find it on the page before this one.

As to your points:

1. That's true, but it's not unsettled in terms of 0% vs. 51%. It's more like 70% vs. 80%. No reputable scientist (again, please see my definition) doubts that a strong majority of this is man-made.

2. No. In terms of human life on this planet (which should be our main concern) climate change caused by the use of fossil fuels is almost wholly negative, according to the scientists.

3. No, they're not full of crap. We've been over the pause and the possible reasons for it, but none of these reasons are remotely connected to the idea that the scientists are wrong about global warming as a whole.

4. That's why we have peer review. It's kind of bizarre to be suspicious about these scientists, when the vast majority of those "scientists" who deny global warming are in the pay of the oil and coal companies and do not expose their findings to peer review.

5. You may be right. But it's not pertinent to the question of whether or not man-made global warming is happening.

http://sppiblog.org/tag/judith-curry

http://www.cfact.org/2013/06/18/a-gentlemanly-discussion-of-climate-change-s-fred-singer-v-john-nielsen-gammon/

http://www.globalwarming.org/2013/05/31/john-christy-climate-change-overview-in-six-slides/

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=10886282

 

[timschochet]

The liberals used a period of warming that ended 17 years ago and attributed it all to CO2 to gin up global warming fear, when a large portion of that warming was due to other natural factors. Everyone agrees the fear was overblown and we were lied to by the likes of Gore, etc. Now we are 17 years into a period of cooling that 1) stopped the inertia of the warming, which is in itself quite impressive and 2) is not yet over, which means we could be cooling for quite some time, perhaps decades. Bottom line CO2 is one half or much less of the threat we were led to believe, I believe it is at he insignificant noise level of threat because of the earths natural emergent thermostats (equatorial clouds, etc). Computer models don't model natural thermostats, they model forcings.

And? He's basically agreeing it had been warming and the trend since 97 has been cooling. They're both small insignificant samples. While we're warmer than we have been in decades, we are trending to lower recently. Including the spikes in 98 and 12 we're still on a cooling trend.

Major climate research centres now accept that there has been a “pause” in global warming since 1997

It's a low brow question but since CO2 emissions have done nothing but increase since 97 how come warming has paused?

Yes it is a low brow question, and I've also already posted the two major theories that answer it. But here's what's important: there are NO scientists on the IPCC, and no reputable scientists anywhere that I have been able to find, that now believe that this pause means that global warming is not happening (and not about to resume in more noticeable ways.) Furthermore, I can't find any reputable scientists who have looked at this pause and said, "Gee, that means the sample size is too small, or that means global warming isn't severe, or that means global warming isn't man-made." These arguments are being made only by people who already doubted man-made global warming for non-scientific reasons.

But I'm willing to change my mind. Find me a reputable scientist who believed in man-made global warming, but now has changed his mind as a result of this pause. Not a layman, not a scientist in a field that has nothing to do with climate testing. Somebody who specializes in this subject, and now doubts global warming BECAUSE of the pause. If you guys can link me to that person, I'll read what they have to say and who knows? Maybe I'll be with you.

I think part of your problem is that you define "reputable" as "agrees with me". You also appear to define "negative consequences" as "different from the status quo".

I'm in Camp 3 from the earlier list, but I can recognize that:

1) The science on exactly what portion of the warming is man-made is far from settled.

2) Climate change will likely have a number of consequences, some positive, some negative, and mostly both positive and negative depending on who you are.

3) There are issues with the "consensus research" that can't explain everything that's happened over the past N years. There are lots of theories, but no definitive proof. This doesn't mean that humans aren't causing some portion of the warming, but scientists who claim it is clearly N% and have models to prove it are full of crap.

4) There is something wrong with the way we award and reward science grants, that creates perverse incentives with regard to what is discovered. This is not to say that all, or even most, scientists are lying, but there is always a possibility that some are falsifying data, steering research in wrong directions, etc.

5) Perhaps most importantly, there are no policy changes the US can do alone that will make a difference.

First off, I defined what I thought a reputable scientist was, in exact terms. If you have any issue with my definition, please state it- you can find it on the page before this one.

As to your points:

1. That's true, but it's not unsettled in terms of 0% vs. 51%. It's more like 70% vs. 80%. No reputable scientist (again, please see my definition) doubts that a strong majority of this is man-made.

2. No. In terms of human life on this planet (which should be our main concern) climate change caused by the use of fossil fuels is almost wholly negative, according to the scientists.

3. No, they're not full of crap. We've been over the pause and the possible reasons for it, but none of these reasons are remotely connected to the idea that the scientists are wrong about global warming as a whole.

4. That's why we have peer review. It's kind of bizarre to be suspicious about these scientists, when the vast majority of those "scientists" who deny global warming are in the pay of the oil and coal companies and do not expose their findings to peer review.

5. You may be right. But it's not pertinent to the question of whether or not man-made global warming is happening.

http://sppiblog.org/tag/judith-curry

It's an institute connected with various conservative groups, staffed by conservatives. Among their donors is the Cato Institute. The Cato Institute receives money from oil companies for this institute as well as the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, another global warming denial group.

Supposedly these groups and several others are non-profit, but they are actually channeling millions of oil money. Sorry, but they're just not reputable.

 

[RCon]

How do you distinguish between the reputable and non reputable scientists on this issue?

Very simple:

1. An accredited scientist, who submits his work to peer review.

2. Specializes in climatology or a field directly related to this issue.

3. Has not received any monies from oil or coal companies or related conservative groups.

4. Per my above post, has changed his or her mind on this issue as a result of the pause, and not before it.

1. Meh. I'm not terribly enamored with the peer review process in general. It's horribly flawed and wrongly incentivized in general, even more so in this particular area. I agree that all the work should be made public for peer review, and I'd be skeptical to the point of dismissal of any that hasn't been made available. However, just because work is submitted for peer review does not mean said work has been properly reviewed and vetted.

2. Fair enough, although science is science and math is math. Either the experiments are right or they're not, regardless of who performs them.

3. Meh. Everyone gets money from somewhere, and that somewhere ALWAYS has an agenda.

4. Wait, what? What in the hell are you talking about?

Strongly disagree with you on points #1 and #3, and I doubt we're going to get much further if we don't agree on the importance of those points. To me these are essential items. If they're not essential to you, then we don't have much to talk about on this issue.

As far as point #4, that is directly related to the claim that, because the scientists are having trouble explaining the current pause, that means that the whole theory of global warming is in doubt. Several posters here have made this exact claim. My response is: OK, find me one reputable scientist (under my first 3 points) who has changed his or her mind due to the pause. I haven't been able to find one. Yes they are puzzled by the pause and offer various theories on why it's happening (I posted a few of these earlier) but none have questioned the existence of man-made global warming as a result of the pause. It's cherry picking and pseudoscience, and real scientists don't practice those.

Re: point #1, are you suggesting that "submitted for peer review" = "fully vetted and properly reviewed"?

Re: point #3, are you suggesting that other groups don't have an agenda? Everyone has an agenda. Even scientists themselves. Although in the case of scientists and research departments, the agenda is often "keep the grant money flowing".

Re: point #3, why does the source of funding matter? Assuming the work is made public, it can verified or falsified. Either the math and science is right or it's not.

Also, your inclusion of "related conservative groups" in point #3 essentially boils down to "isn't funded by a group that disagrees with me". Therefore, my characterization of your definition of reputable as "agrees with me" is pretty accurate.

 

[DrJ]

The liberals used a period of warming that ended 17 years ago and attributed it all to CO2 to gin up global warming fear, when a large portion of that warming was due to other natural factors. Everyone agrees the fear was overblown and we were lied to by the likes of Gore, etc. Now we are 17 years into a period of cooling that 1) stopped the inertia of the warming, which is in itself quite impressive and 2) is not yet over, which means we could be cooling for quite some time, perhaps decades. Bottom line CO2 is one half or much less of the threat we were led to believe, I believe it is at he insignificant noise level of threat because of the earths natural emergent thermostats (equatorial clouds, etc). Computer models don't model natural thermostats, they model forcings.

And? He's basically agreeing it had been warming and the trend since 97 has been cooling. They're both small insignificant samples. While we're warmer than we have been in decades, we are trending to lower recently. Including the spikes in 98 and 12 we're still on a cooling trend.

Major climate research centres now accept that there has been a “pause” in global warming since 1997

It's a low brow question but since CO2 emissions have done nothing but increase since 97 how come warming has paused?

Yes it is a low brow question, and I've also already posted the two major theories that answer it. But here's what's important: there are NO scientists on the IPCC, and no reputable scientists anywhere that I have been able to find, that now believe that this pause means that global warming is not happening (and not about to resume in more noticeable ways.) Furthermore, I can't find any reputable scientists who have looked at this pause and said, "Gee, that means the sample size is too small, or that means global warming isn't severe, or that means global warming isn't man-made." These arguments are being made only by people who already doubted man-made global warming for non-scientific reasons.

But I'm willing to change my mind. Find me a reputable scientist who believed in man-made global warming, but now has changed his mind as a result of this pause. Not a layman, not a scientist in a field that has nothing to do with climate testing. Somebody who specializes in this subject, and now doubts global warming BECAUSE of the pause. If you guys can link me to that person, I'll read what they have to say and who knows? Maybe I'll be with you.

I think part of your problem is that you define "reputable" as "agrees with me". You also appear to define "negative consequences" as "different from the status quo".

I'm in Camp 3 from the earlier list, but I can recognize that:

1) The science on exactly what portion of the warming is man-made is far from settled.

2) Climate change will likely have a number of consequences, some positive, some negative, and mostly both positive and negative depending on who you are.

3) There are issues with the "consensus research" that can't explain everything that's happened over the past N years. There are lots of theories, but no definitive proof. This doesn't mean that humans aren't causing some portion of the warming, but scientists who claim it is clearly N% and have models to prove it are full of crap.

4) There is something wrong with the way we award and reward science grants, that creates perverse incentives with regard to what is discovered. This is not to say that all, or even most, scientists are lying, but there is always a possibility that some are falsifying data, steering research in wrong directions, etc.

5) Perhaps most importantly, there are no policy changes the US can do alone that will make a difference.

First off, I defined what I thought a reputable scientist was, in exact terms. If you have any issue with my definition, please state it- you can find it on the page before this one.

As to your points:

1. That's true, but it's not unsettled in terms of 0% vs. 51%. It's more like 70% vs. 80%. No reputable scientist (again, please see my definition) doubts that a strong majority of this is man-made.

2. No. In terms of human life on this planet (which should be our main concern) climate change caused by the use of fossil fuels is almost wholly negative, according to the scientists.

3. No, they're not full of crap. We've been over the pause and the possible reasons for it, but none of these reasons are remotely connected to the idea that the scientists are wrong about global warming as a whole.

4. That's why we have peer review. It's kind of bizarre to be suspicious about these scientists, when the vast majority of those "scientists" who deny global warming are in the pay of the oil and coal companies and do not expose their findings to peer review.

5. You may be right. But it's not pertinent to the question of whether or not man-made global warming is happening.

http://sppiblog.org/tag/judith-curry

It's an institute connected with various conservative groups, staffed by conservatives. Among their donors is the Cato Institute. The Cato Institute receives money from oil companies for this institute as well as the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, another global warming denial group.

Supposedly these groups and several others are non-profit, but they are actually channeling millions of oil money. Sorry, but they're just not reputable.

Dr. Judith Curry is chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology.

 

[timschochet]

Same thing for the other groups you mentioned Dr. J. If the oil and coal companies are funneling you money through back channels, then the information is open to much skepticism.

Also- Dr. Donald Prothero of MIT mentions each one of the groups you linked in his book Reality Check and charges them with not submitting their findings to peer review.

 

[DrJ]

Same thing for the other groups you mentioned Dr. J. If the oil and coal companies are funneling you money through back channels, then the information is open to much skepticism.

Also- Dr. Donald Prothero of MIT mentions each one of the groups you linked in his book Reality Check and charges them with not submitting their findings to peer review.

Groups? These are scientists in the field you've selected.

John Christy, professor of atmospheric science and director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, contributor to several IPCC

Chris de Freitas, associate professor, School of Geography, Geology and Environmental Science, University of Auckland

Fred Singer, professor emeritus of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia

The people you're taking your word from wouldn't even have jobs if there weren't a political movement supporting it.

 

[Scoresman]

The liberals used a period of warming that ended 17 years ago and attributed it all to CO2 to gin up global warming fear, when a large portion of that warming was due to other natural factors. Everyone agrees the fear was overblown and we were lied to by the likes of Gore, etc. Now we are 17 years into a period of cooling that 1) stopped the inertia of the warming, which is in itself quite impressive and 2) is not yet over, which means we could be cooling for quite some time, perhaps decades. Bottom line CO2 is one half or much less of the threat we were led to believe, I believe it is at he insignificant noise level of threat because of the earths natural emergent thermostats (equatorial clouds, etc). Computer models don't model natural thermostats, they model forcings.

And? He's basically agreeing it had been warming and the trend since 97 has been cooling. They're both small insignificant samples. While we're warmer than we have been in decades, we are trending to lower recently. Including the spikes in 98 and 12 we're still on a cooling trend.

Major climate research centres now accept that there has been a “pause” in global warming since 1997

It's a low brow question but since CO2 emissions have done nothing but increase since 97 how come warming has paused?

Yes it is a low brow question, and I've also already posted the two major theories that answer it. But here's what's important: there are NO scientists on the IPCC, and no reputable scientists anywhere that I have been able to find, that now believe that this pause means that global warming is not happening (and not about to resume in more noticeable ways.) Furthermore, I can't find any reputable scientists who have looked at this pause and said, "Gee, that means the sample size is too small, or that means global warming isn't severe, or that means global warming isn't man-made." These arguments are being made only by people who already doubted man-made global warming for non-scientific reasons.

But I'm willing to change my mind. Find me a reputable scientist who believed in man-made global warming, but now has changed his mind as a result of this pause. Not a layman, not a scientist in a field that has nothing to do with climate testing. Somebody who specializes in this subject, and now doubts global warming BECAUSE of the pause. If you guys can link me to that person, I'll read what they have to say and who knows? Maybe I'll be with you.

I think part of your problem is that you define "reputable" as "agrees with me". You also appear to define "negative consequences" as "different from the status quo".

I'm in Camp 3 from the earlier list, but I can recognize that:

1) The science on exactly what portion of the warming is man-made is far from settled.

2) Climate change will likely have a number of consequences, some positive, some negative, and mostly both positive and negative depending on who you are.

3) There are issues with the "consensus research" that can't explain everything that's happened over the past N years. There are lots of theories, but no definitive proof. This doesn't mean that humans aren't causing some portion of the warming, but scientists who claim it is clearly N% and have models to prove it are full of crap.

4) There is something wrong with the way we award and reward science grants, that creates perverse incentives with regard to what is discovered. This is not to say that all, or even most, scientists are lying, but there is always a possibility that some are falsifying data, steering research in wrong directions, etc.

5) Perhaps most importantly, there are no policy changes the US can do alone that will make a difference.

First off, I defined what I thought a reputable scientist was, in exact terms. If you have any issue with my definition, please state it- you can find it on the page before this one.

As to your points:

1. That's true, but it's not unsettled in terms of 0% vs. 51%. It's more like 70% vs. 80%. No reputable scientist (again, please see my definition) doubts that a strong majority of this is man-made.

2. No. In terms of human life on this planet (which should be our main concern) climate change caused by the use of fossil fuels is almost wholly negative, according to the scientists.

3. No, they're not full of crap. We've been over the pause and the possible reasons for it, but none of these reasons are remotely connected to the idea that the scientists are wrong about global warming as a whole.

4. That's why we have peer review. It's kind of bizarre to be suspicious about these scientists, when the vast majority of those "scientists" who deny global warming are in the pay of the oil and coal companies and do not expose their findings to peer review.

5. You may be right. But it's not pertinent to the question of whether or not man-made global warming is happening.

http://sppiblog.org/tag/judith-curry

http://www.globalwarming.org/2013/05/31/john-christy-climate-change-overview-in-six-slides/

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=10886282

http://www.cfact.org/2013/06/18/a-gentlemanly-discussion-of-climate-change-s-fred-singer-v-john-nielsen-gammon/