What Do We Think About Climate Change

[Boston]

your continued use of industry stooges is nothing short of legendary Jim
this from source watch

Professor Robert (Bob) Carter, is "a researcher at the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University", Australia. [1] In a byline with an op-ed published in the Sydney Morning Herald in September 2005, he was described as an "experienced environmental scientist" [2], but a March 2007 article in the same paper noted that "Professor Carter, whose background is in marine geology, appears to have little, if any, standing in the Australian climate science community." [3] He is a well known climate change skeptic.
Carter is a speaker at the International Conference on Climate Change (2009), organized by the Heartland Institute think tank. [1]

In January 2006, Carter told the Australian newspaper that "atmospheric CO2 is not a primary forcing agent for temperature change," arguing instead that "any cumulative human signal is so far undetectable at a global level and, if present, is buried deeply in the noise of natural variation". [6]
In March 2007 the Sydney Morning Herald reported that "Professor Carter told the Herald yesterday [March 14th 2007] the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change had uncovered no evidence the warming of the planet was caused by human activity. He said the role of peer review in scientific literature was overstressed, and whether or not a scientist had been funded by the fossil fuel industry was irrelevant to the validity of research. 'I don't think it is the point whether or not you are paid by the coal or petroleum industry,' said Professor Carter. 'I will address the evidence.'" [7]
Carter is a member of the right-wing think tank the Institute of Public Affairs [8], and a founding member of the Australian Environment Foundation, a front group set up by the Institute of Public Affairs.

Carter was paid approximately $2,500 a day for his participation in oil and gas industry public relations campaign's
course that number is from 1991 so is bound to have gone up substantially since then

so Jim any other well credentialed agnotists you want to present to the group
cause we sure saw right through that guy



how about a quick reminder to the readers who the Heartland Institute is

The Heartland Institute, according to the Institute's web site, is a nonprofit organization whose mission is "to discover and promote free-market solutions to social and economic problems".[1] The Institute campaigns in support of:
"Common-sense environmentalism", such as opposition to the the Kyoto Protocol aimed at countering global warming
Genetically engineered crops and products;
The privatization of public services;
The introduction of school vouchers;
The deregulation of health care insurance;
and against:
What it refers to as "junk science";
Tobacco control measures such as tobacco tax increases (the Institute denies the health effects of second-hand smoke);
The institute was founded in 1984 by David H. Padden, now the President of Padco Lease Corporation and Joseph L. Bast, Heartland's President and CEO.[2] In 2007 it spent over $5.8 million on its activities.[3]
The Institute sees its primary audience as "the nation’s 8,300 state and national elected officials and approximately 8,400 local government officials."[4] For five of the Insitute's priority policy areas, Heartland produces 20-page tabloid-sized monthly newspapers which are primarily distributed to elected officials, journalists and donors. (The five publications are Budget & Tax News, Environment & Climate News, Health Care News, Infotech & Telecom News and School Reform News.[4] Heartland also hosts PolicyBot, which it refers to as the "Internet's most extensive clearing-house for the work of free-market think tanks." The database contains 22,000 documents from 350 U.S. right-wing think tanks and advocacy groups.[5]

or what agnotology is

Agnotology, formerly agnatology, is a neologism for the study of culturally-induced ignorance or doubt, particularly the publication of inaccurate or misleading scientific data. The term was coined by Robert N. Proctor,[1][2] a Stanford University professor specializing in the history of science and technology.[3] Its name derives from the Greek word ἀγνῶσις, agnōsis, "not knowing"; and -λογία, -logia.[4] More generally, the term also highlights the increasingly common condition where more knowledge of a subject leaves one more uncertain than before.
A prime example of the deliberate production of ignorance cited by Proctor is the tobacco industry's conspiracy to manufacture doubt about the cancer risks of tobacco use. Under the banner of science, the industry produced research about everything except tobacco hazards to exploit public uncertainty.[4][5] Some of the root causes for culturally-induced ignorance are media neglect, corporate or governmental secrecy and suppression, document destruction, and myriad forms of inherent or avoidable culturopolitical selectivity, inattention, and forgetfulness.[6]

[Boston]

the continued use of such poor sources so easily linked to oil and gas industry public relations and disinformation campaigns does beg the question

are you guys being paid to press these ridiculousness arguments

cause it sure appears there is some kind of ulterior motive

why else continually cling to such embarrassingly week debating practices



I mean at least G is polite about his denialist ways
but others have been reduced to a steady flow of insults and impotence
hardly a debate worthy of further consideration
the science does seem to be in and obvious
global climate change is being effected by mans interaction with the atmospheric chemistry
and that change is a clear rise in co2, ch4 and an accompanying rise in worldwide temp with unknown results
other than a few basics like rising oceans
rising acidity in the oceans
more dramatic weather events
alterations in weather patterns
detrimental effects on the worlds food supply
to name a few of the more obvious

the lack of a cohesive or even logical argument to the contrary is obvious to any who have been following along

[Guillermo]

BillyBoy & BostonBoy
Are you paid by these guys?
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=SourceWatch
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/maps.php

Quoting from this kind of politically mudded sites, or following their very sad way of debating, based in nothing of good but only in a clumsy way of spreading discredit all around to try to counteract the work of opponents, is not the most clever thing to do, in my opinion.

Could you please debate just bringing in your arguments (even if wrong, I can live with that ), or even better post here new interesting findings and sources for us to learn, not repetitive ones already posted dozens of times in this thread?

That would be greatly appreciated.

[Guillermo]

I've found this site interesting:
http://climatedebatedaily.com/

Cheers.

At least Boston believes what he believes... Tho, " hardly a debate worthy of further consideration", it is. The other isn't smart enough to even form a concise insult. HillBillyDoc, "Look over there while I poke you in the eye" (you're in over your head, pardner).

[Guillermo]

Here is the text of Newsweek’s 1975 story on the trend toward global cooling.

"There are ominous signs that the Earth’s weather patterns have begun to change dramatically and that these changes may portend a drastic decline in food production – with serious political implications for just about every nation on Earth. The drop in food output could begin quite soon, perhaps only 10 years from now. The regions destined to feel its impact are the great wheat-producing lands of Canada and the U.S.S.R. in the North, along with a number of marginally self-sufficient tropical areas – parts of India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Indochina and Indonesia – where the growing season is dependent upon the rains brought by the monsoon.

The evidence in support of these predictions has now begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep up with it. In England, farmers have seen their growing season decline by about two weeks since 1950, with a resultant overall loss in grain production estimated at up to 100,000 tons annually. During the same time, the average temperature around the equator has risen by a fraction of a degree – a fraction that in some areas can mean drought and desolation. Last April, in the most devastating outbreak of tornadoes ever recorded, 148 twisters killed more than 300 people and caused half a billion dollars’ worth of damage in 13 U.S. states.

To scientists, these seemingly disparate incidents represent the advance signs of fundamental changes in the world’s weather. The central fact is that after three quarters of a century of extraordinarily mild conditions, the earth’s climate seems to be cooling down. Meteorologists disagree about the cause and extent of the cooling trend, as well as over its specific impact on local weather conditions. But they are almost unanimous in the view that the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century. If the climatic change is as profound as some of the pessimists fear, the resulting famines could be catastrophic. “A major climatic change would force economic and social adjustments on a worldwide scale,” warns a recent report by the National Academy of Sciences, “because the global patterns of food production and population that have evolved are implicitly dependent on the climate of the present century.”

A survey completed last year by Dr. Murray Mitchell of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reveals a drop of half a degree in average ground temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere between 1945 and 1968. According to George Kukla of Columbia University, satellite photos indicated a sudden, large increase in Northern Hemisphere snow cover in the winter of 1971-72. And a study released last month by two NOAA scientists notes that the amount of sunshine reaching the ground in the continental U.S. diminished by 1.3% between 1964 and 1972.

To the layman, the relatively small changes in temperature and sunshine can be highly misleading. Reid Bryson of the University of Wisconsin points out that the Earth’s average temperature during the great Ice Ages was only about seven degrees lower than during its warmest eras – and that the present decline has taken the planet about a sixth of the way toward the Ice Age average. Others regard the cooling as a reversion to the “little ice age” conditions that brought bitter winters to much of Europe and northern America between 1600 and 1900 – years when the Thames used to freeze so solidly that Londoners roasted oxen on the ice and when iceboats sailed the Hudson River almost as far south as New York City.

Just what causes the onset of major and minor ice ages remains a mystery. “Our knowledge of the mechanisms of climatic change is at least as fragmentary as our data,” concedes the National Academy of Sciences report. “Not only are the basic scientific questions largely unanswered, but in many cases we do not yet know enough to pose the key questions.”

Meteorologists think that they can forecast the short-term results of the return to the norm of the last century. They begin by noting the slight drop in overall temperature that produces large numbers of pressure centers in the upper atmosphere. These break up the smooth flow of westerly winds over temperate areas. The stagnant air produced in this way causes an increase in extremes of local weather such as droughts, floods, extended dry spells, long freezes, delayed monsoons and even local temperature increases – all of which have a direct impact on food supplies.

“The world’s food-producing system,” warns Dr. James D. McQuigg of NOAA’s Center for Climatic and Environmental Assessment, “is much more sensitive to the weather variable than it was even five years ago.” Furthermore, the growth of world population and creation of new national boundaries make it impossible for starving peoples to migrate from their devastated fields, as they did during past famines.

Climatologists are pessimistic that political leaders will take any positive action to compensate for the climatic change, or even to allay its effects. They concede that some of the more spectacular solutions proposed, such as melting the Arctic ice cap by covering it with black soot or diverting arctic rivers, might create problems far greater than those they solve. But the scientists see few signs that government leaders anywhere are even prepared to take the simple measures of stockpiling food or of introducing the variables of climatic uncertainty into economic projections of future food supplies. The longer the planners delay, the more difficult will they find it to cope with climatic change once the results become grim reality."

Why this kind of alarmism sounds familiar to me....?

[Guillermo]

Let me post this interesting thought from Naomi Oreskes:

"The scientific consensus might, of course, be wrong. If the history of science teaches anything, it is humility"

Boston, don't you love it?

[Boston]

I think Naomi is a very honest debater
able to admit that although there is always doubt



the vast majority of the science is in agreement
97%

means that 3% has a viable ( usually ) doubt
that three percent is responsible for some great scientific discoveries
none of which should be ignored simply because it defies the consensus
but
what should be seriously questioned
is those biased few who accept what amounts to bribe money to assist in the propaganda campaign of the oil and gas industry

those few are the ones consistently referenced on this page
and its those few who's work is hardly worthy of reference by any informed debater when there are so many good scientists who do have good points to make concerning the present level of understanding in the climate sciences

I would love to, and have attempted before to enter into an honest debate concerning the obviously debatable elements of the theory of rapid global climate change
but have been continually rebuffed in those attempts

I would like to agree on the basic physics
the fact that co2 is increasing
ch4 is increasing
temp is increasing
its irrefutable and established science
so can we please move on to discuss the possible reasons for that increase and its consequences

its also apparent that although we were in a trend leading to an ice age
we have at least artificially postponed that trend and instead entered into a period of unprecedented stability or increase in temp that defies the natural cycle

thats the discussion Ive been trying to have for so long
not this pathetic diatribe concerning these obviously agnotisitic sources

if those few deniers continue to espouse these sources as valid
then we are stuck in the simple ethical argument concerning academic honesty

best
B

[Guillermo]

It is not a honest debate to keep on insisting to call the oponents agnotists or say they have obscure interests from the oil or tabacco industries. That's simply a childish debate.

I would appreciate very much if you take your time to search internet for new interesting scientific works supporting the man made warming and its amount.

I will also appreciate if Jimbo, who has done an excellent work in this thread, could keep controlled his temper and keep on posting good info and argumenting, as he has done for hundreds of posts. I know it's difficult not to lose patience with you because of your very simplistic and offending way of argumenting, but he should keep on fighting in the center of the ring, not following you to its corners.

Cheers.

[Boston]

but it is an honest debate to bring scientific data and not that which is derived from preconceived conclusions; IE industry spin. Science works from a position of interest not a position of preconception. Thats why there is that 3% that disagrees or at least thats why they should disagree, rather than because some of them were paid off by the oil and gas interests

my point
and the point others are trying to make is that although there are viable dissenting opinions concerning various elements of the theory, there is no cohesive dissenting theory. That being so I will cheerfully admit there are still innumerable unanswered questions. IE there is still lots to learn. The theory has been proven able to predict and that is a key criteria lacking from the denialist view.

I would love to discuss the potential sources of co2 in a rational scientific manor or the obvious effects of the sun cycle on our climate. But I would also like to discuss in a rational way the obvious deviation our climate has taken from the norm based on our best records, those records reach back about 600,000 years. and show a clear pattern. They also show a clear deviation from that pattern
Why? is it natural variability as you say and what lies within the relm of natural variability, all are reasonable questions so far presented in unreasonable ways, with obviously biased data

there is a key component to any peer reviewed published work; if you look in the tittle page there should be a progression in there somewhere, a portion of it goes like so

"editor" obvious

"copyright" should say something like open access if the author is cool

"funding" lists all funding

and the key element that we are most concerned with on these pages

"competing interests"

which notes if any of the participants had any conflicts of interest in the conclusions or the procedures of the study. The sources most often listed by deniers on this page are not able to reasonable answer the last and most important of the qualifications of good science, that there be no competing interests in the outcome of the work.

Its one of the defining characteristics of Agnotism which works from an opposite position of a forgone conclusion seeking to find data or at least confusion to enhance a political position.

By all means G if you have a viable scientist who is presenting a cohesive argument please present it as its the type of engagement Ive been waiting for since I encountered this thread

Frankly the attacks on BillyDocks techniques of a more detailed scientific argument just go to show that a lack of ability to converse on that detailed level by the deniers and certainly represent no shortcomings on his part as he is clearly just working with his best knowledge concerning the issues as am I. Honestly B gave a stellar review of the physics involved in the temp/vapor relationship, one that not only won the day but that any reasonable debater would have acceded to
personally I thought a review of the gas pressure laws was a brilliant rebuttal

while it is true that the oil and gas industry plants antagonists in various pr opportunities its also hard to know when your dealing with one of em, rather than just a misinformed denier. I may have been rash in that accusation but I trust you can see why I and others would think it so. The type of argument style presented thus far is classic industry spin. If we mistake it as such who can blame us. If I am wrong in my suspicions the easiest way to assuage them is to use viable scientific sources from here on out and give up on the industry spin deceitfully presented as peer reviewed science.

[BillyDoc]

Originally Posted by Guillermo

It is not a honest debate to keep on insisting to call the oponents agnotists or say they have obscure interests from the oil or tabacco industries. That's simply a childish debate.

Cheers.

Guillermo, let me give you just one clear example of why some of us are very suspicious of exactly what you say, that the arguments you and some others present are directly from the the oil industry, and are presented to justify continued use of oil so this industry can keep on selling oil and making profits. Profits that are taken directly from the destruction of our planetary ecosystem.

You and Jim have repeatedly claimed that there is no warming trend, that there is, in fact, a cooling trend. Yet:

1. Reputable sources present data that shows a warming trend, which has been presented in these pages many times. You and Jim rebutt these data by equivocating on the term "trend" and pointing to a downturn in temperature in very recent years. A downturn that is clearly a normal variation in the data, and plain to see if the entire data set is viewed, or has not been "cooked" by "detrending" in other words.

2. Reports abound showing melting in Greenland.

3. Reports abound showing melting in Antarctica.

4. Reports abound showing ice recession in the Arctic.

5. Reports abound showing glacial recession worldwide.

Now most people have had some experience with ice formation and melting, and may even have noted that when the ice is melting it usually means that it is warming up. Conversely, if it is freezing we can usually conclude that it is cooling off. Many observers would say that this phenomenon is well enough established to be viewed as "obvious." So, even if you discard the recorded data showing a warming trend you must then also discard the collaborating evidence from all this ice from all over the planet that is also melting to come to the conclusion that we are in a cooling trend . . . and that is exactly what you and Jim do.

Every time some little factoid like "ice melting" is presented you change the subject by simply ignoring these inconvenient facts and burying us in volumes and volumes of crap from sources like the Heartland Institute. A practice that I believe you understand quite well is known as ignoratio elenchi. But just to make sure we are clear on that point, here is a definition of ignoratio elenchi from Wikipedia:

Ignoratio elenchi (also known as irrelevant conclusion[1] or irrelevant thesis) is the informal fallacy of presenting an argument that may in itself be valid, but does not address the issue in question. "Ignoratio elenchi" can be roughly translated by ignorance of refutation, that is, ignorance of what a refutation is; "elenchi" is from the Greek έλεγχος, meaning an argument of disproof or refutation.[2] (Some sources give by ignorance of the issues or even by ignoring the issues as a translation of ignoratio elenchi.)

Aristotle believed that an ignoratio elenchi is a mistake made by a questioner while attempting to refute a respondent's argument. He called it an ignorance of what makes for a refutation. For Aristotle, then, ignoratio elenchi amounts to ignorance of logic. In fact, Aristotle goes so far as to say that all logical fallacies can be reduced to what he calls ignoratio elenchi.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignoratio_elenchi

Now, when you are pinned down and burdened with a long history of ignoratio elenchi and dumping volumes of crap into these pages, you " would appreciate very much if [we] take [our] time to search internet for new interesting scientific works supporting the man made warming and its amount." In other words, you would like to ignore what has gone on before, as always, and just start the cycle all over again.

But Guillermo, where is your credibility? Why should we play your game again, knowing that it will produce the same result. You propose more ignoratio elenchi, nothing more. If you are serious about having an actual discussion, then you could start by answering the points about warming presented above IN YOUR OWN WORDS AND USING YOUR OWN LOGIC. Because there is no way I am going to bother going through another cut-and-paste mass of Heartland Institute crap for you. In my view, you have no credibility. You have long since thrown it away.

BillyDoc

[Guillermo]

AMSR-E Artic Sea Ice extent:
http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/seaice_extent.htm
Present value: 13,767,656 km2 (April 6, 2009)

[Boston]

and in what way is a one year graph relevant to our discussion

you just completely proved Billy's point

[Guillermo]

The Little Ice Age and Medieval Warm Period in the Sargasso Sea
Lloyd D. Keigwin
Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, Woods Hole, MA 02543 USA.

"Sea surface temperature (SST), salinity, and flux of terrigenous material oscillated on millennial time scales in the Pleistocene North Atlantic, but there are few records of Holocene variability. Because of high rates of sediment accumulation, Holocene oscillations are well documented in the northern Sargasso Sea. Results from a radiocarbon-dated box core show that SST was 1°C cooler than today 400 years ago (the Little Ice Age) and 1700 years ago, and 1°C warmer than today 1000 years ago (the Medieval Warm Period). Thus, at least some of the warming since the Little Ice Age appears to be part of a natural oscillation."

[masalai]

Ok Guillermo, this is for Arctic waters and being surrounded by the major land masses on this globe would be expected to be significantly cooler than "normal" in wintertime for that region as would be expected by meteorologists... (No climatology inference so far just that the readings for temperature and precipitation are relevant for local weather not Global warming/cooling trends)... and would be within expectations for those supporting a warming position...

The counter to your postulation is the unexpected increase in the rate of ice melt in Antarctica as caused by warmer waters circulating in that region, which are also causing alarm because that also causes a sequence of events that reduce the amount of krill grown for the whales, penguins, albatross and many other Antarctic seasonal feeders who rely on this seasonal abundance. This is the anomaly that should excite climatologists as it infers there is a significant oceanic warming trend and presents a strong counter to those arguments proffering a "cooling climate"... This is climate change evidence, as opposed to meteorological seasonal forecasting information (although both professions utilise the same data for their own forecasting activities)...

I would postulate that further evidence of a warming trend may be seen in northern hemisphere extremes in the usual expectation for seasonal weather.... and continued cold air temperatures in southern hemisphere (Antarctic landmass) making a lie of the melting ice as it almost never rains over the Antarctic landmass to melt the ice already there but snow does fall and soon compacts to dense ice layers maintaining the refrigerated state...