The Case Against Global-Warming Skepticism (1 Viewer)

[msommer]

Why is everyone still arguing with Tim, MaxThreshold, DrJ, Jonessed, Rich Conway etc? It's clear they're unable to believe anything that doesn't agree with their views. And when it conflicts with their views, they either moves the goalposts to fit those views or insults others others. Re, ally guys, it's time to stop wasting your time and effort and put it to more valuable use.

fyp, hth

 

[Tango]

IMHO constricting supply does not necessarily reduce demand. It may bring about technology changes that either increase supply again ("Guys, what if we then process the tar sands...") or reduce demand ("Wait, if we make the cars more aerodynamic they will consume less fuel!").

If you believe climate change as a direct consequence of the burning of fossil fuels then you should be all in favor of reducing demand - even as a tax on consumption.

Well, that's the progressive argument. I'm hoping there's a better way that doesn't cause as much pain.

<snip>

We can agree that the government regulating behaviour in this way is not going to win any libertarian friends (and that governments generally do a poor job of such endeavours). However, as long as pollution does not have an intrinsic cost, the free market will continue to pollute. This is exactly why publications such as The Economist continues to argue for a carbon tax/trading scheme.

Indeed it does not win any libertarian friends.

I believe this issue and the skepticism around it is not about science and never has been. This is just one issue in a long list of issues where politicians are attempting to increase the power of the state. Any problem where more centralized power in any monopolistic/oligarchic institution is the proposed solution will generate skepticism. This issue is precisely that, but on steroids. The science, fortunately or unfortunately, will continue to be a charade for people who like to argue. I do not think there will be serious discussion about the science until this stops looking like a power-grab.

 

[Jayrod]

All I know is that I'm running around double fisting aerosol cans until this cold snap stops.

 

[TheAristocrat]

I'm not a religious man but if I was, I'd be a Global Warming Alarmist.

ointstothe"science":

 

[DiStefano]

I'm not a religious man but if I was, I'd be a Global Warming Alarmist.

ointstothe"science":

Well, of course. It used to be that it was at religious conventions that you would see a guy with a sign saying "The End Is Near".

Now, if you go to an environmental convention, you see the same guy, with a sign which says: "The End Is Near".

 

[DrJ]

http://dailycaller.com/2013/11/26/poll-nearly-half-of-meteorologists-dont-believe-in-man-made-global-warming/

Thoughts on this article?

It's interesting, but this is Tucker Carlsen's website and it's eager to attack global warming whenever it can. I'd like to find out if a more neutral site has a different take on that survey.

How about you give us your take on the survey?

The article is pretty poor summary of the data. The article states that "52 percent of American Meteorological Society members believe climate change is occurring and mostly human-induced, 48 percent of members do not believe in man-made global warming" That's not really the finding. Here is the exact breakdown from the survey:

Is global warming happening and if so, what is the cause:

Yes, Mostly human: 52%

This is the top number references in the article

Yes, Equally human and natural: 10%

Since they use "mostly human-induced" you could exclude this from the 52% they cite but it shouldn't be included in 48% that they claim don't believe in men-made global warming.

Yes, Mostly Natural: 5%

Yes, Insufficient Evidence: 20%

Yes, don't know cause: 1%

Don't know if global warming is happening: 7%

GW is not happening: 4%

From the same survey data you could accurately say that 62% of AMS members who responded believe that humans are at least contributing to global warming, against only 16% who think it is either happening, but not due to human influence or isn't happening at all.

The survey itself actually has enough problems that I don;t even consider it a valid sample, and the researchers call out the problems in the paper: it's self-selected respondents so it can't claim to be an accurate random representation of all AMS members, let alone all meteorologists as the article headline states. It also points out that several respondents reported that they would have answered differently if they had been asked about a 50 year window rather than 150, and the article does point this out.

BTW, I think the survey is definitely imperfect, but there's some useful information there. And it does seem to align pretty well with the numbers that have been cited other places, like the 97% number guys like Obama and Tim reference. They found it was 93% amongst climate scientists who have been published recently. That along with their demographics compared to overall AMS demographics indicate they got a pretty good sample, though maybe not a perfect one.

That 93% dropped to 65% when you looked at ones that weren't recently published, and it seems there's a sentiment among those that are skeptical that there's a lot of aggression towards their views. As a result it seems that a lot of the people that take skeptical views have basically withdrawn from the debate because of the way they are attacked. Which makes the 97% figure seem to have some elements of cherry picking to it.

Again, not a perfect survey or anything of that nature. But the method of analysis that produced the 97% figure is clearly imperfect as well, and is meant to demonstrate a much higher level of consensus than actually exists in the scientific community. It seems like that's a rather effective strategy as well, as perceiving consensus on the issue was one of the top variables that swayed a person's view according to the data in this survey. Tim's a great example here, citing the level of consensus is basically his entire argument. So I guess bullying people really does work.

As to your points about some of those answers indicating that they believe humans have some percentage of blame, but not all - this is another problem with numbers like the 97% figure. There's a gigantic range of opinion between #2 and #5 on the scale listed a few pages ago. But all of these people could be categorized as "believe in man made global warming". It would be sort ridiculous to try and package them all up and act like there's "consensus" on global warming amongst those groups. Yes, most people understand the obvious fact that man has some impact on his surroundings and no one is really debating that point all that much. It's degree that's really the issue.

ETA: All that being said, I only read the actual survey. I'm probably going to need to see an article on it from someone that supports my views before I can really formulate any opinion whatsoever.

 

[msommer]

IMHO constricting supply does not necessarily reduce demand. It may bring about technology changes that either increase supply again ("Guys, what if we then process the tar sands...") or reduce demand ("Wait, if we make the cars more aerodynamic they will consume less fuel!").

If you believe climate change as a direct consequence of the burning of fossil fuels then you should be all in favor of reducing demand - even as a tax on consumption.

Well, that's the progressive argument. I'm hoping there's a better way that doesn't cause as much pain.

<snip>

We can agree that the government regulating behaviour in this way is not going to win any libertarian friends (and that governments generally do a poor job of such endeavours). However, as long as pollution does not have an intrinsic cost, the free market will continue to pollute. This is exactly why publications such as The Economist continues to argue for a carbon tax/trading scheme.

Indeed it does not win any libertarian friends.

I believe this issue and the skepticism around it is not about science and never has been. This is just one issue in a long list of issues where politicians are attempting to increase the power of the state. Any problem where more centralized power in any monopolistic/oligarchic institution is the proposed solution will generate skepticism. This issue is precisely that, but on steroids. The science, fortunately or unfortunately, will continue to be a charade for people who like to argue. I do not think there will be serious discussion about the science until this stops looking like a power-grab.

Well, my opinion is probably influenced by being from another continent where the environment is more of an issue. But I think it is possible to find other reasons than global warming or climate change(for the worse, obviously) to stop using fossil fuels to the extent we are doing so today (energy self sufficiency being one). In general I think we accomplish too little with the energy we use in the developed world and would like to see better efficiency in use and better use of renewables. In the longer term I think this will be best for our societies. A carbon tax (and eventually a SOx tax or a NOx tax etc) would be a small price to pay to make our societies move in a more sustainable manner. Clearly the income will have to be spent on something that is at least as worthwhile as what we spend the money on today or indeed it could be used to lower the income tax so it becomes a realistic choice for the consumer to go for more a sustainable option.

Climate change is a very effective communication device though as it appeals to self preservation and thus eliminates the time consuming wheeling and dealing to get things thought political channels that can be deadlocked on the issue as e.g. in the USA. It also shortcuts the discussion around industry(lobbyism) and jobs rather effectively. Is it a fair communication device? Possibly not. Can it move mountains? Remains to be seen but certainly it (and 9/11) has gotten the issue of energy selfsufficiency on the table in a big way, which I find is a positive.

I happen to believe that climate change as we see it today, pause or not, is to a large extent extent man made. I am not considering reversing it but I would like to be able to continue to live where I have chosen to live without rising sea level making me a refugee in my waning years. Reversing the change I believe is calling for engineering (and sacrifice) at a level I think I will want to postpone for a bit, until technology can relieve the brunt of it. Arresting the change here, or close to here, while the inhabited parts of Earth are still habitable is to me a goal we can and should pursue.

If we do it in the smart way, we also gain energy selfsufficiency and do not have to pay gargantuan sums to someone akin to feudal warlords whose philosophy is diametrically opposed to ours, allowing them to live a life of opulence while expousing said philosophy on the world. These sums we instead pay to our own engineers and scientists that come up with solutions to wean us of our oil addiction, helping our own economies, instead of theirs. If big oil wants to survive they will have to become big energy instead.

 

[Sinrman]

I am not a denier that the Earth warms and cools at different intervals. I am a denier that it is "man made". It is arrogant to think this sort of thing only started occurring when man began to populate the planet.

One person at the beginning of this thread made a good point that we (the U.S.) could do everything in our power to reduce the levels, but in the end it won't make a lick of difference. Our competitors (in my mind it's Russia and China) don't give a crap about it and will continue putting distance between us in the global markets. We are shooting ourselves in the foot by imposing such measures on ourselves in the name of

"climate change", while other countries do little-to-nothing. Sure, we're trying to lead by example, but where exactly has that gotten us in the past 20 or so years? Until you can get these other countries to truly buy-in and do something on their end, it's ludicrous to think we should continue.

 

[sporthenry]

I am not a denier that the Earth warms and cools at different intervals. I am a denier that it is "man made". It is arrogant to think this sort of thing only started occurring when man began to populate the planet.

One person at the beginning of this thread made a good point that we (the U.S.) could do everything in our power to reduce the levels, but in the end it won't make a lick of difference. Our competitors (in my mind it's Russia and China) don't give a crap about it and will continue putting distance between us in the global markets. We are shooting ourselves in the foot by imposing such measures on ourselves in the name of

"climate change", while other countries do little-to-nothing. Sure, we're trying to lead by example, but where exactly has that gotten us in the past 20 or so years? Until you can get these other countries to truly buy-in and do something on their end, it's ludicrous to think we should continue.

Who said that? The only reason we know that the Earth warms and cools is b/c of science. So when the science works for you, you mention it, but when the same scientists bring up global warming, now its bunk science? Similarly, it is pretty arrogant to think we could put billions of people on a planet, run through natural resources like crack and ignore any possible repercussions.

As far as other countries, some have said the US trails China in attempting to curb global warming. For everything else, the US can be the World Police and set the standard, but when it comes to global warming, we should lag other countries? Doesn't sound like much of a super power response.

 

[3C's]

lol @ arrogant

 

[The_Man]

I am not a denier that the Earth warms and cools at different intervals. I am a denier that it is "man made". It is arrogant to think this sort of thing only started occurring when man began to populate the planet.

There's no arrogance in saying that man is capable of changing nature. The phenomenon being discussed is whether or not significant increases in atmospheric CO2 alter the climate. It just so happens that the CO2 happens to be manmade - but the phenomenon would be the same regardless of its source.

 

[TheIronSheik]

Just out of curiosity, what is Earth's normal temperature?

 

[3C's]

Just out of curiosity, what is Earth's normal temperature?

98.6

 

[shader]

I am not a denier that the Earth warms and cools at different intervals. I am a denier that it is "man made". It is arrogant to think this sort of thing only started occurring when man began to populate the planet.

There's no arrogance in saying that man is capable of changing nature. The phenomenon being discussed is whether or not significant increases in atmospheric CO2 alter the climate. It just so happens that the CO2 happens to be manmade - but the phenomenon would be the same regardless of its source.

I've read (and have no idea if this is true) that historically there is some evidence that CO2 rises as a RESULT of higher temperatures.

 

[jon_mx]

I am not a denier that the Earth warms and cools at different intervals. I am a denier that it is "man made". It is arrogant to think this sort of thing only started occurring when man began to populate the planet.

There's no arrogance in saying that man is capable of changing nature. The phenomenon being discussed is whether or not significant increases in atmospheric CO2 alter the climate. It just so happens that the CO2 happens to be manmade - but the phenomenon would be the same regardless of its source.

I've read (and have no idea if this is true) that historically there is some evidence that CO2 rises as a RESULT of higher temperatures.

For 4 billion years, increases in CO2 generally followed the rise in temperature by about 600 years.

 

[jonessed]

IMHO constricting supply does not necessarily reduce demand. It may bring about technology changes that either increase supply again ("Guys, what if we then process the tar sands...") or reduce demand ("Wait, if we make the cars more aerodynamic they will consume less fuel!").

If you believe climate change as a direct consequence of the burning of fossil fuels then you should be all in favor of reducing demand - even as a tax on consumption.

Well, that's the progressive argument. I'm hoping there's a better way that doesn't cause as much pain.

<snip>

We can agree that the government regulating behaviour in this way is not going to win any libertarian friends (and that governments generally do a poor job of such endeavours). However, as long as pollution does not have an intrinsic cost, the free market will continue to pollute. This is exactly why publications such as The Economist continues to argue for a carbon tax/trading scheme.

Indeed it does not win any libertarian friends.

I believe this issue and the skepticism around it is not about science and never has been. This is just one issue in a long list of issues where politicians are attempting to increase the power of the state. Any problem where more centralized power in any monopolistic/oligarchic institution is the proposed solution will generate skepticism. This issue is precisely that, but on steroids. The science, fortunately or unfortunately, will continue to be a charade for people who like to argue. I do not think there will be serious discussion about the science until this stops looking like a power-grab.

Well, my opinion is probably influenced by being from another continent where the environment is more of an issue. But I think it is possible to find other reasons than global warming or climate change(for the worse, obviously) to stop using fossil fuels to the extent we are doing so today (energy self sufficiency being one). In general I think we accomplish too little with the energy we use in the developed world and would like to see better efficiency in use and better use of renewables. In the longer term I think this will be best for our societies. A carbon tax (and eventually a SOx tax or a NOx tax etc) would be a small price to pay to make our societies move in a more sustainable manner. Clearly the income will have to be spent on something that is at least as worthwhile as what we spend the money on today or indeed it could be used to lower the income tax so it becomes a realistic choice for the consumer to go for more a sustainable option.

Climate change is a very effective communication device though as it appeals to self preservation and thus eliminates the time consuming wheeling and dealing to get things thought political channels that can be deadlocked on the issue as e.g. in the USA. It also shortcuts the discussion around industry(lobbyism) and jobs rather effectively. Is it a fair communication device? Possibly not. Can it move mountains? Remains to be seen but certainly it (and 9/11) has gotten the issue of energy selfsufficiency on the table in a big way, which I find is a positive.

I happen to believe that climate change as we see it today, pause or not, is to a large extent extent man made. I am not considering reversing it but I would like to be able to continue to live where I have chosen to live without rising sea level making me a refugee in my waning years. Reversing the change I believe is calling for engineering (and sacrifice) at a level I think I will want to postpone for a bit, until technology can relieve the brunt of it. Arresting the change here, or close to here, while the inhabited parts of Earth are still habitable is to me a goal we can and should pursue.

If we do it in the smart way, we also gain energy selfsufficiency and do not have to pay gargantuan sums to someone akin to feudal warlords whose philosophy is diametrically opposed to ours, allowing them to live a life of opulence while expousing said philosophy on the world. These sums we instead pay to our own engineers and scientists that come up with solutions to wean us of our oil addiction, helping our own economies, instead of theirs. If big oil wants to survive they will have to become big energy instead.

I've never really understood this. Most of our solar panels come from China because the key materials required to make them stem from mining operations that are way too polluting to be done here.

To me, self sufficiency implies using resources, materials, and labor in the US. We have massive shale oil, coal, and natural gas reserves in this country. How would curtailing those efforts and importing more materials and resources from foreign countries make us more self sufficient?

 

[DiStefano]

I am not a denier that the Earth warms and cools at different intervals. I am a denier that it is "man made". It is arrogant to think this sort of thing only started occurring when man began to populate the planet.

There's no arrogance in saying that man is capable of changing nature. The phenomenon being discussed is whether or not significant increases in atmospheric CO2 alter the climate. It just so happens that the CO2 happens to be manmade - but the phenomenon would be the same regardless of its source.

I've read (and have no idea if this is true) that historically there is some evidence that CO2 rises as a RESULT of higher temperatures.

For 4 billion years, increases in CO2 generally followed the rise in temperature by about 600 years.

I knew it! Yet another dreadful consequence of the Hundred Year's War (1337-1453). And it's another 40 years before we can expect any relief.

 

[msommer]

But I think it is possible to find other reasons than global warming or climate change(for the worse, obviously) to stop using fossil fuels to the extent we are doing so today (energy self sufficiency being one).

I've never really understood this. Most of our solar panels come from China because the key materials required to make them stem from mining operations that are way too polluting to be done here.

To me, self sufficiency implies using resources, materials, and labor in the US. We have massive shale oil, coal, and natural gas reserves in this country. How would curtailing those efforts and importing more materials and resources from foreign countries make us more self sufficient?

Technology is not static nor is self sufficiency about installing solar panels from China.

You'd likely need multiple technologies to replace or reduce our dependence on fossil fuels to the level where what we take out of our own ground can cover our needs;

You might look at Graphene solar cells, Wind Power, like normal turbines or even wind stalks, Hydrogen as fuel and many other emergent technologies.

There are plenty of opportunities to embrace and investigate. Most will likely not be sufficiently economical in the near future without putting a few taxes on oil/co2 etc.

 

[msommer]

I am not a denier that the Earth warms and cools at different intervals. I am a denier that it is "man made". It is arrogant to think this sort of thing only started occurring when man began to populate the planet.

There's no arrogance in saying that man is capable of changing nature. The phenomenon being discussed is whether or not significant increases in atmospheric CO2 alter the climate. It just so happens that the CO2 happens to be manmade - but the phenomenon would be the same regardless of its source.

I've read (and have no idea if this is true) that historically there is some evidence that CO2 rises as a RESULT of higher temperatures.

For 4 billion years, increases in CO2 generally followed the rise in temperature by about 600 years.

I knew it! Yet another dreadful consequence of the Hundred Year's War (1337-1453). And it's another 40 years before we can expect any relief.

Are you saying Joan of Arc being burnt alive is to blame for global warming? Powerful stuff.

 

[Arsenal of Doom]

I am not a denier that the Earth warms and cools at different intervals. I am a denier that it is "man made". It is arrogant to think this sort of thing only started occurring when man began to populate the planet.

There's no arrogance in saying that man is capable of changing nature. The phenomenon being discussed is whether or not significant increases in atmospheric CO2 alter the climate. It just so happens that the CO2 happens to be manmade - but the phenomenon would be the same regardless of its source.

I've read (and have no idea if this is true) that historically there is some evidence that CO2 rises as a RESULT of higher temperatures.

For 4 billion years, increases in CO2 generally followed the rise in temperature by about 600 years.

This is because until man started pumping CO2 into the atmosphere, the amount present was mostly regulated by the amount of ice and permafrost present on the planet. When the planet began to warm from cold periods, CO2 trapped in ice was released gradually. As the CO2 levels raised, more heat was trapped, melting more ice and releasing more CO2. During cooling periods, the reverse would happen.

The issue now is that we have a continuous source of CO2 being pushed into our atmosphere that wasn't part of the 4 billion years that preceded us. I agree that this is a complex system, and one in which there is a large amount of natural variance. We have a variable source of energy, the Sun, and we have a large number of systems that distribute and regulate heat within our atmosphere. Most of these are outside our ability to control. Our decision to continue pushing a gas that we know, all things being equal, will increase the amount of heat being held in atmosphere is a choice and something we can control.

I actually think there are valid economic arguments about why we shouldn't go crazy trying to restrict CO2, but I also think the evidence is extremely strong that we are currently affecting the environment and will continue too. I just don't think we know what the long-term consequences will be, and that the range is anywhere between not that much and fairly calamitous.

 

[DiStefano]

I am not a denier that the Earth warms and cools at different intervals. I am a denier that it is "man made". It is arrogant to think this sort of thing only started occurring when man began to populate the planet.

There's no arrogance in saying that man is capable of changing nature. The phenomenon being discussed is whether or not significant increases in atmospheric CO2 alter the climate. It just so happens that the CO2 happens to be manmade - but the phenomenon would be the same regardless of its source.

I've read (and have no idea if this is true) that historically there is some evidence that CO2 rises as a RESULT of higher temperatures.

For 4 billion years, increases in CO2 generally followed the rise in temperature by about 600 years.

I knew it! Yet another dreadful consequence of the Hundred Year's War (1337-1453). And it's another 40 years before we can expect any relief.

Are you saying Joan of Arc being burnt alive is to blame for global warming? Powerful stuff.

Yes. It was not energy efficient. They could have easily found out she wasn't a witch by using the water test. Since the Maid of Orleans was innocent, she would have sunk to the bottom, thus making it unnecessary to burn her.Those stupid Brits were not conscious of their carbon footprint.

 

[Chaos Commish]

I am not a denier that the Earth warms and cools at different intervals. I am a denier that it is "man made". It is arrogant to think this sort of thing only started occurring when man began to populate the planet.

There's no arrogance in saying that man is capable of changing nature. The phenomenon being discussed is whether or not significant increases in atmospheric CO2 alter the climate. It just so happens that the CO2 happens to be manmade - but the phenomenon would be the same regardless of its source.

I've read (and have no idea if this is true) that historically there is some evidence that CO2 rises as a RESULT of higher temperatures.

For 4 billion years, increases in CO2 generally followed the rise in temperature by about 600 years.

I think that historical core data is open to a variety of debate. In present day temp/co2 studies, they still found a lag but only 9 months. It's still pretty curious.

edit for

Link to the curious findings

highlights

► Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging 11–12 months behind changes in global sea surface temperature. ► Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging 9.5–10 months behind changes in global air surface temperature. ► Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging about 9 months behind changes in global lower troposphere temperature. ► Changes in ocean temperatures explain a substantial part of the observed changes in atmospheric CO2 since January 1980. ► Changes in atmospheric CO2 are not tracking changes in human emissions.

I think that last bullet point is a product of human emissions being less that 3.5% of Earth's total.

 

[3C's]

http://www.nature.com/news/climate-change-the-case-of-the-missing-heat-1.14525

 

[timschochet]

http://www.nature.com/news/climate-change-the-case-of-the-missing-heat-1.14525

Very interesting article. Thanks for posting it.

 

[DrJ]

http://www.nature.com/news/climate-change-the-case-of-the-missing-heat-1.14525

Very interesting article. Thanks for posting it.

So we can blame the hottest years on record on the ocean, not man.

 

[DiStefano]

http://www.nature.com/news/climate-change-the-case-of-the-missing-heat-1.14525

Very interesting article. Thanks for posting it.

So we can blame the hottest years on record on the ocean, not man.

No, I think that's an oversimplification. Increasing CO2 levels trap heat; what is not known very well is what countervailing things occur which tend to lose heat. We don't know enough about the earth's system to know whether increasing CO2 levels were responsible or if it was part of of a natural cycle. Even in the article just cited, phrases such as "latest suspect", "studies suggest", "only recently begun to understand", "opens the door to the possibility", are indicative that we don't know a heck of a lot about an extremely complex ecosystem.

 

[aesclepius]

Nice to see that those scientists seemed to be searching for knowledge rather than pushing an agenda. And had some humility about it by using the terms referred to in the previous post.

 

[timschochet]

Nice to see that those scientists seemed to be searching for knowledge rather than pushing an agenda. And had some humility about it by using the terms referred to in the previous post.

The only agenda that responsible scientists push for is the truth. Of those very few scientists who claim skepticism about global warming, the vast majority are in the pay of oil companies. Those are the ones whose integrity has to come into question.

 

[StrikeS2k]

Nice to see that those scientists seemed to be searching for knowledge rather than pushing an agenda. And had some humility about it by using the terms referred to in the previous post.

The only agenda that responsible scientists push for is the truth. Of those very few scientists who claim skepticism about global warming, the vast majority are in the pay of oil companies. Those are the ones whose integrity has to come into question.

Oh look. Tim being a condescending doosh again. What a surprise!!

 

[timschochet]

Nice to see that those scientists seemed to be searching for knowledge rather than pushing an agenda. And had some humility about it by using the terms referred to in the previous post.

The only agenda that responsible scientists push for is the truth. Of those very few scientists who claim skepticism about global warming, the vast majority are in the pay of oil companies. Those are the ones whose integrity has to come into question.

Oh look. Tim being a condescending doosh again. What a surprise!!

Who am I being condescending to?

 

[MaxThreshold]

Nice to see that those scientists seemed to be searching for knowledge rather than pushing an agenda. And had some humility about it by using the terms referred to in the previous post.

The only agenda that responsible scientists push for is the truth. Of those very few scientists who claim skepticism about global warming, the vast majority are in the pay of oil companies. Those are the ones whose integrity has to come into question.

You're right. There is no reason to suspect the scientists who's entire job is based upon how big a grant they can get from the government.

Besides, how is being in "the pay of oil companies" any different than being in "the pay of big government"? That doesn't make sense. Both have an agenda.

 

[DiStefano]

Nice to see that those scientists seemed to be searching for knowledge rather than pushing an agenda. And had some humility about it by using the terms referred to in the previous post.

The only agenda that responsible scientists push for is the truth. Of those very few scientists who claim skepticism about global warming, the vast majority are in the pay of oil companies. Those are the ones whose integrity has to come into question.

You're right. There is no reason to suspect the scientists who's entire job is based upon how big a grant they can get from the government.

Besides, how is being in "the pay of oil companies" any different than being "in the pay of big government"? That doesn't make sense. Both have an agenda.

Actually, Tim being the "scientist" that he is, has a list of scientists who are in the pay of the oil companies; their names, the oil company paying them, the amount paid by the oil company, and their social security numbers. You wouldn't catch Tim making baseless accusations, would you?

 

[jon_mx]

Nice to see that those scientists seemed to be searching for knowledge rather than pushing an agenda. And had some humility about it by using the terms referred to in the previous post.

The only agenda that responsible scientists push for is the truth. Of those very few scientists who claim skepticism about global warming, the vast majority are in the pay of oil companies. Those are the ones whose integrity has to come into question.

You're right. There is no reason to suspect the scientists who's entire job is based upon how big a grant they can get from the government.

Besides, how is being in "the pay of oil companies" any different than being in "the pay of big government"? That doesn't make sense. Both have an agenda.

The big money from government and fear-mongering is where the bias is. Tim wants people to believe that the 99.99 percent of finding is not influencing the debate, it is the .01 percent. ####### brilliant logic.

 

[Sand]

http://www.nature.com/news/climate-change-the-case-of-the-missing-heat-1.14525

Very interesting article. Thanks for posting it.

Climate change: The case of the missing heat

Sixteen years into the mysterious ‘global-warming hiatus’, scientists are piecing together an explanation.

Awesome. Oh, wait, I thought we knew all this stuff already? You mean the science isn't settled? We're just now learning about huge new mechanisms of how the earth warms and cools?

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

It's interesting, but this is Tucker Carlsen's website and it's eager to attack global warming whenever it can.

For what it's worth, I knew Tucker pretty well when we were about seven, and I never got the sense that he had any kind of global warming-related agenda going on.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

I've read (and have no idea if this is true) that historically there is some evidence that CO2 rises as a RESULT of higher temperatures.

For 4 billion years, increases in CO2 generally followed the rise in temperature by about 600 years.

This is because until man started pumping CO2 into the atmosphere, the amount present was mostly regulated by the amount of ice and permafrost present on the planet. When the planet began to warm from cold periods, CO2 trapped in ice was released gradually. As the CO2 levels raised, more heat was trapped, melting more ice and releasing more CO2. During cooling periods, the reverse would happen.

The issue now is that we have a continuous source of CO2 being pushed into our atmosphere that wasn't part of the 4 billion years that preceded us. I agree that this is a complex system, and one in which there is a large amount of natural variance. We have a variable source of energy, the Sun, and we have a large number of systems that distribute and regulate heat within our atmosphere. Most of these are outside our ability to control. Our decision to continue pushing a gas that we know, all things being equal, will increase the amount of heat being held in atmosphere is a choice and something we can control.

I actually think there are valid economic arguments about why we shouldn't go crazy trying to restrict CO2, but I also think the evidence is extremely strong that we are currently affecting the environment and will continue too. I just don't think we know what the long-term consequences will be, and that the range is anywhere between not that much and fairly calamitous.

Good posting.

 

[dickey moe]

I've read (and have no idea if this is true) that historically there is some evidence that CO2 rises as a RESULT of higher temperatures.

For 4 billion years, increases in CO2 generally followed the rise in temperature by about 600 years.

This is because until man started pumping CO2 into the atmosphere, the amount present was mostly regulated by the amount of ice and permafrost present on the planet. When the planet began to warm from cold periods, CO2 trapped in ice was released gradually. As the CO2 levels raised, more heat was trapped, melting more ice and releasing more CO2. During cooling periods, the reverse would happen.

The issue now is that we have a continuous source of CO2 being pushed into our atmosphere that wasn't part of the 4 billion years that preceded us. I agree that this is a complex system, and one in which there is a large amount of natural variance. We have a variable source of energy, the Sun, and we have a large number of systems that distribute and regulate heat within our atmosphere. Most of these are outside our ability to control. Our decision to continue pushing a gas that we know, all things being equal, will increase the amount of heat being held in atmosphere is a choice and something we can control.

I actually think there are valid economic arguments about why we shouldn't go crazy trying to restrict CO2, but I also think the evidence is extremely strong that we are currently affecting the environment and will continue too. I just don't think we know what the long-term consequences will be, and that the range is anywhere between not that much and fairly calamitous.

Good posting.

I am not a denier that the Earth warms and cools at different intervals. I am a denier that it is "man made". It is arrogant to think this sort of thing only started occurring when man began to populate the planet.

There's no arrogance in saying that man is capable of changing nature. The phenomenon being discussed is whether or not significant increases in atmospheric CO2 alter the climate. It just so happens that the CO2 happens to be manmade - but the phenomenon would be the same regardless of its source.

I've read (and have no idea if this is true) that historically there is some evidence that CO2 rises as a RESULT of higher temperatures.

For 4 billion years, increases in CO2 generally followed the rise in temperature by about 600 years.

This is because until man started pumping CO2 into the atmosphere, the amount present was mostly regulated by the amount of ice and permafrost present on the planet. When the planet began to warm from cold periods, CO2 trapped in ice was released gradually. As the CO2 levels raised, more heat was trapped, melting more ice and releasing more CO2. During cooling periods, the reverse would happen.

The issue now is that we have a continuous source of CO2 being pushed into our atmosphere that wasn't part of the 4 billion years that preceded us. I agree that this is a complex system, and one in which there is a large amount of natural variance. We have a variable source of energy, the Sun, and we have a large number of systems that distribute and regulate heat within our atmosphere. Most of these are outside our ability to control. Our decision to continue pushing a gas that we know, all things being equal, will increase the amount of heat being held in atmosphere is a choice and something we can control.

I actually think there are valid economic arguments about why we shouldn't go crazy trying to restrict CO2, but I also think the evidence is extremely strong that we are currently affecting the environment and will continue too. I just don't think we know what the long-term consequences will be, and that the range is anywhere between not that much and fairly calamitous.

Precisely why we shouldn't try to do anything about it (not that we can do anything that really matters, anyways).

 

[3C's]

Nice to see that those scientists seemed to be searching for knowledge rather than pushing an agenda. And had some humility about it by using the terms referred to in the previous post.

The only agenda that responsible scientists push for is the truth. Of those very few scientists who claim skepticism about global warming, the vast majority are in the pay of oil companies. Those are the ones whose integrity has to come into question.

You're right. There is no reason to suspect the scientists who's entire job is based upon how big a grant they can get from the government.

Besides, how is being in "the pay of oil companies" any different than being in "the pay of big government"? That doesn't make sense. Both have an agenda.

http://arstechnica.com/science/2012/05/accusations-that-climate-science-is-money-driven-reveal-ignorance-of-how-science-is-done/

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/01/reflections-on-funding-panels/

http://profmandia.wordpress.com/2010/03/11/taking-the-money-for-granted-%E2%80%93-part-i/

 

[Rove!]

All this talk about polar vortexes being caused by AGW are doing the pro-AGW crowd a disservice

http://cliffmass.blogspot.com/2014/01/does-cold-wave-imply-anything-about.html

The bottom line: the claims that greenhouse warming causes more cold waves like we have seen this week really seems to be without any basis in observational evidence or in theory. The media needs to stop pushing this unsupported argument.

 

[3C's]

who's claiming that? certainly not climate scientists or meteorologists.

 

[Lutherman2112]

who's claiming that? certainly not climate scientists or meteorologists.

The blog writer mentioned two articles, but not linked.

One is here: The Cost of Climate Change (5:00+ audio)

The other is here: Polar Vortex in U.S. May be Example of Global Warming

 

[jonessed]

http://www.nature.com/news/climate-change-the-case-of-the-missing-heat-1.14525

Very interesting article. Thanks for posting it.

Climate change: The case of the missing heat

Sixteen years into the mysterious global-warming hiatus, scientists are piecing together an explanation.

Awesome. Oh, wait, I thought we knew all this stuff already? You mean the science isn't settled? We're just now learning about huge new mechanisms of how the earth warms and cools?

[Tim]

The settled science is changing to different settled science, but all of the reputable scientists agree that it's still settled. That's how the scientific model works.

[/Tim]

 

[3C's]

who's claiming that? certainly not climate scientists or meteorologists.

The blog writer mentioned two articles, but not linked.

One is here: The Cost of Climate Change (5:00+ audio)

The other is here: Polar Vortex in U.S. May be Example of Global Warming

One is a professor of economics and the other is a writer (used to be with WaPo among others). Take their thoughts with a grain of salt would be where I'm at. I'm sure there's some that think it's a sign of GW but no single event can point to it. Maybe collectively events could, esp if there was an increasing occurrence but not one single event.

Here's a weather nerds take on PV. https://scontent-a-iad.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/t1/q71/s720x720/1526303_711994818819855_1816586303_n.jpg

 

[zoonation]

Nice to see that those scientists seemed to be searching for knowledge rather than pushing an agenda. And had some humility about it by using the terms referred to in the previous post.

The only agenda that responsible scientists push for is the truth. Of those very few scientists who claim skepticism about global warming, the vast majority are in the pay of oil companies. Those are the ones whose integrity has to come into question.

You're right. There is no reason to suspect the scientists who's entire job is based upon how big a grant they can get from the government.

Besides, how is being in "the pay of oil companies" any different than being in "the pay of big government"? That doesn't make sense. Both have an agenda.

The big money from government and fear-mongering is where the bias is. Tim wants people to believe that the 99.99 percent of finding is not influencing the debate, it is the .01 percent. ####### brilliant logic.

The debate is political.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

If we 100% stopped all carbon emissions, in what year do we expect global warming would stop?

 

[Mario Kart]

If we 100% stopped all carbon emissions, in what year do we expect global warming would stop?

Write this up for a grant proposal. You could make boatloads.

 

[Alex P Keaton]

Nice to see that those scientists seemed to be searching for knowledge rather than pushing an agenda. And had some humility about it by using the terms referred to in the previous post.

The only agenda that responsible scientists push for is the truth. Of those very few scientists who claim skepticism about global warming, the vast majority are in the pay of oil companies. Those are the ones whose integrity has to come into question.

You're right. There is no reason to suspect the scientists who's entire job is based upon how big a grant they can get from the government.

Besides, how is being in "the pay of oil companies" any different than being in "the pay of big government"? That doesn't make sense. Both have an agenda.

The big money from government and fear-mongering is where the bias is. Tim wants people to believe that the 99.99 percent of finding is not influencing the debate, it is the .01 percent. ####### brilliant logic.

Thank god no fear mongering is generated by intellectually inferior people on the interweb.

 

[jon_mx]

Nice to see that those scientists seemed to be searching for knowledge rather than pushing an agenda. And had some humility about it by using the terms referred to in the previous post.

The only agenda that responsible scientists push for is the truth. Of those very few scientists who claim skepticism about global warming, the vast majority are in the pay of oil companies. Those are the ones whose integrity has to come into question.

You're right. There is no reason to suspect the scientists who's entire job is based upon how big a grant they can get from the government.

Besides, how is being in "the pay of oil companies" any different than being in "the pay of big government"? That doesn't make sense. Both have an agenda.

The big money from government and fear-mongering is where the bias is. Tim wants people to believe that the 99.99 percent of finding is not influencing the debate, it is the .01 percent. ####### brilliant logic.

The debate is political.

The skepticism is science. It is those saying the science is settled who are purely political and have no idea how science works. The scientist who wrote this piece was actually quite upset by the title many newspaper editors put on this story.

 

[matuski]

Nice to see that those scientists seemed to be searching for knowledge rather than pushing an agenda. And had some humility about it by using the terms referred to in the previous post.

The only agenda that responsible scientists push for is the truth. Of those very few scientists who claim skepticism about global warming, the vast majority are in the pay of oil companies. Those are the ones whose integrity has to come into question.

You're right. There is no reason to suspect the scientists who's entire job is based upon how big a grant they can get from the government.

Besides, how is being in "the pay of oil companies" any different than being in "the pay of big government"? That doesn't make sense. Both have an agenda.

The big money from government and fear-mongering is where the bias is. Tim wants people to believe that the 99.99 percent of finding is not influencing the debate, it is the .01 percent. ####### brilliant logic.

The debate is political.

The skepticism is science. It is those saying the science is settled who are purely political and have no idea how science works. The scientist who wrote this piece was actually quite upset by the title many newspaper editors put on this story.

I am not on a side, I lean towards maybe.

Having said that, nobody here has any doubt at all your motivation here is purely political jon. Outside of some concocted political debate, I don't see any reason to care as much as you do. You can't help yourself in these threads.

If the science is wrong, it is merely a matter of time before science corrects it.

 

[Homer J Simpson]

2013 ranks among warmest years on record.