Global warming

[mhaze]

So, you now accept that changes need to be made? Or are you going to claim that unsatisfactory answers to your question are somehow proof that there's not a problem at all?

First of all I would like to say that I am willing to discuss this with you. I am not willing to play little discussion board flame wars and/or knee jerk troll responses. If you want to insult me, go right ahead. I flat don't care. But you will not get a response from it...

Since the beginning of recorded history, various people have discussed "changes that need to be made" and "changes in behavior that would be good". That ain't gonna stop, right? Overall, the result of that is better than if discussion does not occur or is severely proscribed in extent.

In a practical sense, though it is difficult or impossible to get into subtle questions of logic and science in a message board where the noise to signal ratio is high. Nonetheless, why don't you pick one of those topics I mentioned, and comment on it? Then I'll comment on or expand or refute your comment. Etc.

 

[Schneibster]

No strawman there, Megalodon. Although some of the individual words may vary, I've seen pretty much those sorts of putdowns. I have actually seen the "consensus" staement used as the be-all and end-all of the argument. No discussion. Case closed.

You know, I specifically asked you what was a "put down." You never answered. I never mentioned any consensus, and neither did Megalodon. So what are you talking about here?

Looks like a strawman argument to me.

I've heard that one, too. Why the need to post at all if you're that ticked off? Why are the same posters only too happy to point out strawman arguments, Occam's Razor, Argument from Personal Incredulity, the Forer Effect and god knows how many other of the same principles again and again and again. They never seem to tire of that.

So basically we should just ignore logical fallacies? What are you saying here? Do you have the slightest clue what you're implying? You're implying that we should abandon thinking. Not just a real great start, Al. That doesn't work for me.

The answering posts may get a little tetchy if the same questioner carries on being wilfully ignorant, but they aren't dismissive from the off.

People who don't have an agenda don't accuse people of being nasty without being able to prove it, Al. I asked you to present specific criticisms. You didn't. I guess you don't have any. If you don't, then where did this claim come from?

OK, what about those who say the CO₂ concentration has been much higher in the prehistoric past, without the temperature being radically higher? Are they lying?

Apples and oranges, Al. Also, what's this about the CO2 level being "much higher," without the temperature being "radically higher?" You got anything to actually cite that wasn't written by an oil company shill that shows this? Any of that, you know, evidence stuff?

CO₂ concentration has been rising pretty much steadily since the industrial revolution. After several decades of rises, the average yearly global temperature dropped fairly steadily year-on-year from approximately 1941 to 1975. We are told this is due to sulphate emissions creating a negative forcing. Why were sulphate emissions not seriously affecting the climate until the 1940s? They, too, were important industrial emissions. What caused the sulphate level to rise so dramatically in the 1940s that not only did they allay the temperature-increasing effect of the rising CO₂ concentration, they reversed it? CO₂ was still rising, after all.

Gee, I dunno, maybe it was that little thing they had then, I think they called it World War 2. You never heard of that, right? And then they had to rebuild Europe afterward, and Asia; you know, all that stuff that got bombed. And then people started realizing that there was a lot of pollution being made, and started yelling about it. I seem to recall a little something about that in the 1960s. Maybe it's just me.

Assuming that sulphate emissions were gradually curtailed as a result of Clean Air policies, why do we not see a gradual lessening of the temperature decrease until CO₂ begins to dominate again? Why the sudden, steady increase in temperature from 1975, instead of a curve as SOx dropped out and the still-increasing CO₂ began to take over?

Sulphates don't have a long half-life in the air, Al. You have to keep pumping them out, or they go away pretty quick. That would be some of that, you know, science and stuff.

I humbly suggest "what we know about the world" is insufficient to predict the climate. I've seen a huge spread in predictions of the rate of increase, confusion as to whether the rise will continue perpetually or peter out, whether the Northern Hemisphere will become a desert or an ice-bowl. Current climate models do not postdict the Little Ice Age or the Medieval Warm Period, which were significant climatic events. However, they did not depend on CO₂ as a forcing. Cloud formation seems to be all but absent in climate models, but is almost certainly an important forcing.

So, basically, because we don't know everything, we don't know anything. This is the same argument the cretinists use, Al. I thought you didn't like them.

And I have never, ever denied that. OK, this year, in the UK at least, is so far considerably cooler than last year, but I do appreciate the difference between weather and climate.

However, there is the fact that a large number of weather stations in Siberia and in non-urban areas have ceased to be. They are no longer taking measurements at all. And yet all I've seen as a rebuttal to the urban heat island forcing is along the lines of, "Oh, that's irrelevant."

See, it's mischaracterizations of opposing arguments like this that irritates people, Al. Anybody who knows what the real argument is in this case can spot this a mile off.

If you've only got one measurement, then you question it, you look it over, you pound on the top of the box to see if the meters are maybe stuck. But when you measure that same thing five or six completely different ways and get the same answer from all of them, then it becomes a lot clearer what the facts are. And the thing is, Al, we've got those five or six different ways. And they all say the same thing. So when you concentrate on one of them, and ignore the others, what is that?

In the 70s, climatologists just knew we were heading for another ice age. The temperature fell steadily for 30 years. That proved it. It was obvious.

And another one. Every time you go look this up, it turns out a coupla guys said, well, maybe if things are just like this, we might be headed for an ice age. I think we oughta go check it out. And the media trumped that up into a big headline, and the guys are like, where did you get that? We never said that. We just said maybe we oughta go check it out. But now it's like, all the scientists said this. They didn't. All the newspapers did.

Really, the simple fact that the mercury's higher than it was thirty years ago says absolutely jack about continued trends.

I thought it was all "urban heat islands," Al. Losing the thread of the argument a bit there?

Is it simple and obvious that human beings are causing the rise in temperature?

Well, gee, Al, the CO2 concentration seems to be rising, and the isotopes (measured two different ways) say that's carbon that hasn't been where it can absorb C14 from the atmosphere for a long, long time. Anybody can go check out the figures for how much CO2 we're making; it's pretty simple. Economists keep track of stuff like that. So given we know we're making this amount of CO2, and given the concentration is rising that much, and given the isotope results, I guess it looks like we are making the CO2 levels rise. And given all the really obvious physics above, which you still haven't said anything about, gee, I guess that really does mean humans are causing the rise in temperature.

Did you have some point here?

Is it simple and obvious that the temperature will continue to rise without limit?

Who ever said that? Gimme a source, Al. I just don't see it. I haven't heard it. I think you either have listened to someone who didn't know what they're talking about, or you're obfuscating. Which is it, Al?

Is it simple and obvious that carbon dioxide forcing is the only game in town?

Al, nobody ever said CO2 forcing is the only forcing. Again, who ever said that? You know, that evidence stuff.

A creationist denies that evolution is happening at all. I don't deny we're in a warming cycle. I just think we don't know enough about the climate to predict what's going to happen tomorrow, let alone a hundred years from now.

What's going to happen tomorrow ain't climate, Al. It's weather. Global warming is not weather.

I'm all for recycling and cutting down pollution on a general principle: it would be nice to stop poisoning the earth. So basically, I'm happy to walk the walk. I'm just not convinced enough to talk the talk.

A link that provides answers to every point you've brought up here, and a lot more besides, is produced. Have you read the articles at that link, Al? Are you actually interested in the evidence, or are you just saying you are because it sounds good?

 

[Big Al]

I guess if every scientist doesn't agree 100% with every other scientist, then the bulk of the evidence can be thrown out?

I never said that. Please stop putting words in my mouth. However, when a "near-100% consensus" seems to be used as a major piece of evidence in its own right, it does make me wonder what the absolute knock-down argument is. "Consensus" isn't it as far as I'm concerned.

You sound like one of those "evolution is a theory in crisis" creationists.

Nice little ad hom that neither addresses my questions nor advances one iota of evidence.

 

[mhaze]

I never said that. Please stop putting words in my mouth. However, when a "near-100% consensus" seems to be used as a major piece of evidence in its own right, it does make me wonder what the absolute knock-down argument is. "Consensus" isn't it as far as I'm concerned.



Nice little ad hom that neither addresses my questions nor advances one iota of evidence.

Here is IMHO an example of just one kind of Science that cannot be discussed on JREF due to the various attempts to stifle discussion that may be contrary to True Believers. This is a quote from Armstrong et. al. who are heavyweights in economics in the area of forecasting and prediction.
The full paper is downloadable as pdf, it is worth reading.

“Global Warming: Forecasts by Scientists versus Scientific Forecasts”

We conducted an audit of Chapter 8 of the IPCC’s WG1 Report. We found enough information to make judgments on 89 out of the total of 140 principles. The forecasting procedures that were used violated 72 principles. Many of the violations were, by themselves, critical. We have been unable to identify any scientific forecasts to support global warming. Claims that the Earth will get warmer have no more credence than saying that it will get colder.

​

This brief quote of course does not do Armstrong's work justice.

 

[JoeEllison]

I never said that. Please stop putting words in my mouth. However, when a "near-100% consensus" seems to be used as a major piece of evidence in its own right, it does make me wonder what the absolute knock-down argument is. "Consensus" isn't it as far as I'm concerned.



Nice little ad hom that neither addresses my questions nor advances one iota of evidence.

We've pretty much established that "evidence" has very little to do with your viewpoint. Therefore, we're forced to look for other sources for your position. Noting that your denial of readily-available evidence is very similar to the creationists is a pretty good starting place, I think.

So, for instance, I point out the general scientific consensus, not as evidence, but to wonder what sort of special insight you claim to have, that the entire rest of the world doesn't have. Since evidence doesn't sway your worldview, I'm curious to understand how you came up with that worldview in the first place. Usually it boils down to political ideology, so my first guess would be that you're a "free market capitalist"...

... although I could be wrong.

 

[JoeEllison]

Here is IMHO an example of just one kind of Science that cannot be discussed on JREF due to the various attempts to stifle discussion that may be contrary to True Believers.

Here we see the persecution complex, also common among the sort of mindset that usually lies underneath the fringe belief system.

 

[JoeEllison]

Oh, and a quick Google search turns up that the “Global Warming: Forecasts by Scientists versus Scientific Forecasts” is being published in Energy and Environment, which is a clearinghouse for substandard papers, often in support of right-wing political viewpoints, and is widely criticized for its poor peer-review process.

So, no surprise that a "journal" that seems to exist in large part to promote unfounded right-wing fringe beliefs would be a source for our friends who deny AGW.

 

[mhaze]

Oh, and a quick Google search turns up that the “Global Warming: Forecasts by Scientists versus Scientific Forecasts” is being published in Energy and Environment, which is a clearinghouse for substandard papers, often in support of right-wing political viewpoints, and is widely criticized for its poor peer-review process.

So, no surprise that a "journal" that seems to exist in large part to promote unfounded right-wing fringe beliefs would be a source for our friends who deny AGW.

Much better than ad hominem. But by the way, I have read numerous of the issues of E&E and do not find the content reflects your assertions. Whatever.

But what about the actual science?

Here are some bits of the paper to chew on -

…some of the well-established generalizations for situations involving long-range forecasts of complex issues where the causal factors are subject to uncertainty (as with climate):

• Unaided judgmental forecasts by experts have no value. This applies whether the opinions are expressed by words, spreadsheets, or mathematical models. It also applies regardless of how much scientific evidence is possessed by the experts. Among the reasons for this are:
a) Complexity: People cannot assess complex relationships through unaided observations.
b) Coincidence: People confuse correlation with causation.
c) Feedback: People making judgmental predictions typically do not receive unambiguous feedback they can use to improve their forecasting.
d) Bias: People have difficulty in obtaining or using evidence that contradicts their initial beliefs. This problem is especially serious for people who view themselves as experts.

• Agreement among experts is weakly related to accuracy. This is especially true when the experts communicate with one another and when they work together to solve problems. (As is the case with the IPCC process).


• Complex models (those involving nonlinearities and interactions) harm accuracy because their errors multiply. That is, they tend to magnify one another. Ascher (1978), refers to the Club of Rome’s 1972 forecasts where, unaware of the research on forecasting, the developers proudly proclaimed, “in our model about 100,000 relationships are stored in the computer.” (The first author [Amrstrong] was aghast not only at the poor methodology in that study, but also at how easy it was to mislead both politicians and the public.) Complex models are also less accurate because they tend to fit randomness, thereby also providing misleading conclusions about prediction intervals. Finally, there are more opportunities for errors to creep into complex models and the errors are difficult to find. Craig, Gadgil, and Koomey (2002) came to similar conclusions in their review of long-term energy forecasts for the US made between 1950 and 1980.
​

 

[JoeEllison]

First of all I would like to say that I am willing to discuss this with you. I am not willing to play little discussion board flame wars and/or knee jerk troll responses. If you want to insult me, go right ahead. I flat don't care. But you will not get a response from it...

Since the beginning of recorded history, various people have discussed "changes that need to be made" and "changes in behavior that would be good". That ain't gonna stop, right? Overall, the result of that is better than if discussion does not occur or is severely proscribed in extent.

In a practical sense, though it is difficult or impossible to get into subtle questions of logic and science in a message board where the noise to signal ratio is high. Nonetheless, why don't you pick one of those topics I mentioned, and comment on it? Then I'll comment on or expand or refute your comment. Etc.

Why are you pretending that people are flaming and/or persecuting you?

I asked a pretty simple question... I've asked you before I think, and I think you avoided answering then as well.

Here, let me try again: So, you now accept that changes need to be made? Or are you going to claim that unsatisfactory answers to your question are somehow proof that there's not a problem at all?

Or, more bluntly, what does a plan to fix the problem have to do with the existence of the problem?

 

[mhaze]

Here, let me try again: So, you now accept that changes need to be made? Or are you going to claim that unsatisfactory answers to your question are somehow proof that there's not a problem at all?

There are changes, investments, and areas of study that are beneficial whether or not there is man made global warming, or any other specific issue. There are good changes that could be made to Bangladesh. They would be good irregardless of global warming.

But to assert that we in the US need to be buying compact flouresecent bulbs, using public transportation instead of our cars, because we might cause a rise in the sea level that would affect Bangladesh is lunacy.

Or, more bluntly, what does a plan to fix the problem have to do with the existence of the problem?

Everything. We do devise plans to handle bird flu, without it's actual existence.

And we can build 450 nuclear plants, shut down an equal number of coal fire plants. Do that, and the CO2 emissions are reduced to what the IPCC say is the midline requirement for their projections. Ergo, there is no global warming problem, and no requirement for alarmism, just a need to build some stuff.

Later, if there was no bird flu pandemic, everyone is happy.

And if later history determines no Global warming, those powerplants exist, and benefit everyone.

So there are Win-Win solutions. You may say in the alternative, that some groups would oppose the nuclear powerplants. I would then argue that the shrillest of the Alarmist and Denialist arguments would be rightfully used to Shut Them the F*** UP.

 

[back2basics]

This is a quote from Armstrong et. al. who are heavyweights in economics in the area of forecasting and prediction.
The full paper is downloadable as pdf, it is worth reading.
.[/B]

Heavyweight in economics? Well he is a Marketing professor, kind of similar. But you would have though Wharton would have made him an actual economics prof. if he was such a heavyweight.

He has no science background, no background in climatology.

And when you look in to this "heavyweight" claim it just doesn't hold up, at all.

Armstrong cites himself more than anybody else cites him.

http://ideas.repec.org/e/c/par65.html

Armstrong, J Scott & Collopy, Fred, 2001. "Identification of Asymmetric Prediction Intervals through Causal Forces," Journal of Forecasting, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 20(4), pages 273-83, July.
Cited by:

J. S. Armstrong & R. Brodie, 2005. "Forecasting for Marketing," General Economics and Teaching 0502018, EconWPA. [Downloadable!]
J. S. Armstrong, 2005. "Decomposition by Causal Forces: A Procedure for Forecasting Complex Time Series," General Economics and Teaching 0502015, EconWPA. [Downloadable!]
Other versions:
Armstrong, J. Scott & Collopy, Fred & Yokum, J. Thomas, 2005. "Decomposition by causal forces: a procedure for forecasting complex time series," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 21(1), pages 25-36. [Downloadable!]
J. Scott Armstrong & Kesten C. Green

Just one example from the link. So his 2001 paper is only cited by himself. In 6 years nobody else found his work usefull, apart from himself.

The paper you posted cites himself more than any paper. His own citations are around a 1/3rd of all the footnotes. And that ironic because he accused scientists of citing their own UN report in his questionaire.

A quick google search turns up almost nothing about him. His wiki page is slim and inaccurate (he didn't predict the 2004 election for example). Reading the report, is interesting because he offer little evidence for such a huge claim. His main point seems to be that the actual report does not have sufficient detail and he made attempt to look in to or understand the models other than reading the report.

He seems to like to promote his own ideas and methodologies, but other people are not many people are bighting.

Amazing what a certain amount of skepticism can turn up in just a few minutes.

 

[JoeEllison]

There are changes, investments, and areas of study that are beneficial whether or not there is man made global warming, or any other specific issue. There are good changes that could be made to Bangladesh. They would be good irregardless of global warming.

But to assert that we in the US need to be buying compact flouresecent bulbs, using public transportation instead of our cars, because we might cause a rise in the sea level that would affect Bangladesh is lunacy.

Everything. We do devise plans to handle bird flu, without it's actual existence.

And we can build 450 nuclear plants, shut down an equal number of coal fire plants. Do that, and the CO2 emissions are reduced to what the IPCC say is the midline requirement for their projections. Ergo, there is no global warming problem, and no requirement for alarmism, just a need to build some stuff.

Later, if there was no bird flu pandemic, everyone is happy.

And if later history determines no Global warming, those powerplants exist, and benefit everyone.

So there are Win-Win solutions. You may say in the alternative, that some groups would oppose the nuclear powerplants. I would then argue that the shrillest of the Alarmist and Denialist arguments would be rightfully used to Shut Them the F*** UP.

your post is one of the weirdest ones I've read in awhile. Wow. I'm not even sure what I'm supposed to get from this. Apparently, global warming can't exist, because if it did it would mean we might be inconvenienced VERY slightly in order to help people in other countries? Global warming doesn't exist because we aren't building nuclear power plants?

I'm trying to see how any of this has anything to do with anything else you've posted about global warming.

 

[robinson]

When did ad hom and "everybody knows it" become a substitute for "here is the peer reviewed articles showing why it is the current theory."?

If I hear one more idiot declare "you are a denialist" instead of debating the evidence, I think I am going to start hitting the report post button.

Calling someone a name, and apparently a name that has some sort of insulting meaning, (I never heard the word denialist until I read these forums), is not civil or intelligent. It is dumb.

And denialist isn't even a word.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=denialist&go=Go

I know, I know, you Woos think that making up a word that a "cool in group considers a real word", you think that makes it a word. Maybe to you it does, but the majority of intelligent thinkers in the world would consider you dumb.

And insulting. If all you got is calling someone a made up word, you got nothing.

 

[back2basics]

Unaided judgmental forecasts by experts have no value. This applies whether the opinions are expressed by words, spreadsheets, or mathematical models. It also applies regardless of how much scientific evidence is possessed by the experts. Among the reasons for this are:
a) Complexity: People cannot assess complex relationships through unaided observations.
b) Coincidence: People confuse correlation with causation.
c) Feedback: People making judgmental predictions typically do not receive unambiguous feedback they can use to improve their forecasting.
d) Bias: People have difficulty in obtaining or using evidence that contradicts their initial beliefs. This problem is especially serious for people who view themselves as experts.

This quote is just great. He says "Unaided judgmental forecasts by experts have no value" because amoungts other things "People confuse correlation with causation". Is he actually saying that the IPCC scientists confuse correlation with causation, a science 101 topic? He really cannot be serious.

Then to top that, this;

Bias: People have difficulty in obtaining or using evidence that contradicts their initial beliefs. This problem is especially serious for people who view themselves as experts

This is deeply ironic. But shows a complete and utter lack of knowlege about the scientific method. With his background in Marketing thats acceptable, but why is he even injecting himself in something that is clearly way above his head.

Obviously the latest "expert" paid for and sent out by people with agendas.

 

[robinson]

Now with that off my chest, I am sure the planet is warming, due to increased CO2 and other man made factors. And I definitely support reducing fossil fuel use, if for no other reason than to protect the air I breath.

But enough of that. What is the other factor in this matter? I looked at the ice core data. Very interesting. Anybody else notice something strange there?

 

[mhaze]

Apparently, global warming can't exist, because if it did it would mean we might be inconvenienced VERY slightly in order to help people in other countries? Global warming doesn't exist because we aren't building nuclear power plants?

Nuclear power plants do not emit greenhouse gases. Coal fired power plants emit double the amount as oil fired, and coal fired power plant construction is increasing. Power plants are a major source of CO2 emissions. We need power plants that do not create CO2 emissions. Therefore, we need nuclear power plants. A calculation shows that doubling the number of nuclear plants achieves the CO2 emission reductions required in the midlevel IPCC reports by the year 2050.

Other calculations show that most of the proposed "behavioral changes" supposedly to reduce greenhouse gas emissions are ineffective or nowhere near close to meeting the emissions reductions of the midlevel IPCC reports.

Got it?

I'm trying to see how any of this has anything to do with anything else you've posted about global warming.

Really?

 

[JoeEllison]

mhaze, do you think that global warming is real and at least partially driven by human behavior?

 

[Diamond]

Having read your post, I can say it didn't help... try thinking next time.

And back to the insults. Can't deal with the science, so just insult instead.

Depressing... An ad hominem fallacy means that I would be attacking the arguer instead of the argument. I explained my position based on the poster's behaviour and made an argument myself. At most you could have said that I was poisoning the well, but even that one wouldn't fit, since I was explaining the reason why some regulars are less than polite.

And BTW, sceptics look at the evidence...

So "denialist" isn't designed to be an insult akin to comparing someone to a Holcoaust Denier?

I call BS. The repeated use of the epithet "denier" is an ad hominem attack, and sighing about it isn't a defence.

And sceptics reserve judgement until the evidence demonstrates the proposition. So far, there is no evidence that carbon dioxide has ever caused warming in the real Earth atmosphere (and by that, I don't mean a computer model)

So where's the evidence?

And you are of course a plaid marsupial from Omega 3... as an exercise, find the similarity between both assertions.

Tedious attempts at humour aren't evidence either

Even if it was true, is patronizing a logical fallacy now? And by the way, that was not a syllogism. Don't use big words if you don't know their meaning.

I do know what they mean. You don't which is apparently where you cut out the argument because you realised it couldn't be defended.

So as a service, I'll put it back in:

It's quite simple, and not at all dependent in a "consensus":
What we know about physics tells us that it should get warmer, unless there's a dramatic negative feedback in the system;
What we know about the world tells us that no such negative feedback exists, and that some positive feedbacks are not only possible but highly probable;
Real world measurments show that it's getting warmer.

But the syllogism is false.

Real world measurements show its getting globally warmer, as it has been since the 17th Century, the trough of the Little Ice Age. The warming was strongest long before any increased in carbon dioxide. So the syllogism is really a fallacy about correlation and causation.

The ice core records show carbon dioxide rise as a response to warming and never a forcing, indicating that the positive feedbacks (if there are any) are feeble and counteracted by much larger negative feedbacks which keep the climate stable over billions of years. By the way, the temperatures fall well before carbon dioxide starts to fall - indicating the relationship is the opposite way to that proposed by AGW theory.

There I've put the arguments back in that you can't be bothered to challenge or defend.

Yes, I agree the list was simplified to drive a point across. Is that a logicall fallacy, now?

It's a logical fallacy of correlation being the same as causation.

We know that temperature has risen - check.
We know that carbon dioxide has risen - check.
Since carbon dioxide should cause warming therefore carbon dioxide rise caused the temperature rise - no its doesn't.

The fallacy of correlation implying causation is used hundreds of times on this Forum, and not exclusively to Global Warming, but AGW is certainly mainlining it like its going out of fashion.

You're wrong as usual... but I know you're not going to let it stop you.

And back to empty rhetoric. Haven't produced an argument so straight back to insult.

Well, I am surely impressed with your grasp of the terms "syllogism" and "logical fallacy".

You should be.

By the way, I'm not comparing you to a creationist, but I did accurately show a near identical argument from illogic to yours. Same construction and same lack of comprehension.

So instead of boring us all with another tedious reply of half-witted syllogisms and bad logic, why not actually present evidence that carbon dioxide has caused warming in the real atmosphere on the real Earth by reference to actual research showing this, something like:

"In this reconstruction from Proxy X, we see that carbon dioxide (red line) clearly rises before reconstructed temperature (blue line) and has consistently done so many times"

You know, something like evidence.

And by evidence I don't mean this:

What we know about the world tells us that no such negative feedback exists, and that some positive feedbacks are not only possible but highly probable;

Who is this "we" but an appeal to popularity?

 

[mhaze]

If I hear one more idiot declare "you are a denialist" instead of debating the evidence, I think I am going to start hitting the report post button.

That's a really good idea. I have no problem with posting a controversial link or subject, but hey.....what was that word...."controversial"? Yep, there it was....

 

[mhaze]

mhaze, do you think that global warming is real and at least partially driven by human behavior?

We've put more CO2 in the air and the air should warm up a bit because of that. Relatively affluent, say Western, lifestyles, cause 10-20 tons of CO2 per person to be released. Western lifestyles are a form of behavior, so yes, global warming is real and is at least partially driven by human behavior.

From that one must ask, well, what are we talking about here? Is it a 0.5 C rise over 50 years (does not matter at all) a 6 C rise over 50 years (not good) or a completely unknown rise because we ain't that smart to figure it out?