Where do you stand on the GW/AGW issue?

[a_unique_person]

The conspiracy theory is that all the scientists and researches that present evidence contrary to the AGW theory are infact secretely funded by oil companies.

No-one has ever claimed that, although the likes of Morano, Michaels and Singer are highly suspect. Singer has been happy to shill for the tobacco companies in the past.

 

[David Rodale]

No-one has ever claimed that, although the likes of Morano, Michaels and Singer are highly suspect. Singer has been happy to shill for the tobacco companies in the past.

You just did.

 

[rockoon]

No-one has ever claimed that, although the likes of Morano, Michaels and Singer are highly suspect. Singer has been happy to shill for the tobacco companies in the past.

Oh I bet you meant "highly suspect" of something other than a conspiracy.

 

[mhaze]

Perhaps you could point out where carbon trading on the free market is designed to put money in the pockets of the governments and IPCC? I have actually heard free market economists want a tax rather than an a trading scheme, if there has to be a way to manage CO2 production. They feel a tax would be much more efficient.

Public power utilities are owned by government.

Under Kyoto, utility prices go up.

Government makes money from Kyoto.

 

[Lonewulf]

The conspiracy theory is that all the scientists and researches that present evidence contrary to the AGW theory are infact secretely funded by oil companies.

Tu Quoque much?

 

[a_unique_person]

You just did.

No one has ever claimed they all are, as was stated. That some are suspect because they have shown they are 'guns for hire', is true, and I have named a few. People like Lindzen, Christy and others, who knows? There is no evidence they do it for those reasons.

 

[mhaze]

Originally Posted by a_unique_person
Perhaps you could point out where carbon trading on the free market is designed to put money in the pockets of the governments and IPCC? I have actually heard free market economists want a tax rather than an a trading scheme, if there has to be a way to manage CO2 production. They feel a tax would be much more efficient.
​

Public power utilities are owned by government.
Under Kyoto, utility prices go up.
Government makes money from Kyoto.
Public power utilities are owned by government.
Under Kyoto, utility prices go up.
Government makes money from Kyoto.

Let's put to rest the complete lie that governments will not/do not profit from Kyoto.

 

[David Rodale]

No one has ever claimed they all are, as was stated. That some are suspect because they have shown they are 'guns for hire', is true, and I have named a few. People like Lindzen, Christy and others, who knows? There is no evidence they do it for those reasons.

No one has ever claimed they all are

What exactly are you suspecting (accusing) them of? Being witches? Communists?

BTW, in your view what qualifies an individual of having authority to speak on issues of climate science?

Where's that list of 2500 of the world's top scientists at IPCC? Are they all "climatologists"? Is Dr. James Hansen a "climatologist"? Michael Mann?

Did you ever figure out if the atmosphere acts like a glass greenhouse or if there's actually real glass surrounding the earth?

P.S. Why hasn't the earth continued to warm?

 

[rockoon]

Tu Quoque much?

I did not address AUP's accusation, but instead made one of my own. That in itself prevents Tu Quoque.

You know what a Red Herring is, right? Guess not.

 

[Dr. Imago]

P.S. Why hasn't the earth continued to warm?

There, ladies and gentleman, is the rub. And, that is not a rhetorical question, but a serious one that needs to be answered, if the CO2 effect is indeed a real one.

No one has yet shown me the results of a "proof of concept" experiment, but just speculation, extrapolation, and interpolation based on past observation. And, after you get subjected to this particular methodology enough in medical science (with what are felt at the time of particular publication to be "undeniable facts" and are ultimately later to shown to be bunkum), you are compelled to question it when you see it in other disciplines as well.

-Dr. Imago

 

[a_unique_person]

Let's put to rest the complete lie that governments will not/do not profit from Kyoto.

ROFL. You can be amusing at times.

 

[Lonewulf]

I did not address AUP's accusation, but instead made one of my own. That in itself prevents Tu Quoque.

You know what a Red Herring is, right? Guess not.

Except that you committed one?

But flaunt the fact that you used a logical fallacy. I really don't care.

I'm unsubscribing from this thread. I was hoping to see facts and data, but instead I just see ego and stupidity. Compare your e-penis sizes for all I care.

 

[a_unique_person]

There, ladies and gentleman, is the rub. And, that is not a rhetorical question, but a serious one that needs to be answered, if the CO2 effect is indeed a real one.

No one has yet shown me the results of a "proof of concept" experiment, but just speculation, extrapolation, and interpolation based on past observation. And, after you get subjected to this particular methodology enough in medical science (with what are felt at the time of particular publication to be "undeniable facts" and are ultimately later to shown to be bunkum), you are compelled to question it when you see it in other disciplines as well.

-Dr. Imago

Have you considered that what you are demanding is not possible? The simple experiments were done over a hundred years ago.

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm

The actual science these days is complex enough that even a 'simple' explanation leaves me scratching my head.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/06/a-saturated-gassy-argument/

Demanding a simple experiment to prove the state of science as it stands is like a six year old demanding a pony for christmas. It's not going to happen. However, if you wish to read up on what is happening and why, please read the two links, in full, and the AR4 from the IPCC.

 

[a_unique_person]

What exactly are you suspecting (accusing) them of? Being witches? Communists?

BTW, in your view what qualifies an individual of having authority to speak on issues of climate science?

Where's that list of 2500 of the world's top scientists at IPCC? Are they all "climatologists"? Is Dr. James Hansen a "climatologist"? Michael Mann?

Did you ever figure out if the atmosphere acts like a glass greenhouse or if there's actually real glass surrounding the earth?

P.S. Why hasn't the earth continued to warm?

Singer, Michaels and Morano are guns for hire.

It has never been claimed the greenhouse effect works like a real greenhouse. It's an analogy, for the layman, to help explain a concept.

 

[a_unique_person]

Singer

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=S._Fred_Singer

 

[David Rodale]

Singer, Michaels and Morano are guns for hire.

It has never been claimed the greenhouse effect works like a real greenhouse. It's an analogy, for the layman, to help explain a concept.

You still have not made clear what you are "suspecting" (accusing) them of.

What is it exactly?

 

[mhaze]

No one has yet shown me the results of a "proof of concept" experiment, but just speculation, extrapolation, and interpolation based on past observation. And, after you get subjected to this particular methodology enough in medical science (with what are felt at the time of particular publication to be "undeniable facts" and are ultimately later to shown to be bunkum), you are compelled to question it when you see it in other disciplines as well.

-Dr. Imago

Following are just three of dozens of significant 2007 published, peer reviewed studies refuting AGW. There are to my knowledge no published, peer reviewed rebuttals to these. Warmers try to argue against them with scripts from Realclimate and a few other sites. But these studies have been out long enough for rebuttals to have been published if anyone disagreed with the scientific results.

With no rebuttals, then the work stands solidly on its merits. Blog rhetoric does not count. These conclusions may be tentatively made:

1. Climate sensitivity is far lower than Gore and the IPPC claim, likely 0.6-1.1C for CO2 doubling.
2. Natural variability explains all global temperature tendency changes and El Nino variability in the 20th century
3. climate models fail test against real clouds.....reduce estimates of future warming by over 75 percent

1. “Anthropogenic (man-made) global warming bites the dust,” declared astronomer Dr. Ian Wilson after reviewing the new study which has been accepted for publication in the Journal of Geophysical Research. Another scientist said the peer-reviewed study overturned “in one fell swoop” the climate fears promoted by the UN and former Vice President Al Gore. The study entitled “Heat Capacity, Time Constant, and Sensitivity of Earth’s Climate System,” was authored by Brookhaven National Lab scientist Stephen Schwartz. (LINK)

2. New peer-reviewed study finds global warming over last century linked to natural causes: Published in Geophysical Research Letters: Excerpt: “Tsonis et al. investigate the collective behavior of known climate cycles such as the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, the North Atlantic Oscillation, the El Nino/Southern Oscillation, and the North Pacific Oscillation. By studying the last 100 years of these cycles' patterns, they find that the systems synchronized several times. Further, in cases where the synchronous state was followed by an increase in the coupling strength among the cycles, the synchronous state was destroyed. Then a new climate state emerged, associated with global temperature changes and El Nino/Southern Oscillation variability. The authors show that this mechanism explains all global temperature tendency changes and El Nino variability in the 20th century. Authors: Anastasios A. Tsonis, Kyle Swanson, and Sergey Kravtsov: Atmospheric Sciences Group, Department of Mathematical Sciences, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, U.S.A. See August 2, 2007 Science Daily – “Synchronized Chaos: Mechanisms For Major Climate Shifts” (LINK)

3. New peer-reviewed study finds clouds may greatly reduce global warming: Excerpt: This study published on August 9, 2007 in the Geophysical Research Letters finds that climate models fail test against real clouds. "To give an idea of how strong this enhanced cooling mechanism is, if it was operating on global warming, it would reduce estimates of future warming by over 75 percent," Dr. Roy Spencer said. "At least 80 percent of the Earth's natural greenhouse effect is due to water vapor and clouds, and those are largely under the control of precipitation systems. Until we understand how precipitation systems change with warming, I don't believe we can know how much of our current warming is manmade. Without that knowledge, we can't predict future climate change with any degree of certainty," Spencer added. The paper was co-authored by University of Alabama Huntsville's Dr. John R. Christy and Dr. W. Danny Braswell, and Dr. Justin Hnilo of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, CA. (LINK)

 

[Dr. Imago]

The actual science these days is complex enough that even a 'simple' explanation leaves me scratching my head.

There! You said it! AUP, you apparently just got it!

Now, run with that concept.

How is it possible, now that you've declared that you understand how complex this science is, to put all your eggs in the CO2 basket? If it is so complex, then it can't possibly be all chalked-up to CO2, a "simple explanation" can it?

Putting your "pony" analogy aside, what I'm asking for is simple: put the concentrations of CO2, and the purported physical properties of the substance, to the test at the concentrations we are discussing. This would be demanded in any other scientific investigation of a purported causative agent in any system. It is in medical science when someone makes a claim that could have an impact on human lives (and, I can name numerous examples where people thought one thing based on retrospective analysis and were later proved wrong prospectively). Things clearly are far more complex than they appear at first blush.

All that we have now is a big helping of association that is being interpreted as causation. Nothing more. If you look at what some are purporting this substance, CO2, can do at the concentrations in question, you will begin to understand why some of us are skeptical. We are talking seemingly homeopathic-level concentration increases in the atmosphere over decades.

Something is rotten in Denmark (no offense, Claus).

-Dr. Imago

 

[varwoche]

Following are just three of dozens of significant 2007 published, peer reviewed studies refuting AGW...

I know this isn't fair Mhaze, but I wonder if you'll comment on this unattributed blurb in relation to the first study you cited?

It should be emphasized that one should not take any comfort with the fact that the aerosols may be negating much of the greenhouse gas forcing--in fact just the opposite. Because the atmospheric residence time of tropospheric aerosols is short (about a week) compared to the decades-to-centuries lifetimes of the greenhouse gases, then to whatever extent greenhouse gas forcing is being offset by aerosol forcing, it is last week's aerosols that are offsetting forcing by decades worth of greenhouse gases.

 

[Dr. Imago]

[*]Climate sensitivity is far lower than Gore and the IPPC claim, likely 0.6-1.1C for CO2 doubling.
[*]Natural variability explains all global temperature tendency changes and El Nino variability in the 20th century
[*] climate models fail test against real clouds.....reduce estimates of future warming by over 75 percent[/LIST]

These are clearly important considerations, mhaze. And, I think as we continue to muddle through our attempts at understanding the observed phenomenon, in light of previous predictions, we will see that this is a far more complex problem rife with confounders that make it difficult to pinpoint one primer "forcer" of climate change. And, that is the main point.

I can't (and any reasonable scientist shouldn't) conclude that we have observed a substantial, longterm, identifiable solitary causative agent in this observed shift in climate at this point in time. My main supposition is that it is premature to recommend broad, sweeping changes to the way we live our lives in order to prove a concept. And, that's just it: it's a concept at this point. We need more rigorous, undeniable proof that this concept is accurate.

My inclination is to surmise that global climate change, if it actually is occurring on a meaningful level, is a multifactorial problem that cannot be boiled down to one factor, and that enacting a seemingly herculean task of reducing the atmospheric levels of one substance in the attempt to change a single factor may not prove to do anything to mitigate that change. It may just add substantial cost, both economic and lifestyle modifying, to no real gain. Therefore, it doesn't seem prudent to impose those changes (i.e., namely what Kyoto is advocating) at this point in time. That's all.

I'm happy to take a "wait and see" approach while the science continues to mature. More observations will be made. More accumulated knowledge of a science that is still in its infancy will grow. I just don't see the point of the alarmism and call to arms, based on observations over the past few years, that many others feel. It will take a lot to convince me otherwise. And, apparently this poll (at the very least) demonstrates to me that a lot of others feel similarly, which is reassuring on some level.

It's okay to be "skeptical" of the science. And, that doesn't mean that it is necesarily wrong. This is part of the process. I marvel at how emotional this discussion has become. It seems that a lot of people have this sense of urgency about this issue that just is not meted out by the data at this time. I guess I hope the antagonistic tenor of this debate will be allayed by reason, open non-heated discourse, and the careful, unbiased, and non-emotional investigation of cooler heads looking at this "problem" from a birdseye view, having the courage to re-evaluate all the possibilities of this perceived phenomenon without any previously held assumptions. And, I realize that might be asking a lot.

-Dr. Imago