Climate Science: Is it currently designed to answer questions?

[BenBurch]

One data point?

Missed that first time through.

That graph represents hundreds of thousands of data points.

 

[MattusMaximus]

So where's Poptech? Has he/she gone off to lick their wounds? This thread's starting to get a little boring

 

[Praktik]

Reducing our CO2 output to levels that don't keep pushing up the temperature is going to be painful.

Im sure this has been addressed elsewhere on this board but I am a seldom-lurker in this sub-forum.

Anyway, I think that any change brings some amount of pain and it would be foolish to say that such drastic changes to industry and our lifestyles won't bring pain of some sort, but I also think that there are ways that reducing our pollution can actually bring a lot of gain as well.

I think the proponents of natural capitalism out there can definitely give us a model of how profit and sustainable practises can coexist quite happily.

The main issue, IMHO, is the entropy of the status quo. With a switch to other sources of power generation it means that some using "old" methods are going to be hurt - maybe even one day brought to obsolescence. They will feel the pain more acutely, and therefore its more than unfortunate that they are so well-placed within the organs of decision-making in many states.

But that's been a part of human history for centuries and we have survived other technological changes quite well. I have no doubt that the oil and gas tycoons will one day go the way of loom-manufacturers and typewriter-makers.

 

[fsol]

One data point?

Missed that first time through.

That graph represents hundreds of thousands of data points.

Well, what I think mhaze is trying to say is that we have had temp increases for about 30 years, climate is defined as about 30 years so we have one point of "climate" with which to work with. It is pretty stupid but there you go.

 

[Praktik]

Lolz, so I posted this in a thread on another board where a self-styled AGW skeptic has been polluting the board with crappy opinion columns and cherry picked data that "disprove" AGW hypotheses.

His reaction?

who needs science when u have 30 years of data

Which I found ironic - given that he posted more than a few articles cherry-picking those exact parts of the graph as proof AGW wasn't happening, which I guess he can't see for cherry-picking. Then, he accuses this graph of having too small a sample size and doing cherry-picking of its own.

Confirmation bias at work I guess - he sees the error on the other side but not on his own.

 

[macdoc]

I am hoping that AGW is wrong, and that the effects are nowhere near as serious as some of the more moderate predictions, but the science is pretty convincing, at least for me.

Ironically you reflect the sincerest "wish" of every climatologist with a concern for the future.....
something the denier cadre forgets.....

Climate specialists are honest enough to know the consequences of BAU and for the sake of their children make some noise about the risk.......