• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Moderated Global Warming Discussion

Status
Not open for further replies.
About on par with your attempts to source "authoritive deniers" ..Dear Anthony and the creationists....fine fellows all :boggled:

You are left with no defense other than attempted ridicule.
'Tis indicative of the state of the denier "body of disinformation" about the current climate change and it's consequences.
Nary a smidgeon of science in your post. :garfield:

The current events in the Arctic must be most disconcerting to the head in the sand crowd..


http://climateprogress.org/2010/06/...ce-free-arctic-watts-goddard-wattsupwiththat/
 
I'd be happy to confirm that the quoted statement is accurately and truly mine, if that's what you mean. But if you are asking me to qualify and support my statements, as stated previously, I will be happy to!

(but probably not this weekend - my apologies)

Thanks, TShaitanaku.

Please respond when you have time; I know everyone is busy with real life.

I am basically looking for one, or perhaps two, peer-reviewed papers that lead to your statement.

Not that the papers have to say "drastic", "dire", "dramatic", etc.; just looking for the framework that lead you to these conclusions.

I've looked at the IPCC website, and they have some useful links when I root around a bit.
 
Asking for peer review on those sorts of projections is a foolish endeavour.

How do you mean?


Thanks for the blog link........:rolleyes:


and the "other" C02 problem..not just one scientists but 150 of them..



http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7860350.stm

Do you have a direct link to the declaration discussed in that news article? Perhaps I could then do a search on some of the signatories.

We ARE in the midst of the 6th great extinction.
http://www.actionbioscience.org/newfrontiers/eldredge2.html

This blog entry was almost laughable.

This is the kind of work being done....MIT this time..

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/05/090519134843.htm

This one was actually good, thanks.
 
What "sides" would those be?

Climate science versus right wing anti-science garbage from the likes of the National Pest?

Or are you trying to maintain there is some science in the nonsense from Solomon et al.
Is this just more trying to justify your ambiguous position and foment doubt.?

The "side" saying their is complete consensus and the "side" saying there isn't any. You can't even prove 2500 climate scientists read AR4, let alone came to a consensus on it. Lack of consensus however doesn't change the validity of the report.

These "sides" do a disservice to the issue by misrepresenting the "facts".
 
The "side" saying their is complete consensus

and where would that "complete consensus statement be?
...you do know consensus is not unanimous.
Are you going to supply any science to the forum or just more personal editorial without supporting evidence per usual.

Scientists 'Convinced' of Climate Consensus More Prominent Than Opponents, Says Paper


A new analysis of 1372 climate scientists who have participated in major climate science reviews or have signed statements in support or opposition to their main conclusions confirms what many researchers have said for years: Those who believe in anthropogenic climate change rank much higher on the scientific pecking order than do those who take issue with the idea.
The paper shows that "the vast majority of working [climate] research scientists are in agreement" on climate change, says climate science historian Naomi Oreskes of the University of California, San Diego. "Those who don't agree, are, unfortunately—and this is hard to say without sounding elitist--mostly either not actually climate researchers or not very productive researchers."
http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2010/06/scientists-convinced-of-climate.html

Time to move on from the doubt fomenting and deal with the issue directly.

Even the Yanks are getting with the program....

06/18/2010 01:20 PM


Are Americans Ready for Change?



p-03EuZ32vOQaCE.gif
409



As President Obama said in his speech, America has postponed getting off our oil addiction for decades. In the late 1970s, President Carter made the first call to wean ourselves off from oil - if we had done it then, the job would have been completed in 1985.

Recent polls show that Americans want the government to prioritize renewable energy. A poll conducted by Benenson Strategy Group found that 63% of likely 2010 voters support an energy bill that limits pollution and encourages companies to use and develop clean energy.
http://www.sustainablebusiness.com/index.cfm/go/news.feature/id/1815

The climate scientists understand, most of the world does. Yet you continue to peddle "sides"
....getting old and tired....and wrong. :garfield:
 
The "side" saying their is complete consensus and the "side" saying there isn't any. You can't even prove 2500 climate scientists read AR4, let alone came to a consensus on it. Lack of consensus however doesn't change the validity of the report.

These "sides" do a disservice to the issue by misrepresenting the "facts".

the sides he outlines are pretty accurate. consider this recent paper in PNAS
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/06/22/1003187107

Here, we use an extensive dataset of 1,372 climate researchers and their publication and citation data to show that (i) 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field surveyed here support the tenets of ACC outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change,

The consensus among people actively researching the filed is more then clear.
 
the sides he outlines are pretty accurate. consider this recent paper in PNAS
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/06/22/1003187107

The consensus among people actively researching the filed is more then clear.

What exactly are the "tenets" of ACC outlined by the IPCC :eye-poppi

I think there's consensus on the tenets of Christianity, world wide among all groups of people. If I made the same argument for religion you'd laugh me off the forum, but here you are preaching the consensus of the tenets of ACC?

Just because we agree that stealing is wrong and you shouldn't boink your neighbours wife, doesn't mean the born again fundamentalists have got it right. :D
 
The "side" saying their is complete consensus and the "side" saying there isn't any. You can't even prove 2500 climate scientists read AR4, let alone came to a consensus on it. Lack of consensus however doesn't change the validity of the report.

These "sides" do a disservice to the issue by misrepresenting the "facts".

There's a side which is trying to "demonstrate" that Arctic sea is recovering nicely - right now. There's a side which treats the IPCC as their problem, not the vast amount of science it reports on. There's a side which switched from claiming that climate is too mysterious for predictions to predicting a cooling period, just last year. Now its switching back to claiming that its all too mysterious for words. Its a side that explained warming by increased solar activity, then changed to explaining it be decreased solar activity, and is now gearing up to switch back. It's a constant challenge, never a moment's rest.

There's another side which doesn't have to work nearly so hard finding new places to stand on as each one they occupy melts away. A side which finds it was too conservative (but that's science for you, it's conservative by nature).
 
I think there's consensus on the tenets of Christianity, world wide among all groups of people. If I made the same argument for religion you'd laugh me off the forum, but here you are preaching the consensus of the tenets of ACC?

Just because we agree that stealing is wrong and you shouldn't boink your neighbours wife, doesn't mean the born again fundamentalists have got it right. :biggrin:

Edited by Tricky: 
Edited for Moderated Thread.
the main point (is) that there IS a consensus of climate scientists working in the field.
We're not discussing popular opinion but experts working in their field.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Thanks, TShaitanaku.

Please respond when you have time; I know everyone is busy with real life.

I am basically looking for one, or perhaps two, peer-reviewed papers that lead to your statement.

Not that the papers have to say "drastic", "dire", "dramatic", etc.; just looking for the framework that lead you to these conclusions.

I've looked at the IPCC website, and they have some useful links when I root around a bit.

Thank-you for your consideration, it is an all too infrequent amenity in the discussion of this topic, where incivility tends to taint both sides of the exchange all too often. I'm trying to tie up a lot of loose ends (business and family) before a mid-summer get away,...but I know you aren't interested in that.

So, lets dive into the subject of the quest.

You seem to have a desire for precisely that which I was going to offer to you. Namely, a sampling of the mainstream science and scientific opinion/consideration framework which has shaped and guided my personal considerations and understandings of climate change and its potential impacts upon our world, our civilization, and our species.

In the search for a clear method of presenting an initial response, I've settled on using my own initial quoted statements to categorize the information. That being said, sampling through my personal reading research links this morning, I think I've managed to come up with a representative collection of references that represent the types of peer-reviewed studies, researches and literature that support and in general have shaped my considerations and understandings.

enough of the tell, on to the show:*



"...we are facing the dramatic alteration of our planetary environment,..."​

West Antarctic ice sheet and CO2 greenhouse effect: a threat of disaster (1978) -- http://tintin.colorado.edu/CVEN5718/Readings/Mercer_Nature_1978.pdf

Target Atmospheric CO2: Where should Humanity Aim? -- http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0804/0804.1126.pdf

Supporting Material for – “Target Atmospheric CO2: Where Should Humanity Aim?” -- http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0804/0804.1135.pdf

Do Global Warming and Climate Change Represent a serious Threat to our welfare and environment -- http://holocene.meteo.psu.edu/shared/articles/MannSocialPhilos09.pdf

Ecology Extinction and Evolution in the Brave New Ocean --http://www.pnas.org/content/105/suppl.1/11458.full.pdf


"...the potential collapse of our civilization..."​

Global Climate Change, War, and Population decline in Recent Human History --http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2148270/pdf/zpq19214.pdf

A Slippery Slope: How Much Global Warming Constitutes “Dangerous Anthropogenic Interference”? -- http://www.bren.ucsb.edu/academics/courses/203/Readings/SlipperySlope%2017Jun04v21.pdf

Abrupt Climate Change: Inevitable Surprises (starting focus on the executive summary) -- http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10136&page=R1#

Climate Change: Lessons for our Future from the Distant Past -- http://www.economics.ox.ac.uk/Research/wp/pdf/paper485.pdf

On Modeling and interpreting the economics of Catastrophic Climate Change – http://dash.harvard.edu/bitstream/handle/1/3693423/Weitzman_OnModeling.pdf?sequence=2


"...and the deaths of most of the animal species on our planet (as well as significant portion, if not a majority, of our own species)..."​

Are We in the midst of the Sixth Mass Extinction? --http://www.pnas.org/content/105/suppl.1/11466.full.pdf

Global Catastrophes in Perspective: Asteroid impacts vs Climate Change -- https://cfwebprod.sandia.gov/cfdocs/CCIM/docs/AGU-2008-poster_SAND2009-1143P.pdf

Extinction Risk from Climate Change -- http://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/83/1/thomascd1.pdf

Climate Change Hastens population extinctions -- http://www.pnas.org/content/99/9/6070.full.pdf

Climate Change and Habitat Destruction: a Deadly Anthropogenic Cocktail – http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/270/1514/467.full.pdf

Predicting Extinctions as a result of Climate Change -- http://ddr.nal.usda.gov/bitstream/10113/28343/1/IND43864342.pdf

Climate Change, species-area curves and the extinction crisis -- http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/361/1465/163.full.pdf

Managing the Health Effects of Climate Change --http://www.abuhrc.org/Documents/Lancet%20Climate%20Change.pdf

A long-term association between global temperature and biodiversity, origination and extinction in the Fossil Record -- http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/275/1630/47.full.pdf

Global Warming May Be a Graver Public Health Threat Than Nuclear War. Part 1 – Getting Your Attention --http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1681951/

Climate Change and Human Health Risks and Responses -- http://www.who.int/globalchange/publications/climchange.pdf

Again, these are far from a complete and encompassing set of references, but they are a rather interesting selection of the types of mainstream science researches and qualified considerations that have guided and shaped my understandings of the consequences, impacts, and potentials inherent to a process that is really only starting to unfold.

If you wish to further discuss any particular reference or category of consideration, I will do my best to express my understandings, opinions and considerations, and support with reference and/or reasoned argument those expressions.

((By-the-by, will be a bit busy till we actually head out for a bit of R&R, but I should manage to drop in for a bit once a day or so, at least until we leave. I get the email copies of board postings on my Palm, but I find I can barely communicate effectively with all ten fingers, when it comes to texting (or board responses from the Palm), I'm literally all thumbs!))

*- whether anyone agrees or disagrees with any elements of any of the offered publications is largely irrelevent (IMO) to the issue of demonstrating that there is a traditional mainstream science acceptance of these referenced writings, and perspectives like mine, which are accurately reflective of those scientific understandings and considerations.
 
Edited by Tricky: 
Edited for Moderated Thread.
the main point (is) that there IS a consensus of climate scientists working in the field.
We're not discussing popular opinion but experts working in their field.

Consensus on what? That Co2 is a greenhouse gas, and greenhouse gases are causing it to warm? So what.

I'd say a majority, a vast majority, of people agree with that.

As far as what this means for society and how it will change our earth is still being bantered about with varying levels of uncertainty.
 
Thank-you for your consideration, it is an all too infrequent amenity in the discussion of this topic, where incivility tends to taint both sides of the exchange all too often. I'm trying to tie up a lot of loose ends (business and family) before a mid-summer get away,...but I know you aren't interested in that.

So, lets dive into the subject of the quest.

You seem to have a desire for precisely that which I was going to offer to you. Namely, a sampling of the mainstream science and scientific opinion/consideration framework which has shaped and guided my personal considerations and understandings of climate change and its potential impacts upon our world, our civilization, and our species.

In the search for a clear method of presenting an initial response, I've settled on using my own initial quoted statements to categorize the information. That being said, sampling through my personal reading research links this morning, I think I've managed to come up with a representative collection of references that represent the types of peer-reviewed studies, researches and literature that support and in general have shaped my considerations and understandings.

enough of the tell, on to the show:*



"...we are facing the dramatic alteration of our planetary environment,..."​

West Antarctic ice sheet and CO2 greenhouse effect: a threat of disaster (1978) -- http://tintin.colorado.edu/CVEN5718/Readings/Mercer_Nature_1978.pdf

Target Atmospheric CO2: Where should Humanity Aim? -- http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0804/0804.1126.pdf

Supporting Material for – “Target Atmospheric CO2: Where Should Humanity Aim?” -- http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0804/0804.1135.pdf

Do Global Warming and Climate Change Represent a serious Threat to our welfare and environment -- http://holocene.meteo.psu.edu/shared/articles/MannSocialPhilos09.pdf

Ecology Extinction and Evolution in the Brave New Ocean --http://www.pnas.org/content/105/suppl.1/11458.full.pdf


"...the potential collapse of our civilization..."​

Global Climate Change, War, and Population decline in Recent Human History --http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2148270/pdf/zpq19214.pdf

A Slippery Slope: How Much Global Warming Constitutes “Dangerous Anthropogenic Interference”? -- http://www.bren.ucsb.edu/academics/courses/203/Readings/SlipperySlope%2017Jun04v21.pdf

Abrupt Climate Change: Inevitable Surprises (starting focus on the executive summary) -- http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10136&page=R1#

Climate Change: Lessons for our Future from the Distant Past -- http://www.economics.ox.ac.uk/Research/wp/pdf/paper485.pdf

On Modeling and interpreting the economics of Catastrophic Climate Change – http://dash.harvard.edu/bitstream/handle/1/3693423/Weitzman_OnModeling.pdf?sequence=2


"...and the deaths of most of the animal species on our planet (as well as significant portion, if not a majority, of our own species)..."​

Are We in the midst of the Sixth Mass Extinction? --http://www.pnas.org/content/105/suppl.1/11466.full.pdf

Global Catastrophes in Perspective: Asteroid impacts vs Climate Change -- https://cfwebprod.sandia.gov/cfdocs/CCIM/docs/AGU-2008-poster_SAND2009-1143P.pdf

Extinction Risk from Climate Change -- http://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/83/1/thomascd1.pdf

Climate Change Hastens population extinctions -- http://www.pnas.org/content/99/9/6070.full.pdf

Climate Change and Habitat Destruction: a Deadly Anthropogenic Cocktail – http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/270/1514/467.full.pdf

Predicting Extinctions as a result of Climate Change -- http://ddr.nal.usda.gov/bitstream/10113/28343/1/IND43864342.pdf

Climate Change, species-area curves and the extinction crisis -- http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/361/1465/163.full.pdf

Managing the Health Effects of Climate Change --http://www.abuhrc.org/Documents/Lancet%20Climate%20Change.pdf

A long-term association between global temperature and biodiversity, origination and extinction in the Fossil Record -- http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/275/1630/47.full.pdf

Global Warming May Be a Graver Public Health Threat Than Nuclear War. Part 1 – Getting Your Attention --http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1681951/

Climate Change and Human Health Risks and Responses -- http://www.who.int/globalchange/publications/climchange.pdf

Again, these are far from a complete and encompassing set of references, but they are a rather interesting selection of the types of mainstream science researches and qualified considerations that have guided and shaped my understandings of the consequences, impacts, and potentials inherent to a process that is really only starting to unfold.

If you wish to further discuss any particular reference or category of consideration, I will do my best to express my understandings, opinions and considerations, and support with reference and/or reasoned argument those expressions.

((By-the-by, will be a bit busy till we actually head out for a bit of R&R, but I should manage to drop in for a bit once a day or so, at least until we leave. I get the email copies of board postings on my Palm, but I find I can barely communicate effectively with all ten fingers, when it comes to texting (or board responses from the Palm), I'm literally all thumbs!))

*- whether anyone agrees or disagrees with any elements of any of the offered publications is largely irrelevent (IMO) to the issue of demonstrating that there is a traditional mainstream science acceptance of these referenced writings, and perspectives like mine, which are accurately reflective of those scientific understandings and considerations.

Thanks so much; a lot for me to go over.

I appreciate your effort.

If I have further questions or comments, I will post them, but it will take me a bit to go though this.

Thanks again.
 
Thank-you for your consideration, it is an all too infrequent amenity in the discussion of this topic, where incivility tends to taint both sides of the exchange all too often. I'm trying to tie up a lot of loose ends (business and family) before a mid-summer get away,...but I know you aren't interested in that.

So, lets dive into the subject of the quest.

You seem to have a desire for precisely that which I was going to offer to you. Namely, a sampling of the mainstream science and scientific opinion/consideration framework which has shaped and guided my personal considerations and understandings of climate change and its potential impacts upon our world, our civilization, and our species.

In the search for a clear method of presenting an initial response, I've settled on using my own initial quoted statements to categorize the information. That being said, sampling through my personal reading research links this morning, I think I've managed to come up with a representative collection of references that represent the types of peer-reviewed studies, researches and literature that support and in general have shaped my considerations and understandings.

enough of the tell, on to the show:*



"...we are facing the dramatic alteration of our planetary environment,..."​

West Antarctic ice sheet and CO2 greenhouse effect: a threat of disaster (1978) -- http://tintin.colorado.edu/CVEN5718/Readings/Mercer_Nature_1978.pdf

Target Atmospheric CO2: Where should Humanity Aim? -- http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0804/0804.1126.pdf

Supporting Material for – “Target Atmospheric CO2: Where Should Humanity Aim?” -- http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0804/0804.1135.pdf

Do Global Warming and Climate Change Represent a serious Threat to our welfare and environment -- http://holocene.meteo.psu.edu/shared/articles/MannSocialPhilos09.pdf

Ecology Extinction and Evolution in the Brave New Ocean --http://www.pnas.org/content/105/suppl.1/11458.full.pdf


"...the potential collapse of our civilization..."​

Global Climate Change, War, and Population decline in Recent Human History --http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2148270/pdf/zpq19214.pdf

A Slippery Slope: How Much Global Warming Constitutes “Dangerous Anthropogenic Interference”? -- http://www.bren.ucsb.edu/academics/courses/203/Readings/SlipperySlope%2017Jun04v21.pdf

Abrupt Climate Change: Inevitable Surprises (starting focus on the executive summary) -- http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10136&page=R1#

Climate Change: Lessons for our Future from the Distant Past -- http://www.economics.ox.ac.uk/Research/wp/pdf/paper485.pdf

On Modeling and interpreting the economics of Catastrophic Climate Change – http://dash.harvard.edu/bitstream/handle/1/3693423/Weitzman_OnModeling.pdf?sequence=2


"...and the deaths of most of the animal species on our planet (as well as significant portion, if not a majority, of our own species)..."​

Are We in the midst of the Sixth Mass Extinction? --http://www.pnas.org/content/105/suppl.1/11466.full.pdf

Global Catastrophes in Perspective: Asteroid impacts vs Climate Change -- https://cfwebprod.sandia.gov/cfdocs/CCIM/docs/AGU-2008-poster_SAND2009-1143P.pdf

Extinction Risk from Climate Change -- http://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/83/1/thomascd1.pdf

Climate Change Hastens population extinctions -- http://www.pnas.org/content/99/9/6070.full.pdf

Climate Change and Habitat Destruction: a Deadly Anthropogenic Cocktail – http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/270/1514/467.full.pdf

Predicting Extinctions as a result of Climate Change -- http://ddr.nal.usda.gov/bitstream/10113/28343/1/IND43864342.pdf

Climate Change, species-area curves and the extinction crisis -- http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/361/1465/163.full.pdf

Managing the Health Effects of Climate Change --http://www.abuhrc.org/Documents/Lancet%20Climate%20Change.pdf

A long-term association between global temperature and biodiversity, origination and extinction in the Fossil Record -- http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/275/1630/47.full.pdf

Global Warming May Be a Graver Public Health Threat Than Nuclear War. Part 1 – Getting Your Attention --http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1681951/

Climate Change and Human Health Risks and Responses -- http://www.who.int/globalchange/publications/climchange.pdf

Again, these are far from a complete and encompassing set of references, but they are a rather interesting selection of the types of mainstream science researches and qualified considerations that have guided and shaped my understandings of the consequences, impacts, and potentials inherent to a process that is really only starting to unfold.

If you wish to further discuss any particular reference or category of consideration, I will do my best to express my understandings, opinions and considerations, and support with reference and/or reasoned argument those expressions.

((By-the-by, will be a bit busy till we actually head out for a bit of R&R, but I should manage to drop in for a bit once a day or so, at least until we leave. I get the email copies of board postings on my Palm, but I find I can barely communicate effectively with all ten fingers, when it comes to texting (or board responses from the Palm), I'm literally all thumbs!))

*- whether anyone agrees or disagrees with any elements of any of the offered publications is largely irrelevent (IMO) to the issue of demonstrating that there is a traditional mainstream science acceptance of these referenced writings, and perspectives like mine, which are accurately reflective of those scientific understandings and considerations.

Obviously I didn't read all of the articles, but I did read a few. I could only read a few because they made me sad. It's a harsh reality that humanity has led to a drastic decline in biodiversity on this planet. Not only that but it will continue as we continue to expand and change our environment.

But what does that have to do with the price of coal in China?

You cite a bunch of articles from mainstream science journals that have studied the effect of society on this planet and made me cry, but i fail to see how that has anything to do with global warming.

What do you propose to do? Say tomorrow we stopped driving cars and closed all the coal plants. We began migrating to the cities and we started building Nuclear plants.

Is that going to save the purple spotted forest salamander? Will species extinction stop, the glaciers come back, the polar bears mate and the Great Barrier Reef start to expand once again?

l was a member of the WWF when I was 6, I even donated money to Greenpeace when i was like 12. Heck I even bred Parson's Chameleons and Standings Day Geckos trying to do my part as an activist. Captive breeding endangered species and all that. (I think the Standings are only "threatened" but I haven't checked CITES in a while)

Still, I just don't see how this has anything to do with Global Warming? Or rather why you would want to bring this up in relation to Global Warming. I mean all it does is tug briefly at the heart strings of people, who donate a few bucks to a local animal shelter or something, then they go on about their day to day business.

So other than this temporary emotional outrage what do you really hope to accomplish making statements like "This is the end of civilization" and "Everything on the planet is going to die" when talking about global warming? I just don't see it doing much, and in fact I see it putting off a lot of people. If we are driving a runaway car into a wall, and we know the brakes don't work, why keep pumping them? You may as well sit back and enjoy the ride.

You may think this a little defeatist, and I would tend to agree. But I truly find the alarmists trying to tell everyone how bad it is the real defeatists. They just make people want to give up.
 
I think there's consensus on the tenets of Christianity, world wide among all groups of people. If I made the same argument for religion you'd laugh me off the forum, but here you are preaching the consensus of the tenets of ACC?

This is your response to a paper in PNAS, one of the most prestigious scientific journals in the world? I find this type of equivocation between actual science and religion to more then a little offensive.

Do you have an actual response to the papers claims that 97-98 percent of published climate scientists endorse the conclusions of the IPCC and that the few who dissent are far less qualified?
 
3b
Consensus on what? That Co2 is a greenhouse gas, and greenhouse gases are causing it to warm? So what.

I'd say a majority, a vast majority, of people agree with that.
That was already addressed more than adequately
Originally Posted by lomiller
the sides he outlines are pretty accurate. consider this recent paper in PNAS
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/06/22/1003187107

The consensus among people actively researching the filed is more then clear.
You are quite free to determine the nature of the ACC



As far as what this means for society and how it will change our earth is still being bantered about with varying levels of uncertainty.
Moving the goal posts now?
I do believe those here will acknowledge quite freely the uncertainty, given OUR actions are the hinge point...and there is no way of knowing what those actions with regards to reduction or even removal of fossil carbon from the atmosphere might be.

As to the consequences of NOT taking any action....as the MIT paper lays out in worst case risk...

TShaitanaku has done a marvelous job of providing a reasonably comprehensive survey of the extent body of knowledge from a science stance.
 
Last edited:
This is your response to a paper in PNAS, one of the most prestigious scientific journals in the world? I find this type of equivocation between actual science and religion to more then a little offensive.

Do you have an actual response to the papers claims that 97-98 percent of published climate scientists endorse the conclusions of the IPCC and that the few who dissent are far less qualified?

You linked an abstract, not a paper.

edit: Sorry, found the link on the right to the pdf. Currently reading.
 
What do you propose to do? Say tomorrow we stopped driving cars and closed all the coal plants. We began migrating to the cities and we started building Nuclear plants.


I fail to see how the difficulty of the solution changes the truth of the problem.
 
This is your response to a paper in PNAS, one of the most prestigious scientific journals in the world? I find this type of equivocation between actual science and religion to more then a little offensive.

Do you have an actual response to the papers claims that 97-98 percent of published climate scientists endorse the conclusions of the IPCC and that the few who dissent are far less qualified?

OK, read it.

I'm not concerned with how affluent the dissenters maybe or may not be. Who cares? What I'm concerned with is the "tenets".

They are defined as:
“very likely” that anthropogenic greenhouse gases have been responsible for “most” of the “unequivocal” warming of the Earth’s average global temperature in the second half of the 20th century

I'm glad, after some 30 years of research we've arrived at the obvious. The fossil fuels we burn are collecting in the atmosphere and causing the earth to warm.

But why try and push this beyond that specific tenet? There is absolutely nothing that says they agree on what effect a doubling of CO2 will have, how that will affect the growing seasons in NA or Africa, or if the sea will rise 0.5m or 5m. There's so much more to global warming than "Yes CO2 is making it warmer".

To be honest I was surprised to read 1 of the top 50 scientists in the climatology world doesn't believe man made CO2 is causing a rise in global temperature. I suppose it's because the 0.17 degree increase in the last 15 years is so small as to be insignificant. I mean if you disregard everything else, I suppose you could say it's a result of "noise" in the data.

But even that seems a little foolish to me. Perhaps he/she isn't convinced "most" of the warming is from man made CO2?

Or maybe he/she is funded by BP? Seems like the fossil fuel industry could afford more dissent than that.
 
I do believe those here will acknowledge quite freely the uncertainty, given OUR actions are the hinge point...and there is no way of knowing what those actions with regards to reduction or even removal of fossil carbon from the atmosphere might be.

As to the consequences of NOT taking any action....as the MIT paper lays out in worst case risk...
Even though I'm skeptical about AGW I still in general support initiatives aimed at green building. There are much more immediate human impacts that can mitigated by sustainable design, and as materials become more affordable I think it's worth while regardless.

The main issue driving my skepticism isn't the weather data being used to substantiate it, but instead the proposals being pushed to "solve" it, and the lack of an accurate comparable trend that would place blame squarely on most of human's activity.

Most of the major solutions focus on working from tax based procedure; tax incentives, and more recent legislation like cap and trade. If sustainability is a goal I would think as prices for these materials goes down it can be eased into everyday use, rather than rushed to the point of collapsing the economy, which IMHO is what the more immediate solutions could end up doing, before they have any meaningful impact on how people choose to change their way of living.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom