Global Warming???

[1jrp1]

To all the climate change doubters:

I find it disheartening that otherwise intelligent people would buy into the “climate change is just a hoax” idea.

Fact: Most of the rise in CO2 during the last century has been tied to fossil fuel burning.

Fact: Extra CO2 in the atmosphere will warm the planet

Fact: Extra CO2 in the atmosphere will change the chemistry of the ocean.

Fact: The vast majority of climate scientists are telling you we have a major problem with human-induced climate change. I personally know several climate scientists and know them to be meticulous, honest people.

Facts that will affect housing:

Fact: Global warming will raise sea-levels.

Fact: Global warming will change precipitation patterns. Many experts think the water situation for California and the Southwest is likely to be severe.

Fact: Global warming is very likely to increase the frequency and severity of major hurricaines hitting the US.

Fact: My parents’ home insurance in Long Island was recently not renewed by their insurance company “because they live within 2 miles of the ocean.”

Now, you can ignore what the climate scientists are telling you. You can ignore what the insurance companies are telling you. You can ignore the potential staggering enviromental and economic costs that will wrack this country. But climate change doesn’t care what you think. It will happen anyway.

[ucodegen]

I already buried this subject in a previous post on Piggington.. do I need to locate that post again? Should I throw in the additional info I have? How about the IPCC policy letter for their findings (ie: the scientific work will be adjusted to be consistent with the summary.. all in black and white!).. making the entire IPCC document a political, not scientific document? How about prelim, not yet released copies of the scientific work before editing by the IPCC? How about a letter from 60 scientists (none of them slouches in the subject) indicating that CO2 has very little to do with anthropogenic global warming (against the 20 that the IPCC used..).

Man, will this stupidity never end? First it was global warming (60s) global cooling (70s).. now global warming again!. Global warming conspiratists, give it a rest! Most of you come up with claims of fact, but no scientific basis behind it. Most of the statements are ‘Pavlovian’ in nature; ie I see X and Y, therefore they must be correlated.

[kewp]

Hey why don’t you throw this out?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/frontpage/story/0,,2004399,00.html

An Exxon-Mobil funded think tank offers $10K to any scientist or economist that will challenge the IPCC’s latest report.

Why don’t they just come up with better science, instead of resorting to bribes?

[csr_sd]

This is a really interesting thread.
It happens to be my field…

The interesting thing about this issue is that there is data on both sides of the argument. Best muddled by Michael Crichton in his book “State of Fear”, where he used IPCC data coupled with information from “The skeptical environmentalist” written by Bjorn Lomborg (Both are worthy reads). The reality is that there are woefully few scientists that think global warming is not REAL. I would submit though that the pressure to fund environmental research is orders of magnitude less than the power of corporations to influence legislation. So although climate scientists have vested interest in keeping public interest in science high, I would say our abilities to really influence legislation at the national level is pretty weak.

The issues relevent to this posting are the economic ones.
There is healthy skepticism about the magnitude of the changes, and the projections of change especially from the numerical models. BUT, the cost of doing nothing, and not planning for the changes will be much higher than making smart changes now.

There are a number of events (more than two or three life times in length) that should concern all of us regardless of whether we believe the simple trends in CO2 (and dumping hummers etc).

There is no doubt that the north polar ice cap is melting. This will have a huge positive economic influence in shipping. It will have other direct effects. 1) The reflection of the suns energy into space (albedo) will decline. This will increase the amount of heat into the water (heating it and expanding it). 2) It will NOT raise sea level. This is because the north polar cap displaces water like an ice cube. 3) The warming of the northern polar regions will melt the permafrost. The result of this could be huge and is not well understood. But the amount of methane that will be released will be enormous as bacteria begin to actively remineralize the highly organic soil (Think all of siberia, not Canada). Methane is hugely more influential in climate than CO2.

Understanding and mitigating the impact of this change will be critical.

2) High altitude glaciers in a number of places (think africa), are major sources of water through percolation. Many of these glaciers will be gone over the next 20-100years. Result. This has the potential to displace hundreds of millions of people. It has the potential to start a large number of wars. Mitigating this impact will cost money regardless of the reason for the loss of the glaciers, but who cares about africa! Now think Afghanistan, Pakistan!

3)Notwithstanding the failure of the army corp, congress and the fed agencies responsible for the levies in New Orleans, Katrina is the future. Not necessarily because of hurricane cycles, but because over the last 35years, few huge storms hit the gulf and florida coasts. At the same time these areas experienced huge increases in both people and investment. If the number and intensity of storms had been as great as they have been over the last 15 years before the development occurred actuaries would not have created the risk table that allowed the development. Just bad timing is enough to screw us in the south. The displacement of a few hundred thousand people overwhelmed our ability to deal effectively. A few more storms like Rita, or others could greatly impact insurance and the potential to rebuild. Of course the government will than subsidize insurance in those regions and we will all pay the bill (just like flood insurance).

4) Out here, we will see the effects of climate change. Small changes in precipitation over long periods of time will effect the water flow in the Colorado, the snow pack in the sierras, and the aquifers through out west. This will directly impact food production, it will impact development as we fight for water rights, and will increase friction with our southerly neighbor. All of that requires a lot of thought, and money to mitigate.

5)The smog issues are local, changes in climate may increase the number of bad air days. The cost will be high in terms of healthcare. Vistas, that we enjoy, could erode. That is direct real estate effects. The sunsets will prettier though.

6) In the antarctic the changes are more complicated. There is evidence that over the last 50 years air temperature in many locations (more coastal than inland) have increased. deep water temps have seemed to increase. Until recently indices of ice extent have shown a decline (although some areas ahve increased their ice).

The big issue for antarctic is whether the loss of the ice shelves will increase the rate of movement of glaciers. If this happens sea level rises immediately. More scary is what will happen to greenland. That has a very huge potential for acceleration of glaciers. Think, short term more bergs floating south, potentially impacting shipping. Sea level will rise from that. Light freshwater will sit on the top of the ocean.

The other issues with climate change and sea level are 1) if you warm the ocean it expands. This directly impacts coastal regions; 2) If temps in the atlantic warm or cause large amounts of freshwater to enter areas of the Labrador sea, or the areas southeast of Greenland, deep convection could slow or stop, affecting the gulf stream (There are at least two events within recorded history where his has happened). The direct impact of this scenario is the huge cooling of western europe. That will be a major economic factor.

There are a number of other things will occur, and the global economy will be affected. It may not happen in your life time, but if you have kids it will probably affect them in theirs.

For the doubters or those that do not believe the correlational nature of the data. Why then do you believe economic trends? This real estate bubble was built on the premise that exponential growth was sustainable. That is why, average people put themselves at risk to buy more than they could afford in the hopes of doubling or tripling their money over just a few years. The government, did not enforce rules that protected consumers from themselves and allowed sub prime mortgages to be made available to everyone. RE agents, banks, and shareholders benefitted. Because of a trend line!!

Now the trend is down, yet everyone sees the end of this downward cycle already. It is a lot of wishful thinking. And a lot of hard working people will lose a lot because of it. In terms of climate change, it is easy to do nothing and hard to do something. The climate is changing, we impact the climate, and one thing we can do is become more efficient. Increasing efficiency will do two things 1) clean the air; 2) eliminate a source of instability in the world centered in the middle east.

[sdnativeson]

really? this is your field csr? I don’t know what to say about that, I’ll be benevolent and assume your cherry picking your points of fact is due to the need of brevity.

I find this statement very telling;
“The other issues with climate change and sea level are 1) if you warm the ocean it expands. This directly impacts coastal regions; 2) If temps in the atlantic warm or cause large amounts of freshwater to enter areas of the Labrador sea, or the areas southeast of Greenland, deep convection could slow or stop, affecting the gulf stream (There are at least two events within recorded history where his has happened). The direct impact of this scenario is the huge cooling of western europe. That will be a major economic factor.”

So, it’s happened in the past? Where both of these events in the Industrial Revolution age? No. They weren’t. The earth is a living organism that we co-exist with, the fact is, it’s going to warm and cool regardless of our presence.
Is CO2 the only “culprit”?

Secondly, can anyone say without doubt that the alledged current “Global Warming” trend is going to be especially harmful? When will we feel the full brunt of the catastrophe? 100 years? 400 years? 1000 years? 5000 years? Harmful how? Consider that what might be harmful to coastal dwelling humans might be in the best interest of the earth itself.

If those who are jumping on this craze look at the history of the earth they should see no human can change the earths life cycle, we can’t even predict the weather more than a week in advance and still, not very accurately. We can keep the earth cleaner, yes, but that is a different argument. Any human who believes that they can control any type of global environmental event is…. mad.

I will say that if they can get a portion of the population to buy into it, they will be very wealthy and have enormous political power. I will also say I don’t see a remarkable track record of successes for the environmental groups.

Kewp, was it you who brought up quantum chromodynamics? For a simple person (me), will you explain how that impacts global warming?

[kewp]

Csr, great post!

sdnativeson:

“Kewp, was it you who brought up quantum chromodynamics? For a simple person (me), will you explain how that impacts global warming?”

If you want to get beyond mere experimental verification that carbon dioxide is a green house gas (check for yourself), then you need to get into quantum physics. It comes down to photons and baryons interacting, after all.

If you are interested in experimental evidence of the GHG potential of carbon dioxide, here is a secondary school type experiment to get you pointed in the right direction:

http://www.chemsoc.org/networks/LearnNet/jesei/co2green/home.htm

[FutureSDguy]

Kewp was simply trying to refute my point about CO2 not being a greenhouse gas (in the sense of being heat blanket) and intimidate me with Wow sarcasm.

Other problems with CO2 explanation: 1/2 of the warming in the last century occurred before the 1940’s, yet most of the CO2 emissions occurred after the 1940’s. So there’s a lack of correlation here: if CO2 is the cause, then what happened prior to 1940?.

Other sources also tell me that temperature change grows logarithmically w.r.t. CO2 increase, meaning that the more CO2 we put out, the less of a difference it makes.

[kewp]

The Causes of 20th Century Warming
Francis W. Zwiers and Andrew J. Weaver

Global air surface temperatures increased by about 0.6°C during the 20th century, but as Zwiers and Weaver discuss in their Perspective, the warming was not continuous. Two distinct periods of warming, from 1910 to 1945 and since 1976, were separated by a period of very gradual cooling. The authors highlight the work by Stott et al., who have performed the most comprehensive simulation of 20th century climate to date. The agreement between observed and simulated temperature variations strongly suggests that forcing from anthropogenic activities, moderated by variations in solar and volcanic forcing, has been the main driver of climate change during the past century.

Science 15 December 2000:
Vol. 290. no. 5499, pp. 2081 – 2083
DOI: 10.1126/science.290.5499.2081

[1jrp1]

sdnativeson (and other naysayers),

“No human can change the earths life cycle.” Sorry, but that’s just wrong. Naysayers said we could never pollute or overfish the oceans, they said we could never damage the ozone layer, they said we didn’t have to worry about lead or mercury in our environment, etc etc. The fact is that we have already drastically changed the “earths life cycle.” Up till now, however, we humans haven’t paid the price for our foolishness. But like a zero-down ARM, the time will come when we realize that we were seriously living beyond our means. If our croplands once again turn into a giant dustbowl, if we lose much of Florida to rising seas, if a category 5 huricaine devastates New York City, if the Sierras can no longer supply water to Los Angeles, if our forests dry out and burn up, if the Gulf Stream shuts down and the Northeast, Canada and Europe drop 10 degrees C in the winter, then I’d say we’d feel that maybe this global warming stuff was kind of important. Whether this will happen in 25 years, 50 years or 100 years is somewhat irrelevant. The consequences for this country and the world are potentially very, very dire.

Global Warming is not a “craze,” it is real problem. It is not some canard that scientists are making up because they are bored, or looking for funding. I can tell you for a fact that most scientists truly disdain politics and sensationalism, even amongst themselves. They do not wish to be tainted by it. For the sake of your children and your children’s children, you should be concerned. Very serious and conservative scientists are telling you there is a real problem. If you choose to listen instead to oil lobbyist propaganda or kooks like Sean Hannity, then shame on you for not using your brain.

Okay, that’s it for me. Thanks.

[sdnativeson]

You bring up a good point, that statement was poorly worded and constructed. Still, not entirely inaccurate. There is little valid, objective science that supports the leap from theory to fact the claim of Global Warming being caused by man. Kewp’s mention of quantum chromodynamics and his subsequent response shows the naivete of many opinions.

Observing models and simulations are only effective to a point, as ultimately one cannot be 100% positive as to the validity of the criteria they are based upon. (We won’t go into the weakest leak which is the expectations, goals, motivation of the researcher themselves) Especially on a subject that is under constant change at so many levels (both known and unknown) as the earth is – meaning there is no fixed or final state or a constant. So, to be generously fair they have a 50% probability of being accurate. Do we need to address the physical “observation” statements? There is no fully “global observation” taking place it’s just not possible from a physical or technical approach.

Thats just scratching the surface, but it should give an objective mind pause as to the voracity of a statement claiming GW as a “fact”. If I were to just accept the claims of the GW proponets then I have to assume that they can accurately predict the weather for any given location in April, that should be easy as they are predicting the earths entire climate (which is inaccurate as there is not just “one” climate but hopefully the point is seen).

As I mentioned earlier who is to say that (if it came to pass) it’s necessarly a “bad thing” ultimately? Bad for who, what and how exactly? Will everyone and everything suffer? (Hey, maybe it’s the best for the earth.) If that question can be answered it’s certainly won’t be by any being that walks on this earth, it also raises a question of validity of some other theories that the more secular on this site hold so dear.

I’ll admit what I know with certainty about this issue, and that is I don’t know with certainty. No one does, they can’t unless they are the one who created the earth. Each of us needs to do the things in our power to curb pollution, a good place to start would be to seriously address the issue of poverty in the world.

One last thing, is that fear is both a big business and political tool and it’s being used against us very skillfully, and I certainly have no faith in most media sources, government or organization such as the UN to “do the right thing” if anyone even really knows what that is.

[FutureSDguy]

If you’re looking for someone that doesn’t believe that man can’t change the order of the world about him, that someone is not me. I believe that we can do damage: we can make really ugly messes: we spill oil, we create smog, we cause erotion, and we affect the food chain. We can make animals extinct or at least challenge their populations through excessive hunting and building hydroelectric dams.

And I do believe the Earth has warmed in the last century. A sad misconception that largely results from the media reporting is that AGW = GW. Global warming and cooling happens naturally, and to believe that man has caused it is a serious scientific question that needs to be validated, otherwise we’re a bunch of knee-jerk ignoramuses. If you look at the actual hard science, there is more evidence against AGW than for it.

What really drives me crazy is that people who support reduction in CO2 emissions don’t help out convincing me with science. They think painting (making-up in most cases) disaster scenarios is sufficient science to convince me. Please, stop it with the “if you don’t stop X, Y will happen”, because I’ve heard it throughly, and start spending more time proving that X causes Y.

sd_csr said “Methane is hugely more influential in climate than CO2.” True, volume-for-volume, it is. (See http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html), but according to IPCC itself, the concentration has not changed in the last 420,000 years (but does say that humans activity is part of its recent variation). I’ve never heard anyone say that methane is a more serious problem than CO2, but it is interesting to read about.

That same site summarizes:” The Kyoto Protocol calls for mandatory carbon dioxide reductions of 30% from developed countries like the U.S. Reducing man-made CO2 emissions this much would have an undetectable effect on climate while having a devastating effect on the U.S. economy. Can you drive your car 30% less, reduce your winter heating 30%? Pay 20-50% more for everything from automobiles to zippers? And that is just a down payment, with more sacrifices to come later. Such drastic measures, even if imposed equally on all countries around the world, would reduce total human greenhouse contributions from CO2 by about 0.035%.”

There is no true consensus of the greenhouse effect of CO2. But lets be outrageously generous for the sake of demonstrating mathematical absurdity: lets say CO2 is the *sole* reason for earth temperature variation (throw out solar variation, changes in earth’s inclination and orbit, etc etc). This is to say that the doubling of CO2 this past century is solely responsible +0.6C in temperature. 0.6 C / 200% = 0.003 C rise in temp per percentage rise (Cper%) in CO2. With Kyoto reducing CO2 by 0.035%, we can work the math: 0.035% times 0.003 Cper% = 0.000105 C. A ten-thousandths of a degree Celsius decrease as a result of full compliance of Kyoto!

sdnativeson linked me to a useful site earlier in this thread. For those who believe in anthropogentic global warming, but at the same time aren’t militant and are patient enough to read opposing viewpoints, I’d strongly suggest a read of: http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/index.html
(The Take-Home Messages at the end give a convenient summary).

But the optimist in me says that this “craze” (which is exactly what it is) will wear off. Good science usually prevails.

Well I’m exhausted. 🙂 Have a great weekend, everyone!

[Anonymous]

I would like to post a few facts related to global warming as I read a lot of posts referencing things like the accuracy of mathematical models etc. I am a scientist (chemist) and I would point out that the basic arguments for global warming from greenhouse gases has nothing to do with said modeling. The basic agrement for greenhouse warming is:

1. The Sun is hot.
2. Hot bodies like the sun radiate in the visible spectrum.
3. 99.9999999999+% of gases in the atmosphere are transparent in the visible region of the spectrum.
4. The Earth is pretty cool.
5. Cool bodies radiate in the infra-red spectrum.
6. Triatomic(+) gases (CO2, CH4, H20) are not transparent in the infra-red region of the spectrum, they thus absorb radiation from the earth.
7. Absorbed radiation heats the absorbing body (gas).

All these are facts that can be easily demonstrated by experiment using equipment available in most high school physics labs.

The only non-obvious facts are that CO2, CH4 etc. are greenhouse gases and the main atmospheric gases (O2,N2) are not. The greenhouse gases absorb in the infrared region because infrared absorption is due to intramolecular motion (vibration, rotation, and bending). The diatomic gases are too ‘stiff’ to flex this way. An infrared spectrophotometer (a very common instrument) can be used to measure and quantify the IR absorption.

The idea that CO2 in the air is an important determinant of global temperature is actually quite old, it was first theorized by Svante Arrhenius (1859-1927) in a paper published in Philosophical Magazine 41, 237-276 (1896)[1].

He is one of the most respected of scientists and in fact the symbol ‘A’ is used for the activation energy of a chemical reaction in his honor. He even related the concentration of CO2 to the past geological variation in the Earths temperature.

‘One may now ask, How much must the carbonic acid vary according to our figures, in order that the temperature should attain the same values as in the Tertiary and Ice ages respectively? A simple calculation shows that the temperature in the arctic regions would rise about 8° to 9°C., if the carbonic acid increased to 2.5 or 3 times its present value. In order to get the temperature of the ice age between the 40th and 50th parallels, the carbonic acid in the air should sink to 0.62–0.55 of its present value (lowering of temperature 4°-5°C.).’

Ref: http://web.lemoyne.edu/~giunta/Arrhenius.html

Not bad work, comparing that to the current supercomputer models, considering it was published in 1896.

His work was never considered to be very controversial, the controversy has only come about because we are causing the CO2 rise now.

[1jrp1]

few quick points, and then hopefully I’m done with this subject (in this forum):

1) climate prediction does not equal weather prediction. They are completely different. Climate seeks to define the average weather for different regions on the earth in different seasons in the future. The phrase “April showers bring May flowers” is essentially a climate prediction, as is a farmer’s crop planting schedule. Climate prediction is possible because we can infer the effects on the mean weather given our knowledge of various parameters: solar insolation + albedo + greenhouse gas concentrations + topography = mean weather. Of course, that is a simplification and there are uncertainties, but climate scientists go to great lengths to define those uncertainties and put conservative estimates on those uncertainties. So, take home message: stop confusing weather prediction with climate prediction.

2) Yes, the yearly fluxes of anthropogenic CO2 are small compared with the natural fluxes, but natural fluxes are remarkably well balanced (CO2 output = CO2 input). In otherwords, the latest longterm rise in CO2 (to levels not seen for many hundreds of thousands of years) is not due to natural fluctuations. We know this with near absolute certainty because of the radiocarbon signature of atmospheric CO2. This is not a subject for debate among real scientists.

3) The real pupose of Kyoto is not to reduce the CO2 that we have already put into the atmosphere, it is to prevent the uncontrolled additional input of CO2. That being said, Kyoto does not go far enough. The 0.6C rise has already damaged our planet because the actual warming has been much greater in the Arctic (remember 0.6 is an average). Leave out for the moment that the arctic ice cap has thinned 40%, and that polar bears are going extinct as a consequence. And forget that the greenland ice sheet melting is accelerating every year. The big danger is that the decreased albedo and the warming of the permafrost can trigger a runaway greenhouse effect that is about to dump a whole lot more carbon into the atmosphere. We need to stop adding fuel to the fire by continually increasing our CO2 emissions every year. It is foolhardy.

4) The junkscience.com site you reference is aptly named. There are too many misrepresentaions and inaccuracies for me to rebut them all for now. For example consider:

Greenhouse gases, therefore, do not “trap heat,” but could be fairly described as delaying the energy transfer from Earth to space. “Trapping heat” implies that the energy is stuck in the system forever — this is a false notion. Greenhouse gases do not emit energy in the same bandwidth that they absorb energy, and thus emissions from carbon dioxide are not absorbed by carbon dioxide. While energy may be delayed on its inevitable journey back to space, it will eventually be emitted regardless of the number of intervening stages.

[Of course greenhouse gases don’t trap heat forever and ever. Just like a blanket doesn’t trap heat forever and ever. If you put a hot rock under a blanket it will eventually cool to the same temperature as the surrounding environment. The heat loss is slowed by the blanket, not stopped. The reason we stay warm under a blanket is that the heat added to the system by our body is slowed in leaving the system because of the blanket. The earth’s atmosphere does the same thing.]

Do greenhouse gases ‘reradiate’ the infrared radiation they absorb?

This is an unfortunate expression that is all too common. Absorbed radiation is transformed to either kinetic or potential energy and, as such, no longer exists in its original form — hence, it cannot be “reradiated.” When molecules absorb infrared radiation they are said to become excited (“hot”). Such molecules can release energy usually in one of three ways: by chemical reaction (uncommon, since greenhouse gases are pretty stable and non-reactive); quenching (transferring energy to cooler molecules, increasing their temperature) and; emission (usually at lower energy [longer wavelength] radiation than the energy previously absorbed). Once more, since the absorbed energy has been transformed it cannot be said to be “reradiated”.

[The third method of energy release he mentions (“emission”) is the definition of re-radiation. Yes, CO2 molecules emit IR radiation at less energy than the IR that was absorbed (second law of thermodynamics), but it does still re-radiate IR energy back into the system. This is why your blanket works.]

And it goes on and on. Instead of rebuting each of his points, which would take days, let me just say that this site is quite possibly funded by oil money (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Milloy). The guy sounds like a real low-life to me.

Why are you so eager to dismiss the opinion of 2000+ hard working climate scientists whose scientific reputations are on the line, and rather spout the pseudo-science of a registered lobbyist for the oil industry? And, in general, isn’t it interesting that the same people who claim that AGW is a hoax are largely the same people that claimed that smoking didn’t cause cancer, that DDT was not a problem, that asbestos did not cause cancer, that we would be greeted with flowers in Iraq and the war would pay for itself, etc etc? My supposition is that there are two kinds of people who continually flog the corportist line that is spouted by AEI, Heritage Foundation, etc. There are the misguided that don’t realize they are being played for fools to protect the profits of truly immoral corporations, and there are the cynics who realize they are misrepresenting the facts, but believe it is in their own economic self-interest to distort the issues, consequences to the planet be damned. Think about it.

Again, the very strong consensus of professional climate scientists is that we are facing a major crisis. Why would you try to dismiss that or downplay that?

[FutureSDguy]

“Why are you so eager to dismiss the opinion of 2000+ hard working climate scientists whose scientific reputations are on the line, and rather spout the pseudo-science of a registered lobbyist for the oil industry?”

I’m eager because I want the truth to reign. Similarly, I believe in evolution, and I am concerned with Creationists taking over the curriculum.

Science should be based on logic, not consensus. Should I be swayed if someone said “2000+ top clergymen say that the Earth was divinely created, then it must be so?”

So “2000+ hard working climate scientists” is an empty phrase to me. 20 lead scientists wrote the IPCC report, and that’s the count I’m interested in. Read earlier in this thread and you’ll see that 60 high ranking scientists, who worked just as hard (likely harder because they get less money and put up with character assassinations) disputed the report.

Oil companies funding climate science is better than politicians doing it, because they’re initimately involved. It doesn’t matter who is behind the research, so long as talented scientists on both sides are given equal opportunity to be funded. When science is done correctly, the money becomes irrelevant.

If there was a global panic about baby food causing ear infections, don’t you think it would be reasonable for Gerber to fund research to disprove it?

The hockey-stick graph that was used in earlier debates about CO2 is perfect example of what I consider “pseudo-science.” This was supposed to have been the smoking gun, but it no longer isnt.

“And, in general, isn’t it interesting that the same people who claim that AGW is a hoax are largely the same people that claimed that smoking didn’t cause cancer, that DDT was not a problem, that asbestos did not cause cancer, that we would be greeted with flowers in Iraq and the war would pay for itself, etc etc?”

I’m not one of them. I just say that AGW is almost certainly a hoax, and I draw this conclusion first on my own scientific intuition, and secondly from scientific evidence. The rest of your points are strawmen. Instead of sticking to hard science, people have to resort to fuzzy logic and character smears. Hiding behind catch phrases like “oil company,” “think tanks,” “shady people,” etc do not relieve one from seeking the truth, and IMO, environmentalists don’t really care about the truth so much as find ways to further their emotionally-based agenda. (Now I admit I’m using the term environmentalist as if its a bad thing… it’s generally not… I’m sure most will understand whom I’m referring to.)

Your arguments about CO2 are very good, by the way. Unfortunately for you, it doesn’t prove AGW.

“Why would you try to dismiss that or downplay that?”

Why would you dismiss evidence disproving AGW? You and I shouldn’t be the ones to have to convince each other (although it’s noble to try). What society needs are truly impartial scientists, funded fairly, who *haven’t* staked their reputations on the outcome. Science over superstition is always a good thing.

[kewp]

“Why would you dismiss evidence disproving AGW? You and I shouldn’t be the ones to have to convince each other (although it’s noble to try). What society needs are truly impartial scientists, funded fairly, who *haven’t* staked their reputations on the outcome. Science over superstition is always a good thing.”

Boggle.

I’ve worked at the Scripps Institute of Oceanography, where a fair amount AGW research is done. The funding comes from a multitude of different sources, both public and private. The scientists have no vested interest, one way or the other, in the outcome of their work. In fact, it would be historic if anyone can conclusively prove that AGW is a farce.

Unfortunately for us, the best current scientific evidence does not indicate this.

Anyways, I have a question for you, futureSDperson. Do you consider offering $10K cash awards to anyone that will dismiss scientifically determined results a good method to discover the truth? Discuss.

Scientists offered cash to dispute climate study

Ian Sample, science correspondent
Friday February 2, 2007
The Guardian

Scientists and economists have been offered $10,000 each by a lobby group funded by one of the world’s largest oil companies to undermine a major climate change report due to be published today.

Letters sent by the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), an ExxonMobil-funded thinktank with close links to the Bush administration, offered the payments for articles that emphasise the shortcomings of a report from the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

[Author]

Posts