Global Warming and all that stuff.

[Azure]

Perhaps you're not getting the joke.

lol...I think I do.

 

[mhaze]

lol...I think I do.

this - Yet another way to end GW?AGW.

 

[CapelDodger]

Hansen has publicly stated that "oceans could rise several meters, and hundreds of millions could die".

Could you give us a link to that in context? The "If" that preceded the "could"? If the West Antarctic ice-sheet collapses oceans will rise a metre or two. Is that what he was referring to? To what would result if this happened?

Context would make this clear.

On examination of the IPCC report that is the extreme worst-case view of a 1000 year period.

On whose examination? The IPCC has nothing to say about 1000-year projections. That's not its mandate. The IPCC was not created to inform policy for the fourth millenium. It's very much about the short-term.

I see nothing wrong with being skeptical of Hansen; being continuously chided to believe in the "consensus view" by true believers in GW?

Are you sceptical of claims that the IPCC reports include 1000-year projections?

 

[CapelDodger]

One of the articles I quoted had the 'end of the world is nigh - its official' in the title.

I took it...along with someone calling the global warming 'dangerous' and someone else saying that we were going to become extinct with the current trend, and sarcastically pointed out...'oh no, we're all going to die.'

Okay?

No, not OK. Each of us here is saying what we say. Your rambling attempt to justify assigning your own inventions to others is worthless. And does not earn respect.

 

[CapelDodger]

This made me giggle.




Whee!

And ... now I get to press the button! Wheeee!

 

[CapelDodger]

Yes...I know that.



We certainly agree there.

OK.

That source was something entirely different.

No it wasn't. It was the source I was referring to. The one that you referred to when it was "attacked". The one that varwoche referred to as the one you'd previously cited. That one.

Wikipedia has a good article regarding what you just said...basically saying the same thing.

It ain't contentious.

My problem with this is not the actual substance...I can read your posts and learn something...but I have a problem when certain substance is dismissed because the 'source' is biased.

varwoche took the absence of substance as obvious and went straight to the interesting point : why is it there at all, posing as being significant in the AGW debate? Why did you find it so easily? Why did you think it significant enough to quote at length?

Your private war on Hansen I'll leave you to enjoy.

 

[Azure]

No, not OK. Each of us here is saying what we say. Your rambling attempt to justify assigning your own inventions to others is worthless. And does not earn respect.

Oh no.

Jesus...if you can't see the hysteria mentioned in those articles I quoted, something is really wrong.

"End of world is nigh - its official"...what do you think that means, other then...oh no we're all going to die?

 

[Azure]

No it wasn't. It was the source I was referring to. The one that you referred to when it was "attacked". The one that varwoche referred to as the one you'd previously cited. That one.

What? I referred to it because I was searching for articles from Bryson. That is why it came up. Not my fault that Bryson is obviously bought and paid for by the oil industry...which I can't figure out.

Attack the source, not the message!

varwoche took the absence of substance as obvious

No, varwoche attacked the source because he said it was bought and paid for by the energy trading sector, or whatever the hell he said. He never MENTIONED any substance.

In fact, that is exactly what you're doing. Attack the source, the person saying it, but leave WHAT he says alone.

and went straight to the interesting point : why is it there at all, posing as being significant in the AGW debate? Why did you find it so easily? Why did you think it significant enough to quote at length?

You're completley off your rocker.

Why did I find it so easily? Because I was searching for articles from Bryson. Is that a problem?

I never mentioned anything about Hansen....other then accidentally misquoting another poster.

My article, or the one varwoche dismissed as coming from an energy and trading publication, was talking about Bryson, and what he had to say.

 

[varwoche]

on one hand, global warming is an established fact, but on the other hand, there is no science that will PROVE that mankind is the driving force behind global warming.

I can't prove that the "face" on Mars is a natural geographic feature nor can I prove that you are a real person and not a bot.

The evidence supporting AGW is overwhelming.

There is also the belief that global warming is natural...expressed by many of the people I quoted above. But no, I am a denier.

Crevice-derived opinions are a dime a dozen. Point me to some peer-reviewed studies and I'll gladly check them out.

It is hysteria. Not that long ago I read an article where some idiot was saying... Hysteria? Or just stupidity. You call it what you want, but there are people out there that feed such hysteria.

There is no topic on Odin's green earth about which some random bozo or another isn't hysterical. So what? It has no bearing on the science that you (weakly) argue against.

Typical. When you can't attack the substance, you attack the source.

This comment overlooks the most important reason why overlooking your cite is rational, based on the not-enough-time-in-the-day principle. It's a crevice-derived opinion piece. There is more than enough peer-reviewed science out there to fill my time if I researched the topic 24x7 for the rest of my life. None of which you have cited.

 

[Azure]

The evidence supporting AGW is overwhelming.

Guess so.

No further point in arguing then.

Let everyone know...mankind is the reason for global warming.

http://schwinger.harvard.edu/~motl/usc-climate.html

Just one peer-reviewed article.

The writers show that the human-induced climatic changes are negligible.

No, they must be bought and paid for by the energy industry.

Very nice.

It is published by Springer which is one of the leading academic publishing companies in the world. The editorial board of Environmental Geology includes 53 leading scientists from every corner of the planet; US institutions listed as primary affiliations of board members include the US Geological Survey, the University of New Orleans, the University of Missouri, the University of Kansas, the University of Oklahoma, Temple University, Wesleyan University, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, and so on.

The point is that Environmental Geology is a first-class journal, papers submitted to the journal are peer-reviewed by scientists at major institutions, and the journal is certainly not part of any industry-funded conspiracy to undermine actions on global warming. Submitting a paper to any journal in which you question whether humans are involved in global warming will assure a more stringent review than normal.

The current global warming is most likely a combined effect of increased solar and tectonic activities and cannot be attributed to the increased anthropogenic impact on the atmosphere. Humans may be responsible for less than 0.01°C (of approximately 0.56°C (1°F) total average atmospheric heating during the last century)”. Holy cow, can you imagine the letters and e-mails they must have received in response to that conclusion? They even show that over the last 3,000 years, the earth has cooled, or if you look just at the last 1,000 years, the earth has been cooling as well (the earth was in the Medieval Warm Period 1,000 years ago).

The debate on climate change is never boring, the debate is full of surprises, and anyone claiming the debate is over is simply dismissing a significant number of papers that appear regularly in the major journals.

So either you're not looking for them...you ignore them, or you don't believe them.

Way to be skeptical!

http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2006/12/01/are-humans-involved-in-global-warming/

 

[Wolverine]

http://schwinger.harvard.edu/~motl/usc-climate.html

Just one peer-reviewed article.

Apologies for the interruption, but are you aware of the rebuttal (published in the same journal)? It appears you've selected a rather poor example (further reading).

If those anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions had been spread over several billion years then, yes, the effect would be negligible, but they've all happened over the last two centuries and have increased atmospheric CO2 by 30%. This is a real embarrassment for the journal that published this.

It is astonishing that the paper of Khilyuk and Chilingar (2006) (as well as Khilyuk and Chilingar 2004, for that matter) could pass the review process of a seemingly serious journal such as Environmental Geology. Such failures of this process, which is supposed to guarantee the quality of published literature, are likely to damage the reputation of this journal.

 

[Azure]

Apologies for the interruption, but are you aware of the rebuttal (published in the same journal)? It appears you've selected a rather poor example (further reading).

Yes, I saw that.

Oh well, since some wrote a rebuttal, I guess we should dismiss it.

That settles it...

Dr John Everett, now a consulting oceanographer; also involved with the IPCC as reviewer, etc. This contains much useful info. Dr Everett shares the IPCC notion that carbon emissions should be reduced, but he does not agree that humans are the major cause of undesirable climate change. Good review of the main issues, including the IPCC & its procedures, esp the famous 'scientific consensus'. Provides good background/context for lay inquirers.

See how old this gets?

I'm not going to go scour the internet looking for peer-reviewed articles to try and prove something to someone who already has their mind made up.

I provided numerous quotes from SELECT people in the environmental industry, all which were either ignored or dismissed because, well they don't agree with what certain people on here believe.

These people are not two-bit think-tanks that write opinion articles about a certain subject in hopes to dictate popular opinion...they are valid scientists, many of whom have contributed A LOT to the climate research field. Yet, their voice is ignored for some reason.

You get this..

Some corporations whose revenues might be adversely affected by controls on carbon dioxide emissions have also alleged major uncertainties in the science. Such statements suggest that there might be substantive disagreement in the scientific community about the reality of anthropogenic climate change. This is not the case. The scientific consensus is clearly expressed in the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

A professor of history? Are we going to dismiss him too now?

And then you get this..

Oreskes, a professor of history, claims to have analyzed 928 abstracts on global climate change, of which 75% either explicitly or implicitly accept the view that most of the recent warming trend is man-made. When I checked the same set of abstracts [plus an additional two hundred found in the same ISI data bank], I discovered that just over a dozen explicitly endorse the "consensus," while the vast majority of abstracts does not mention anthropogenic global warming.

IPCC..consensus?

John Christy, an IPCC lead author and global warming skeptic, said that "Contributing authors essentially are asked to contribute a little text at the beginning and to review the first two drafts. We have no control over editing decisions. Even less influence is granted the 2,000 or so reviewers. Thus, to say that 800 contributing authors or 2,000 reviewers reached consensus on anything describes a situation that is not reality."

Yeah sure.

But go ahead, dismiss these people because they didn't publish a peer-reviewed article. Dismiss them DESPITE their credentials..which to me, speak for themselves.

If a lead author of the IPCC is skeptical about the supposed consensus, that sure as hell doesn't bode well for those who think the debate is over. Or those who the findings by the IPCC has put and end to the debate about what causes global warming. And yes I know he agrees that humans contribute to global warming...

It is scientifically inconceivable that after changing forests into cities, turning millions of acres into irrigated farmland, putting massive quantities of soot and dust into the air, and putting extra greenhouse gases into the air, that the natural course of climate has not changed in some way.

Also..

Christy is quoted as saying, "I've often heard it said that there's a consensus of thousands of scientists on the global warming issue and that humans are causing a catastrophic change to the climate system. Well I am one scientist, and there are many that simply think that is not true.

Consensus? Hardly.

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

 

[Wolverine]

Yes, I saw that.

And still posted it?

 

[Azure]

And still posted it?

Yes.

You think the whole article is flawed because of the rebuttal?

There is a lot more substance to it then simply talking about anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions.

And it got published...peer reviewed and all...which might bring light to the whole peer reviewed debate.

Drummond Rennie, deputy editor of Journal of the American Medical Association is an organizer of the International Congress on Peer Review and Biomedical Publication, which has been held every four years since 1986.[6] He remarks, "There seems to be no study too fragmented, no hypothesis too trivial, no literature too biased or too egotistical, no design too warped, no methodology too bungled, no presentation of results too inaccurate, too obscure, and too contradictory, no analysis too self-serving, no argument too circular, no conclusions too trifling or too unjustified, and no grammar and syntax too offensive for a paper to end up in print."[7]

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

So all of a sudden peer review isn't exactly put on such a high pedestal. It has its flaws too. And don't think for a second that it only applies to one side.

 

[Wolverine]

Yes.

You think the whole article is flawed because of the rebuttal?

[...snip...]

I'll happily answer in my next post -- but just out of curiosity, one thing first: why did you add such a substantial block of text to your post after I'd already replied? Initially, "Yes I saw that." was your complete answer. Now you've qualified that... um, a lot.

Those reading along casually might not notice your edit and the timestamps, and mistakenly conclude I cherry-picked your post for one line. If you like, I'll address your addendum as well -- it's just a bit irritating in that post revisions of that magnitude unnecessarily complicate the discussion and result in confusion for other readers.

 

[fsol]

Guess so.

No further point in arguing then.

Let everyone know...mankind is the reason for global warming.

http://schwinger.harvard.edu/~motl/usc-climate.html

Just one peer-reviewed article.



No, they must be bought and paid for by the energy industry.

Very nice.







So either you're not looking for them...you ignore them, or you don't believe them.

Way to be skeptical!

http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2006/12/01/are-humans-involved-in-global-warming/

Figure one of that paper is dubious to begin with. I wonder why the data stops in the '70s? It couldn't possibly be because the correlation between solar activity and temperature falls to pieces after that could it? Well yes, I believe it could. If that paper passed the peer review process, well, that's disappointing.

 

[mhaze]

Any attempts to mitigate undesirable climatic changes using restrictive regulations are condemned to failure, because the global natural forces are at least 4–5 orders of magnitude greater than available human controls. In addition, application of these controls will lead to catastrophic economic consequences. Estimates show (http://www.JunkScience.com) that since its inception in February 2005, the Kyoto Protocol has cost about $50 billion (about $10 billion a month) supposedly averting about 0.0005°C of warming by the year 2050. Thus, the Kyoto Protocol is a good example of how to achieve the minimum results with the maximum efforts (and sacrifices). Impact of available human controls will be negligible in comparison with the global forces of nature. Thus, the attempts to alter the occurring global climatic changes (and drastic measures prescribed by the Kyoto Protocol) have to be abandoned as meaningless and harmful. Instead, moral and professional obligation of all responsible scientists and politicians is to minimize potential human misery resulting from oncoming global climatic changes.

These is the final conclusions of the paper in question.

 

[a_unique_person]

$50 billion is a lot of money? From what I read, the bonuses on Wall St last year were $24 Billion.

And he puts forward once again the lie about what Kyoto was supposed to achieve. It was to achieve a working, functional, carbon trading/capping scheme in the industrialised countries, all set to hook up the rest of the world and achieve real reductions, with new technology implemented.

 

[mhaze]

$50 billion is a lot of money? From what I read, the bonuses on Wall St last year were $24 Billion.

And he puts forward once again the lie about what Kyoto was supposed to achieve. It was to achieve a working, functional, carbon trading/capping scheme in the industrialised countries, all set to hook up the rest of the world and achieve real reductions, with new technology implemented.

With all due respect I think that you might want to reconsider the comparison of 50 billion of tax revenue and costs to industry - a new expense - with some arbitrarily cherry picked alternative number.

The issue that should be addressed is whether Kyoto had a good or bad, or completely negligible effect relative to its supposed goals? That 50 billion in costs translates into problems for ordinary people.

 

[Schneibster]

The US GDP alone is $13 trillion, and the EU's is about the same; China's is about $8 trillion. The total of the GDPs of the world's nations is around $63 trillion. That's pretty close to $10,000 per person; that $50 billion is around $10 per person. Just to give you the idea.

Sound like "catastrophic economic consequences" to you?

So, you got ten bucks? Hell, you might even talk me out of a thousand or so, if it looks like it's getting spent right. "Catastrophic economic consequences" my left nostril.