"Expert" Calls for GW Skeptics to be Punished.

[SDW2001]

http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming011807.htm

This article discusses the recent call to decertify TV Weatherpersons who are skeptical about global warming.

The Weather Channel's (TWC) Heidi Cullen, who hosts the weekly global warming program "The Climate Code," is advocating that the American Meteorological Society (AMS) revoke their "Seal of Approval" for any television weatherman who expresses skepticism that human activity is creating a climate catastrophe.

"If a meteorologist can't speak to the fundamental science of climate change, then maybe the AMS shouldn't give them a Seal of Approval. Clearly, the AMS doesn't agree that global warming can be blamed on cyclical weather patterns," Cullen wrote in her December 21 weblog on the Weather Channel Website.

Ms. Cullen then followed up with this in her blog:

I've read all your comments saying I want to silence meteorologists who are skeptical of the science of global warming. That is not true. The point of my post was never to stifle discussion. It was to raise it to a level that doesn't confuse science and politics. Freedom of scientific expression is essential.

Sorry hon, you can't have it both ways. You called for decertification, which certainly amounts to punishment.

Global Warming may very well be real. It may also not be real. It is an unproven phenomena. That doesn't mean we should ignore it...quite the opposite. We should study it carefully and begin breaking our fossil fuel addiction now, both for reasons of the environment and national security.

However, what we have here is more Liberal Fascism, some of which I have referenced before. It's a clear example of a real threat to freedom of speech, not from the right, but from the left.

Imagine if you will that the NEA calls for the decertification of teachers who do not believe, for example, that spending more money on education raises student achievement. Or, imagine the ABA disbarring any attorney who supports a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.

Whether or not you feel global warming is a serious concern, please post your thoughts on Ms. Cullen's call, and on her backpedaling (IMHO) follow-up.

[spindler]

Global warming is real. Anyone who casually dismisses it should have to take science examinations before they can buy medicine since they casually dismiss what scientists say when it goes against them but will happily take the benefits of science.

But I do have to agree about the freedom of opinion issue. You just can't outlaw opinions no matter how "obvious" it is that they are stupid. Because what happens when one of those "obvious" opinions everyone believes turns out to be wrong? Then no one can argue against that "obvious" opinion without punishment and fight on level ground.

[JupiterOne]

However, what we have here is more Liberal Fascism, some of which I have referenced before. It's a clear example of a real threat to freedom of speech, not from the right, but from the left.

I think you are giving her much too much credit.

[BRussell]

I personally don't think there shouldn't be any "belief" tests for membership in an organization - but let's face it, organizations can have whatever tests they want, and it's not a threat to free speech.

Let me give an analogy from my field: There's a famous case (Barefoot v. Estelle) of a psychiatrist who testified in court that a defendant was going to be violent in the future, and the defendant got the death penalty. But the research on prediction of violence is very clear: Psychologists cannot accurately predict future violence, it's just too hard to predict. So he was kicked out of the APA.

Was it fair to kick him out? I think so. It was considered an ethical/professional breach to testify in court to something so clearly wrong or unprovable.

So what about this case? Would it be unethical or unprofessional for a meteorologist to publicly proclaim something not supported by the evidence?

[SDW2001]

Global warming is real. Anyone who casually dismisses it should have to take science examinations before they can buy medicine since they casually dismiss what scientists say when it goes against them but will happily take the benefits of science.

But I do have to agree about the freedom of opinion issue. You just can't outlaw opinions no matter how "obvious" it is that they are stupid. Because what happens when one of those "obvious" opinions everyone believes turns out to be wrong? Then no one can argue against that "obvious" opinion without punishment and fight on level ground.


Global warming may be real. It is not proven conclusively. Remember, we're not talking about the general public here. We're talking about professional meterologists and even other scientists that disagree with other scientists. What she advocated was silencing those folks, many of whom are qualified professionals. And why? Because they disagree!

[SDW2001]

I personally don't think there shouldn't be any "belief" tests for membership in an organization - but let's face it, organizations can have whatever tests they want, and it's not a threat to free speech.

Let me give an analogy from my field: There's a famous case (Barefoot v. Estelle) of a psychiatrist who testified in court that a defendant was going to be violent in the future, and the defendant got the death penalty. But the research on prediction of violence is very clear: Psychologists cannot accurately predict future violence, it's just too hard to predict. So he was kicked out of the APA.

Was it fair to kick him out? I think so. It was considered an ethical/professional breach to testify in court to something so clearly wrong or unprovable.

So what about this case? Would it be unethical or unprofessional for a meteorologist to publicly proclaim something not supported by the evidence?


We're not exactly talking about someone who gets on TV and says "global warming is a crock of shit" or "anyone who believes in it is a moron." We're talking about someone who is skeptical, with reasons behind that skepticism.

[BRussell]

No, he never said anything at all about being skeptical. Here's the blog post in question (http://climate.weather.com/blog/9_11396.html): "If a meteorologist can't speak to the fundamental science of climate change, then maybe the AMS shouldn't give them a Seal of Approval. Clearly, the AMS doesn't agree that global warming can be blamed on cyclical weather patterns. It's like allowing a meteorologist to go on-air and say that hurricanes rotate clockwise and tsunamis are caused by the weather. It's not a political statement...it's just an incorrect statement."

And again, in every profession, there are standards. A lawyer can be disbarred for unethical/unprofessional conduct, and a physician's license can be revoked for the same reasons. If a meteorologist makes a scientifically unsupported claim, I'd say that's unprofessional conduct.

Furthermore, there's a context here. There is a disconnect between public media portrayals of climate change and the science behind it: There is a scientific consensus that the earth is warming and that this is caused by human activity. You, SDW, may not agree with that, but it's a fact that there is a clear consensus among scientists on it. And yet if you look at news coverage of the issue, it's divided. News people present it as if there was a scientific debate on those two points, as if it's a matter of debate and opinion, when that isn't the case.

Under those conditions, I think it is reasonable for a scientific organization to withdraw certification from a public meteorologist who makes a false claim. For example, claiming that there is no scientific consensus that global warming is occurring or that it is not caused by human activity would be a false claim.

[gregmightdothat]

However, what we have here is more Liberal Fascism, some of which I have referenced before. It's a clear example of a real threat to freedom of speech, not from the right, but from the left.

I think your insinuation that this is "liberal" fascism is misplaced. It's definitely fascist, and I think the concept is unconscionably absurd.

I don't know the political persuasion of the scientist that put this idea forth, but I'd think you'd be hard pressed to find a significant number of people—liberal or conservative—who'd agree with her.

Basically, what you're doing here is:

- finding a crazy person
- assuming they're liberal
- saying that all liberals are crazy, because this crazy person could possibly be liberal

[gregmightdothat]

There is a scientific consensus that the earth is warming and that this is caused by human activity.

Sort of. There is scientific consensus that the Earth is warming. There is consensus that this is influenced by human activity. But to what degree that is, is being debated, and most scientists are believing it to be minimal.

The UN itself just downgraded it's estimate of human impact in a report that will be released sometime soon this year.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/12/10/nclimate10.xml

[BRussell]

Sort of. There is scientific consensus that the Earth is warming. There is consensus that this is influenced by human activity. Right.

But still I think you're wrong in your previous post to claim this is an outrageous position or a "crazy person." It would be crazy to do what SDW suggested is being advocated - to sanction or decertify members of this organization for "expressing skepticism" about climate change. But that's clearly not what this person said. She said (to paraphrase) that if a member of this organization doesn't accurately portray the science that the organization exists to promote, that person shouldn't be certified by the organization. That, to me, seems eminently reasonable, and I honestly can't imagine why they wouldn't hold that position.

[jimmac]

Well SDW here's a little something for your pipe to smoke.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16708004/

;)

[midwinter]

I often spend a lot of time in my classes talking about how smoking doesn't cause cancer. It MAY cause cancer, but we're just not sure. So SMOKE UP! I tell my students!

[Aquatic]

[QUOTE=midwinter;1029591]Global warming may be real. It is not proven conclusively. Remember, we're not talking about the general public here. We're talking about professional meterologists and even other scientists that disagree with other scientists./QUOTE]

"Professional"? Err..yeah. Professional Exxon-Mobil employees maybe.

I think it's a great idea.

Why? Because anyone that doesn't "believe" in global warming is a selfish asshole. It's one of those things where you have to ACT on it even if there is a CHANCE (which kind of looks like a 99.999% chance we are causing it.) I mean, gee, should we let the world fall apart, or not? Seems like a no-brainer. Do you care about other people and the future, or not? I mean you have a right not to. You have a right to be an ass. And meteorologists have a right to say whatever. But as far as being certified in a professional scientific organization, you should meet minimum technical criteria. I would say as of now with our current understanding of global warming, to disagree would be to display a fundamental lack of knowledge about meteorology. Would you want a certified DOCTOR who was, say, a Scientologist? And attempted to treat you with whacko folks "alternative" bullshit therapies instead of tried-and-true drugs?

[jimmac]

As the late Carl Sagan used to point out. There are a couple of planets in our solar sytem that should have turned out very similar to earth except for some small differences. Mars ( smaller than earth ) needs something like global warming to beef up it's atmosphere and temperature ( but hints suggest it might have been closer to earth in the distant past ). Venus (about the same size as the earth but with no moon ) is natural global warming out of control.

With a very few changes it's easy to make a planet unsuitable for human life. Looking at these worlds is very convincing.

[MajorMatt]

It's interesting how scientists and non-scientists view global warming. I remember reading at this GOP slanted article at townhall.com (org?) and the author claimed global warming must be mute because of the cold winter in 2005!

We need to teach the population to look at trends and not make snap judgements based on such short events. While GW is not absolutely conclusive, I would tread with caution. If you're driving along and there are some symptoms of overheating, it is best to address them. Engines and planets are expensive to fix.

I truly dont understand how GW has turned into a left vs right debate. The left has no advantage in having global warming to be true. It would be easy and cheap if we could pollute in an infinite bio-sphere, but we have a finite world.

[SDW2001]

Right.

But still I think you're wrong in your previous post to claim this is an outrageous position or a "crazy person." It would be crazy to do what SDW suggested is being advocated - to sanction or decertify members of this organization for "expressing skepticism" about climate change. But that's clearly not what this person said. She said (to paraphrase) that if a member of this organization doesn't accurately portray the science that the organization exists to promote, that person shouldn't be certified by the organization. That, to me, seems eminently reasonable, and I honestly can't imagine why they wouldn't hold that position.

I think your mincing words here to a great extent. You're also taking her statement out of context. On its own, the statement would seem reaosnable. But when it's in context, it's clear she's talking about those who are skeptical of global warming....those who refuse to openly proclaim it's proven science.

[SDW2001]

majormatt:

The left has no advantage in having global warming to be true.

Disagree. The Environmental Lobby is big business. It's a power structure...GW crusaders, consultants, lobbyists et al. The Left also tend to oppose globalization and of course, US economic dominance in the world, both of which can be combatted by limiting economic development through stanglehold emissions/pollution policies.

[gregmightdothat]

The Left also tend to oppose globalization and of course, US economic dominance in the world, both of which can be combatted by limiting economic development through stanglehold emissions/pollution policies.

Again, going from my previous post, the left at large doesn't oppose either globalization or US economic dominance (although certainly some individuals left, right, or other do).

Your view of the left is entirely populated with strawmen.

[trumptman]

I personally don't think there shouldn't be any "belief" tests for membership in an organization - but let's face it, organizations can have whatever tests they want, and it's not a threat to free speech.

Let me give an analogy from my field: There's a famous case (Barefoot v. Estelle) of a psychiatrist who testified in court that a defendant was going to be violent in the future, and the defendant got the death penalty. But the research on prediction of violence is very clear: Psychologists cannot accurately predict future violence, it's just too hard to predict. So he was kicked out of the APA.

Was it fair to kick him out? I think so. It was considered an ethical/professional breach to testify in court to something so clearly wrong or unprovable.

So what about this case? Would it be unethical or unprofessional for a meteorologist to publicly proclaim something not supported by the evidence?

I think your example shows exactly why many think psychology is a pseudo-science.

As for whether a meteorologist is publicly proclaiming something not supported by the evidence, the best science relies more on refutation instead of mere confirmation. I would call the various global warming theories protoscience at best. To toss people out of an association and discourage discussion when theories are at the protoscience stage would absolutely be politicizing the science, which of course is what this woman, ironically enough, claims to be discouraging.

I suspect in the future that our human-centric and and earth-centric views will once again be exposed. Much like Aristotelian Astronomy, we will look back on this and wonder why were ever stupid enough to believe that we, the proverbial ants on a universal scale, were ever thought to be the prime anything with regard to global warming.

Nick

[midwinter]

Disagree. The Environmental Lobby is big business. It's a power structure...

Oh, it's HUGE. That's why the Democrats never trail the Republicans in fundraising during elections. Incredibly massive and powerful. I think, actually, that the Environmental Lobby may control the Priory of Scion.

The Left also tend to oppose globalization and of course, US economic dominance in the world

Well if that's true, they sure as hell suck at opposing it.

[trumptman]

Right.

But still I think you're wrong in your previous post to claim this is an outrageous position or a "crazy person." It would be crazy to do what SDW suggested is being advocated - to sanction or decertify members of this organization for "expressing skepticism" about climate change. But that's clearly not what this person said. She said (to paraphrase) that if a member of this organization doesn't accurately portray the science that the organization exists to promote, that person shouldn't be certified by the organization. That, to me, seems eminently reasonable, and I honestly can't imagine why they wouldn't hold that position.

Except you've let her fall into a logical fallacy and allowed her views to become the organizations views and also allowed her to completely redefine the mission of the organization.

The website of the AMS states the following.


About the AMS

The American Meteorological Society promotes the development and dissemination of information and education on the atmospheric and related oceanic and hydrologic sciences and the advancement of their professional applications.

Taking all that and boiling it down to "my one true vision of global warming" is what she has done.

This organization has criteria for certification. If it wanted, for example to say that you must have an exam where you fully explain and show understanding of the current theories of global warming, that is totally within their right. However to say you must swear some allegiance to them or be unwilling to question them is not acceptable. One is assessing expertise, the other is thought-control.

Nick

[SDW2001]

Again, going from my previous post, the left at large doesn't oppose either globalization or US economic dominance (although certainly some individuals left, right, or other do).

Your view of the left is entirely populated with strawmen.


You have to be kidding. There are people who make big money from being on the GW bandwagon. And, you don't feel the left opposes globalization and our economic position? That's surprising to read.

[SDW2001]

Oh, it's HUGE. That's why the Democrats never trail the Republicans in fundraising during elections. Incredibly massive and powerful. I think, actually, that the Environmental Lobby may control the Priory of Scion.



Well if that's true, they sure as hell suck at opposing it.

Actually, I'm not even talking about the major political parties.

[gregmightdothat]

You have to be kidding. There are people who make big money from being on the GW bandwagon. And, you don't feel the left opposes globalization and our economic position? That's surprising to read.
It's surprising because you live in SDW-bizarro world.

[midwinter]

Actually, I'm not even talking about the major political parties.

So let me get this straight: you're suggesting that there is some sort of ENORMOUS and POWERFUL fringe (secret?) cabal of environmentalists that raises money, but not enough to displace the GOP and apparently not enough to really affect the Dems, but it doesn't matter because they're not a part of the major political parties, and YET they're still very powerful and scary?

[BRussell]

I think your example shows exactly why many think psychology is a pseudo-science. You'll have to give me a little more to go on there.


Except you've let her fall into a logical fallacy and allowed her views to become the organizations views and also allowed her to completely redefine the mission of the organization. What? She's making a recommendation about what the policy of this organization should be for certifying meteorologists. I think she can do that, and I think others can discuss it. Right?

The purpose of the certification is to make sure "broadcast meteorologists" (i.e., weathermen) do a good job in conveying information to the public. If they judge that a meteorologist isn't doing that, I can't imagine why they wouldn't kick that person out.

SDW has claimed that she wants to "punish skeptics," but that is simply false. Given that accurately conveying their field is the whole point of this organization and this certification, they absolutely should kick people out if they don't accurately convey their field. That basic position shouldn't be controversial at all, and is probably true of any professional organization.

Certainly where it gets sticky is how it is implemented on a case-by-case basis. Is one stupid comment enough to get someone kicked out? No it shouldn't be. Is "expressing skepticism?" No it shouldn't be, and I repeat - [b]this woman never claimed it should[b], and it would be stupid to do so (which is why SDW framed it that way). But a consistent pattern of severely misrepresenting their field to the public? I'd think so. What's the purpose of the certification otherwise?

[SDW2001]

So let me get this straight: you're suggesting that there is some sort of ENORMOUS and POWERFUL fringe (secret?) cabal of environmentalists that raises money, but not enough to displace the GOP and apparently not enough to really affect the Dems, but it doesn't matter because they're not a part of the major political parties, and YET they're still very powerful and scary?

Dude...slow down and think about what you're arguing. You're saying there is no "big business" in the environmentalist movement. You're saying it doesn't provide certain folks with their livelihood?

[SDW2001]

You'll have to give me a little more to go on there.


What? She's making a recommendation about what the policy of this organization should be for certifying meteorologists. I think she can do that, and I think others can discuss it. Right?

The purpose of the certification is to make sure "broadcast meteorologists" (i.e., weathermen) do a good job in conveying information to the public. If they judge that a meteorologist isn't doing that, I can't imagine why they wouldn't kick that person out.

SDW has claimed that she wants to "punish skeptics," but that is simply false. Given that accurately conveying their field is the whole point of this organization and this certification, they absolutely should kick people out if they don't accurately convey their field. That basic position shouldn't be controversial at all, and is probably true of any professional organization.

Certainly where it gets sticky is how it is implemented on a case-by-case basis. Is one stupid comment enough to get someone kicked out? No it shouldn't be. Is "expressing skepticism?" No it shouldn't be, and I repeat - [b]this woman never claimed it should[b], and it would be stupid to do so (which is why SDW framed it that way). But a consistent pattern of severely misrepresenting their field to the public? I'd think so. What's the purpose of the certification otherwise?

In context it's clear that she did mean current AMS certified members should be punished for their views. That's where we disagree.

[midwinter]

Dude...slow down and think about what you're arguing. You're saying there is no "big business" in the environmentalist movement. You're saying it doesn't provide certain folks with their livelihood?

OMG, I totally didn't notice that in my characterization of your Crichtonian levels of paranoia I was actually arguing that the environmental movement doesn't employ anyone! Thanks for setting me straight, SDW!

[trumptman]

You'll have to give me a little more to go on there.

Perhaps for another thread. Needless to say, psychology and meteorology are not analogous in my view.

What? She's making a recommendation about what the policy of this organization should be for certifying meteorologists. I think she can do that, and I think others can discuss it. Right?

Except for the recommendations have nothing to do with displaying competency and instead have to do with some sort of loyalty oath.

The purpose of the certification is to make sure "broadcast meteorologists" (i.e., weathermen) do a good job in conveying information to the public. If they judge that a meteorologist isn't doing that, I can't imagine why they wouldn't kick that person out.

If it were just about that, then there would be no debate. You can't take a trait that is part of the scientific method and declare it to be political. This is why I noted that the best science deals with refutation. There has not been refutation of global climate change as a norm. There has not been refutation of global climate change being caused by changes in the output of the sun. There has not been refutation of carbon dioxide build up as being a by-product of warmer climates instead of merely being the cause. (How many cars have we driven on Venus?)

Other meteorologists noting that these have not occurred is not grounds for professional incompetence. Point blank you have scientists who have some confirmation of a result but they don't care to wait for the refutation of other causes. They want their theories moved along. They want the skeptics silenced.

SDW has claimed that she wants to "punish skeptics," but that is simply false. Given that accurately conveying their field is the whole point of this organization and this certification, they absolutely should kick people out if they don't accurately convey their field. That basic position shouldn't be controversial at all, and is probably true of any professional organization.

I've never encountered an organization where group-think was enforced in membership in this manner. This is akin to an association of cardiologists being forced to subscribe to the one "best" method of heart operation excluding all prior and future developments. This is akin to a state bar telling lawyers that they must support a certain law and never advocate or lobby for any change against it.

Certainly where it gets sticky is how it is implemented on a case-by-case basis. Is one stupid comment enough to get someone kicked out? No it shouldn't be. Is "expressing skepticism?" No it shouldn't be, and I repeat - [b]this woman never claimed it should[b], and it would be stupid to do so (which is why SDW framed it that way). But a consistent pattern of severely misrepresenting their field to the public? I'd think so. What's the purpose of the certification otherwise?

The purpose of the certification is to show competency, not control thought. It is entirely possible to be a competent meteorologist and still have and discuss disagreements on new developments within the field.

What if 30 years ago they had decided to declare incompetent and remove anyone who did not subscribe to the coming global cooling and new pollution induced ice age? Where would the current theories on global warming be coming from? What if they said that based on the then understood evidence, you couldn't possibly be a competent meteorologist if you don't come to the same group-think conclusion?

The thing that is so dangerous about this in a scientific field is that group consensus can often change radically with some new piece of information. Dinosaurs go from cold blooded lizards to ancestors of birds for example.

I'd say that working against previously established norms and group consensus is often a norm within science. The older models are often taught to provide historical background. However the breaks between the models are often sharp and quick when they occur.

Nick

[MajorMatt]

The powers at be dont want their pocket books shocked by new technologies taking away the oil stranglehold on us. Our friends at the white house are deeply entrenched in oil. Condi has an oil tanker named after her infact!

SDW2001, explain to me how the average scientist can benefit from global warming being true.

[SDW2001]

The powers at be dont want their pocket books shocked by new technologies taking away the oil stranglehold on us. Our friends at the white house are deeply entrenched in oil. Condi has an oil tanker named after her infact!

SDW2001, explain to me how the average scientist can benefit from global warming being true.


Certainly, though I'm talking about more than just scientists.

There is a scientific "consensus" that GW is real. Money is made in publishing (as in scientific publishing) as that is often a criteria for being employed ay major universities and elsewhere. Secondly, these scientists often are featured speakers and presenters, bringing them income and recongnition. Moreover, it's clear that scientists who do not embrace the GW movement are shunned...not just by people like Ms. Cullen...but by the community itself. Their financial and professional security is threatened by their view.

As I said though, we're not just talking about scientists. We're talking about lobbyists, lawyers, think tanks, even GW crusaders like Al Gore.
Their speeches and GW-related income provide them with private planes and fame and as you can see, even movie deals.

GW is definitely a man-made phenomenon. It's just that it may not have anything to do with, eh, Global Warming. :err:

[tonton]

Funny that SDW posts a thread with this title, when he's so many times called for GW Bush skeptics to be punished! LOL

[icfireball]

In scientific peer-reviewed journals, not even one scientist expressed the belief that global warming either didn't exist or was not caused by humans. In the popular media however, 50% had doubt as to whether it exists or not.

This is a large discrepancy and it exists in part from some stupid meteorologists who don't know anything about the environment, just what they are told about the weather, which isn't much to be sure, and then go spouting off bullshit because they are in a position of authority. And because they are in a position of authority, people believe them.

Also, the AMS believes that global warming exists and is human caused. No other organizations certify people that have different beliefs about such key issues to the existence of the organization.

[Flounder]

Certainly, though I'm talking about more than just scientists.

There is a scientific "consensus" that GW is real. Money is made in publishing (as in scientific publishing) as that is often a criteria for being employed ay major universities and elsewhere. Secondly, these scientists often are featured speakers and presenters, bringing them income and recongnition. Moreover, it's clear that scientists who do not embrace the GW movement are shunned...not just by people like Ms. Cullen...but by the community itself. Their financial and professional security is threatened by their view.

Scientists who want to make big money don't work in academia. Other than a very select few, the idea is an oxymoron.

[gregmightdothat]

In scientific peer-reviewed journals, not even one scientist expressed the belief that global warming either didn't exist or was not caused by humans. In the popular media however, 50% had doubt as to whether it exists or not.

That's not true.

The original "hockey puck" study that showed global temperatures sharply rising at the start of the industrial age was famously disputed by a number of scientists. Not only did it ignore historical temperature spikes (which were more serious than our current situation), but it turned out their statistical was flawed: ANY data put into it would result in a hockey puck.

Recently there's been lots of work on the effects of man on climate change. It seems while we're not helping things, we're only a fraction of what's really causing global warming.

Also, there's zero consensus on the effects of global warming. Some predict desertification, others predict rainforests taking over the world, others predict another ice age. Some predict that oceans are going to swallow the earth, others predict all ocean life going extinct. Obviously the vast majority of these scientists are full of shit.

But here's the real problem I have: global warming of course is real. It's likely that the effects are real, and could be harmful. But the general populus doesn't seem to understand that: global warming could be a problem without being our fault.

Global warming has become an ideology. If you dismiss any part of the theory, people become furious and start screaming. Or try to ban meteorologists.

On the research side of things, global warming has no longer become a topic of real science. It's so easy to make doomsday predictions (a la nuclear winters), and any serious research general gets dismissed as "blasphemy." This is quite a serious problem: science has developed religious tendencies, and right now we have a cult in charge.

[gregmightdothat]

There is a scientific "consensus" that GW is real. Money is made in publishing (as in scientific publishing) as that is often a criteria for being employed ay major universities and elsewhere. Secondly, these scientists often are featured speakers and presenters, bringing them income and recongnition.

This is possibly the single most ludicrous statement I've heard in a long time.

Most over the top conspiracy theories are WAY over the top insane, like 9-11 being faked, or HIV being created by pharmaceuticals, or us not landing on the moon.

But that global warming was specifically created so that scientists could earn their practically non-existant salaries?

You're a teacher. You know you get paid shit.

[BRussell]

That's not true.
icfireball is referring to this study (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686), and his portrayal of its findings are accurate: No peer-reviewed scientific papers came to a conclusion other than the scientific consensus: that global warming is occurring and that most of the recent warming is due to human activity.

[midwinter]

Whoa. The scientists made up GW so they could publish about it and get paid AND get tenure?

Holy shit. I want me some of that if only so that then, when I went home for Xmas and my family asked me what I'd published that year and I told them, I wouldn't have to hang my head in shame when they asked me how much I got paid for the articles.

[gregmightdothat]

icfireball is referring to this study (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686), and his portrayal of its findings are accurate: No peer-reviewed scientific papers came to a conclusion other than the scientific consensus: that global warming is occurring and that most of the recent warming is due to human activity.
The panel states,

Human activities ... are modifying the concentration of atmospheric constituents ... that absorb or scatter radiant energy. ... [M]ost of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations.

They didn't mention what percentage of greenhouse gases were man made (hint: it's 0.28%).

You (and that article) are mincing words and creating a non sequitur. There's a scientific consensus that greenhouse gases warm the Earth. There's a scientific consensus that we are adding greenhouse gases to the Earth. However, human contributions are so small that it's likely insignificant.

This doesn't mean that global warming isn't a problem, this just means that current efforts to stop it probably won't help, and we need to do something drastically different.

[BRussell]

greg, I believe you're the one who's mincing words here. The statement says that the warming in the past 50 years has been caused by increased greenhouse gases. There's no way that greenhouse gases have increased in the past 50 years in this fashion from any cause other than human activity. The report itself very clearly states that global warming is being caused by human activity. The following is the entire summary from the report itself (http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/GLOB_CHANGE/ipcc2001.html).

Summary
The latest 2001 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report reaffirms in much stronger language that the climate is changing in ways that cannot be accounted for by natural variability and that "global warming" is happening. Global mean temperatures have risen and the last decade is the warmest on record. The major cause of warming in the last three decades is from human effects changing the composition of the atmosphere primarily through use of fossil fuels. While changes in particulate pollution mostly causes cooling, increases in long-lived greenhouse gases dominate and cause warming. The long lifetime of several greenhouse gases (carbon dioxide lasts for over a century) suggests that we can not stop the changes, although we can slow them down. Moreover, the slow response of the oceans to warming, means that we have not yet seen all of the climate change we are already committed to. Major climate changes are projected under all likely scenarios of the future and the rates of change are much greater than occur naturally, and so are likely to be disruptive. It's crystal clear what they're saying, and the paper I cited (and I believe icfireball was referring to) says that all scientists publishing in this field appear to agree with this.

The point is that there really, really, genuinely, honest-to-goodness IS a bona fide scientific consensus that global warming is occurring and is being caused by human activity. Any controversy is generated by people who are not researchers in this field. It's really very similar to where we are with biological evolution. Scientists who study the field endorse it, those who criticize it are outside of the field itself.

[gregmightdothat]

greg, I believe you're the one who's mincing words here. The statement says that the warming in the past 50 years has been caused by increased greenhouse gases. There's no way that greenhouse gases have increased in the past 50 years in this fashion from any cause other than human activity.

From Wikipedia, "Some greenhouse gases occur naturally in the atmosphere, while others result from human activities. Naturally occurring greenhouse gases include water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and ozone. Certain human activities, however, add to the levels of most of these naturally occurring gases."

Furthermore, "Atmospheric carbon dioxide derives from multiple natural sources including volcanic outgassing, the combustion of organic matter, and the respiration processes of living aerobic organisms; man-made sources of carbon dioxide come mainly from the burning of various fossil fuels for heating, power generation and transport use. It is also produced by various microorganisms from fermentation and cellular respiration."

Just because you don't fully understand global warming, doesn't mean you're qualified to laugh off points.

According to the United States Department of Energy (http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/gg00rpt/tbl2.html), there's 7.1 billion metric tons of human made carbon dioxide.

Compare this to the 150 billion metric tons of natural carbon dioxide.

A better example is table 1 here: http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html (While I contest the general premise of the page, the numbers are accurate).

Man-made contributions are only 14.8% of total CO2 additions to the atmosphere. If we completely stopped all driving and manufacturing and lived as a hunter gatherer society, we STILL would barely put a dent in the rate that CO2 is increasing.

Blaming humans isn't helpful nor useful. At best, we can only cut down our emissions. Even if we could stop our emissions, that doesn't keep the world itself from building up carbon dioxide.


The report itself very clearly states that global warming is being caused by human activity. The following is the entire summary from the report itself (http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/GLOB_CHANGE/ipcc2001.html).


Exactly. It is. It's also being caused my NON-human activity. What part of this is difficult for you to understand? The report doesn't deny this. Only you seem to be.


It's crystal clear what they're saying, and the paper I cited (and I believe icfireball was referring to) says that all scientists publishing in this field appear to agree with this.

The paper you cited states nothing to that fact. The article you cited says that most scientists generally agree. I generally agree.

What you are trying to do is take an excellent claim, that humans affect global warming. This is true, and pretty much impossible to deny.

What you are then doing is saying that humans are SOLELY responsible for global warming. Hardly anyone is saying this, especially not any article you've cited. More importantly, since your article, more evidence has come out that the role of humans is smaller than previously believed.


The point is that there really, really, genuinely, honest-to-goodness IS a bona fide scientific consensus that global warming is occurring and is being caused by human activity. Any controversy is generated by people who are not researchers in this field. It's really very similar to where we are with biological evolution. Scientists who study the field endorse it, those who criticize it are outside of the field itself.

No, they're pretty different.

[AsLan^]

I"m not well versed in this issue by any means... but doesn't the destruction of forests play a big part in allowing carbon dioxide to build up in the atmosphere?

Or do the emissions statistics already take that into account when determining how much carbon we are putting into the atmosphere?

[BRussell]

greg, I have never denied that our atmosphere or climate change can be influenced by factors other than human activity. That's the definition of a straw man argument.

What I'm disagreeing with is your statement that "It's not true" in response to icfireball's statement that "In scientific peer-reviewed journals, not even one scientist expressed the belief that global warming either didn't exist or was not caused by humans." That was actually a true statement, and I linked to the study to which it was referring. Take it up with Science magazine, probably the most well-respected scientific journal in the world, if you don't like it.

The fact is, according to that paper and many sources, there is a rock-hard scientific consensus that global warming is being caused by human activity. Apparently you have a different view. Great! Get your views published and maybe you'll change that scientific consensus.

[SDW2001]

Funny that SDW posts a thread with this title, when he's so many times called for GW Bush skeptics to be punished! LOL

Really. Show me.

[SDW2001]

In scientific peer-reviewed journals, not even one scientist expressed the belief that global warming either didn't exist or was not caused by humans. In the popular media however, 50% had doubt as to whether it exists or not.

This is a large discrepancy and it exists in part from some stupid meteorologists who don't know anything about the environment, just what they are told about the weather, which isn't much to be sure, and then go spouting off bullshit because they are in a position of authority. And because they are in a position of authority, people believe them.

Also, the AMS believes that global warming exists and is human caused. No other organizations certify people that have different beliefs about such key issues to the existence of the organization.

Now you're just making crap up.

[icfireball]

Now you're just making crap up.

It was the statistic given in An Inconvenient Truth. I think it's probably pretty accurate.

[BRussell]

Check this out. (http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/299253_inconvenient11.html) A creationist didn't want "An Inconvenient Truth" shown in class because "The Bible says that in the end times everything will burn up, but that perspective isn't in the DVD." So the school board banned it, and now says it can only be shown if they also present an opposing view. Great huh? It doesn't matter if the opposing view is non-factual, we have to be fair and balanced! Earth is flat? Where's the opposing view!

[gregmightdothat]

I"m not well versed in this issue by any means... but doesn't the destruction of forests play a big part in allowing carbon dioxide to build up in the atmosphere?


Yes, it does.


Or do the emissions statistics already take that into account when determining how much carbon we are putting into the atmosphere?

I'm not sure on that factor. The DOE's report is about 100 of the dry-est, most painful pages of writing you've ever seen. I wasn't about to trudge through it to check that ;)

However, forest and algae farming are likely going to be key methods to reducing carbon dioxide.

[gregmightdothat]

greg, I have never denied that our atmosphere or climate change can be influenced by factors other than human activity. That's the definition of a straw man argument.


Except for when you said, " There's no way that greenhouse gases have increased in the past 50 years in this fashion from any cause other than human activity. "

That's the definition of lying through your teeth.


What I'm disagreeing with is your statement that "It's not true" in response to icfireball's statement that "In scientific peer-reviewed journals, not even one scientist expressed the belief that global warming either didn't exist or was not caused by humans." That was actually a true statement, and I linked to the study to which it was referring. Take it up with Science magazine, probably the most well-respected scientific journal in the world, if you don't like it.

No, it's not a true statement. As I stated earlier, global warming is caused by multiple factors. The Science article states that human interference is a factor, but not the only one. This is contrary to ic's, and your, statements, which claim that human interference is the sole factor.


The fact is, according to that paper and many sources, there is a rock-hard scientific consensus that global warming is being caused by human activity. Apparently you have a different view. Great! Get your views published and maybe you'll change that scientific consensus.

No, once again, not a true statement. There's rock-hard scientific consensus that global warming is influenced, but not entirely caused, by humans. More and more research, as I posted earlier, is pointing out that human effects are much less important than previously thought.

I don't need to get my views published, scientists are already doing a great job of that.

[icfireball]

Now you're just making crap up.

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686

The panel states,



They didn't mention what percentage of greenhouse gases were man made (hint: it's 0.28%).

You (and that article) are mincing words and creating a non sequitur. There's a scientific consensus that greenhouse gases warm the Earth. There's a scientific consensus that we are adding greenhouse gases to the Earth. However, human contributions are so small that it's likely insignificant.

This doesn't mean that global warming isn't a problem, this just means that current efforts to stop it probably won't help, and we need to do something drastically different.

1) Where the hell did you get that statistic?? That's complete bullshit. Why is the amount of carbon in our atmosphere THREE times greater than within the normal range FOR THE PAST 65 MILLION YEARS?
2) Many things in the Universe are so finitely precise that our own measuring tools cannot EVER measure the precision of accuracy, and even the slightest change, undetectable to our means of measuring could have astronomical effects (literally and metaphorically) -- that is to say for example, if the properties of gravity were to be ever so slightly different, the earth would not exist.

[gregmightdothat]

1) Where the hell did you get that statistic?? That's complete bullshit.


http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html

When you total up all the greenhouse gases, accounting for their relative effects on global warming, and figure out what percentages of those we're contributed by man, it's vanishingly small.

We're responsible for 3.22% of the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

However, carbon dioxide itself is only about 3.62% of the total global warming effect. Water vapor, Greenhouse Gas Numero Uno, accounts for the vast majority of warming, and is entirely unaffected by humans.

When you add up small percentages of even smaller percentages, you get really tiny percentages. Like humans being responsible for .28% of greenhouse gases.

It's important to note, though, that that page is being slightly deceptive. While only .28% of greenhouses gases are human made, without any GHG's, our climate would be closer to that of Mars: winters would be -140 degrees Celsius (-220 Fahrenheit).

More important is the statistic in table 1, which comes from the US Department of Energy. Human CO2 emissions are STILL only responsible for 14.78% of total atmospheric CO2 additions.

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration presents a different statistic: "Human activities are now adding about 7 billion metric tons of carbon into the atmosphere every year, which is only about 3–4% of the amount exchanged naturally."


Why is the amount of carbon in our atmosphere THREE times greater than within the normal range FOR THE PAST 65 MILLION YEARS?


The amount of CO2 is only two times greater than the normal range for an ice age. (As an aside, CO2 samplings only go back about 800,000 years).

It is, however, 27.9% higher than it was prior to the industrial revolution, which is of note.

Why is this? We're not really sure. We know it's not entirely from human causes, so most research nowadays is more concerned with how exactly this is going to affect us. When that gets further solidified (rather than the gazillion conflicting doomsday reports we have now), we'll look into the best ways to help reduce it.


2) Many things in the Universe are so finitely precise that our own measuring tools cannot EVER measure the precision of accuracy, and even the slightest change, undetectable to our means of measuring could have astronomical effects (literally and metaphorically) -- that is to say for example, if the properties of gravity were to be ever so slightly different, the earth would not exist.

I believe you're referring to the Butterfly effect (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Butterfly_effect). Interestingly, this phenomena is the single reason why we're having so many difficulties figuring out if how serious a problem global warming will be and what exactly the effects will be.

I'm not sure, at all, why you're pointing it out, though.

[tonton]

Really. Show me.

Oh, come on. How many times have you screamed "Treason! Treason!". You called anyone questioning the President (being skeptical of him) or his plan during a "time of war" a terrorist supporter who should be tried for treason (in other words, punished). Do you deny that?

Here's one... from the moths of babes...

"Well, I was of course not serious when I talked about treason as a legal definiton. But beyond that, I disagree. While you may have a legal right to say anything you want, that doesn't mean you should."

So even if (in this thread) you're not calling for people who criticize the president to be hanged, you're certainly saying that you don't think they should have the moral right (or responsibility, as I and the country's founders assert) to do it.

[BRussell]

Except for when you said, " There's no way that greenhouse gases have increased in the past 50 years in this fashion from any cause other than human activity. "

That's the definition of lying through your teeth. That is an absolutely true statement, according to the IPCC paper we're talking about, and I linked above: "The major cause of warming in the last three decades is from human effects changing the composition of the atmosphere primarily through use of fossil fuels."

And from the Science article we've been talking about: "Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise." and "The IPCC's conclusion that most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations accurately reflects the current thinking of the scientific community on this issue." And that's the paper that found that not a single published article disagreed with that conclusion.

I don't really see what's ambiguous about that. Human effects -> changing atmosphere -> recent global warming. That's not my statement, that's the statement of the papers in question, which restate the scientific consensus.

Now, that is not at all inconsistent with the idea that the climate has changed throughout history without any human intervention. Our climate changed to and from ice ages many times before humans even existed! But recent global warming is being caused by human activity, according to the scientists who study this. Sole cause? That's absurd. Nothing has a sole cause. But the kind of rise we've seen recently would not have happened without human activity.

No, it's not a true statement. As I stated earlier, global warming is caused by multiple factors. The Science article states that human interference is a factor, but not the only one. This is contrary to ic's, and your, statements, which claim that human interference is the sole factor.No, once again, not a true statement. There's rock-hard scientific consensus that global warming is influenced, but not entirely caused, by humans. More and more research, as I posted earlier, is pointing out that human effects are much less important than previously thought. Again, I have never claimed that human activity is the sole factor underlying climate change in general. I will say, as I've said before, that "There's no way that greenhouse gases have increased in the past 50 years in this fashion from any cause other than human activity." The level of increase in greenhouse gases could not have occurred without human activity. That has been stated in these consensus reports repeatedly, on Bush's EPA website, in the Science review paper, and everywhere else.

If you personally disagree because you found some stuff on the internet, that's a very different issue. We're talking about what the current scientific consensus is. You might turn out to be right, and I completely acknowledge that. But the current consensus - a unanimous consensus according to the journal Science - is stated accurately above, that the level of global warming we've seen recently could not have occurred without human activity.

[SDW2001]

Oh, come on. How many times have you screamed "Treason! Treason!". You called anyone questioning the President (being skeptical of him) or his plan during a "time of war" a terrorist supporter who should be tried for treason (in other words, punished). Do you deny that?

Here's one... from the moths of babes...

"Well, I was of course not serious when I talked about treason as a legal definiton. But beyond that, I disagree. While you may have a legal right to say anything you want, that doesn't mean you should."

So even if (in this thread) you're not calling for people who criticize the president to be hanged, you're certainly saying that you don't think they should have the moral right (or responsibility, as I and the country's founders assert) to do it.

Nice try. Where did I call for someone to be punished? I believe that is why you called me a hypocrite, correct? I've rarely if ever called for someone expressing strong political disagreement to be punished in any sort of way. I can think whatever I'd like about their "moral right." That's not even close to the same thing. I haven't even advocated punishment for the outrageous slander of the President and his administration during a time of war. Hell, Pelosi just came out and said that Bush was rushing the troops surge for political reasons...to put them in harms way because he wanted the funding passed. I don't think that makes her a traitor, I just think it makes her a cunt.

[icfireball]

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html

When you total up all the greenhouse gases, accounting for their relative effects on global warming, and figure out what percentages of those we're contributed by man, it's vanishingly small.

We're responsible for 3.22% of the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

However, carbon dioxide itself is only about 3.62% of the total global warming effect. Water vapor, Greenhouse Gas Numero Uno, accounts for the vast majority of warming, and is entirely unaffected by humans.

When you add up small percentages of even smaller percentages, you get really tiny percentages. Like humans being responsible for .28% of greenhouse gases.

It's important to note, though, that that page is being slightly deceptive. While only .28% of greenhouses gases are human made, without any GHG's, our climate would be closer to that of Mars: winters would be -140 degrees Celsius (-220 Fahrenheit).

More important is the statistic in table 1, which comes from the US Department of Energy. Human CO2 emissions are STILL only responsible for 14.78% of total atmospheric CO2 additions.

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration presents a different statistic: "Human activities are now adding about 7 billion metric tons of carbon into the atmosphere every year, which is only about 3–4% of the amount exchanged naturally."




The amount of CO2 is only two times greater than the normal range for an ice age. (As an aside, CO2 samplings only go back about 800,000 years).

It is, however, 27.9% higher than it was prior to the industrial revolution, which is of note.

Why is this? We're not really sure. We know it's not entirely from human causes, so most research nowadays is more concerned with how exactly this is going to affect us. When that gets further solidified (rather than the gazillion conflicting doomsday reports we have now), we'll look into the best ways to help reduce it.



I believe you're referring to the Butterfly effect (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Butterfly_effect). Interestingly, this phenomena is the single reason why we're having so many difficulties figuring out if how serious a problem global warming will be and what exactly the effects will be.

I'm not sure, at all, why you're pointing it out, though.

Not the Butterfly effect per se, but its strongly related: Quantum Mechanics.

At any rate, I know that water vapor is the most common greenhouse gas in terms of presence in the atmosphere, but it has little effect because it stays constant on average due to the amount of precipitation. Also, water molecules occupy a very small portion of the atmospheric window where as HFC, PFCs, etc are much much worse because of their huge atmospheric window. At any rate, I did a thirty page paper on Global Warming so I know most of what you are talking about above. My point was that humans contribute to GLOBAL WARMING and NEW greenhouse gases an immense amount. I was NOT talking about the TOTAL amount of greenhouse gases, because its irrelevant to compare that because as you said, no greenhouse gases and a lot of greenhouse gases is the difference between the amount of greenhouse gases we have normally (without global warming) is the difference between a nice day and a day with 2 miles of ice over our head.

In summary Human contribution to the amount greenhouse gases that deviates outside the standard range for the past 65 million years is virtually 100%

That .28% is a ridiculous figure, because it doesn't MEAN anything.

[midwinter]

So here is what she said on her blog:


If a meteorologist has an AMS Seal of Approval, which is used to confer legitimacy to TV meteorologists, then meteorologists have a responsibility to truly educate themselves on the science of global warming. (One good resource if you don't have a lot of time is the Pew Center's Climate Change 101.)
Meteorologists are among the few people trained in the sciences who are permitted regular access to our living rooms. And in that sense, they owe it to their audience to distinguish between solid, peer-reviewed science and junk political controversy. If a meteorologist can't speak to the fundamental science of climate change, then maybe the AMS shouldn't give them a Seal of Approval. Clearly, the AMS doesn't agree that global warming can be blamed on cyclical weather patterns. It's like allowing a meteorologist to go on-air and say that hurricanes rotate clockwise and tsunamis are caused by the weather. It's not a political statement...it's just an incorrect statement.


In short: this organization that believes there is a significant human component to global climate change shouldn't license people who disagree with it.

Why is this a blog post a controversy?

[gregmightdothat]

Not the Butterfly effect per se, but its strongly related: Quantum Mechanics.

At any rate, I know that water vapor is the most common greenhouse gas in terms of presence in the atmosphere, but it has little effect because it stays constant on average due to the amount of precipitation. Also, water molecules occupy a very small portion of the atmospheric window where as HFC, PFCs, etc are much much worse because of their huge atmospheric window. At any rate, I did a thirty page paper on Global Warming so I know most of what you are talking about above. My point was that humans contribute to GLOBAL WARMING and NEW greenhouse gases an immense amount. I was NOT talking about the TOTAL amount of greenhouse gases, because its irrelevant to compare that because as you said, no greenhouse gases and a lot of greenhouse gases is the difference between the amount of greenhouse gases we have normally (without global warming) is the difference between a nice day and a day with 2 miles of ice over our head.

In summary Human contribution to the amount greenhouse gases that deviates outside the standard range for the past 65 million years is virtually 100%

That .28% is a ridiculous figure, because it doesn't MEAN anything.
If you bothered to read my post, you'd notice that I also pointed out that humans are responsible for between 3 and 14% of new CO2. The other 86% is entirely natural.

Your "virtually 100%" figure is as made up as your "3x the normal amount of CO2" figure. I imagine your paper was really exciting.

[franksargent]

If you bothered to read my post, you'd notice that I also pointed out that humans are responsible for between 3 and 14% of new CO2. The other 86% is entirely natural.

Your "virtually 100%" figure is as made up as your "3x the normal amount of CO2" figure. I imagine your paper was really exciting.

You need to STOP with the BAD statistical argument! REALLY!

It's the delta CO2 caused by anthropomorphic activity that IS critical here AND the fact that the Earth cannot absorb that delta at current rates of anthropomorphic activity. And if you take a hard look at the CO2 data (as I have done) you would realize that the rate of the rate (the 2nd derivative) of CO2 uptake is a small POSITIVE number. And if you don't BELIEVE the FACTS of the matter, do the math, and show it to be otherwise in a scientific peer reviewed journal! :lol:

So it's not the CO2 numbers in absolute terms, and not the CO2 numbers WRT to the past history of natural occuring atmospheric gases. Why?

Because it's the delta combined with the rate of increase of CO2 from that delta, both of which are predominantly (if not entirely) caused by anthropomorphic activity!

We are not living in the past, we are living in the present, and the future doesn't look too encouraging at the RATE(S) we're going, get over it!

[gregmightdothat]

You need to STOP with the BAD statistical argument! REALLY!

It's the delta CO2 caused by anthropomorphic activity that IS critical here AND the fact that the Earth cannot absorb that delta at current rates of anthropomorphic activity. And if you take a hard look at the CO2 data (as I have done) you would realize that the rate of the rate (the 2nd derivative) of CO2 uptake is a small POSITIVE number. And if you don't BELIEVE the FACTS of the matter, do the math, and show it to be otherwise in a peer reviewed journal! :lol:

Not the numbers in absolute terms, and not WRT to the past history of natural occuring atmospheric gases. Why?

Because it's the delta combined with the rate of increase of CO2 from that delta, both of which are predominantly (if not entirely) caused by anthropomorphic activity!

We are not living in the past, we are living in the present, and the future doesn't look too encouraging at the RATE we're going, get over it!
Why is this so difficult to understand?

Of carbon dioxide placed into the Earth on any given day, 3 to 14% of it is by humans. 86 to 97% happens naturally.

You're trying to place the blame where it does not belong. This in an incredibly important distinction.

If global warming is not our fault, then our current methods of dealing with it are ineffective. End of story. We could go back to the stone age, but given current data, global warming is going to storm on regardless.

Why are you so caught up on one insignificant presumption of the 80's view of global warming that you can't see the forest for the trees?

[Chucker]

When will people finally catch on that it doesn't matter whether or to what extent we are causing global warming? We're suffering from it regardless, so if we have any reasonably instinct of survival left in us, we should do something about it regardless, no matter how little we can.

[franksargent]

Why is this so difficult to understand?

Of carbon dioxide placed into the Earth on any given day, 3 to 14% of it is by humans. 86 to 97% happens naturally.

You're trying to place the blame where it does not belong. This in an incredibly important distinction.

If global warming is not our fault, then our current methods of dealing with it are ineffective. End of story. We could go back to the stone age, but given current data, global warming is going to storm on regardless.

Why are you so caught up on one insignificant presumption of the 80's view of global warming that you can't see the forest for the trees?

Dude,

You really don't get it, do you?

Normalizing the data, as you have done (actually Dr. Fred Singer), adds nothing to our current understanding as to the cause and effect of anthropomorphic activity.

It is clear you (and Dr. Singer) have little understanding of causal anthropomorphic activities!

Some observational data is in order;

http://www.cmdl.noaa.gov/ccgg/insitu.png

but I need a longer baseline to determine a 2nd order trend,

http://celebrating200years.noaa.gov/datasets/mauna/image3_650.jpg

Fitting a least squares 2nd order curve to the longer baseline dataset gives the following relationship;

CO2 (ppm) = 314 + 0.817*T + 0.0119*T^2 (R^2 = 0.99)

where T is time in years (T = 0 @ 3/15/1958 )

Please note positive coefficients for ALL terms wih time, but specifically the 2nd order term. :)

SIO CO2 measurements at Mauna Loa, HI (http://scrippsco2.ucsd.edu/data/in_situ_co2/mlo_in_situ_record.txt)

[Outsider]

Carl Zimmer wrote a new article about man's responsibility wrt nature and global warming: http://scienceblogs.com/loom/2007/01/23/head_for_the_cool.php

Basically, some endangered animals and plants can survive in higher latitudes now because of rising global temperatures, farther from humans, making them more likely to survive, but only with human help can they move. Should we move them?

[franksargent]

Carl Zimmer wrote a new article about man's responsibility wrt nature and global warming: http://scienceblogs.com/loom/2007/01/23/head_for_the_cool.php

Basically, some endangered animals and plants can survive in higher latitudes now because of rising global temperatures, farther from humans, making them more likely to survive, but only with human help can they move. Should we move them?

Interesting, but even more interesting is the AP article it links to;

Report Has 'Smoking Gun' on Climate (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/01/23/ap/tech/mainD8MQNNM80.shtml)

Oh well, time to "reload" and take a vacation across the good old USA in my 5 GPM RV with it's Hummer in tow! ;)

[SDW2001]

Interesting, but even more interesting is the AP article it links to;

Report Has 'Smoking Gun' on Climate (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/01/23/ap/tech/mainD8MQNNM80.shtml)

Oh well, time to "reload" and take a vacation across the good old USA in my 5 GPM RV with it's Hummer in tow! ;)



Global warming is "happening now, it's very obvious," said Mahlman, a former director of NOAA's Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Lab who lives in Boulder, Colo. "When you look at the temperature of the Earth, it's pretty much a no-brainer."

There is no way the evidence could show the above. Not only is GW unproven, it cannot be proven. What we have is suspicion. All of it...I repeat all of it is based upon global temperatures and various atmospheric elements that are being measured. The problem is that we cannot know what is a "normal" climate, because it's constantly changing and goes through periods of warming and cooling over thousands if not millions of years. How can that be measured? For example, the 1930's were exceptionally warm, whereas several hundred years ago we had a Little Ice Age. In context, we're on the tail end of an Ice Age now, speaking in terms of millions of years. How the hell could anyone...scientist or not....say that we're abnorally warming the planet?

We should still break out addiction to fossil fuels though, as they at least can't be helping.

[SDW2001]

SDW-- If I sent you a copy of An Inconvenient Truth, would you humor me and at least sit through it?

Sure, I'd watch it. I love to laugh at Gore anyway.

[Outsider]

Why does Gore get so much hate? Were we too rough on Quayle (http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Dan_Quayle)?

[SDW2001]

Why does Gore get so much hate? Were we too rough on Quayle (http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Dan_Quayle)?

I don't hate Gore. I want him to run SOOO bad. I just think he's hysterical. LOCK BOX! :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

[Chucker]

Not only is GW unproven, it cannot be proven.

You mean in the same vein that it "cannot be proven" that the Earth is older than 6,000 years?

[midwinter]

21,000 more troops to Iraq! :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

[icfireball]

If you bothered to read my post, you'd notice that I also pointed out that humans are responsible for between 3 and 14% of new CO2. The other 86% is entirely natural.

Your "virtually 100%" figure is as made up as your "3x the normal amount of CO2" figure. I imagine your paper was really exciting.

I'm sorry. You are just dead wrong. The amount of CO2 in our atmosphere is 3x greater than the the normal cycle for the past 65million years and that is fact. Tell me now, what, if not humans, could have POSSIBLY caused this increase?

Also, read my paper:

http://www.uni.uiuc.edu/~ichamber/cuttingedge.pdf

Also note that the paper is 2 years old and things have become increasingly apparent since then.

[SDW2001]

You mean in the same vein that it "cannot be proven" that the Earth is older than 6,000 years?


Nice try with that little trap. But I'll play along. Obviously we can measure or estimate that age of the Earth through carbon dating and what not. We can do the same for global temperature, but the problem is those figures are just that....estimates.

Any statisically significant data on temperature would have to be accurate to what, a tenth of a degree, don't you agree? We hear about 1/10th and .5 degree increases being significant, so it stands to reason that we would have to be able to estimate previous temps to within the same amount.

The problem is we can't do that. Our estimates of the Earth's age might be tens of thousands, even hundreds of thousands of years off. Our temperature estimates can't be even one degree off. That's why global warming really can't be proven. It's totally impossible to come up with historical average over say, 10,000-100,000 years. Even then, the Earth's climate changes over millions of years. Looking at it this way, it doesn't make a lot of sense to take the last 25 years and conclude that all of a sudden the planet is abnormally warm. As I said, we even had recent period of warmth in the 1930's, followed me mini cooling and warming cycles.

Look at the graph at the bottom of this page. http://www.scotese.com/climate.htm

As you can see, we are essentially at the tail end of a cold period in the Earth's history. Temperatures have fluctuated much as....not ONE degree, but 10 degrees...all before humans even existed. How do you explain that?

[Outsider]

Well it looks like we'll have 1,600 pages (http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/science/01/23/climate.report.ap/index.html) of evidence to consider soon, and that's only the first part of a 4 part report.

This segment, written by more than 600 scientists and reviewed by another 600 experts and edited by bureaucrats from 154 countries, includes "a significantly expanded discussion of observation on the climate," said co-chair Susan Solomon a senior scientist for the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

That's a lot of corroboration.

[gregmightdothat]

I'm sorry. You are just dead wrong. The amount of CO2 in our atmosphere is 3x greater than the the normal cycle for the past 65million years and that is fact.

From Wikipedia, "During this time, the atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration has varied between 180–210 µL/L during ice ages."

And, "As of January 2007, the earth's atmospheric CO2 concentration is is about 0.0383% by volume (383 ppmv) or 0.0582% by weight.[4] This represents about 2.996×1012 tonnes, and is estimated to be 105 ppm (37.77%) above the pre-industrial average."

(As an aside, µL/L and ppm are the same measurement: microlitres per litre and parts per million).

You are off by an order of magnitude. If we cut the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere in half, we would have an ice age.

Additionally, we don't have ice cores that date back for millions of years. Like I said before, the oldest is about 800,000 years old.


Tell me now, what, if not humans, could have POSSIBLY caused this increase?

From Wikipedia, once more: "Atmospheric carbon dioxide derives from multiple natural sources including volcanic outgassing, the combustion of organic matter, and the respiration processes of living aerobic organisms; man-made sources of carbon dioxide come mainly from the burning of various fossil fuels for heating, power generation and transport use. It is also produced by various microorganisms from fermentation and cellular respiration."

Next time, learn to read the thread. I've explained this before.

Everything I quoted is from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide

[gregmightdothat]

Dude,

You really don't get it, do you?

What exactly is your point? Are you trying to prove to me that CO2 is increasing?

Have I EVER denied this?

Are you even READING anything I write? You're posting information that I'm NOT refuting, and NOT addressing points that I'm bringing up.

(Further more, I'm getting my statistics from the US Department of Energy and the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, not Fred Singer.)

[icfireball]

What exactly is your point? Are you trying to prove to me that CO2 is increasing?

Have I EVER denied this?

Are you even READING anything I write? You're posting information that I'm NOT refuting, and NOT addressing points that I'm bringing up.

(Further more, I'm getting my statistics from the US Department of Energy and the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, not Fred Singer.)

The point is that humans are responsible for global warming aka climate change. And the key part is ing. Not global warm. Humans are NOT responsible for global warm. That happens naturally. It's called not having a mile of ice over our head. Humans are responsible for global warmING. Which causes climate change. Etc.

[gregmightdothat]

The point is that humans are responsible for global warming aka climate change. And the key part is ing. Not global warm. Humans are NOT responsible for global warm. That happens naturally. It's called not having a mile of ice over our head. Humans are responsible for global warmING. Which causes climate change. Etc.
No, the key point is that humans are responsible for only a tiny fraction of global warming.

I don't see why you have a problem with this. Do you have a problem with other scientific facts?

If global warming is going to be a problem, we NEED to know what's causing it. Placing the blame where we KNOW it does NOT belong doesn't help anything.

[normhead]

Dude...slow down and think about what you're arguing. You're saying there is no "big business" in the environmentalist movement. You're saying it doesn't provide certain folks with their livelihood?

NO you slow down and think about this. Who is using theier influence more, to influence US policy, the oil industry , or the enviromentalists? Who is thorwing more money at it. Tell me, exactly where is the money to support GW coming from. Because you can go to any industry website of the skeptics and see a huge list of energy coroporation that are putting money into fighting a concesus on global warming. They will even fund people they know are inaacruate to spread their message.

What you are doing here is accusing those who are using scinece to make a point, of using the very tactics the industry is using to the tune of millions of dollars, to make sure that science isn't followed.

One has to ask oneself why any sane person would act this way. So I'm going ot make this easy for you.

Do you hold oil stocks? DO you work for a major energy company? Are you in some way profitting from our policy of expanding energy consumption.

Until you can prove otherwise, I won't listen to a word you say. The only people I know who hold your point of view are energy employees, or discredited scientists trying to et back at their peers for discrediting them. You never know what a person is saying until you know where he';s coming from. And Energy people on forums like this are often being paid to lie through their teeth.

[franksargent]

No, the key point is that humans are responsible for only a tiny fraction of global warming.

I don't see why you have a problem with this. Do you have a problem with other scientific facts?

If global warming is going to be a problem, we NEED to know what's causing it. Placing the blame where we KNOW it does NOT belong doesn't help anything.

Prove it with a peer reviewed GCM perturbation analysis in a mainstream scientific publication, you know the kind of GCM's that have been calibrated with the historic climate records, with historic climate data that occured prior to industrialization. These GCM's show very accurate reconstructions of the historic climate record, of the current trends due to anthropogenic inputs, that draw only one conclusion about what is the primary cause of GW. The kind of CGM's that do an A-B comparison with-without human impacts.

Please do!

Because people here don't like the gross oversimplification of the GW problem that you present, that the global perturbations and subsequent rates are what are importent here. Not a black and white, boil it down to one number gross conclusion, A/B = C, a static situation, surely you can present a more concrete and scientifically accepted dynamic GCM effort PROVING negligable human impacts to current/future GW?

Please do!

And if you presist in your 0.28% logic, why we'll submit to you the following FACT, that a one degree centigrade rise in mean global temperature is a 0.34% rise in temperature on the Kelvin scale, you know basic thermodynamics! :lol:

So in one sense you are correct, humans have a relatively small impact on GW when the appropriate temperature scale is applied! Get it now?

So it is all about the current rate delta that we as humans are adding to the system and what real impacts these WILL produce going forward.

[gregmightdothat]

Prove it with a peer reviewed GCM perturbation analysis in a mainstream scientific publication, you know the kind of GCM's that have been calibrated with the historic climate records, with historic climate data that occured prior to industrialization. These GCM's show very accurate reconstructions of the historic climate record, of the current trends due to anthropogenic inputs, that draw only one conclusion about what is the primary cause of GW. The kind of CGM's that do an A-B comparison with-without human impacts.

Please do!

Because people here don't like an oversimplification of the GW problem that you present, that the global perturbations and subsequent rates are what are importent here. Not a black and white, boil it down to one number gross conclusion, A/B = C, a static situation, surely you can present a more concrete and scientifically accepted dynamic GCM effort PROVING negligable human impacts to current/future GW?

Please do!

And if you presist in your 0.28% logic, why we'll submit to you the following FACT, that a one degree centigrade rise in mean global temperature is a 0.34% rise in temperature on the Kelvin scale, you know basic thermodynamics! :lol:

So in one sense you are correct, humans have a relatively small impact on GW when the appropriate temperature scale is applied! Get it now?

So it is all about the current rate delta that we as humans are adding to the system and what real impacts these WILL produce going forward.
Do you have references to any climate models that directly compare climates with and without human input online?

[franksargent]

Do you have references to any climate models that directly compare climates with and without human input online?

To be honest with you no, BUT that's because I can't find the one I had that was published last fall, and trust me I've spent all day trying to find it on the web. But I do remember it was hard to find the first time. You see my HD crashed about a month ago, and I lost all my (rather good) GW stuff, mostly peer reviewed scientific PDF's.

I can't remember if it was in PNAS or Science or Nature or ???

But I do remember it was published in the September/October 2006 timeframe, and it was quite clear in it's conclusion about human impacts to GW.

About the best I can currently offer is the 2001 IPCC reports (there are A-B comparisons within them), and I believe that the 2007 IPCC reports will provide further evidence with the improvements made to GCM's since the last reports.

But in general math modelling is a 3 step process, 1) theories, 2) calibration of said theories (historic data), and 3) validation (documentation of more recent (or current) events (or a more recent subset of the historic record) and future trends). And that this basic 3 step process is constantly updated with better theoretical models (and/or greater computing capabilities), refined and updated historical data, additional forecasts, and subsequent comparisons with new data to gage how well these models do once they make a set of forecasts.

James Hansen at NOAA has published most recently with their GISS models, which provide excellent agreement with the recent historic records (ice core data and human records of temperature and atmospheric measurements).

NOAA GISS Publications (http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/)

[gregmightdothat]

To be honest with you no...

Let's just say I half agree with you ;)

I know that things like this are more logarithmic, that there's a tipping point, and all that, and my 14% statistic isn't the end all be all.

But my overall point is that regardless of human intervention, CO2 IS going up. Even if we stopped all dependencies on fossil fuels, we'd still need to address the increase in CO2. In other words, that we can't just cut back (though it's always a good thing to err on the side of caution), but that we possibly need to take on drastic methods of CO2 reduction, such as planting insane amounts of trees, or somehow filtering the air. Any of these would be incredibly expensive, so we really need to ascertain our future before we make that call.

You can probably see my frustration, though, with being labeled as a "general GW skeptic." Anne Coulter, I am not ;) (Well, you can also see my frustration with some of ic's completely made up statistics).

I'm just trying to present a viewpoint that's only slightly off the general public's viewpoint (but not, that I've seen, scientia's viewpoint): that simple things like driving a Prius, while a good idea, may not alone be enough to stop global warming. I think people all too easily buy into an idea that combines blaming your neighbor and the promise of a quick fix.

[BRussell]

Just a thought: I wonder what percentage of smokers' inhalation is tobacco smoke. I'd guess a very tiny percentage - it's probably 99.72% air. Does that mean tobacco smoke couldn't possibly cause lung cancer, and someone would be wasting their time quitting?

[midwinter]

Ohdeargodpleaseletthatbetrue.

I haven't had a smoke in almost a month.

[addabox]

Ohdeargodpleaseletthatbetrue.

I haven't had a smoke in almost a month.

Good work. Remember this above everything else: it's the very next cig that will get you. All you have to do is not have that one, and you can worry about all the other ones later.

When people backslide it's inevitably because they can afford to have that "one".

[dmz]

I haven't had a smoke in almost a month.
Then you're home free! Congrats!

(Watch the food intake, I gained about 15 pounds after I quit. What a bitch.)

[midwinter]

Addabox: Yeah, but one would be really, really fucking nice and would apparently not contribute to global climate change.

But I can say that the commit lozenges do the trick.

[addabox]

Addabox: Yeah, but one would be really, really fucking nice and would apparently not contribute to global climate change.

But I can say that the commit lozenges do the trick.

Tell me about it.

[midwinter]

I considered telling you all about what they are and how they work as a joke about taking people literally. And then I remembered this:

Steve McCroskey: Jacobs, I want to know absolutely everything that's happened up till now.

Jacobs: Well, let's see. First the earth cooled. And then the dinosaurs came, but they got too big and fat, so they all died and they turned into oil. And then the Arabs came and they bought Mercedes Benzes. And Prince Charles started wearing all of Lady Di's clothes. I couldn't believe it.

And then I couldn't figure out a way to post it and have it make sense unless I told you how I got to it.

So there it is.

[addabox]

I considered telling you all about what they are and how they work as a joke about taking people literally. And then I remembered this:



And then I couldn't figure out a way to post it and have it make sense unless I told you how I got to it.

So there it is.

And the coveted "Laughing snake eating its stone faced tail" statuette for meta-meta comedy goes to......

[SDW2001]

What exactly is your point? Are you trying to prove to me that CO2 is increasing?

Have I EVER denied this?

Are you even READING anything I write? You're posting information that I'm NOT refuting, and NOT addressing points that I'm bringing up.

(Further more, I'm getting my statistics from the US Department of Energy and the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, not Fred Singer.)


No, he's not. That's because if you think global warming may not be caused by humans, you're dismissed as an idiot. It's just the way it is. See, global warming is a "fact." Why? Because there's a consensus! Nevermind that any scientist or, well...person that expresses an opposing view is immediately shouted down. Never mind that no person, scientist or not, can explain the variations in the Earth's temperature millions of years before humans were on this earth.

[SDW2001]

Franksargent:

Prove it with a peer reviewed GCM perturbation analysis in a mainstream scientific publication, you know the kind of GCM's that have been calibrated with the historic climate records, with historic climate data that occured prior to industrialization. These GCM's show very accurate reconstructions of the historic climate record, of the current trends due to anthropogenic inputs, that draw only one conclusion about what is the primary cause of GW. The kind of CGM's that do an A-B comparison with-without human impacts.

Well my my, that sounds so sophisticated for my cro-mag brain!

The problem is with the "accuracy." What is "very accurate?" Within how many tenths of a degree are these models accurate? Therein lies the problem.

[midwinter]

I am anxiously awaiting the day when conservatives who have adopted postmodernist tactics of argument (very effectively, I might add) realize that those tactics and their own philosophies are diametrically opposed.

[Hassan i Sabbah]

Franksargent:



Well my my, that sounds so sophisticated for my cro-mag brain!

The problem is with the "accuracy." What is "very accurate?" Within how many tenths of a degree are these models accurate? Therein lies the problem.
Well, exactly. God himself could come to your door wearing a sandwich board emblazoned with the words 'YOU ARE FUCKING UP THE ENVIRONMENT' and it wouldn't be enough for you.

Some people don't believe the planet's older than 6,000 years and there's no convincing them either.

[gregmightdothat]

Just a thought: I wonder what percentage of smokers' inhalation is tobacco smoke. I'd guess a very tiny percentage - it's probably 99.72% air. Does that mean tobacco smoke couldn't possibly cause lung cancer, and someone would be wasting their time quitting?
That's quite possibly the worst analogy I've heard. I say that probably too much, but yours really does quite top them all.

Is human-made carbon dioxide somehow more "special" than carbon dioxide from say, volcanoes, or zebras, in that it causes more global warming?

Carbon dioxide is carbon dioxide. Cigarette smoke, however, is not air.

[midwinter]

Carbon dioxide is carbon dioxide. Cigarette smoke, however, is not air.

Well it has to have a bunch of air in it, though. Otherwise all those chain smokers would be passing out from oxygen deprivation.

[BRussell]

That's quite possibly the worst analogy I've heard. I say that probably too much, but yours really does quite top them all.

Is human-made carbon dioxide somehow more "special" than carbon dioxide from say, volcanoes, or zebras, in that it causes more global warming?

Carbon dioxide is carbon dioxide. Cigarette smoke, however, is not air. I think it's a perfect analogy. The fact is, even small amounts of something can cause large effects. Even though a tiny tiny fraction - let's call it .28% - of the total air smokers breathe has cigarette smoke, it's still the leading cause of death in the US, responsible for close to half a million American deaths per year. In the same way, even if only a small proportion of the contents of the atmosphere sees a dramatic increase, it may cause huge effects.

How about you try a few millionths of a gram of LSD and tell me that small quantities can't have dramatic effects.

[midwinter]

Iit's still the leading cause of death in the US, responsible for close to half a million American deaths per year.

No no no. We think it is responsible. Correlation does not equal causation! This is the problem with you "humans are affecting global climate change" and "cigarettes cause lung cancer" people...always jumping to conclusions!

[BRussell]

No no no. We think it is responsible. Correlation does not equal causation! This is the problem with you "humans are affecting global climate change" and "cigarettes cause lung cancer" people...always jumping to conclusions! But, but, there's a scientific consensus!

[midwinter]

But, but, there's a scientific consensus!

Well, there was scientific consensus for geocentrism, too, wasn't there? Hegemony does not equal truth, mister pseudoscientist! :P (my own discipline is, of course rigid and scientific to the core) And besides, it's likely that the medical journals are full of true believers about cigarettes causing lung cancer, and so when an outlier submits, the article is simply rejected. And so what you have is a kind og lung cancer+cigarettes group think or echo chamber. What the world needs is a Copernicus or Galileo to debunk all of this consensus! EPPUR SI MUOVE, I SAY!!

[gregmightdothat]

I think it's a perfect analogy. The fact is, even small amounts of something can cause large effects. Even though a tiny tiny fraction - let's call it .28% - of the total air smokers breathe has cigarette smoke, it's still the leading cause of death in the US, responsible for close to half a million American deaths per year. In the same way, even if only a small proportion of the contents of the atmosphere sees a dramatic increase, it may cause huge effects.


It's an appallingly bad analogy.

If I were to say that carbon dioxide was irrelevant because it was only .04% of the atmosphere, then your analogy would be perfect.

What I said is that we're only responsible for a fraction of that .04%. And certainly the carbon dioxide that we put there isn't "magic" carbon dioxide that is mysteriously more harmful than the carbon dioxide that the Earth is putting there.

[BRussell]

It's an appallingly bad analogy.

If I were to say that carbon dioxide was irrelevant because it was only .04% of the atmosphere, then your analogy would be perfect.

What I said is that we're only responsible for a fraction of that .04%. And certainly the carbon dioxide that we put there isn't "magic" carbon dioxide that is mysteriously more harmful than the carbon dioxide that the Earth is putting there. What you've said is that the human contribution is so small that it's insignificant. That is contrary to these scientific consensus papers from all of these panels of scientists and from the journal Science, which say that the human contribution is the major cause of the recent global warming.

I've never really heard you address that: Either you're wrong in saying that the human contribution to global warming is insignificant, or all of these panels of the world's leading experts and these reviews by the journal Science are wrong. You're contradicting them, there's no way around that.

Here's my take, gregmightdothat: You're trying to take what seems to you to be a reasonable middle ground in the "debate." But, as so often occurs when people take a middle ground on something, you end up splitting the difference between one side which is well-founded, and the other side which is unfounded. You'd be better off sticking to the side that's well-founded than inching toward the side that's unfounded. If I'm wrong on my take on what you're doing, let me hear it.

[gregmightdothat]

What you've said is that the human contribution is so small that it's insignificant. That is contrary to these scientific consensus papers from all of these panels of scientists and from the journal Science, which say that the human contribution is the major cause of the recent global warming.

I've addressed this 80 times, at least. In fact, if you look at the first thing I said to icfireball, you'll see exactly this.

Scientists ONLY agree that global warming is happening. As to the results of it, or the cause of it, there is ZERO consensus.

Since we're on analogies: is it possible to be Christian and not hate gays and deny evolution? Of course. Only a few extreme Christians hate gays (well, sadly more don't believe in evolution).

Just like gay-hating Christians are just a subset of all Christians, scientists that believe humans are entirely responsible for global warming are a very tiny subset of all scientists that have researched or have opinions on global warming.

Also, realize the ramifications of this. I'm not disputing any global warming evidence or research, nor am I denying that it exists. I'm just pointing out that current ideas for getting rid of it are likely insufficient in solving the problem.

As I've pointed out before, the UN will be officially downgrading the impact of humans on global warming in the next few months (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/12/10/nclimate10.xml). More and more scientists are pointing out that yes, global warming is happening, but no, it's not quite like you think (http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/4487421.html).


I've never really heard you address that: Either you're wrong in saying that the human contribution to global warming is insignificant, or all of these panels of the world's leading experts and these reviews by the journal Science are wrong. You're contradicting them, there's no way around that.

No I'm not. I'm just pointing out that because panels agree on some facts, doesn't mean you can run amok with that and say they agree with anything that's been ever said about global warming.

I'm not contradicting any large-scale consensus. Rather, you're confusing what that consensus consents to.


Here's my take, gregmightdothat: You're trying to take what seems to you to be a reasonable middle ground in the "debate." But, as so often occurs when people take a middle ground on something, you end up splitting the difference between one side which is well-founded, and the other side which is unfounded. You'd be better off sticking to the side that's well-founded than inching toward the side that's unfounded. If I'm wrong on my take on what you're doing, let me hear it.

I'm not trying to find a middle ground at all, nor am I splitting any difference.

People that deny global warming are ignoring relevant facts.

You are taking unsupported hypotheses, claiming them to be fact because they're vaguely similar to other facts.

[BRussell]

I'll just refer you back to this post of mine (http://forums.appleinsider.com/showpost.php?p=1030716&postcount=55) from earlier in the thread that collected the quotes on what these papers say. They don't say what you say they say. They say things like:

"The major cause of warming in the last three decades is from human effects changing the composition of the atmosphere primarily through use of fossil fuels." (from IPCC report)

and

"Such statements suggest that there might be substantive disagreement in the scientific community about the reality of anthropogenic climate change. This is not the case." (from Science)

and

"But there is a scientific consensus on the reality of anthropogenic climate change. Climate scientists have repeatedly tried to make this clear. It is time for the rest of us to listen." (from Science)

Now how does that square with your statement that human effects on climate change are insignificant? I'll be honest with you that I'm not well-versed enough in this stuff to analyze these things in detail myself. But I can read, and what you have said contradicts what they have said.

[gregmightdothat]

I'll just refer you back to this post of mine (http://forums.appleinsider.com/showpost.php?p=1030716&postcount=55) from earlier in the thread that collected the quotes on what these papers say. They don't say what you say they say. They say things like:

"The major cause of warming in the last three decades is from human effects changing the composition of the atmosphere primarily through use of fossil fuels." (from IPCC report)


If you read the report, you'd notice that there are no facts to support that claim. Rather, the facts within point fingers at humans, and rightly so, but don't support the idea that humans are primarily responsible.

More tellingly, this report was from 2001. If you read the article I posted about the IPCC's 2007 report, you'd see:

The UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says there can be little doubt that humans are responsible for warming the planet, but the organisation has reduced its overall estimate of this effect by 25 per cent.



"Such statements suggest that there might be substantive disagreement in the scientific community about the reality of anthropogenic climate change. This is not the case." (from Science)

and

"But there is a scientific consensus on the reality of anthropogenic climate change. Climate scientists have repeatedly tried to make this clear. It is time for the rest of us to listen." (from Science)

Here you go again with quotes I'm not disagreeing with: humans produce carbon dioxide, which does affect global warming. I've never said anything contrary to this. Neither did the 928 papers analyzed in that article.

I'm pointing out that humans aren't solely responsible for global warming.

[franksargent]

I've addressed this 80 times, at least. In fact, if you look at the first thing I said to icfireball, you'll see exactly this.

Scientists ONLY agree that global warming is happening. As to the results of it, or the cause of it, there is ZERO consensus.

Since we're on analogies: is it possible to be Christian and not hate gays and deny evolution? Of course. Only a few extreme Christians hate gays (well, sadly more don't believe in evolution).

As I've pointed out before, the UN will be officially downgrading the impact of humans on global warming in the next few months (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/12/10/nclimate10.xml). More and more scientists are pointing out that yes, global warming is happening, but no, it's not quite like you think (http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/4487421.html).

From the first link;

The UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says there can be little doubt that humans are responsible for warming the planet, but the organisation has reduced its overall estimate of this effect by 25 per cent.

Scientists insist that the lower estimates for sea levels and the human impact on global warming are simply a refinement due to better data on how climate works rather than a reduction in the risk posed by global warming.

It warns that carbon dioxide emissions have risen during the past five years by three per cent, well above the 0.4 per cent a year average of the previous two decades. The authors also state that the climate is almost certain to warm by at least 1.5 C during the next 100 years.

The report paints a bleak picture for future generations unless greenhouse gas emissions are reduced. It predicts that the climate will warm by 0.2 C a decade for the next two decades if emissions continue at current levels.

It also says that the overall human effect on global warming since the industrial revolution is less than had been thought, due to the unexpected levels of cooling caused by aerosol sprays, which reflect heat from the sun.

OK, I take this to mean that the GCM's now include aerosols in their estimates, that including aerosols in the GCM's has lowered future estimates WRT previous estimates, and that our current situation would be even worse without aerosols.

I must invest heavily in aerosols, as there's sure to be a run on the market for hair spray! :D

and from the second link;

Nearly all climate scientists believe the Earth is warming and that human activity, by increasing the level of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, has contributed significantly to the warming.

Scientists have substantial evidence to support the view that humans are warming the planet — as carbon dioxide levels rise, glaciers melt and global temperatures rise. Yet, for predicting the future climate, scientists must rely upon sophisticated — but not perfect — computer models.

So basically, shit's still going to happen, just not as fast as previously estimated, and it's our shit that's the major cause of the problem! :D

Additional links for you're review;

How do we know that recent CO2 increases are due to human activities? (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=87)

This counters gregmightdothat's contention that we humans are not raising CO2 levels.

Dangerous human-made interference with climate: a GISS modelE study (http://www.copernicus.org/EGU/acp/acpd/6/12549/acpd-6-12549.pdf)

This may address SDW's question on SOTA GCM's temperature accuracy, see Figure 3 (towards the end). That GCM was calibrated with 125 years of empirical/observational weather data, by my eyeballing the fit of the model to that data set, I'd estimate sigma < 0.1 degrees celsius.

And after playing with a bunch of ice core CO2 data and the SIO/NOAA CO2 data from Mauna Loa, HI, I can categorically state that at no time in the previous 650,000 years has Earth seen such a rapid rise in CO2 levels over as short a timespan as the last 50 years, it's not even close, the next most rapid rise was over an order of magnitude less than the current rate.

Also the average rise in CO2 from ~4,500BC to ~1,800AD was 0.0029 ppm/year (and yes it's almost linear over that timespan), compare that number to the current rare of ~2ppm/year!

[gregmightdothat]

Additional links for you're review;

How do we know that recent CO2 increases are due to human activities? (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=87)

carbon we have produced is enough to have raised the atmospheric concentration of CO2 to nearly 500 ppm.

Wake me up in 2100 when we get to that level of CO2. ;)


This counters gregmightdothat's contention that we humans are not raising CO2 levels.


Have I ever contested this? Why do you feel the need to put words in my mouth?

[franksargent]

Wake me up in 2100 when we get to that level of CO2. ;)



Have I ever contested this? Why do you feel the need to put words in my mouth?

Yes you are mostly correct, but it is in your presentation of those numbers, that I take issue with.

Saying human CO2 contributions are a small fraction of the total CO2 gives people the wrong impression as to the consequences of our contribution to the CO2 budget. People look at that fraction and are bound to think that we as humans do not affect Earth's climate. It gives the wrong impression. Those consequences may be small but over time will have a significant impacts nonetheless.

That is all.

[SDW2001]

Well, exactly. God himself could come to your door wearing a sandwich board emblazoned with the words 'YOU ARE FUCKING UP THE ENVIRONMENT' and it wouldn't be enough for you.

Some people don't believe the planet's older than 6,000 years and there's no convincing them either.


Strawman. I'm not one of those people. I even addressed your analogy earlier. Go look it up.

[SDW2001]

Well, there was scientific consensus for geocentrism, too, wasn't there? Hegemony does not equal truth, mister pseudoscientist! :P (my own discipline is, of course rigid and scientific to the core) And besides, it's likely that the medical journals are full of true believers about cigarettes causing lung cancer, and so when an outlier submits, the article is simply rejected. And so what you have is a kind og lung cancer+cigarettes group think or echo chamber. What the world needs is a Copernicus or Galileo to debunk all of this consensus! EPPUR SI MUOVE, I SAY!!


Let me just make sure I've been reading correctly: You're saying that cigs causing cancer is as well proven a theory as man made global warming? If so, that's foolish.

[jimmac]

Let me just make sure I've been reading correctly: You're saying that cigs causing cancer is as well proven a theory as man made global warming? If so, that's foolish.


It's the fool who doesn't believe the mounting evidence about GW SDW!

Given what we know it's much more likely than not. So who's the fool here?

[SDW2001]

As per ususal PO procedure, you guys on the GW bandwagon are just going around in circles; posting link upon link, debating modes of argument, semantics, etc.

Yet no one will answer the simple question: How does science explain the variations (up to 10 degrees) in the Earth's temperature over the millions of years before humans existed, and the fact that those variations themselves lasted for tens if not hundreds of thousands of years?

To follow, how can current climate changes measured in tenths of one degree be considered significant, knowing those large variations existed in the past, especially given that our estimations of past temperatures could not possibly be as accurate?

I'll wait patiently. Thank you.

[BRussell]

If you read the report, you'd notice that there are no facts to support that claim. Rather, the facts within point fingers at humans, and rightly so, but don't support the idea that humans are primarily responsible.

More tellingly, this report was from 2001. If you read the article I posted about the IPCC's 2007 report, you'd see: So you do disagree with this panel of the world's leading experts on climate change. You found some stuff on wikipedia, and the experts are wrong and you're right. That's all I wanted to know.

Here you go again with quotes I'm not disagreeing with: humans produce carbon dioxide, which does affect global warming. I've never said anything contrary to this. Neither did the 928 papers analyzed in that article.

I'm pointing out that humans aren't solely responsible for global warming. You haven't just been saying that "human aren't solely responsible." The whole point of your many posts in this thread is to say that humans' contributions to global warming are so small that they're insignificant, that global warming is not our fault and the view that it is our fault is old fashioned, and that the blame does not belong with us. Those are the things you've said in this thread.

Just to be clear, this is exactly what the deniers say. They of course can't deny the recent rise in temperatures - the global warming - but they say it's natural, they say it's not caused by humans. You say you're not a global warming denier, but you're saying exactly the same things Crichton and Inhofe and all the others say.

[SDW2001]

It's the fool who doesn't believe the mounting evidence about GW SDW!

Given what we know it's much more likely than not. So who's the fool here?


Now hold on...those are two different statements. If forced to choose A or B, I would choose A....it's more likely than not. But that is not at all what we're talking about. Moreover, how can you say "it's only a fool who doesn't believe the mounting evidence" and then in the same breath say only "it's more likely than not?" That seems to contradict itself. "More likely than not" is a far cry from proven to the point where people are shunned for suggesting other possibliities, agreed?

[midwinter]

Yet no one will answer the simple question: How does science explain the variations (up to 10 degrees) in the Earth's temperature over the millions of years before humans existed, and the fact that those variations themselves lasted for tens if not hundreds of thousands of years?

To follow, how can current climate changes measured in tenths of one degree be considered significant, knowing those large variations existed in the past, especially given that our estimations of past temperatures could not possibly be as accurate?

I'll wait patiently. Thank you.

I agree completely. I also think it's important to point out that we cannot really explain why soap gets us clean. There is certainly consensus, but when you get down to trying to figure out why the molecules bond in the ways they do, we just can't be sure.

But back to my point: there is no clear scientific evidence that cigarettes cause cancer.

[BRussell]

As per ususal PO procedure, you guys on the GW bandwagon are just going around in circles; posting link upon link, debating modes of argument, semantics, etc.

Yet no one will answer the simple question: How does science explain the variations (up to 10 degrees) in the Earth's temperature over the millions of years before humans existed, and the fact that those variations themselves lasted for tens if not hundreds of thousands of years? Even hundreds of millions of years. My understanding is that things like the earth's position in the solar system and the eruption of volcanoes play a role in climate change. But I think everyone agree that the biggest role is played by the composition of our atmosphere, i.e., the greenhouse effect.

To follow, how can current climate changes measured in tenths of one degree be considered significant, knowing those large variations existed in the past, especially given that our estimations of past temperatures could not possibly be as accurate?

I'll wait patiently. Thank you. I'm trying to follow you - you're asking how can changes so small be "significant," given that even larger variations occurred in the past? What do you mean by significant? Many of those larger changes that occurred in the past were so large that if they happened today, they would kill off all land animals on the planet. But I think everyone agrees that even small changes of average temperature can have very significant consequences for humans, e.g., the state of Florida would get a lot smaller, and the Netherlands would really live up to its name.

[dmz]

Guys, did it ever occur to you that the reason this "conversation..."





:lol: :lol:





....sorry -- is even taking place means that Global Womping is a fairly ambiguous topic?

No one agues over what we should do with the Hudson River, or whether we should put scrubbers on Coal-fired plants -- but this is a little nuts. When the evidence is clear, we'll know, and not before.

We won't need 'special' reports dribbled out from the UN to tell us that, or science-by-press-release. Algore, and greenie-weenie, earth muffin scare tactics notwithstanding.

Science doesn't need defending.

[BRussell]

Guys, did it ever occur to you that the reason this "conversation..."

:lol: :lol:


....sorry -- is even taking place means that Global Womping is a fairly ambiguous topic?

Right dmz. So if we can get a bunch of people to argue something, the fact that they're arguing proves that no one really knows the truth. Evolution is another good example.

Right now there's an argument going on where Fox news is saying that Obama was trained as a Muslim terrorist in Indonesia for a decade in his youth. Other people are arguing that's not true. So the truth must be somewhere in the middle, between the two extremes.

[dmz]

Right dmz. So if we can get a bunch of people to argue something, the fact that they're arguing proves that no one really knows the truth. Evolution is another good example.

Right now there's an argument going on where Fox news is saying that Obama was trained as a Muslim terrorist in Indonesia for a decade in his youth. Other people are arguing that's not true. So the truth must be somewhere in the middle, between the two extremes.

If evolution were demonstrated in the Lab, we wouldn't have to argue -- the problem is that people get a partial victory -- virusususususus swaping information, or 0.9 degree warming -- and try to take that to the bank. Or worse, beat people over the head with it, and call them "ignorant, stupid, wicked or insane."

It isn't a truly scientific discussion, it's ideological and dogmatic.

And why not just ask O-bama?

[BRussell]

Exactly. If there's an argument, say, between people posting on the internet and researchers doing careful studies, it's impossible to know who's right. It's all just spin one way and the other. Everyone's opinion is equally valid. There is no truth.

[dmz]

Exactly. If there's an argument, say, between people posting on the internet and researchers doing careful studies, it's impossible to know who's right. It's all just spin one way and the other. Everyone's opinion is equally valid. There is no truth.
Not at all -- they're not even blacklisting people over at the Smithsonian over this yet -- so it can't be all that serious. Maybe we could get Judge Jones to rule on whether Global Womping is happening -- settle it once and for all!


:p

[SDW2001]

I agree completely. I also think it's important to point out that we cannot really explain why soap gets us clean. There is certainly consensus, but when you get down to trying to figure out why the molecules bond in the ways they do, we just can't be sure.

But back to my point: there is no clear scientific evidence that cigarettes cause cancer.


When you behave like this I really lose a lot of respect for you. Both of those analogies are ridiculous. Just addess the point directly.

[SDW2001]

Even hundreds of millions of years. My understanding is that things like the earth's position in the solar system and the eruption of volcanoes play a role in climate change. But I think everyone agree that the biggest role is played by the composition of our atmosphere, i.e., the greenhouse effect.

I'm trying to follow you - you're asking how can changes so small be "significant," given that even larger variations occurred in the past? What do you mean by significant? Many of those larger changes that occurred in the past were so large that if they happened today, they would kill off all land animals on the planet. But I think everyone agrees that even small changes of average temperature can have very significant consequences for humans, e.g., the state of Florida would get a lot smaller, and the Netherlands would really live up to its name.


I don't think everyone agrees at all, that's the point. As for the next point, yes, I'm saying that we're talking about slight increases in global temperature as compared to 10 degree shifts. I disagree that these types of shifts would kill every living thing. They happened multiple times throughout earth history...they weren't isolated events. Look at the graph I posted a few pages back.

[jamac]

As per ususal PO procedure, you guys on the GW bandwagon are just going around in circles; posting link upon link, debating modes of argument, semantics, etc.

Yet no one will answer the simple question: How does science explain the variations (up to 10 degrees) in the Earth's temperature over the millions of years before humans existed, and the fact that those variations themselves lasted for tens if not hundreds of thousands of years?

To follow, how can current climate changes measured in tenths of one degree be considered significant, knowing those large variations existed in the past, especially given that our estimations of past temperatures could not possibly be as accurate?

I'll wait patiently. Thank you.

There is no real need to explain things that have absolutely no influence on our lives right now. Yet there is plenty of scientific explanations as in volcanic ativity, meteor strikes, convection slowdown and and and afterall this is your wish to know and you could simply get a few subscriptions to science magazines, climate science releases and geological dissertations but they are a tough read for the layman.

A person who spends his life researching and studying and experimenting in any field should be given respect. I researched my surgeons resume before my surgery and in the end trusted him with my life. Meteorologists and geologists do just as much research and study as medical doctors. If you find that intense education is useless than stop driving, using the internet and your phone never get medical help and move in with Bin Laden. You guys will make good roommates in his cave.

If you believe taxpayer money has been wasted by these researchers and NASA scientist write letters to congress. There is really no argument here at all.

Everybody move along.....

[BRussell]

I don't think everyone agrees at all, that's the point. You don't think everyone agrees that the earth's warming and cooling over the millennia is caused by atmospheric conditions? I'm sorry, but you're just wrong on that. Everyone agrees that it is probably the single largest factor affecting the earth's temperature. Look at any source on it that you want. There are a whole bunch of other arguments that people make about global warming, many of them in this thread, but saying that the atmosphere isn't one of the major influences on the earth's temperature is not one of them I've ever heard. As for the next point, yes, I'm saying that we're talking about slight increases in global temperature as compared to 10 degree shifts. I disagree that these types of shifts would kill every living thing. They happened multiple times throughout earth history...they weren't isolated events. Look at the graph I posted a few pages back. No, I don't mean to say that every ice age has killed every land animal - obviously that can't be true, because even humans and proto-humans were around during ice ages. But some people believe there have been severe ice ages (i.e., snowball earth) in which something on the scale of mass extinctions occurred. I'm just agreeing with you that the earth's climate has shifted dramatically in the past.

But I don't see the implications of that for whether we are warming the earth now. In my view, it makes the point even more clear that we know for a fact that the earth's temperature can vary significantly and that those temperature changes can dramatically affect the planet.

[midwinter]

When you behave like this I really lose a lot of respect for you. Both of those analogies are ridiculous. Just addess the point directly.

I'm sorry that you're losing respect for me. I didn't even know you had any to begin with, so in a sense, it's no real loss for me. But it saddens me, nonetheless, that you now have one fewer person you respect.

But you must understand, surely, that simply saying that my "analogies are ridiculous" isn't a refutation. It is, in fact, the same kind of refutation the pro-GW people are advancing to you and that you're dismissing out of hand. BUt I'm not advancing an analogy. You're seeing it as one, because it fits nicely, but I'm actually suggesting that we do not know with certainty that cigarettes cause cancer in humans—indeed, any number of other factors could be the cause...cars, microwaves, cell phones. We just plain don't know. So why should we accept shoddy science until we can know something with absolute certainty?

And frankly, I am addressing the point directly. I am addressing the postmodernist tactics adopted by people such as yourself in this discussion, which amounts to little more than an interrogation of truth itself, for in the absence of some kind of monolithic structure falling from heaven and saying "THIS IS" or "ECCE HOMO" or whatever, the line of argument you've taken will be content to nitpick and prevaricate and play with what Paul de Man calls the whirligig. I am happy, though, SDW2001, that you and people mounting arguments like you are have come over to our side and realized that there is no objectively verifiable truth, but that there are instead multiple truths that are historically, politically, and culturally determined and, as such, can be challenged. Global Warming is just another of those truths. We can, in short, never, ever know this with absolute certainty. But it's not just GW. We can't ever know with absolute certainty what Bill Clinton "accomplished" without such determinations being problematic. We can't ever know our history—even that which we observe directly—with certainty. It's the centerpiece of pomo thinking, SDW2001, and you're there, man! You're right there in the trenches with us! Me, you, most of the hard left, and the ID people, SDW2001! It's going to be awesome!

[dmz]

Scientists are pretty clear about the impact of the human contribution to global warming.
Just saw that.

Some scientists do, some don't. The problem is that it's not conclusive but still being used to scare people into following a certain political agenda -- while the prophets zip around, burning more JET A or JP-5 in a weekend than you or I would in a lifetime.

More importantly, an irresponsible movie like Algore's, An Incomplete Truism, made some pretty bold predictions -- more monster hurricanes, etc. That's not science -- that's guessing -- especially when it comes to the weather. (Warren Buffet made a killing betting the opposite.)

When I see factors like sunspot activity off the table, and deliberate attempts to frighten people as SOP, it raises my suspicions.


http://www.coxandforkum.com/archives/06.06.15.HolySmokeMir-X.gif

[dmz]

Op-ed in the WSJ by a professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT:Al Gore is wrong. There's no "consensus" on global warming. (http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008597)

Claims of consensus relieve policy types, environmental advocates and politicians of any need to do so. Such claims also serve to intimidate the public and even scientists--especially those outside the area of climate dynamics. Secondly, given that the question of human attribution largely cannot be resolved, its use in promoting visions of disaster constitutes nothing so much as a bait-and-switch scam. That is an inauspicious beginning to what Mr. Gore claims is not a political issue but a "moral" crusade.

[Outsider]

Op-ed in the WSJ by a professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT:Al Gore is wrong. There's no "consensus" on global warming. (http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008597)

Oh, is that the same guy that charged (http://dieoff.org/page82.htm) "oil and coal interests $2,500 a day for his consulting services; [and] his 1991 trip to testify before a Senate committee was paid for by Western Fuels and a speech he wrote, entitled 'Global Warming: the Origin and Nature of Alleged Scientific Consensus,' was underwritten by OPEC."?

And he's pretty much a joke in the field.

Link (http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=00095B0D-C331-1C6E-84A9809EC588EF21&sc=I100322)

[dmz]

Oh, is that the same guy that charged (http://dieoff.org/page82.htm) "oil and coal interests $2,500 a day for his consulting services; [and] his 1991 trip to testify before a Senate committee was paid for by Western Fuels and a speech he wrote, entitled 'Global Warming: the Origin and Nature of Alleged Scientific Consensus,' was underwritten by OPEC."?

And he's pretty much a joke in the field.


Yes, of course -- so which is he: "ignorant, stupid, wicked or insane?"

[Outsider]

Yes, of course -- so which is he: "ignorant, stupid, wicked or insane?"

Why does he only have to be one?

[dmz]

Why does he only have to be one?

Fine! Hedge your bets then!


:p

[addabox]

Yes, of course -- so which is he: "ignorant, stupid, wicked or insane?"

He doesn't have to be any of those. He need only be in a vanishingly slight minority, which he is.

Is there some confusion about what the word "consensus" means? It doesn't mean "unanimous", it means "general opinion", or "broadly held belief". There is, most assuredly and incontrovertibly, consensus in the climate science community regarding human driven climate change.

Finding the odd duck here or there and brandishing their beliefs as evidence of "controversy" suggests an intentional effort to mislead, or a failure to master a basic English vocabulary.

[dmz]

...it means "general opinion", or "broadly held belief".
Yes, opinion, and belief, I agree.

[midwinter]

Finding the odd duck here or there and brandishing their beliefs as evidence of "controversy" suggests an intentional effort to mislead, or a failure to master a basic English vocabulary.

I disagree, Adda. It's about epistemology.

[dmz]

I disagree, Adda. It's about epistemology.

Now look what you made me do:


Main Entry: ide·ol·o·gy Pronunciation Guide
Pronunciation: dälj, id-, -ji sometimes d-
Variant(s): also ide·al·o·gy \", -al-\
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): -es
Etymology: French idéologie, from idéo- ideo- + -logie -logy
1 a : a branch of knowledge concerned with the origin and nature of ideas b : a theory in philosophy advocated by Destutt de Tracy (1754-1836): ideas originate from sensation
2 : visionary speculation : idle theorizing; often : an impractical theory or system of theories
3 a : a systematic scheme or coordinated body of ideas or concepts especially about human life or culture b : a manner or the content of thinking characteristic of an individual, group, or culture <bourgeois ideology> <medical, legal, and other professional ideologies> <kept his ideology inviolate> c (1) : the integrated assertions, theories, and aims that constitute a sociopolitical program <a national ideology that was not static but altered with altering circumstances> (2) : an extremist sociopolitical program or philosophy constructed wholly or in part on factitious or hypothetical ideational bases

Citation format for this entry:

"ideology." Webster's Third New International Dictionary, Unabridged. Merriam-Webster, 2002. http://unabridged.merriam-webster.com (25 Jan. 2007).

[midwinter]

That right there, dmz? That's why we say you're too oblique. What's your point?

[addabox]

I disagree, Adda. It's about epistemology.

Kinda. It seems to be about the denial of the possibility of a stable epistemology outside of raw assertion, or something.

At any rate a rolling back of recent ways of knowing in favor of something else, the something being not so clear. Is it just our old decon friend "power"? "Faith"? "Expedience"?

There doesn't seem to be anything (coherent) being proffered, just a negation of certainty.

[dmz]

Oblique, my shiny hiny!





addabox is waaay out front on this one.

[thuh Freak]

And frankly, I am addressing the point directly. I am addressing the postmodernist tactics adopted by people such as yourself in this discussion, which amounts to little more than an interrogation of truth itself, for in the absence of some kind of monolithic structure falling from heaven and saying "THIS IS" or "ECCE HOMO" or whatever, the line of argument you've taken will be content to nitpick and prevaricate and play with what Paul de Man calls the whirligig. I am happy, though, SDW2001, that you and people mounting arguments like you are have come over to our side and realized that there is no objectively verifiable truth, but that there are instead multiple truths that are historically, politically, and culturally determined and, as such, can be challenged. Global Warming is just another of those truths. We can, in short, never, ever know this with absolute certainty. But it's not just GW. We can't ever know with absolute certainty what Bill Clinton "accomplished" without such determinations being problematic. We can't ever know our history—even that which we observe directly—with certainty. It's the centerpiece of pomo thinking, SDW2001, and you're there, man! You're right there in the trenches with us! Me, you, most of the hard left, and the ID people, SDW2001! It's going to be awesome!

I lol'd.
What is truth?


i wonder if this encourages more yougins to get interested in the sciences. "is gw happening?," they think, and then they hope to someday solve the riddle. i think with more people entering the field, the evidence for or against will grow. and the more evidence grows, the more in line a theory becomes with predicting the future. i suspect, many of them will probably go in expecting more scientific debate over "is it happening?", but wind up working on solutions to "what the fuck do we do now?"

[midwinter]

Kinda. It seems to be about the denial of the possibility of a stable epistemology outside of raw assertion, or something.

At any rate a rolling back of recent ways of knowing in favor of something else, the something being not so clear. Is it just our old decon friend "power"? "Faith"? "Expedience"?

There doesn't seem to be anything (coherent) being proffered, just a negation of certainty.

As I said earlier to SDW, the issue is that this entire tack from the anti-GW folks (that's a mischaracterization, I know) hinges on a single point: unless "knowledge" is unassailable, it is suspect. The fun begins when folks start to notice that all knowledge is assailable.

The trick, as you I think rightly suspect, is that this strategy knows it is a strategy. It knows it's part of a kind of epistemological thought-experiment about the limits of knowledge. The problem is that I suspect many of the folks deploying it don't think about the implications of it own worldview.

Your first point is dead on. You cannot pull the curtain back on epistemology, revealing it to be ultimately unstable, on only a couple of facets of existence, without reducing everything to "raw assertion."

[jamac]

I have just looked at international news (germany, Austria, UK, India) and it seems that the world agrees that humans are causing global warming without exception. If it would be about a few people not agreeing than democracy would not exist nor any religions.
The science on this is so overwhelming that if cancer research would be at the same consensus cancer would be eradicated. Indeed cancer research has much less empirical evidenz as to causation than GW. I know SDW2001 and his kind will refuse cancer treatment if they ever need it and I am sure they will argue with their doctor and find articles that refute what he may tell them which hopefully will cause their premature demise.
We are experiencing curiously strange weather phenomeni and California has lost it's citrus harvest, I have lost 2 citrus trees myself. Europe has winds beyond anything they have ever experienced. The skiing slopes are green. Permafrost is melting and flys that should have frozen to death are eating newly hatched birds alive before they can grow feathers. Our ecological balance is already destroyed. If it makes you happy that humans have nothing to do with it so be it. It is hard to imagine anyone being happy about GW either way.
Luckily even dimwit GW now believes GW is real and has to do with stinking too much.

[franksargent]

As per ususal PO procedure, you guys on the GW bandwagon are just going around in circles; posting link upon link, debating modes of argument, semantics, etc.

Yet no one will answer the simple question: How does science explain the variations (up to 10 degrees) in the Earth's temperature over the millions of years before humans existed, and the fact that those variations themselves lasted for tens if not hundreds of thousands of years?

To follow, how can current climate changes measured in tenths of one degree be considered significant, knowing those large variations existed in the past, especially given that our estimations of past temperatures could not possibly be as accurate?

I'll wait patiently. Thank you.

I'll try. :\

It has to do with our inability to accurately/reliably reconstruct past histories from the historical record. The geologic record doesn't contain a complete set of boundary conditions (BC's) and initial conditions (IC's) necessary to drive the SOTA GCM's. Most of the historic data is proxy in nature and not direct measurements of physical processes that are available to us today. And remember GCM's will only improve with time in complexity and resolution and will need additional observational/empirical data to drive them.

And even if the geological record contained a complete set of data necessary to model past events, what spatial (1 degree (?)) and temporal (1 year (?)) resolution would be necessary? IMHO, the uncertainties that exist in going from limited proxy data to complete physical reconstructions of historical events will never be possible with a high degree of confidence.

The proxy data does show us that the Earth's past climate has varied greatly, but given current technologies and scientific budgets, even doing proxy measurements with sufficient temporal resolution (1 year, 10 years, or even 100 years) for let's say 500M years (or even 0.1M years) is undoable. And even then the nature of the strata will limit their accuracy.

To answer your second question, we are already seeing what a few tenths of a degree are doing to Earth's climate. And you want to take this "experiment" to the next level? On a highly organized species of 6.5B individuals (or 9B if the 2050 estimates are correct)?

And as I've repeatedly said on this subject, it's the RATE OF CHANGE (ROC) of GW that is important, in the here and now, and in the future, that affects us as a highly organized interdependent technological society. And that the CURRENT ROC is unprecedented in the last 1M years or so, but more specifically the last 10K years or so, when we humans were able to advance techonologically due principally to the fact that Earth's climate has been very mild/stable (i. e. "static") over that time period.

There, I tried. :\

[franksargent]

Op-ed in the WSJ by a professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT:Al Gore is wrong. There's no "consensus" on global warming. (http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008597)

Yes Dr. Richard S.Lindzen (MIT) is in the small group of anthropogenic GW skeptics, has he provided a compelling alternative GW theory, backed up with a GCM based on said theory? That doesen't include anthropogenic forcing? Seriously, I'm all ears!

[addabox]

As I said earlier to SDW, the issue is that this entire tack from the anti-GW folks (that's a mischaracterization, I know) hinges on a single point: unless "knowledge" is unassailable, it is suspect. The fun begins when folks start to notice that all knowledge is assailable.

The trick, as you I think rightly suspect, is that this strategy knows it is a strategy. It knows it's part of a kind of epistemological thought-experiment about the limits of knowledge. The problem is that I suspect many of the folks deploying it don't think about the implications of it own worldview.

Your first point is dead on. You cannot pull the curtain back on epistemology, revealing it to be ultimately unstable, on only a couple of facets of existence, without reducing everything to "raw assertion."

Sorry, I hadn't read your several earlier posts regarding this, yes and yes.

I think it's interesting that this style of thinking uses the same technique as that used to construct paranoid world views: that with close enough scrutiny, the connective tissue of a given structure of events starts to break down, allowing cherry picking of bits and pieces and their purposeful reassembly.

So that bit of footage, and that coincidence, and that off the record remark, and that seemingly similar occurrence, and that biographical detail, all point to.....well they point to a void.

And that void serves as the tabula rasa onto which one inscribes the new, entirely subjective, ideology.

It's the void part that spooks me. We now have a fair group of activists agitating for what amounts to a paranoid recasting of what, for better or worse, has served as the undergirding of "the modern world".

And as you have noted, they may think they are successfully refuting conclusions, but they are in fact refuting (in the sense of publicly denying) the mechanisms of those conclusions, with completely unconsidered gusto.

Since the mechanisms are actual things in the world, it's roughly as if one disliked a song on the radio and became determined to put an end to electromagnetism-- with the alarming caveat that while electromagnetism is impervious to such hostility, a given epistemology is not.

[franksargent]

When I see factors like sunspot activity off the table, and deliberate attempts to frighten people as SOP, it raises my suspicions.

w00t!

Solar activity off the table? Bundle up! :D

But seriously, all GCM's have to include solar activity and variations thereof, we now have ~30 years of accurate measurements of solar irradiation, so to be honest the observational record is still fairly short. But what has been shown, even with that short record, is that the known solar variability only accounts for at most a minor fraction of the total energy budget (current estimates may be as high as 20-25%).

Solar Variability & Global Warming
Some uncertainty remains about the role of natural variations in causing climate change. Solar variability certainly plays a minor role, but it looks like only a quarter of the recent variations can be attributed to the Sun. At most. During the initial discovery period of global warming, the magnitude of the influence of increased activity on the Sun was not well determined.
Solar irradiance changes have been measured reliably by satellites for only 30 years. These precise observations show changes of a few tenths of a percent that depend on the level of activity in the 11-year solar cycle. Changes over longer periods must be inferred from other sources. Estimates of earlier variations are important for calibrating the climate models. While a component of recent global warming may have been caused by the increased solar activity of the last solar cycle, that component was very small compared to the effects of additional greenhouse gases. According to a NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) press release, "...the solar increases do not have the ability to cause large global temperature increases...greenhouse gases are indeed playing the dominant role..." The Sun is once again less bright as we approach solar minimum, yet global warming continues.

Stanford Solar Center (http://solar-center.stanford.edu/sun-on-earth/glob-warm.html)

[dmz]

Yes Dr. Richard S.Lindzen (MIT) is in the small group of anthropogenic GW skeptics, has he provided a compelling alternative GW theory, backed up with a GCM based on said theory? That doesen't include anthropogenic forcing? Seriously, I'm all ears!
That's a sly argument from authority -- but -- I'm going to assume for the moment that professors like Dr. Lindzen at MIT are there until they're removed for cause.

[dmz]

Lets be frank, Environmentalism, the Green Movement, etc. are Rousseau-esque echos on a good day, and violent genocidal maniacs on a bad day; Hilter and Earth First come to mind.

Applying the 'Eric Rudolf' test to the environmental movement produces a less-than comforting collective picture of the Green among us. That can't be entirely overlooked, any more than their deep roots in paganism Gaia worship, spiking trees, murders, and calling for a 90% drop in world population. You have varying degrees of those things, and you never quite escape the rhetoric.

The Eric Rudolf test I understand, only applies to Christians, though. :rolleyes:

Backing away from any outright strawmen for a moment, environmentalism is an ideology that in part, believes that if we can only return man back to his natural state, all will be well -- or pretty darn good, and better than what the planet rapists have given us.

What have they done to our fair sister?
Ravaged and plundered and ripped her and bit her
Struck her down with knives in the side of the dawn
And tied her with fences and dragged her down

The other verse to this ideology is the belief that man can not only control his environment, but he can direct his own evolution. This is pretty important since it's the same old paganism song and dance:

Our problems aren't sin, they are our environment -- change/control the environment, and you become your own functioning deity. That sentiment is key.

So for someone like Algore the problem is no longer the Greek gods who can be bargained with, and even overcome to a degree, he sees the oneness of nature as the target.

The problem, like evolution, is that it's an ideology that either is not selfconscious or is being deliberately deceptive; it plows ahead, in any case. So from time-to-time, people who claim authority, Malthus, Ehrlich, Sagan and his 'Nuclear Winter', etc., push this agenda of attempting to control the environment through scare tactics, and use half-baked science to do it.

They absolutely freak out at a 0.9 degree rise in temperature, or whatever is handy, in order to take on a messianic mantel, living out their own god delusions. They compound matters by doing things as patently stupid as authoritatively telling us what conditions on Earth were, within a few degrees, 30,000,000 years ago -- when they can't tell you what the weather will be like tomorrow.

Algore dogmatically starts from a position that man is carrying us all away from our natural state, and runs with it. But no matter what happens -- they found out this year that the Atlantic conveyor belt really is in no trouble at all, for instance -- this isn't about information, it's about belief.

[midwinter]

Algore


Someone listens to too much Limbaugh.

[dmz]

Someone listens to too much Limbaugh.
A little is all it takes!

[SDW2001]

You don't think everyone agrees that the earth's warming and cooling over the millennia is caused by atmospheric conditions? I'm sorry, but you're just wrong on that. Everyone agrees that it is probably the single largest factor affecting the earth's temperature. Look at any source on it that you want. There are a whole bunch of other arguments that people make about global warming, many of them in this thread, but saying that the atmosphere isn't one of the major influences on the earth's temperature is not one of them I've ever heard. No, I don't mean to say that every ice age has killed every land animal - obviously that can't be true, because even humans and proto-humans were around during ice ages. But some people believe there have been severe ice ages (i.e., snowball earth) in which something on the scale of mass extinctions occurred. I'm just agreeing with you that the earth's climate has shifted dramatically in the past.

But I don't see the implications of that for whether we are warming the earth now. In my view, it makes the point even more clear that we know for a fact that the earth's temperature can vary significantly and that those temperature changes can dramatically affect the planet.

Maybe I misinterpreted you. I am taking issue with the notion that everyone agrees with the notion that man is causing those atmospheric conditions. Maybe you weren't implying that level of specificity.

I see your point re: temp flucuations in that they obviously affect the planet tremendously. I just don't see that we know for sure those large variations are even happening at all, not to mention as a result of human acitivities.

[SDW2001]

I'm sorry that you're losing respect for me. I didn't even know you had any to begin with, so in a sense, it's no real loss for me. But it saddens me, nonetheless, that you now have one fewer person you respect.

But you must understand, surely, that simply saying that my "analogies are ridiculous" isn't a refutation. It is, in fact, the same kind of refutation the pro-GW people are advancing to you and that you're dismissing out of hand. BUt I'm not advancing an analogy. You're seeing it as one, because it fits nicely, but I'm actually suggesting that we do not know with certainty that cigarettes cause cancer in humans—indeed, any number of other factors could be the cause...cars, microwaves, cell phones. We just plain don't know. So why should we accept shoddy science until we can know something with absolute certainty?

And frankly, I am addressing the point directly. I am addressing the postmodernist tactics adopted by people such as yourself in this discussion, which amounts to little more than an interrogation of truth itself, for in the absence of some kind of monolithic structure falling from heaven and saying "THIS IS" or "ECCE HOMO" or whatever, the line of argument you've taken will be content to nitpick and prevaricate and play with what Paul de Man calls the whirligig. I am happy, though, SDW2001, that you and people mounting arguments like you are have come over to our side and realized that there is no objectively verifiable truth, but that there are instead multiple truths that are historically, politically, and culturally determined and, as such, can be challenged. Global Warming is just another of those truths. We can, in short, never, ever know this with absolute certainty. But it's not just GW. We can't ever know with absolute certainty what Bill Clinton "accomplished" without such determinations being problematic. We can't ever know our history—even that which we observe directly—with certainty. It's the centerpiece of pomo thinking, SDW2001, and you're there, man! You're right there in the trenches with us! Me, you, most of the hard left, and the ID people, SDW2001! It's going to be awesome!

:lol: I'm starting to like you more and more, respect aside. Seriously.

To be more specific, I think it's dubious to compare our knowledge of cigarettes' harmful affects to our knowledge of what is causing global warming. The evidence for the cigarrette claims is truly overwhelming. Moreover, such evidence is just as measurable now as it was 50 years ago. When it comes to GW, we're talking about comparing trends from millions of years ago, which invariably creates an accuracy problem in terms of the data itself.

I don't disagree that proving anything conclusively, that finding the "the truth" if you will is impossible, at least from a purely academic or even philosophical standpoint. That said, all we have is...well, "what we have." Relatively speaking, we can prove certain things better than others, don't you agree? I'm just saying, bluntly, that man made GW is not as "provable" an assertion as the link between cigarettes and cancer.

[SDW2001]

I have just looked at international news (germany, Austria, UK, India) and it seems that the world agrees that humans are causing global warming without exception. If it would be about a few people not agreeing than democracy would not exist nor any religions.
The science on this is so overwhelming that if cancer research would be at the same consensus cancer would be eradicated. Indeed cancer research has much less empirical evidenz as to causation than GW. I know SDW2001 and his kind will refuse cancer treatment if they ever need it and I am sure they will argue with their doctor and find articles that refute what he may tell them which hopefully will cause their premature demise.
We are experiencing curiously strange weather phenomeni and California has lost it's citrus harvest, I have lost 2 citrus trees myself. Europe has winds beyond anything they have ever experienced. The skiing slopes are green. Permafrost is melting and flys that should have frozen to death are eating newly hatched birds alive before they can grow feathers. Our ecological balance is already destroyed. If it makes you happy that humans have nothing to do with it so be it. It is hard to imagine anyone being happy about GW either way.
Luckily even dimwit GW now believes GW is real and has to do with stinking too much.



You're an idiot.

[midwinter]

I don't disagree that proving anything conclusively, that finding the "the truth" if you will is impossible, at least from a purely academic or even philosophical standpoint.

The rest of your point aside (I'll respond later when I have more time), that is not a position one often hears from a conservative.

[dmz]

Your take on this is a little fantastical.

The experts don't think the science on the human contribution to global warming is "half-baked" or there's necessarily a conflict between predicting the weather and discerning climate information from the past. Just like in evolution threads, you're citing non-existant conflicts as conclusive evidence or your non-scientific premise.
No it's not fantastical, all things have ideological underpinnings; if you can get the sheep's front legs on the tailgate....

And as for "evidence," when all concerned can look at the thermometer and say 'yep, it's warmer' then we'll know, and not before. It's still an ambiguous proposition.

Meanwhile, technology will continue to replace Incandescents with LEDs, LCDs will continue to replace CRTs, we'll all install higher and higher efficiency appliances, 2-gallon potties, and so on, and on, and on.

Meanwhile people like Algore ...a poor player That struts and frets his hour upon the stage And then is heard no more... will indulge dark, hysterical fantasies, but reality will march right along.





“I’ve seen a heap of trouble in my life, and most of it never came to pass.”
-Mark Twain

[SDW2001]

The rest of your point aside (I'll respond later when I have more time), that is not a position one often hears from a conservative.

I think we may be falling in love. Don't deny it!

[midwinter]

I think we may be falling in love. Don't deny it!

There is a Peter Cetera song (http://www.lyricsfreak.com/p/peter+cetera/the+next+time+i+fall_20107383.html) playing in my head....

[midwinter]

To be more specific, I think it's dubious to compare our knowledge of cigarettes' harmful affects to our knowledge of what is causing global warming.

Knowledge is knowledge. Both are imperfect. Why are they different? Doctors did, after all, once recommend KOOLs for a sore throat. Mercury for lots of ills. Bleeding. Medicine is, after all, a pretty new "scientific" profession. Depressed? Take Prozac! We're not really sure HOW it all works, but it works. Most of the time. Often. Unless it doesn't.

The evidence for the cigarrette claims is truly overwhelming.

As opposed to the only marginally overwhelming evidence for GW? And for SHAME, SDW2001! "truly" overwhelming? TRULY? If you're going to be one of US, you'll need to avoid making any references to a master narrative like that.

Moreover, such evidence is just as measurable now as it was 50 years ago. When it comes to GW, we're talking about comparing trends from millions of years ago, which invariably creates an accuracy problem in terms of the data itself.

I might argue that it is just as difficult to study a recent phenomenon as it is a distant one. We cannot, unfortunately, take core samples of ice during Clinton's presidency to determine whether he actually "accomplished" anything. There is no such thing as "accurate" date. All data is suspect. All data is assailable. Period. Add in the uncertainty principle and some Francis Bacon and holy hell, man. Who knows. Was Clinton ever really a President?

I don't disagree that proving anything conclusively, that finding the "the truth" if you will is impossible, at least from a purely academic or even philosophical standpoint.

If you mean that beyond individual (read: unverifiable) conviction, then yes. All knowledge, all "truth," is personal.

That said, all we have is...well, "what we have."

Oh no, SDW2001, it is far more complicated than that. We don't even know what we have. Nor do we know that we would—or could—know it when we saw it. Nor do we know that we really know what "having" means. And that's just scratching the surface.

Relatively speaking, we can prove certain things better than others, don't you agree?

No.

I'm just saying, bluntly, that man made GW is not as "provable" an assertion as the link between cigarettes and cancer.

Come on, SDW2001! Let down your hair a little. You can't claim, on the one hand, that imperfect "knowledge" is laughable for GW and not for something else. If it's imperfect, it's imperfect. If it's assailable, it's assailable. You can't say consensus is fine for one and not for the other.

[franksargent]

That's a sly argument from authority -- but -- I'm going to assume for the moment that professors like Dr. Lindzen at MIT are there until they're removed for cause.

A tenured professor being removed from his position is most diffucult last time I checked, but you (or he) haven't answered the basic question, what GCM studies has he conducted, what theories has he presented lately (last 2-3 years)? In peered reviewed scientific journals to support his scientific opinion? :D

[midwinter]

A tenured professor being removed from his position is most diffucult last time I checked

Two were removed just down the road from you in Hattiesburg a few years ago. It eventually required a former state supreme court justice to arbitrate.

[franksargent]

Two were removed just down the road from you in Hattiesburg a few years ago. It eventually required a former state supreme court justice to arbitrate.

I wouldn't know about the specifics of that situation, but sure if there's evidence for removal, so be it. dmz brought up the subject and didn't answer the basic question. But I seriously doubt that any position on GW (it's causes) would get anyone removed from their academic position at this time. Considering the political climate :) at the moment.

[midwinter]

I wouldn't know about the specifics of that situation, but sure if there's evidence for removal, so be it. dmz brought up the subject and didn't answer the basic question. But I seriously doubt that any position on GW (it's causes) would get anyone removed from their academic position at this time. Considering the political climate :) at the monemt.

My point was not that it happens. My point was that it was so difficult that it took a former MS supreme court justice to settle it. This became national news among academics. It was really quite revolting.

[franksargent]

And as for "evidence," when all concerned can look at the thermometer and say 'yep, it's warmer' then we'll know, and not before. It's still an ambiguous proposition.

Scientests have been looking at over 150 years of temperature data, and they say "yep, it's warmer" about 0.8 degrees C warmer in the past 100 years.

Uncertainty estimates in regional and global observed temperature changes: a new dataset from 1850 (http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/HadCRUT3_accepted.pdf)

The historical surface temperature dataset HadCRUT provides a record of surface temperature trends and variability since 1850. A new version of this dataset, HadCRUT3, has been produced; benefiting from recent improvements to the sea-surface temperature dataset which forms its marine component, and from improvements to the station records which provide the land data. A comprehensive set of uncertainty estimates has been derived to accompany the data: estimates of measurement and sampling error, temperature bias effects, and the effect of limited observational coverage on large-scale averages have all been made. Since the mid-20th century the uncertainties in global and hemispheric mean temperatures are small and the temperature increase greatly exceeds its uncertainty. In earlier periods the uncertainties are larger, but the temperature increase over the 20th century is still significantly larger than its uncertainty.

[SDW2001]

There is a Peter Cetera song (http://www.lyricsfreak.com/p/peter+cetera/the+next+time+i+fall_20107383.html) playing in my head....

:lol:

[SDW2001]

Mid:

Knowledge is knowledge. Both are imperfect. Why are they different? Doctors did, after all, once recommend KOOLs for a sore throat. Mercury for lots of ills. Bleeding. Medicine is, after all, a pretty new "scientific" profession. Depressed? Take Prozac! We're not really sure HOW it all works, but it works. Most of the time. Often. Unless it doesn't.

Yes, but doctors prescribed KOOLs because they didn't know any better. We do know how prozac works, to a great extent.

As opposed to the only marginally overwhelming evidence for GW? And for SHAME, SDW2001! "truly" overwhelming? TRULY? If you're going to be one of US, you'll need to avoid making any references to a master narrative like that.

ha. Do you really think the evidence for GW is overwhelming?

I might argue that it is just as difficult to study a recent phenomenon as it is a distant one. We cannot, unfortunately, take core samples of ice during Clinton's presidency to determine whether he actually "accomplished" anything. There is no such thing as "accurate" date. All data is suspect. All data is assailable. Period. Add in the uncertainty principle and some Francis Bacon and holy hell, man. Who knows. Was Clinton ever really a President?

Yes, he was. We have a blue dress with a stain to prove it. ;)

Come on, SDW2001! Let down your hair a little. You can't claim, on the one hand, that imperfect "knowledge" is laughable for GW and not for something else. If it's imperfect, it's imperfect. If it's assailable, it's assailable. You can't say consensus is fine for one and not for the other.

The evidence for cigs causing cancer has not caused a "consensus" to develop. It's way beyond a consensus. Do you know anyone...I mean anyone who doesn't directly work for a tobacco company who claims that they do not cause cancer?

Now, take GW. Many scientists believe it's happening. There is a consensus. However, we've seen that those who disagree (and they are out there) are being pushed to the bottom of the pile, so to speak (hence the creation of this thread).

The two issues really cannot be said to be the same.

[SDW2001]

Scientests have been looking at over 150 years of temperature data, and they say "yep, it's warmer" about 0.8 degrees C warmer in the past 100 years.

Uncertainty estimates in regional and global observed temperature changes: a new dataset from 1850 (http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/HadCRUT3_accepted.pdf)


.....In earlier periods the uncertainties are larger, but the temperature increase over the 20th century is still significantly larger than its uncertainty.

False. Earlier periods we as much as 10 degrees warmer. I seriously doubt we can know the temperatures of those "early" periods to within .8 degrees.

[Bergermeister]

http://edition.cnn.com/2007/TECH/science/01/23/climate.report.ap/index.html

600 scientists from around the world

OUCH

I dunno about you guys, but I think that just perhaps they know more about this than either me or GW, so I will pay attention. If only GW and his cult were so humble.

[Flounder]

To be more specific, I think it's dubious to compare our knowledge of cigarettes' harmful affects to our knowledge of what is causing global warming. The evidence for the cigarrette claims is truly overwhelming. Moreover, such evidence is just as measurable now as it was 50 years ago. When it comes to GW, we're talking about comparing trends from millions of years ago, which invariably creates an accuracy problem in terms of the data itself.


That's not accurate. It's WAY more measurable now than it was 50 years ago.

The language in this thread has similarities to that of the cigarette companies in the 60's 70's 80's and early 90's.

[Bergermeister]

A quotation from the link above:

Global warming is "happening now, it's very obvious," said Mahlman, a former director of NOAA's Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Lab. "When you look at the temperature of the Earth, it's pretty much a no-brainer."

GW and his groupies can't grasp a no-brainer. That's a no-brainer!

[dmz]

A tenured professor being removed from his position is most diffucult last time I checked, but you (or he) haven't answered the basic question, what GCM studies has he conducted, what theories has he presented lately (last 2-3 years)? In peered reviewed scientific journals to support his scientific opinion? :D
Well, then, he's definitely guilty -- crafty too -- sneaking by the WSJ editors like that.

[midwinter]

Yes, but doctors prescribed KOOLs because they didn't know any better. We do know how prozac works, to a great extent.

No. We know what it DOES. We don't know WHY. That knowledge is imperfect.

ha. Do you really think the evidence for GW is overwhelming?

It is awfully impressive. It is even more impressive to travel abroad and see how there is, quite simply, no debate elsewhere. But yes. It's an impressive array of evidence. How do I know? I read State of Fear.

Yes, he was. We have a blue dress with a stain to prove it. ;)

Yes, but how do you know that Monica didn't buy that blue dress planning on getting presidential semen on it so she could blackmail him so she could get a job in NYC?

The evidence for cigs causing cancer has not caused a "consensus" to develop. It's way beyond a consensus. Do you know anyone...I mean anyone who doesn't directly work for a tobacco company who claims that they do not cause cancer?

...and then...

Now, take GW. Many scientists believe it's happening. There is a consensus. However, we've seen that those who disagree (and they are out there) are being pushed to the bottom of the pile, so to speak (hence the creation of this thread).

The two issues really cannot be said to be the same.

So a consensus that's a consensus is not a consensus unless there are people who are outliers even though we all know the journals are full of those damned pro-cigarettes = cancer academics who won't publish their work? Consensus is consensus, even if there are outliers. But there was consensus about Ptolemy's theory of geocentism, too. And for a lot longer than we've been assuming—believing—that cigarettes cause cancer. And don't even get me STARTED on fetal alcohol syndrome.

SDW2001, you need to complete your journey to postmodernism and give up these silly distinctions that don't make any sense. Go toward the light, SDW2001! Go toward the light!

[midwinter]

Well, then, he's definitely guilty -- crafty too -- sneaking by the WSJ editors like that.

Surely you're not suggesting that publishing in the WSJ is equivalent to publishing in a peer-reviewed academic journal.

[Outsider]

Surely you're not suggesting that publishing in the WSJ is equivalent to publishing in a peer-reviewed academic journal.

Wait a minute. You're not suggesting a paper owned by Rev. Moon is not on par with a publication like Nature, Science, or PNAS? Certainly they hold articles up to the same scrutiny that those other publications do.

[dmz]

Surely you're not suggesting that publishing in the WSJ is equivalent to publishing in a peer-reviewed academic journal.
I don't remember asserting that.....wait.....let me check.........




mmmmmmm....




....no.


Can I get you any more clarifications?

[midwinter]

Can I get you any more clarifications?

Yes, please. What did you mean when you wrote this:


Well, then, he's definitely guilty -- crafty too -- sneaking by the WSJ editors like that.

[dmz]

Alllllright, let me help clarify a bit, we seem to be a little fuzzy on the difference between peer-reviewed journal material, and news/editorial/opinion content.

The Wall Street Journal is a respected newspaper, with high journalisitc standards. They publish both news and Opinion material. Here is the definition of opinion:

Main Entry: 1opin·ion Pronunciation Guide
Pronunciation: pinyn sometimes p-
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): -s
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French, from Latin opinion-, opinio; akin to Latin opinari
1 a : a view, judgment, or appraisal formed in the mind about a particular matter or particular matters <why ask my opinion if you have already decided>
...

Citation format for this entry:

"opinion." Webster's Third New International Dictionary, Unabridged. Merriam-Webster, 2002. http://unabridged.merriam-webster.com (26 Jan. 2007).



Here is an example: "Polar Bear Politics"
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB116778985966865527-email.html



The journal Science is "peer-reviewed." Peer review... (from wikipedia)
...is a process of subjecting an author's scholarly work or ideas to the scrutiny of others who are experts in the field.
Here is an example: "False Alarm: Atlantic Conveyor Belt Hasn't Slowed Down After All"
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/314/5802/1064a

[midwinter]

Don't be an ass. dmz. I asked you what you meant when you wrote that.

[dmz]

Don't be an ass. dmz. I asked you what you meant when you wrote that.
Oh stop it, midwinter, you know exactly what I meant.

[midwinter]

Oh stop it, midwinter, you know exactly what I meant.

This gets really, really old after a while, dmz. No. I don't know what you meant. For God's sake, man, there's a whole section of a thread about how you are often too oblique and some of us who interact with you regularly have great difficulty sussing out what the hell you're talking about sometimes.

And so I ask again, for the third time, what you meant when you wrote this:


Well, then, he's definitely guilty -- crafty too -- sneaking by the WSJ editors like that.


Guilty of what? Crafty how? About what? Publishing? Writing? Sneaking? Being a professor? Sneaking what by the WSJ editors? And sneaking like how? What does this have to do with his being a professor? What does this have to do with peer reviewed publications in his field?

[dmz]

This gets really, really old after a while, dmz.
Yes, it does get very old.

If you aren't connecting with the social/intellectual/political significance of an MIT professor publishing an op-ed in a major American daily, there is no technology available to mitigate that disaster!







('kinda like global whomping)










Wait! where's turkey lurkey, loosey goosey, and lucky ducky --- Algore has a bill of goods he needs to 'explain' to them.

[Hassan i Sabbah]

Wait! where's turkey lurkey, loosey goosey, and lucky ducky --- Algore has a bill of goods he needs to 'explain' to them.

I understand this! It's a reference to Chicken Little!

[dmz]

I understand this! It's a reference to Chicken Little!

Yeeeeeeeeeeeee Haaaaaaaaaaaa!!!

Hallelujah!!

[franksargent]

False. Earlier periods we as much as 10 degrees warmer. I seriously doubt we can know the temperatures of those "early" periods to within .8 degrees.

What are you talking about? Seriously!

That reference is about the LAST 150 years of global temperature meassurements. Actual real direct temperature measurements.

It's a TRUE statement that Earth's mean global surface temperature has risen 0.8 degrees C in the LAST 100 years. It's also a TRUE statement that they are statisticaly certain about that rise in temperature.

What does something that occured prior to recorded history have to do with our current situation anyway? We all are talking about the CURRENT GW situation, something we know a great deal about, not something that happened millions of years ago, not something that we have no direct observational data about!

[SDW2001]

That's not accurate. It's WAY more measurable now than it was 50 years ago.

The language in this thread has similarities to that of the cigarette companies in the 60's 70's 80's and early 90's.

That's a bullshit comparison. We've known since the 60s that cigarrettes cause cancer. Now we now even more. We don't know what is causing global warming. We think we may know. We should therefore err on the side of caution by reducing our dependence on fossil fuels.

[dmz]

What are you talking about? Seriously!

That reference is about the LAST 150 years of global temperature meassurements. Actual real direct temperature measurements.

It's a TRUE statement that Earth's mean global surface temperature has risen 0.8 degrees C in the LAST 100 years. It's also a TRUE statement that they are statisticaly certain about that rise in temperature.

What does something that occured prior to recorded history have to do with our current situation anyway? We all are talking about the CURRENT GW situation, something we know a great deal about, not something that happened millions of years ago, not something that we have no direct observational data about!

The problem here franksargent, is that the issue has been seized by people who, for ideological reasons alone, tell us we can control this fluctuation. The reality, is that -- even if this is man-made, even if everything posited is true the technology still is not in existence that will make any discernible difference in our lifetimes. Lifetimes that will undoubtedly produce new, radical energy saving technologies, regardless of any politically motivated hysteria.

Then entire issue has been hijacked to serve an ideology.

What we have is hysteria, like The Day After Tomorrow, and Algore's irresponsible cinematic cat-call. The math on switchgrass doesn't add up, and it doesn't matter, Polar Bears are threatened to be listed as endangered due to incomplete research, it doesn't matter. Hybrid cars are nothing more than a feel-good thing, again, it doesn't matter.

All that matters is that we get religion on environmentalism, when in reality we are going to continue to save the planet with 'pesticides and plastics.'

[franksargent]

Well, then, he's definitely guilty -- crafty too -- sneaking by the WSJ editors like that.

Last time I checked, the WSJ is not a peer reviewed scientific journal.

Perhaps you are confused by Wall Street JOURNAL part of that "funny papers" title? :lol:

Which BTW is about the only forum the GW skeptics publish in these days (or their numerous websites).

Because they WILL NOT do the SCIENCE to support their BIASED views! :err: :rolleyes: :wow: :no:

[SDW2001]

No. We know what it DOES. We don't know WHY. That knowledge is imperfect.



It is awfully impressive. It is even more impressive to travel abroad and see how there is, quite simply, no debate elsewhere. But yes. It's an impressive array of evidence. How do I know? I read State of Fear.



Yes, but how do you know that Monica didn't buy that blue dress planning on getting presidential semen on it so she could blackmail him so she could get a job in NYC?



...and then...



So a consensus that's a consensus is not a consensus unless there are people who are outliers even though we all know the journals are full of those damned pro-cigarettes = cancer academics who won't publish their work? Consensus is consensus, even if there are outliers. But there was consensus about Ptolemy's theory of geocentism, too. And for a lot longer than we've been assuming—believing—that cigarettes cause cancer. And don't even get me STARTED on fetal alcohol syndrome.

SDW2001, you need to complete your journey to postmodernism and give up these silly distinctions that don't make any sense. Go toward the light, SDW2001! Go toward the light!

1. Yes, we do know why. I'm on one of those drugs for anxiety symptoms I developed about a year back (because no one is going to let that one go: I developed chest pain and shortness of breath and dizziness for no reason. My arms went numb at various times of the day...the drug fixed all that). The drug, Lexapro, is a Serotonin Repuptake Inhibitor. It works by reducing the rate at which serotonin is "sucked up" if you will after the neurons fire. This increase in the neurotransmitter reduces anxiety and depression.

2. But it can't be that impressive. The only thing we can really look at is CO2 and other pollutant levels, and then relate them to temperature. I've already explained why we can't possibly have accurate information to overcome the trends in climate that have occured over millions of years. I'm not sure why this is hard for you or anyone else to understand.

3. 'cause she's dumb, pa!

4. You've lost me. Seriously.

[SDW2001]

What are you talking about? Seriously!

That reference is about the LAST 150 years of global temperature meassurements. Actual real direct temperature measurements.

It's a TRUE statement that Earth's mean global surface temperature has risen 0.8 degrees C in the LAST 100 years. It's also a TRUE statement that they are statisticaly certain about that rise in temperature.

What does something that occured prior to recorded history have to do with our current situation anyway? We all are talking about the CURRENT GW situation, something we know a great deal about, not something that happened millions of years ago, not something that we have no direct observational data about!

Jesus. Because if you look at the history of the planet, a .8 degree increase means nothing.

[Flounder]

I understand this! It's a reference to Chicken Little!

I find it fairly ironic that some republicans accuse climate scientists of being a large group of chicken little's, when that is the exact strategy used in the build up to, invasion, occupation, and now escalation of the Iraq war.

[midwinter]

Yes, it does get very old.

If you aren't connecting with the social/intellectual/political significance of an MIT professor publishing an op-ed in a major American daily, there is no technology available to mitigate that disaster!

Um. Professors publish op-eds all the time in all kinds of papers. What, again, is your point? Please, dmz. I'm just asking what the hell you meant in that sentence. This isn't some kind of trap. I just straight up don't know what your point is.

[midwinter]

The drug, Lexapro, is a Serotonin Repuptake Inhibitor. It works by reducing the rate at which serotonin is "sucked up" if you will after the neurons fire. This increase in the neurotransmitter reduces anxiety and depression.

And that's my point. We know WHAT it does. We don't know why SSRIs help people with depression. Why does disallowing seratonin to be reabsorbed make people feel less depressed.

[dmz]

Um. Professors publish op-eds all the time in all kinds of papers. What, again, is your point? Please, dmz. I'm just asking what the hell you meant in that sentence. This isn't some kind of trap. I just straight up don't know what your point is.
It means nothing, midwinter. It is a fact devoid of informational, or really, any semantic possibilities.

If I were you, I'd just ignore it. (feigning ignorance works too)

[dmz]

Last time I checked, the WSJ is not a peer reviewed scientific journal.

Perhaps you are confused by Wall Street JOURNAL part of that "funny papers" title? :lol:

Which BTW is about the only forum the GW skeptics publish in these days (or their numerous websites).

Because they WILL NOT do the SCIENCE to support their BIASED views! :err: :rolleyes: :wow: :no:
Alllllright, let me help clarify a bit, we seem to be a little fuzzy on the difference between peer-reviewed journal material, and news/editorial/opinion content.

The Wall Street Journal is a respected newspaper, with high journalisitc standards. They publish both news and Opinion material. Here is the definition of opinion:

Main Entry: 1opin·ion Pronunciation Guide
Pronunciation: pinyn sometimes p-
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): -s
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French, from Latin opinion-, opinio; akin to Latin opinari
1 a : a view, judgment, or appraisal formed in the mind about a particular matter or particular matters <why ask my opinion if you have already decided>
...

Citation format for this entry:

"opinion." Webster's Third New International Dictionary, Unabridged. Merriam-Webster, 2002. http://unabridged.merriam-webster.com (26 Jan. 2007).



Here is an example: "Polar Bear Politics"
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB116778985966865527-email.html



The journal Science is "peer-reviewed." Peer review... (from wikipedia)
...is a process of subjecting an author's scholarly work or ideas to the scrutiny of others who are experts in the field.
Here is an example: "False Alarm: Atlantic Conveyor Belt Hasn't Slowed Down After All"
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/314/5802/1064a

[Flounder]

That's a bullshit comparison. We've known since the 60s that cigarrettes cause cancer. Now we now even more. We don't know what is causing global warming. We think we may know. We should therefore err on the side of caution by reducing our dependence on fossil fuels.


Well, I think it's quite apt.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,939122,00.html

http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=jlz1shJpSAAC&oi=fnd&pg=PA1&sig=2mBf-orn8_VeW6IkkU1ov9i_QKE&dq=%22Glantz%22+%22The+Cigarette+Papers%22+#PPA2,M 1

There has been scientific consensus, quite similar to the scientific consensus on GW, since the mid 60's, but it was vociferously denied by tobacco companies until the late 90's. They had their own studies and "scientists" to support themselves. During that time, there was always a sector of the population that believed them.

[franksargent]

Alllllright, let me help clarify a bit, we seem to be a little fuzzy on the difference between peer-reviewed journal material, and news/editorial/opinion content.

The Wall Street Journal is a respected newspaper, with high journalisitc standards. They publish both news and Opinion material. Here is the definition of opinion:




Here is an example: "Polar Bear Politics"
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB116778985966865527-email.html



The journal Science is "peer-reviewed." Peer review... (from wikipedia)

Here is an example: "False Alarm: Atlantic Conveyor Belt Hasn't Slowed Down After All"
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/314/5802/1064a

Wow, I didn't know that the WSJ were experts in the the field of GW!

And here all along I thought their field of expertise was journalism, BIASED journalism yes, but journalism nonetheless.

[franksargent]

Jesus. Because if you look at the history of the planet, a .8 degree increase means nothing.

It is fairly obvious that the subject of GW means nothing TO YOU!

But GW is real, we know what physical processes are causing GW, and we know that the likelihood of GW worstening significantly in the future is greater if we "stay the course" you know, if we don't "cut and run." :D

[dmz]

midwinter: I apologize for being snide, but take a look at this:
Wow, I didn't know that the WSJ were experts in the the field of GW!

And here all along I thought their field of expertise was journalism, BIASED journalism yes, but journalism nonetheless.
This is a purer form of what I'm alluding to (and protesttething,) this was about the third or forth meaningful point that I've tried to make, but I get...


dead silence


...and a weird, almost reflexive 'that didn't hurt' response.

"he's a shill" "fantastical" "I don't understand"
"he's a shill" "fantastical" "I don't understand"
"he's a shill" "fantastical" "I don't understand"
"he's a shill" "fantastical" "I don't understand"
"he's a shill" "fantastical" "I don't understand"
"he's a shill" "fantastical" "I don't understand"
"he's a shill" "fantastical" "I don't understand"
"he's a shill" "fantastical" "I don't understand"
"he's a shill" "fantastical" "I don't understand"
"he's a shill" "fantastical" "I don't understand"
"he's a shill" "fantastical" "I don't understand"


Now if I wasn't cutting an pasting talking points from the Cato Institute, I might think that I'd wandered off the intellectual reservation, but there is a vacuousness here that is getting a little creepy. And yes, we all deal with conflict in different ways. But I'm consistently, and worse, predictably not getting any dialogue. It's a pain. And lame!

A switch-up between pure ignoring, and endless clarifications. No fun.

[franksargent]

Well, I think it's quite apt.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,939122,00.html

http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=jlz1shJpSAAC&oi=fnd&pg=PA1&sig=2mBf-orn8_VeW6IkkU1ov9i_QKE&dq=%22Glantz%22+%22The+Cigarette+Papers%22+#PPA2,M 1

There has been scientific consensus, quite similar to the scientific consensus on GW, since the mid 60's, but it was vociferously denied by tobacco companies until the late 90's. They had their own studies and "scientists" to support themselves. During that time, there was always a sector of the population that believed them.

The situation is fairly similar, I'll grant you that.

But the BIG difference this time is that we can't go around posting "NO GLOBAL WARMING ALLOWED" signs, since we all occupy a single room called PLANET EARTH!

[jamac]

http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/nuclearPolicies/260107-Blix_Global_warming_greater_threat_than_WMDs.shtml

fingers in ears: lalalalalalallalalalalalalalala

But I really wanted to start a nuclear war.....isn't anybody scared anymore.....

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_012507/content/gwu.Par.0009.ImageFile.jpg

[franksargent]

midwinter: I apologize for being snide, but take a look at this:

This is a purer form of what I'm alluding to (and protesttething,) this was about the third or forth meaningful point that I've tried to make, but I get...


dead silence


...and a weird, almost reflexive 'that didn't hurt' response.

"he's a shill" "fantastical" "I don't understand"
"he's a shill" "fantastical" "I don't understand"
"he's a shill" "fantastical" "I don't understand"
"he's a shill" "fantastical" "I don't understand"
"he's a shill" "fantastical" "I don't understand"
"he's a shill" "fantastical" "I don't understand"
"he's a shill" "fantastical" "I don't understand"
"he's a shill" "fantastical" "I don't understand"
"he's a shill" "fantastical" "I don't understand"
"he's a shill" "fantastical" "I don't understand"
"he's a shill" "fantastical" "I don't understand"


Now if I wasn't cutting an pasting talking points from the Cato Institute, I might think that I'd wandered off the intellectual reservation, but there is a vacuousness here that is getting a little creepy. And yes, we all deal with conflict in different ways. But I'm consistently, and worse, predictably not getting any dialogue. It's a pain. And lame!

A switch-up between pure ignoring, and endless clarifications. No fun.

Is that your only reflexive reaction, when you can't deny the FACTS go for the ad hominem attack? Really!

I've responded to each of your posts with factual information.

It is quite clear and evident, to me at least, that you have no idea what the peer review process is all about, and how that is used in conjunction with the scientific method! :p

[midwinter]

I'm still just waiting for dmz to directly answer my initial question: what did you mean when you said that about the WSJ?

[franksargent]

I'm still just waiting for dmz to directly answer my initial question: what did you mean when you said that about the WSJ?

And I'm still waiting for dmz to realize that I wasn't "Born three days before the day after tomorrow!" :err: :rolleyes: :wow: :no:

Meanwhile, back at the ranch, I just had to bitch slap my good ole thermometer! Found out that it was a lyin' ideological subjective POS. I know what the real temperature is, and no objective set of measurements can tell me otherwise! :D

[Hassan i Sabbah]

It's pretty hilarious that no-one else on this board is told as regularly, or with such exasperation, that they could express themselves with a little more clarity as dmz, who's now pre-empting our incomprehension by writing our replies for us.

Dude. We understand you most of the time. When we don't it's not because you've made a point we can't answer but because you've written gibberish.

[SDW2001]

And that's my point. We know WHAT it does. We don't know why SSRIs help people with depression. Why does disallowing seratonin to be reabsorbed make people feel less depressed.

I knew you'd respond with that, but really that argument could be made about anything. There's always another level to which something could be explained. But I think that's what you're saying, so we've hit a brick wall here.

[SDW2001]

Well, I think it's quite apt.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,939122,00.html

http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=jlz1shJpSAAC&oi=fnd&pg=PA1&sig=2mBf-orn8_VeW6IkkU1ov9i_QKE&dq=%22Glantz%22+%22The+Cigarette+Papers%22+#PPA2,M 1

There has been scientific consensus, quite similar to the scientific consensus on GW, since the mid 60's, but it was vociferously denied by tobacco companies until the late 90's. They had their own studies and "scientists" to support themselves. During that time, there was always a sector of the population that believed them.

Really? Who?

[midwinter]

I knew you'd respond with that, but really that argument could be made about anything. There's always another level to which something could be explained. But I think that's what you're saying, so we've hit a brick wall here.

No, SDW2001! This isn't a brick wall! This is the point! I thought you were moving into the light of postmodernism?! Your "brick wall" is a liberation, a freeing, a place of joy where we are unconstrained wholly and entirely!

Maybe you're just new at mounting all these postmodern arguments (about ID, about global warming, etc) and so the territory is a little uncomfortable. But don't worry, SDW2001. The longer you nitpick and prevaricate and call into question any so-called "facts" you're presented with, the surer you'll be that you can do that with everything. And from there you can only come to one conclusion: there is no objectively verifiable truth. If you're a religious guy, you may want to start boxing up your Bibles now in preparation for the endgame of your mode of argument.

[BRussell]

I think you're really on to something here midwinter. Postmodernist relativism is pervasive in American conservatism today. It's not just anti-science, though it certainly is that. It's a constant denial of the relevance of empiricism and facts. Evolution. Global warming. Tax cuts increase revenues. Abstinence-only education is more effective than birth control. Iraq has WMDs. We are winning in Iraq. On and on. I think it comes from the religious basis of conservatism along with just simple zealous ideological advocacy. The combination is truly poisonous.

I remember when relativism was allegedly the domain of the left, and there was some truth in it: All cultures are equally valid, science is a white man's enterprise, etc. But it never dominated mainstream liberals in the way it dominates mainstream conservatism today.

[addabox]

Postmodern debunking of "truth", as a political strategy, is what happens when the architects of the politics being strategized know that what they're selling and what's really happening are wildly at odds.

If empiricism (very obviously) puts the lie to your ad campaign, then empiricism must be dethroned.

Of course, it really helps if your target demographic already has an instinctual mistrust of the "intellectuals" and "elitists" who claim to be the gatekeepers of empiricism, so that you can commingle the kind of expedient lies that are in service to power and economic elites (about how the economy works, about threats to "our way of life", about the impact of unbridled consumption) with lies that flatter the cultural biases of that demographic (the world is simpler than people who think they are smarter than you make out, common sense is a serviceable way to understand complex phenomena, science is a cynical shell game and the bible is the only book of natural history you need).

Ironically, the single most "anti-elitist" action a citizen can take is to educate him or herself in logic, science, history, statistics and math, since the perfect environment within which unchallenged elites might flourish is that wherein the elites know perfectly well how the world works while everyone else is obliged to take their word for it, or squabble ineffectually among themselves, since "objective truth" has no power to persuade or organize.

Which of course has been the idea all along.

[addabox]

There is, of course, plenty of dark humor in the fact that these techniques are now roped into service of the maintenance of power itself, since they were originally proffered as a critique and antidote for the ways power is encoded into the DNA of stable and objective "truths". I always knew that shit would come to no good-- once the snake has eaten his tail it leaves you sort of empty handed.

[franksargent]

The BBC makes some great documentaries, and I'd recommend the following 2 items for those interested;

BBC - Earth Story - 1998 - 8 Episodes - 2 DVD's

Earth Story (http://www.bbcshop.com/invt/bbcdvd1988&bklist=icat,5,,11,nature,281)

IMHO, it holds up quite well considering it's ~10 years old, mostly about the science of geology, and good background material for those interested about the numbers and scientific logic used in interpreting said numbers.

BBC - Planet Earth - 2006 - 5 DVD's - 11 Episodes

Planet Earth (http://www.bbcshop.com/invt/bbcdvd1883&bklist=icat,5,,11,nature,planetearth)

The 1080i HD versions are stunning! BTW, I've only seen the first 6, will see the rest shortly.

[SDW2001]

I think you're really on to something here midwinter. Postmodernist relativism is pervasive in American conservatism today. It's not just anti-science, though it certainly is that. It's a constant denial of the relevance of empiricism and facts. Evolution. Global warming. Tax cuts increase revenues. Abstinence-only education is more effective than birth control. Iraq has WMDs. We are winning in Iraq. On and on. I think it comes from the religious basis of conservatism along with just simple zealous ideological advocacy. The combination is truly poisonous.

I remember when relativism was allegedly the domain of the left, and there was some truth in it: All cultures are equally valid, science is a white man's enterprise, etc. But it never dominated mainstream liberals in the way it dominates mainstream conservatism today.

You're on crack.

[SDW2001]

No, SDW2001! This isn't a brick wall! This is the point! I thought you were moving into the light of postmodernism?! Your "brick wall" is a liberation, a freeing, a place of joy where we are unconstrained wholly and entirely!

Maybe you're just new at mounting all these postmodern arguments (about ID, about global warming, etc) and so the territory is a little uncomfortable. But don't worry, SDW2001. The longer you nitpick and prevaricate and call into question any so-called "facts" you're presented with, the surer you'll be that you can do that with everything. And from there you can only come to one conclusion: there is no objectively verifiable truth. If you're a religious guy, you may want to start boxing up your Bibles now in preparation for the endgame of your mode of argument.

This is where we disagree, because in the "real world" there is truth. For example, let's say my daugher takes a cookie despite me telling her she can't have one. The truth is she took the cookie. It's verfiable, because I saw her do it. It's objective, because there is universal and unanimous agreement that sticking one's hand in the cookie jar and removing a cookie is considered "taking" a cookie. Oh, and she admitted it too. Objective. Verifiable. Truth.

Let's examine your notion of me "nitpicking" and "calling into question" the "facts." Specifically, that isn't so (I was going to say "true" but I realize that would be problematic)! In regards to GW, I'm saying there aren't enough facts to demonstrate how the Earth is abnormally warming as compared to how it warmed and cooled over the last, well...billion years or so.

Now, what what I'm also saying is that there is more evidence for GW than against. Therefore, we need to study the issue carefully and make changes accordingly...specifically concerning fossil fuel use. GW or no, we know that the use of these fossil fuels can't be helping the situation.

What's interesting is that from my perspective, those on the board that believe GW is established fact are every bit as idelogical as they claim I am. I've posted the question about explaining the large variations in Earth temperature throughout history probably a dozen times, and it's been responded to like this:

1. Ignoring it
2. Claiming the question is unclear
3. But SDW, there is a scientific consensus!!!
4. Let play "debate the modes of....debate and argue semantics!
5. Anyone who would question GW is a fool, idiot, moron, etc.
6. But scientists think it's real....lots of 'em! Consensus!

[BRussell]

You're on crack. No I'm not. Well, I am, but that has nothing to do with whether my post is accurate or not.

[midwinter]

This is where we disagree, because is the "real world" there truth.

Oh, SDW2001, you were soooo close! Don't back off now! There may be hope, though, since you don't seem entirely convinced that there is a "real world"—hence you put it in quotes.

For example, let's say my daugher

What do you mean by "my"? And I would rather say "daughter," not "daugher"

takes a cookie despite me telling her she can't have one.

So she desired the cookie. You, her owner (you called her "my"), denied her that which she desired.

The truth is she took the cookie.

A cookie was taken. Yes, Thrasymachus.

It's verfiable, because I saw her do it.

I have found two things very, very interesting in your little example here: 1) you never actually described the taking of the cookie, and so at the center (if there is such a thing! Ha! That kidder, Derrida!) of your claim there is, well, a lacuna. The "truth" of your "truth" is, in other words, empty. Like Heidegger's cookie jar, er, vase in Poetry, Language, Thought, it is defined by everything around it, but not in and of itself. 2) The taking of the cookie is hardly verifiable. You can't repeat the same experiment in any way, shape, or form. You may, of course, have other friends who have daughters similar to "yours" (although they can certainly not be identical) who may repeat the experiment—first installing in the child a desire and then denying it in a capricious fashion—and obtain a similar result, but as you know, correlation is not causation, and so just because other little girls rise up against their owners and take the cookie in an attempt to fulfill a heretofore thwarted desire, does not prove that yours did. Surely you know that.

It's objective, because there is universal and unanimous agreement that sticking one's hand in the cookie jar and removing a cookie is considered "taking" a cookie.

So consensus makes something objective? You're back on track again, SDW2001! Yes! Consensus DOES make something objective! The more individuals who observe a phenomenon—say, a car crash, the clearer and more objective their collective notion of the "facts" of the crash are. Oh yes, SDW2001, you are back on the right track.

Oh, and she admitted it too. Objective. Verifiable. Truth.

I took it, actually. When you weren't looking because you were haranguing your daughter about not taking cookies. I snuck in. And then, when you noticed the missing cookie, she obviously felt Guantanamo'd and just told you want she knew you wanted to hear.

This leads to an important point, SDW2001: this is "your" daughter whom you have raised thus far. You put the cookie in the jar. You instilled in the child a desire for cookies. You forbade her from having the cookie, even though you knew she wanted one and, I suspect, knew that she might disobey you and take a cookie. Don't you bear a significant portion of the responsibility for taking the cookie, SDW2001? And wasn't it, by extension, a part of you that took the cookie?

Let's examine your notion of me "nitpicking"

Let's!

and "calling into question" the "facts."

Indeed. There are no facts.

Specifically, that isn't so (I was going to say "true" but I realize that would be problematic)!

You are not calling the facts into question? You are not quibbling and nit-picking? SDW2001! Did you take the cookie from the jar? It is objective, verifiable truth! We all saw you nitpick! We all saw you call facts into question! And here you sit with the cookie in your hand and crumbs on your mouth, quibbling with the facts of whether you quibbled with the facts! Very clever, you are! A very funny little joke! Quibbling about quibbling. Har!

In regards to GW, I'm saying there aren't enough facts to demonstrate how the Earth is abnormally warming as compared to how it warmed and cooled over the last, well...billion years or so.

How many "facts" (you forgot to put it in quotes) do we need? 17? 23?

What's interesting is that from my perspective, those on the board that believe GW is established fact are every bit as idelogical as they claim I am.

Well of course they are. All knowledge is ideological in nature. Even whether or not you took the cookie.

PS:

Have you considered that your daughter may have intended to liberate the cookie? That she may have been told she would be greeted with flowers?

[Hassan i Sabbah]

The above post displays genius.

[SDW2001]

The above post displays genius.

I might choose another word.

[Frank777]

Today Canada's National Post dived headfirst (http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/columnists/story.html?id=34b2c4eb-1788-4242-a04d-eaa286afa9c7) into the debate over the scientific consensus on Global Warming.

Wow.

[midwinter]

I might choose another word.

Indeed! And that is why your arguments are important! And it is equally important that we quibble about whether you would quibble! And that you quibble about whether or not you are quibbling. All is text—even "truth," the "real world," or "cookie"—and that text's meaning is, ultimately, indeterminate.

[addabox]

Today Canada's National Post dived headfirst (http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/columnists/story.html?id=34b2c4eb-1788-4242-a04d-eaa286afa9c7) into the debate over the scientific consensus on Global Warming.

Wow.

Canada's right wing rag of record publishes nearly fact free snark fest! Wow!

[Hassan i Sabbah]

I might choose another word.

'Demonstrates' and 'evinces' are both better choices than 'displays', yes, I agree.

[SDW2001]

Indeed! And that is why your arguments are important! And it is equally important that we quibble about whether you would quibble! And that you quibble about whether or not you are quibbling. All is text—even "truth," the "real world," or "cookie"—and that text's meaning is, ultimately, indeterminate.

Now hold on...what exactly does "important" mean? What is the nature of quibbling? And, what is the nature of nature?

[midwinter]

Now hold on...what exactly does "important" mean? What is the nature of quibbling? And, what is the nature of nature?

Good try. I would have focused on the indeterminacy of "quibbling." B+

[SDW2001]

Good try. I would have focused on the indeterminacy of "quibbling." B+

Using an antiquated and meaningless grading system, I see?

[Frank777]

Canada's right wing rag of record publishes nearly fact free snark fest! Wow!

Interesting.

I see plenty of statements in the article that should be challenged if you believe in Global Warming.

That you avoid them and attack the paper's legitimacy is telling.

[midwinter]

Using an antiquated and meaningless grading system, I see?

There we go! Now you're on about it! Yes, yes yes! The grading system is ultimately meaningless and arbitrary and, as NCLB has exposed, exists solely to prop up the fiction promoted by the institution itself!

Well done, SDW2001! Once you give up your dreadful adherence to "truth" and "reality" your transition to the non-reality-based community will be complete. Depending, of course, upon how we define "complete"! ;)

[SDW2001]

There we go! Now you're on about it! Yes, yes yes! The grading system is ultimately meaningless and arbitrary and, as NCLB has exposed, exists solely to prop up the fiction promoted by the institution itself!

Well done, SDW2001! Once you give up your dreadful adherence to "truth" and "reality" your transition to the non-reality-based community will be complete. Depending, of course, upon how we define "complete"! ;)

It's so dark in here! Oh look...there's my friend Mr. Palpatine.....

[midwinter]

It's so dark in here! Oh look...there's my friend Mr. Palpatine.....

What is Joe Lieberman doing in Plato's allegory of the cave?

[Hassan i Sabbah]

What is Joe Lieberman doing in Plato's allegory of the cave?

Strike Two.

One more and you're on the for a Nobel Prize or something.

[thuh Freak]

Check out this article (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16886008/) on Bush's global climate change strategy. Doesn't factor into the truth, or truthiness, of global warming, but rather its perception by the public. In the interests of furthering science, and furthering our understanding of global climate and how it changes, the administration has pressured scientists to remove the words "climate change" or "global warming" from their papers. 46% of government scientists surveyed indicated that they felt pressured by the bush administration to downplay the threat of global warming or global climate change.

Do we need politicians filtering out the bad science from the good? Why isn't this a high crime against humanity?

[SDW2001]

Check out this article (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16886008/) on Bush's global climate change strategy. Doesn't factor into the truth, or truthiness, of global warming, but rather its perception by the public. In the interests of furthering science, and furthering our understanding of global climate and how it changes, the administration has pressured scientists to remove the words "climate change" or "global warming" from their papers. 46% of government scientists surveyed indicated that they felt pressured by the bush administration to downplay the threat of global warming or global climate change.

Do we need politicians filtering out the bad science from the good? Why isn't this a high crime against humanity?

Yawn.

[ronaldo]

Two New Books Confirm Global Warming is Natural; Not Caused By Human Activity. Seems to me this could also be true.

http://www.drudgereport.com/flash2.htm

[Bergermeister]

Politicians who benefit from the status quo will of course pressure anything that challenges it.

Some people sadly think otherwise.

Yawn.

[franksargent]

Two New Books Confirm Global Warming is Natural; Not Caused By Human Activity. Seems to me this could also be true.

http://www.drudgereport.com/flash2.htm

Counterpoints can be found at RealClimate (http://www.realclimate.org/)

1) RE: Singer and Avery;

Avery and Singer: Unstoppable hot air (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/11/avery-and-singer-unstoppable-hot-air/)

2) RE: Svensmark and Calder;

Recent Warming But No Trend in Galactic Cosmic Rays (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=42)

Taking Cosmic Rays for a spin (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/10/taking-cosmic-rays-for-a-spin/)

Later

[SDW2001]

Counterpoints can be found at RealClimate (http://www.realclimate.org/)

1) RE: Singer and Avery;

Avery and Singer: Unstoppable hot air (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/11/avery-and-singer-unstoppable-hot-air/)

2) RE: Svensmark and Calder;

Recent Warming But No Trend in Galactic Cosmic Rays (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=42)

Taking Cosmic Rays for a spin (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/10/taking-cosmic-rays-for-a-spin/)

Later

Right, because we need counterpoints. They are the counterpoint.

[JupiterOne]

"Jane, you ignorant slut." :lol:

[jamac]

It's amazing that they now nominated a propgandist and liar and fear mongerer for a Nobel peace prize. Now really what is the world coming to.http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=washingtonstory&sid=aitdeJI9Ezk0

[SDW2001]

It's amazing that they now nominated a propgandist and liar and fear mongerer for a Nobel peace prize. Now really what is the world coming to.http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=washingtonstory&sid=aitdeJI9Ezk0

My question is what does this have to do with peace? Oh wait, maybe he'll prevent the bloodthirsty U.S from starting any more wars for oil. :lol:

[jamac]

My question is what does this have to do with peace? Oh wait, maybe he'll prevent the bloodthirsty U.S from starting any more wars for oil. :lol:

If they just would have prices for ignorance .......:smokey:

[Northgate]

My question is what does this have to do with peace? Oh wait, maybe he'll prevent the bloodthirsty U.S from starting any more wars for oil. :lol:

And yet you still believe to this day that the war in Iraq was all about Saddam. Telling.

[MaxParrish]

Scientests have been looking at over 150 years of temperature data, and they say "yep, it's warmer" about 0.8 degrees C warmer in the past 100 years.

Uncertainty estimates in regional and global observed temperature changes: a new dataset from 1850 (http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/HadCRUT3_accepted.pdf)


Well, it does leave one speechless in light of Brohan's rigorous approach to statistics:


HadCRU and Rumsfeld [2004]
By Steve McIntyre
Wegman observed last summer that climate scientists failed to involve statisticians to an appropriate degree in the work. Yesterday Simon Tett drew our attention to Brohan et al 2006 as an explanation of uncertainties in HadCRU3. Brohan et al, of which Tett is a coauthor, used the prominent statistician, Donald Rumsfeld, as an authority for their uncertainty model. Brohan et al:

"A definitive assessment of uncertainties is impossible, because it is always possible that some unknown error has contaminated the data, and no quantitative allowance can be made for such unknowns. There are, however, several known limitations in the data, and estimates of the likely effects of these limitations can be made [Rumsfeld, 2004]."

Rumsfeld, 2004 has the following reference (to a 2002 press conference):

"The Acronym Institute. Disarmament documentation. Back to disarmament documentation, June 2002. Defense secretary Rumsfeld press conference, June 6. ”Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld, press conference at NATO headquarters, Brussels, Belgium, June 6, 2002,” US Department of Defense transcript. www.acronym.org.uk/docs/0206/doc04.htm"

The salient quote appears to be:

"Question: Regarding terrorism and weapons of mass destruction, you said something to the effect that the real situation is worse than the facts show. I wonder if you could tell us what is worse than is generally understood.

Rumsfeld: Sure. All of us in this business read intelligence information. And we read it daily and we think about it and it becomes, in our minds, essentially what exists. And that’s wrong. It is not what exists. I say that...

LOL... should we give Brohan a pass? Perhaps he was drunk? On meds?

http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1109

[franksargent]

Well, it does leave one speechless in light of Brohan's rigorous approach to statistics:




LOL... should we give Brohan a pass? Perhaps he was drunk? On meds?

http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1109

From Brohan, et. al. (full paragraph, not taken out of context (RE: last sentance));


To use the data for quantitative, statistical analysis, for instance a detailed comparison with GCM results, the uncertainties of the gridded anomalies are a useful additional field. A definitive assessment of uncertainties is impossible, because it is always possible that some unknown error has contaminated the data, and no quantitative allowance can be made for such unknowns. There are, however, several known limitations in the data, and estimates of the likely effects of these limitations can be made [Rumsfeld, 2004]. This means that uncertainty estimates need to be accompanied by an error model: a precise description of what uncertainties are being estimated.

And from Rumsfeld, I would choose the following verbage (since it is a matter of interpretation as to which specific part of that PC that Brohan, et. al. are referring to):

There are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say there are things that we now know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don't know we don't know. So when we do the best we can and we pull all this information together, and we then say well that's basically what we see as the situation, that is really only the known knowns and the known unknowns. And each year, we discover a few more of those unknown unknowns. It sounds like a riddle. It isn't a riddle. It is a very serious, important matter. There's another way to phrase that and that is that the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

I distinctly remember watching that PC, made sense then, and still makes sense now.

So basically, the paper cites reference about uncertainties, and goes on in the next sentence to explain what error estimates can be made, and then goes on to make said error estimates. That also makes sense to me.

PS - More crapola from a GW skeptic website, whodathunk!

[lunocrat]

The original topic dovetails nicely with the recent Liberal/Conservative Fascist US/UN consensus criminalizing historical inquiry, i.e., the anti-anti-Holocaust resolution condemning Holocaust denial.

[MaxParrish]

From Brohan, et. al. (full paragraph, not taken out of context (RE: last sentence));

And from Rumsfeld, I would choose the following verbage (since it is a matter of interpretation as to which specific part of that PC that Brohan, et. al. are referring to):

I distinctly remember watching that PC, made sense then, and still makes sense now.

So basically, the paper cites reference about uncertainties, and goes on in the next sentence to explain what error estimates can be made, and then goes on to make said error estimates. That also makes sense to me.

PS - More crapola from a GW skeptic website, whodathunk!

My shock had nothing to do with WHAT Brohan was saying, but that in a scientific paper he would cite Rumsfeld for any reason, especially on uncertainty. This is supposed to be a scientific paper.

It was stunning as a faux pas, the most generious take must be that he thought it was a bit of levity...god only knows.

[SDW2001]

And yet you still believe to this day that the war in Iraq was all about Saddam. Telling.

Do I?