A new look on global warming

Remove all ads!

T2: I hear what you're saying, and if you want to call it emotional stereotyping, that's your prerogative. But I know plenty of global warming skeptics, too - they all drive gas-guzzlers to commute to work by themselves, refuse to recycle, and dismiss anything Al Gore or any other "dumb treehugger" (their words) has to say because Gore flies on a private jet and doesn't live in a mud hut. They also take it a step further by mocking those who do the opposite. They know perfectly well that they contribute more to pollution than the average citizen, but they simply don't care. Their answer to our future pollution problems is drill in Anwar, dig more landfills and f*ck Al Gore. You don't have to verbally advocate "polluting as much as you want" if your actions and your casual disregard of the consequences of those actions do it for you.

What frustrates me more than anything is that if global warming skeptics* spent half as much energy trying to come up with solutions to reduce our collective carbon output as they do trying to prove their opponents wrong then the problem would be resolved and the need to argue would be over. As it is all this "there's no consensus" talk accomplishes nothing other than providing a handy excuse for not changing behavior.

* I willingly concede that if many of the more preachy global warming activists put down their picket signs and devoted themselves to the more effective solution - incentivising people into behavior change rather than demonizing - we'd be a lot further along that way, too. I'd love it if both could happen, but I'm not holding my breath.

 

Where do you get this impression from?

It's certainly not an accurate assessment of the IPCC's analysis.

 

DR,

You are reading, but not understanding. For all the claims of "oil money" and evil Republicans you are forgetting who started this entire farce. That would be the United Nations, which is far from being a politically neutral organization.

Being a conservative and not particularly liking the liberal agenda has nothing to do with this (although I do like that you read my posts). To paraphrase T2, being a non-believer doesn't make us evil. It doesn't mean we want to pollute the air/water and spill chemicals. We care about the Earth as much as anyone else.

However, we also care about people doing knee-jerk things based on faulty science. I am a firm believer in the "Law of unintended consequences". I have stated numerous times that closing a polluting factory in Pittsburgh will just cause the creation of a polluting factory in Beijing. The net environmental effect is zero, but people have lost jobs, and Pennsylvania environmentalists feel good about themselves as they have deluded themselves into thinking they have accomplished something.

The true tragedy is the long-term effect this is having on the scientific process. Don't go blaming the conservatives for politicizing science. They didn't start it, but that is conveniently forgotten.

 

Let me see if I'm following. So pointing out that a global warming skeptic is in the tank for the oil industry doesn't impugn his credibility because of...the UN? I believe that's a textbook example of a non sequitur.

I never said Republicans are evil (speaking of whining). I just think Republicans who are vocal and adamant climate-change skeptics are missing the forest for the trees (that analogy seems particularly apt given what we're discussing). They are harmful to our society because they are enablers to people like this prick, who are gifted with cabinet-level positions where they do more damage through their idiotic policies than you or I ever could. You don't understand that your "skepticism" is used as a fait accompli by those who profit enormously by our immense consumption of oil, claiming they have the right to avoid any oversight or responsibility for the environmental impact of their industries because "hey, the jury is still out!" Talk about the Law of Unintended Consequences. Like it or not, you are actually arguing for the regression of environmental protection policies, or at the very least enabling those who are.

As for knee-jerk reactions, I agree with you that they are bad things no matter who does them. Ethanol, to me, is a good example of this (and an excellent example of the Law of Unintended Consequences, IMO). Claiming that mountains of easily-accessible, vigorously-tested information, produced and puzzled over by the smartest people on the planet does not exist is another.

As for your political leanings, I'll take your word that this issue is independent of your conservatism, even though partisan conservatism and making a sport of mocking environmentalists seem inseparable these days. I also didn't say you "want" to pollute the land, but your actions and attitude don't exactly betray much concern for those things happening, especially if it means a lifestyle adjustment on a societal or even local level. By opposing environmental reform you're effectively doing the same thing, even if you disagree with some of the admittedly imperfect methods or, yes, unintended consequences. But you have to remember that not all unintended consequences are equally harmful or relevant. The Law of Unintended Consequences doesn't mean that we shouldn't do what we can to pollute less because the Chinese are going to pollute more. In fact, the Chinese use the fact that we pollute so much as an excuse to ignore our "hypocritical" urgings that they tamp down on their pollution and thus pollute even more. That was certainly an unintended consequence, no?

No one can really say who "first" began politicizing science, conservatives or liberals. I just have to tip my hat to American conservatives of the last few decades for being friggin' ju jitsu masters at it. Seriously, hai-ya.

EDIT: Closing thought.

Look - I am NOT claiming that all climate change proponents are right and good, and that all climate change skeptics are wrong and dumb and evil. Many groups on the far left are, frankly, idiots (ELF anyone?). I don't know for sure either, and frankly, none of us do for certain as we're not climatologists and even THEY can't prove their findings with 100% conclusivity (a nearly impossible standard for ANY subject). I think most on both sides have their hearts in the right place and believe they are fighting the good fight. But here's what I DO know: the same steps that need to be taken to reverse or prevent a hypothetical global warming scenario are PRECISELY the same steps required to reverse the rapid and increasingly worrying polluting of our planet. Worst case scenario, we avert disaster. Best case scenario, we breath easier, prevent mass extinction of marine and arctic wildlife, reduce the frequency and severity of hurricanes, etc. For my part, I'd rather side with the overwhelming majority of those who DO know what they're talking about, if for no better reason than because after decades of polluting, cleaning up after ourselves is just flat out the right thing to do.

By arguing AGAINST these steps because of some vague notion that climate scientists might be wrong, you are effectively speeding up those negative consequences. You may not be implicitly promoting pollution and climate change, but you do give credence to the idea that there's nothing we can or should do to change what is happening. You're making it socially acceptable to not give a sh*t, and that's arguably just as bad. Forget the term "climate change" if that gives you the willies: think about climate preservation. If you claim to be a conservative, prove your title isn't a misnomer by actually conserving something.

 

T2 - I made this remark a few pages back, and maybe you recall it:

But I look at the sources of the links that are posted in this thread. As such, I have not formed a definitive viewpoint on global warming, but like some others, I would like to see much better respect and care for our natural environment. Thusly, you may stop attempting to paint me as an advocate, but as someone who is concerned by the seriousness of the issue presented by some aspects of GW debate.

Yes, you are right about Republicans, DR. it is widely known that some Republicans share the same concerns regarding global warming, including John McCain. Even Pat Robertson recently remarked that he was "honored" to be asked by Al Gore to join his mission into the further study on GW.

T2 - You said:

Then you said:

Yes, well, as you can guess I was only trying to draw attention to the issue of who are the real "alarmists." Those who are advocates of GW, or those who think we need to colonize space because we may be the victim of a space "attack." That's it! We need a "War on Space!" We all know that it hates Americans because of how "free and prosperous" we are.

 

Sorry susipaisti but more than half of the scientists that think that the current climate warming is part of the 1500 year cycle that i linked to are not americans. Not sure what country you are from but there are probably some from your countries on the list.
Also very funny that all the climate alarmists want to label a website or person as this or that & say that they are immaterial yet never try to disprove(the favorite line of several of our liberals on the boards) the peer reviewed studies that these(as they are called by those same liberals)climate skeptic or deniests have published.

@deathrabbit, yes i do not like what we in the states label as liberals however this does not mean i dislike all democrats, hell i voted for the same democratic sheriff for 15 years, just the ones that exhibit the socialist leanings. Your talking about ignoring mountains of evidence goes both ways, one of the favorite sayings of the climate alarmists is "the debate is over, there is no reason to look at any further evidence", thats like saying " we have someone locked up for this crime, it doesn't matter if some new evidence proves that he may not have done it". sorry, debate is always a good thing.
@taluntain, pretty funny comments, you remind me of the administrater of another webpage i used to post at. his rules applied to everyone but those who supported his POV & himself.
i, personally would rather see qoutes listed as i did as this tells you where it is located if you wish to find the original paper it came from. i dont see what the problem is.

 

Heck, you don't even need that to take the first steps down the path of conservation. I think most Americans would agree that ending our dependence on foreign oil would be a good thing. The only way to do that is to greatly reduce the amount of oil we use, which incidently, would also cause less CO2 to be pumped into the air. Replacing all fossil fuel power plants with nuclear ones would also go a long way in helping.

OK, I realize this is a bit but I have to ask - what's so bad about a little socialism? I kind of like that our school systems are social. And our fire departments. And police departments. And the street crews that plow the snow from the roads. And the free public library. I know a lot of people who equate socialism to communism, but the truth is, there are some social programs that are quite beneficial.

 

Tal:
As has been said many, many times before, it doesn't matter who speaks so much as what is said. For your claims of the sceptics all being in the pocket of Big Oil, I'll forgo the rant on the completely rediculous nature of this claim and simply go with this: just about everyone in this business has some bias in their background. Whether economic, political, or ideological, in the end, someone has to pay the bills, and the only people willing to do that are those with a stake in the results. The only person I can think of that may not have any bias is that guy who's documenting the condition of all the temperature monitoring stations, and I haven't researched him much. The question then is, who is succumbing to their bias and who is overcomming it? The only people we can even begin to say are not being overcome by their bias are those that switch sides, those that initially believed in one side but, after researching the issue themselves, have come to believe in the other. I know of several believers-turned-sceptics, but no sceptics-turned-believers in the scientific community. Of course, that doesn't mean they don't exist.

Or, instead of pointing out the connections some of the sceptics have to Big Oil (and ignoring the connections so many believers have with radical liberals), why don't you try contradicting the evidence presented. I won't say for a second that its the number of quotes that wins, but the quality of those quotes has to play a MUCH greater role than who they come from.

The only effort I have seen on your side to do this was claiming that the temperature graph showing a plateau was invalid because the mean was a statisctical outlier. So, other than not liking the 0-change mark on that ne graph, what do you have to contradict the claims of sceptics?


DR and other's who lean towards the scientific majority due to recognized personal ignorance:
I applaud your humility and recognition of personal limitations, but I would caution you against following the scientific majority on blind faith. Time and again across the past several hundred years, the scientific Big Wigs have been shown to be perfectly willing to talk about thing they don't know about with full confidence. From Einstein's Cosmalogical Constant and Darwin's successors in evolution, to the claim that life could form on Earth by random chance and some of the utterly rediculous claims of GW believers today, scientists have shown quite well that they are human and subject to both human error and human pride. I would encourage you whenever possible to look into these things yourselves, in your spare time, and with an open mind to all sides of the arguement.

Aldeth:
A minor correction, the vast majority of fossil fuel power plants in America are powered by American coal and oil, so this isn't a "foreign dependence" issue. Mind you, I'd still like to see most of them converted, and I'd love to see some effective electric or hydrogen fuel cell cars.

 

Then you haven't been looking.

 

NOG, with all due respect, assumptions are not something you're very good at. I'd caution you to avoid making them in the future. Don't assume that I haven't been doing research on this very subject for the last decade out of personal interest, just because I choose to ultimately defer to the experts when I reach the limitations of my own willingness to wade through every piece of hard research, or my own ability to comprehend the intriquicies of such highly-complicated data. It's also unwise to assume that I haven't given the skeptic's argument a fair shake - I reevaluate my conclusions on the subject all the time, because I want desperately to be wrong about what I'm told by climate experts, what I read in their findings, and what I can see with my own eyes when looking at the skies above my city or a photo of Antarctica from orbit. I simply can't ignore what is happening, no matter how badly I'd love to. I don't believe the world is coming to a crashing end, ala The Day After Tomorrow, but I am bright enough to read the writing on the wall. You clearly are, too - which is what makes my "camp" so frustrated with yours.

As someone who chose not to dedicate his life to climatology, I have to choose between listening to one group - comprised of a few nut jobs mixed in with a huge scholarly community who counts many of the smartest people on earth among their number and is therefore highly credible - and a second, much smaller group - comprised primarily of televangelist religious kooks who aren't bright enough to understand 7th grade environmental science, ethically-compromised "climate experts," and a few brilliant but unfortunately fringe maverick scientists who thrive on skepticism - well, you'll have to forgive me if, while fully acknowledging there's a possibility I might be making a mistake, I choose to keep my comfy seat next to the majority on the common sense bandwagon.

I'm perfectly willing to listen to opposing viewpoints. Even if you go out of your way to find one just so you can post it here and rub Drew's nose in it, like you did this time. Since I didn't even jump into this until page 4, obviously there are plenty of open-minded folk around here who want to do the same. But be prepared to have your argument picked apart if you do. It comes with the territory when you're in the minority. This new "evidence" you presented, like much of the climate oppo-research out there, was weighed, measured, and found wanting - for reasons that have nothing to do with how convinced some of us are on the subject.

* me fastens irresistible snark helmet *

And this year's nominee in the category of "Least Self-Aware Statement in a Debate" is...

NOG and other's who lean towards the biblical minority due to unrecognized personal ignorance:
I applaud your faith and recognition of a higher power, but I would caution you against following the religious minority on pure faith, blind or otherwise. Time and again across the past several thousand years, the theological Big Wigs have been shown to be perfectly willing to talk about things they haven't the slightest damn clue about. From James Dobson's House of Crazy and Creationism's successors in Intelligent Design, to the claim that the earth is only a few thousand years old and created by a specific set of plans from an omnipresent being, and some of the utterly ridiculous claims of ID believers today, bible literalists have shown quite well that they are human and subject to both human error and human pride. I would encourage you - no, I insist - whenever possible to look into these things yourselves, in your spare time, and with an open mind to all sides of the argument. And try a Hot Pocket while you're at it, they're breathtaking.

* / helmet.

 

Wow Tal, and you said you were disappointed with me....

I find it interesting how the "moral majority" here (i.e., the one who believe the conclusion of man induced global warming) are so quick to be downright degrading to those who believe there needs to be additional work on the subject before forming such extreme conclusions. Comparisons to pro-smoking campaigns are a bit of a stretch. I recycle, I spend thousands of dollars making my house more energy efficient, Mrs Bruno and I are looking into solar panels (knowing they will never pay for themselves), we are looking at hybreds for our next car (another thing that does not pay off financially) -- because it's the right thing to do.

In my opinion the position of man induced global warming is simply a theory, and one that does not have strong statistical evidence. When NASA revealed their database of temperatures was off (the Holy Grail of man-induced global warming for a long time) the models were adjusted nearly overnight to show why it was not important the average temperature has decreased over the past few decades. To me, a theory that can be adjusted on the fly isn't a very strong theory.

I have never said man does not influence the environment. But I feel there are important issues we know are man induced that we can work to correct -- now. Most of these, such as reducing man's encroachment on the rain forests and eliminating the use of chemicals that harm the ionosphere are higher on my list of priorities. As is the reduction of acid rain and ensuring manufacturing facilities allow ZERO hazardous waste products into the environment.

We pick our battles when fighting industry. I choose to pick a different battle than global warming.

 

Are you referring to this stuff?

Because the average temperature hasn't decreased over the past few decades. See this graph from NASA's GISTEMP page.

 

Wow, I think I'm disapointed at just about everyone now.

DR:
It seems it is you who should be avoiding the assumptions, as you seem to have assumed my entire post. No where did I make any assumptions at all. I merely made a comment in an effort to ensure that those who hadn't done any research did before coming to a conclusion. You're pattently biased analysis of the arguement aside, I did not say anything at all to discredit the position of those that say "I don't know...". I was merely pointing out that, historically, the inevitable "... but someone must" has become something of a knee-jerk reaction in western society and has bit us in the butt badly.

That snark helmet of your must limit blood-flow to the brain, because you went from my casual warning against assumptions to one of the grandest, most elaborate, most egregiously wrong, and most insulting assumptions I have seen on this board since I've joined. The "biblical minority" is awefully large to be called a minority, the "unrecognized personal ignorance" posessed by many has not been demonstrated by me, I have never quoted James Dobson on science or biblical transaltions (though he does have some good advice on raising children), we have shown in another thread how MODERN COSMOLOGY SAYS the universe is BOTH 15 billion+ years old AND 5700 years old at the SAME TIME, and, unless you're talking about the fringe nuts, no one has been able to show that the vast majority of biblical scholars are ignorant, but rather science has consistently shown that they actually knew what they were talking about before science did!

While I also approach this field with an open and sceptical mind, both your aimless, off-topic jump to it and your comments about it show plainly that you are either a.) a complete idiot or b.) quite upset about something. From previous posts, I can only infer b and ask you to calm down. If you felt my comment to you and others was an attack, I assure you it was not, merely a bit of advise that some may need and others may already be aware of.

Tal:

I did, I just took a tiny bit of literary liscence on it. I didn't want to go through all the various entities you seem to believe control these people's every waking thought.

Ah, but it does make it just as valid as that funded by, for example, Green Peace. You also seem to make the blatant and (hopefully wrong) assumtion that every researcher in the least bit associated with Big Oil is automatically an unscrupulous hack who would sell his own mother. Just because Shell funds a University study into ice cores does not mean they are in the lab manipulating the data. I'd also like to point out that the entire point of that arguement was that all the claims you made against the sceptics can be made against the GW believers as well. Conveniently, however, you seem to have missed that point.

And here you go twisting my words with a little literary liscence, and then twisting that into an arguement I didn't make, and then trying to blast me for making a rediculous arguement I didn't make. Congratulations, Tal, you beat up your own arguement.

Really? Where was the correlation between climate change and solar activity contradicted? Where was the historical evidence of periods noticably warmer than today LESS THAN 1000 YEARS AGO contradicted? Where was the cyclical nature of climate change contradicted? I know you claim you've contradicted the global temperature chart that shows a plateau, but saying you don't like the reference point isn't contradiction.

Please re-read my statement, then read my reaction to DR's post. I didn't insult anyone. If saying they recognize personal ignorance because they say "I'm not an expert, I don't know" is an insult, then calling someone blonde because they have blonde hair is a felony. Also notice I never accused anyone of actually relying on blind faith, I merely wanted to make sure they didn't.

T2Bruno:

I can only guess they were deeply offended by something, most likely a deep and complete misunderstanding of my comments to DR.

Also, a theory that can be adjusted on the fly isn't neccesarily a problem. Many scientific theories have undergone rapid and drastic modifications to adjust to new data. A theory that ignores historical data is a problem.

AMaster:
When both atmospheric temperature monitoring and sea temperature monitoring disagree with the GISTEMP data, we may need to take a second look at GISTEMP. Of course, we may want to take a second look at our methods for measuring the other two as well, but considering all the money recently spent on those fancy new diving bouys for sea temp, I really hope they aren't faulty.

 

here is where the solar variation/warming trend linkage was contradicted.

And, yes, "1998 was a statistical outlier" does, in fact, have bearing on the claim that "temperatures have plateaued relative to 1998". Because if '98 was an outlier--and it was--then conclusions drawn based on comparisons to '98 are flawed.

Except it's not just GISTEMP. CRU. NCDC. HADCRUT3.

 

Warning: this was posted very late at night, and may be unitelligible...

NOG,

I am willing to walk my snark back a few paces, and explain my response.

You honestly seemed to be "assuming" that we (or at least I) were not doing our own research, rather taking the GW side's word for it "on blind faith," and that we also don't know to separate the kooks and hysterics from the credible parties. Given our past discussions regarding faith and evidence I found it patently hypocritical at first blush. A guy who is certain he witnessed a miraculous celestial umbrella thing protecting a parish in a rain storm and refuses to entertain or even seek out a scientific explanation for the phenomena, is lecturing US on blind faith? Are you KIDDING me?

I'll take your word that you intended it as a casual warning, but it really didn't come off that way. Judging that by itself now and with context, my response is essentially: Thanks, I will and I have been, same to you.

In quoting your statement to me and others, and then mad-libbing it back to you, I was trying to illustrate what you appeared to be completely oblivious of by stating it:

• a) how easy it was to flip that argument on its head and how vulnerable you were to the same line of argument (hence, a lack a of self-awareness),
• b) in reference to the "miracles" discussion and your own belief in creationism, you've got a lot of nerve commenting on the "utterly ridiculous claims" of anyone, let alone those who merely recognize the objective fact that the earth is indeed warming up,
• c) that your side has just as many kooks and hysterics who ignorantly run off at the mouth than mine does, especially on this topic,
• d) that those very kooks happen to be incredibly influential leaders (Falwell, Robertson, and yes, even Dobson are in many ways the counterpoints to your citation of Darwin and Einstein) who spend millions of dollars disseminating junk oppo-science to millions of followers who hang on their every word, and
• e) that they too have been proven completely wrong time and again, yet their status as "men of God" somehow excuses them from having no expertise on the subject whatsoever. You may think I'm exaggerating, but I live in Houston where we have three bible channels who all parrot this crap hourly.

Given that your positions on most issues mirror theirs almost to a tee it wasn't a huge leap for me to assume you were doing exactly the same thing: throwing up a random study as evidence of a flawed consensus and, therefore, no need to panic, it's all a lie concocted by the teh librul agenda. I'll take your word that you're just interested in learning more and finding more definitive answers to the questions posed by GW research and offer my apologies for not giving you the benefit of the doubt. But given how you started this discussion - by crowing that you just shot a hole in liberal Drew's precious "consensus" - and considering the news sources you rely on, it didn't strike me as a far-fetched assumption.

But anyway - I think we've both done enough assuming the other's intent for one day, eh?

 

I'd like to offer an alternative explanation - perhaps someone else started paying the bills.

 

Excellent point Aldeth. Although I agree that some scientists (on both sides) simply follow the money, I would not paint a wide swath and imply that all on one side or the other are that shallow. I believe comparisons made with the 'smoking is good for you' researchers are inappropriate and extreme (I'm not implying you made that comparison).

Chandos: I think there are zealots on both sides of this issue -- as with most arguments, the zealots screams the loudest and harm intelligent examination the most. I'll readily admit I've been biased based on some extreme statements and conclusions made on one side (and that I don't really care for Gore), but I try to set aside that my biases when looking at any issue. I also tend to ignore the extremist on the "there's nothing wrong here side." I think many of them are idiots.

Tal: It appears some have taken your slight jabs more seriously than I have. I have assumed those comments to be poking fun, but not malicious. My replies have been made in that perceived spirit.

 

This wasn't directed at me, I just wanted to comment on the wisdom of it. I agree completely.