What Do We Think About Climate Change

what if you are wrong?

the night before a big battle a raw recruit asked the old veteran if he was willing to die for what he believed in

the vet answered, " no, I might be wrong "

 

We aren't in the center of the universe? Maybe. Somebody get a tape measure.
http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2009/08/distances_position_and_motion.php

 

Blindly assuming that anything and everything a government does is for nefarious purposes, rather than for the good of the people, makes no more sense than blind allegiance and faith in the government.

And mentioning blithering idiots is no worse than going on about 'unsuspecting volunteers with a religious fixation...tree huggers...the mindless and the fool who pushes along lies and misinformation...the marginals and the confused who need a flag to run behind...green propagandists...', etc.

And those were just from your last two or three posts. For a grand finale, how about this quote from you a week or two ago:

AGW supporters are marginal with an axe to grind, resentful of the "evil" rich, strumming on the alleged "virtues" of poverty as the fools comfort, they have found in the Global Warming fraud, a niche to hide their hates and to re launch them in a different format, one that apparently virtuous and altruistic to the point of religion is in fact as egotistic, blind and stupid as any other ground swell revolution has ever been and as always manipulated by those who know how to work the masses.

A man who habitually goes off on tirades like that is in no position at all to complain about name-calling. Especially since I could be considered an AGW 'supporter' (or at least believer), and I don't see any disclaimer stating, 'present company excepted, of course.'

 

At a large Florida "foreclosure mill," a manager signed up to 1,000 documents a day without reading them and employees were given gifts to speed up foreclosure paperwork, according to depositions released today by the Florida Attorney General's Office.

The news, also reported by Tampa Online, comes as Bank of America, the nation's largest bank by assets, announcement that it would resume more than 100,000 foreclosures in 23 states after an internal investigation of its practices.

Florida authorities are investigating the law offices of David J. Stern over how it handled foreclosure paperwork. As the AP notes, Cheryl Salmons, an office manager at the law offices of David Stern, "would sign 500 files in the morning and another 500 files in the afternoon without reviewing them and with no witnesses," according to Kelly Scott, a former assistant at the firm.

The perks for good performance were considerable, according to Scott's statement. Tampa Online notes office employees were lavished with gifts:

 

And this is mentioned in a climate change thread because....:?:

 

ya politicizing a scientific finding is copping out at its finest

deal is the whopping majority of scientists believe that the alterations we have made in the atmospheric chemistry are now and will continue to change the overall heat dynamics of that atmosphere.

the speed of change is simply overwhelming the natural cycle and even things like solar minimum have not had a significant impact on keeping temps down during the cycle low. typically the temp would follow such obvious natural parameters but apparently with the advent of a 30% rise in co2 and a 200% rise in CH4 this is simply not true anymore

 

it's part of the makeup of the deniers for the most part

just trying to show that they are their worst enemy's when it comes to the things they pay allegiance too

it's the totality of their thought process that amazes me

most will say let the market reign supreme when those controlling that market are in affect stealing the country

I'm beginning to think that prolonging this economy is in the interest of those responsible for it

but I'm just a conspiracy theorist

 

You guys need to stop saying this ... science is not made right or correct by its popularity. Such statements cast doubt on other content in the post.

There is debate on the subject. Repeating over and over that a vast majority believe something is not data that supports what you believe. The majority have been wrong more than once.

I'm not saying that they are in this case, but try as I might I can't seem to find much in the way of a balanced presentation that allows me to make a conclusion either way.

Here is one simple question:
If high CO2 levels create warming, why does the proxy data show that the earth cooled while CO2 levels were high? It seems to me that if high CO2 levels cause warming, high CO2 levels would prevent cooling?

 

scientists don't believe something to be popular, they believe it because the science is sound

therefore most scientists will believe sound science

 

accurate statements only cast doubt in the mind of the denier who then typically project it onto others through there own psychosis of denial

head in the sand syndrome just isn't that healthy nor it is all that hard to spot.

 

Yes, the same is true in fisheries discussions. Rather than confront certain facts head on the effort gets diverted to red herrings of one sort or another. I think I have solved the energy crisis, with a system I call the Tripe, which stands for Track-Pipe. I used to build boats, and work on boats, and I've worked on the system for years but no one has given it a good critique. I believed in global warming long years ago intuitively, and haven't spared a lot of time dithering over it, rather putting my self to the task at hand. The Tripe system core is plumbing, which will carry offshore wind in the form of compressed air, hydrogen, also natural gas, waste water, water, broadband and other things. It is a multi conduit pipe, 2, which are used as outriggers of sorts on either side of our rail system. Perhaps since I used to build boats, some of you may consider having a look at the system. It would provide the common denominator between the new sustainable systems and the old systems. It's how to stop the global climate change crisis, that we are faced with. Please have a look. The name is optional if it makes you sick. Thanks. Steven J. Scannell www.environmentalfisherman.com

 

This makes no sense unless you meant "scientists don't believe something because it is popular"

Scientists in 1600 believed the earth was the centre of the universe ... based on what they believed was sound science.

 

I asked a simple question ... and this is your response?

 

The fact that most scientists agree about AGW doesn't automatically make it true. But it's certainly indicates that the hypothesis should be examined seriously, instead of being dismissed as a fantasy or conspiracy.

It shouldn't be necessary to keep repeating myself every few pages, but skeptics seem determined to paint things bass-ackwards: scientists don't agree AGW is real because people say there's a consensus; people say there's a consensus because most scientists agree. Consensus is just a shorthand term for 'this is what the overwhelming majority of scientists believe, based on their research and data.'

That doesn't automatically prove they're right, of course. But it certainly indicates that AGW isn't just the drug-induced ravings of some lunatic fringe, or the invention of crooked politicians conspiring with secret societies to set up a One World Order, destroy our freedoms and milk us of more and more money.

And I repeat: you can't honestly compare the scientific climate of today with that of the 1600's. Scientists have learned a lot since then, there are a lot more of them, and they have a lot more data to work with.

There's actually very little honest debate about the reality of AGW in the scientific community (although the details are still being hammered out), just as there's very little honest debate about whether evolution is real. In both cases, the so-called 'debate' that opponents are desperately trying to keep alive is more of a publicity campaign than a genuine scientific discussion.

Forums like this are about the only place there's any real debating, and that's simply because there are so many ignorant amateurs and blind ideologues involved. As a matter of fact, God help any legitimate scientist who wanders in; he gets savaged unmercifully. Go back and check out the virulent hostility Alan Rockwood, PhD, was met with in this thread, when he posted for a while.

Regarding your question: I have no idea which cooling periods you're thinking of, so it's hard to give you an answer. But again: proponents of AGW say only that this particular warming trend is the result of abrupt rises in CO2 due to human activity. They've never claimed that CO2 is the only factor influencing the Earth's climate, or that other factors can never outweigh it in a particular scenario.

 

I don't dismiss it. I doubt it because BOTH sides tend to rant with near-religious fever. That is a BIG red flag for me.

I'll repeat. In the last 400,000 years there have been several major changes in the temperature. If you look at the historic record you will see that we are about 20,000 years into a NORMAL cyclic warming cycle.

You are joking right? Almost no one (not even the Church) denys that evolution exists. There is much more debate on Global Warming. If you had compared Global Climate Change to Evolution you would be correct. Both exist beyond reasonable debate. But warming is debated among credible scientists and among those that believe the earth is still warming, there is debate as to the cause.

This quote: "By the 1990s, it was widely accepted (but not unanimously so) that the Earth's surface air temperature had warmed over the past century. An ongoing debate is whether such a warming can, in fact, be attributed to increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere." Came from The Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center that has served as the primary climate-change data and information analysis center of the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) since 1982. If the idea of AGW was as widely accepted as you would have us believe, why would they make such a statement?

One of my closest friends is a retired professor. He refuses to even talk about "Global Warming" because the claims made by AGW believers are not supported by the data he gathers in his field (Forestry). Since I know him personally and he never sounds like chicken little (as some of the AGW nut jobs do) I am a bit skeptical too.

As I said before, engaging with you always results in me learning something.

Turns out that the "majority" of climate scientists acknowledge that CO2 levels do indeed follow temperature changes by 200-1000 years. Many cite normal variations in the Earth's orbit as the root driving force for the 100,000 year cycles in the global temperature. They cite numbers like 1/3 of the CO2 in the troposphere is due to humans burning fossil fuels. They say things like we have a 10-20 year window in which we must *start* to do reduce CO2 emissions if we are to limit the potential temperature rise. All in all they sound quite reasonable.

I'm convinced that 1/3 of the CO2 that AGW alarmists rant about is due to human use of fossil fuel. There is no doubt in my mind that there is a measurable amount of CO2 that can be attributed to humans. I accept ACO2. I have yet to read anything that leads me to think that it is a threat of a global nature or the cause of a global warming trend that started 20,000 years ago.

From Here

Doubling the CO2 = 2-3 degrees C? Sounds like some people have been grossly exaggerating the effect of human CO2 contribution that is helping forestall the next ice age.

Thanks again for the diversion.