Secondary AGW Poll

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

p.s. Given that we must all be, to some extent, dependent on the opinion of experts in this matter, the manner of conducting the debate does end up having an impact and the manner of the rabid denialists does nothing but degrade their credibility in my view. The opinions of someone who is ranting like a lunatic are not necessary lunatic opinions, but the correlation is pretty high.

What I have seen here is reluctance from the vociferous denialists to be tied down to simple falsifiable answers. What I have also been impressed by is that simple set of energy-balance propositions that get cited repeatedly and which the denialists don't seem to deal with well.

 

[Bluefire]

I have a lot of sympathy with that viewpoint. I still wonder about where the boundary lies between "measurable", which I think is not meaningfully contestable, and "significant".

From my point of view "significant" is a statement of behavioural effect. Eg. does it "significantly" alter when we can start growing crops (for better or worse)? How high walls Netherlands needs? How careful the coral reef Island inhabitants have to be? (Mismanaged coral reef island + rising sea levels may be bad combination). Catastrophic would be when major adaptation would not be sufficient for a "large" part of earth.

As we are talking labels here. If you drop me in a big pile of AGW-skeptics/denialists I might be called a "lukewarmer" (as would many others). In the AGW vs no-AGW debate I would label myself "anti-alarmist".

 

[Bluefire]

p.s. Given that we must all be, to some extent, dependent on the opinion of experts in this matter, the manner of conducting the debate does end up having an impact and the manner of the rabid denialists does nothing but degrade their credibility in my view. The opinions of someone who is ranting like a lunatic are not necessary lunatic opinions, but the correlation is pretty high.

What I have seen here is reluctance from the vociferous denialists to be tied down to simple falsifiable answers. What I have also been impressed by is that simple set of energy-balance propositions that get cited repeatedly and which the denialists don't seem to deal with well.

Well, I think that this post could be almost verbatim applied in the other direction...

 

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

Similarly, resettling the small population of Tuvalu would be significant to them and sad but not really significant globally, but if the need for resettlement of Tuvalu was a process that also killed the Great Barrier Reef then I think that would mean the situation was worse by an order of magnitude

 

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

Well, I think that this post could be almost verbatim applied in the other direction...

You think? I see insults thrown both ways with spirited nastiness, but I think the prize for madness of presentation of the basic propositions is won easily by the denialist fringe.

 

[Bluefire]

You think? I see insults thrown both ways with spirited nastiness, but I think the prize for madness of presentation of the basic propositions is won easily by the denialist fringe.

Then we have a difference of opinion here.

 

[Perpetual Student]

I would imagine that the vast majority of people should honestly answer, "Since I am not a specialist in this area, I really don't know."
In my case, as an informed layman, I would say that the evidence for AGW appears to be quite strong and I have enough confidence in the thousands of specialists in this area to accept their judgement. Nevertheless, there are amply examples in history when the mainstream scientific dogma has ultimately proven to be wrong, so I must accept that this is possible -- however unlikely. I do not see the evidence for AGW on the same level as, say, relativity in physics or evolution in biology -- which are firmly established scientific facts.

 

[Geckko]

OK, smartarse, you try and come up with a poll that allows for a fair representation in a few mutually exclusive choices.

The idea is to give a little structure for discussion.

My honest answer to this one, if I interpret "significant" to mean "outside past natural variation" is "I haven't seen enough evidence to make my mind up".

But also, you now need a third poll.

It will/will not significantly and dangerously adversely affect climate.

Only then will you really get to the nub of differences on the science I feel.

From then the political questions should arrise, e.g. mitigation or adapatation for example.

 

[BenBurch]

"Past natural variability" is a really asinine straw-man argument.

It is not predicted to EVER be past "natural variability."

It is predicted to NOT BE natural variability.

It is predicted to be fast warming when the global trend should be for slow cooling.

it is predicted to be faster than nature changes except in time of external calamity.

It is predicted to be warmer than any time in millions of years.

It is predicted to become a major problem for human agriculture at a time when we have like bunnies and reached the carrying capacity for the planet.

It is predicted to have bad consequences for natural ecosystems which just can't move to cooler climes as fast as the temperatures change.

But it is NOT predicted to be more warmth than the planet has EVER experienced naturally, and it is extremely dishonest to hold that up as a standard to compare this against, because nobody but politically-motivated deniers are saying that is what it is supposed to be.

 

[casebro]

How about:

c) I'm skeptical of the science behind the CO2 hypothesis.

Give me another ten years of data, and I'll make up my mind.

 

[casebro]

And here is a popular idea:

d) CO2 is just an excuse, I believe we are raping the planet and ought to cut down our consumption until we all starve to death and leave the planet. I hate human society. I am a Greenie.