Global Warming Scam

[Deathshead]

Hey, c'mon guys, let's cut Deathshead some slack here. At least he's making progress by cherry-picking from the ranks of actual scientists instead of just quoting Michael Crichton. That the guy he picks seems after a bit of research to be a paranoid with a persecution complex shouldn't matter.

But in the future, Deathshead, why not try formulating actual arguments from your sources, instead of just cutting and pasting? You might have a little more success. And remember, just 'cuz he's a scientist doesn't make him right. Fred Hoyle stubbornly stuck to his steady state theory until his deathbed. And the universe stubbornly keeps expanding.

Such insight from someone who claimed that Crichton is a hack writer. A writer who put himself through Harvard medical school by writing stories that used science and cutting edge tech in his work. If you dispute this Bucky, you are as sad and disingenuous as the rest of the 'true believers'. You also said everything he wrote about was total crap, or some such insightful dribble. Anyone who says everything he wrote is crap, lacks even the basic knowledge needed for further discussion. Welcome to ignorant.
How is your AGW research going? Anything published? Peer reviewed? No? Harvard degree? No?
I'm shocked. Your side gets hammered every day. And your response is to say I copy and paste. Wow. That is some serious work on your part. Don't hurt yourself.

"Just because he is a scientist doesn't make him right"

Did someone nominate this gem?

You aren't a member of the flat Earth society are you?

 

[varwoche]

Such insight from someone who claimed that Crichton is a hack writer.

I agree the comment was unfair -- it was an insult to the hack writers of the world more talented than Crichton.

Peer reviewed?

Speaking of which, let's see if you will be the first AGW psuedo-skeptic in this thread to break the mold and present a recent (last 6 years), vaguely credible, peer reviewed scientific study that contradicts the body of evidence supporting AGW.

Mind you, I'm not interested in op-ed pieces, babbling from hack fiction writers, or bumbling from associate economics professors -- this sort of flimsy evidence is not at all compelling when stacked against the AGW evidence presented in the above link.

Of course this invitation is still open to the many other evidence-challenged psuedo-skeptics / conspiracy theorists who have posted in this thread: Floyd, Stocks, Ceritus, Calcas, casebro, rockoon, BobK, gurugeorge, Crispy Duck, The Painter (or whoever else wishes to chime in, and pardon me if I overlooked you).

 

[a_unique_person]

You mean the science of the current time. Science has been proven wrong many, many times. Was it woo when some people said the world was NOT flat? Was it woo when it was said the Earth is not the center of the universe? Was it woo when it was said that spontaneous generation was crap?

Contradicting the accepted science is necessary for the advancement of science. It is not woo

It wasn't science that said the world was flat, nor that the earth is the centre of the universe.

 

[The Painter]

stocks,

very well put!

as you may well know, the reason the USA and its mostly crooked greedy politicians are doing / teaching this denial game is because The UsA IS GREEDY and IS or was the worst offender (most all being considered) (and In denial) about the oil/energy over use issue. Our culture of over advertizement, waste, greed, over government spending and over consumption perpetuate the evil. If we really want to make a difference:

1. We all need to stop working for (taking monies from) or buying or consuming products or associationg with people that "exhude" this denial of oil damage and overconsumption/waste/inefficiency/greed. They are all over our homes (the destructive products) and in our communities (the denial people)! (or living in gated ones)!
2. Address/Agree to Population control!
3. Make "green LAws" (like you mentioned above). and start hanging the major violators.

In the mean time I rant (as I have unpopularly for years before it was popular) about the overconsumption, (Give people who overconsume some grief and encourage them to do the right thing> conserve instead) I have a small car and motorcycle I try to avoid using. Turn down or turn OFF THE AC and heat. (walk more) and I recycle almost everything and purchase products that encourage recycleing and quality and longevity in my environment.

If we purchase/recycle properly we should only have bio/food and plant waste in our garbage cans (in fACT MINE IS USUALLY NEAR EMPTY).


I have just resigned myself to the fact that the planet is gonna kick our pridefull, ignorant lil apes asses very soon!

Thank GOD! (the other species might get a little break for a while)!

lh

Here in the USA there are a lot of pollution laws. Our air and water has actually gotten cleaner in the past 40 years. Why don’t you start with China? They pollute their environment much more than we pollute ours. Do that, start with them.

 

[lenny]

You provide evidence that is not consistent with the current theory, or you provide another theory that is consistent with the current evidence but simpler, or more elegant, or more powerful, or simply a testable alternative.

that is, of course, a large part of the difficulty with climate science (and more generally climate-like problems in science):

in weather, we have a huge archive of forecasts (probabilistic since 1992) and corresponding observations. every few years, ideally after examining thousands of "failed" forecasts, there is a major model update.

with climate, we make 50 year plus forecasts while making major model updates ever few years (and often cursing those who try and really understand the simplier models are dealing with out-dates models).

by the boundary conditions the subject imposes on us, climate is just hard science: much harder than weather, or drugs testing, or going (back) to the moon.

that it is hard doesn't make it any less important, that the projections remain fundamentally uncertain does not make it any less policy relevant.

 

[Perforatu]

Why don’t you start with China? They pollute their environment much more than we pollute ours. Do that, start with them.

How do you figure? When it comes to carbon dioxide emissions, the U.S. is still the world's biggest polluter, and won't be overtaken by China for another fifteen years. (That's according to estimates by the Energy Information Administration, made in 2005.) Not that I'm suggesting China shouldn't tighten its environmental policies right now, but the U.S. seems like a more relevant place to start.

 

[OMGturt1es]

Actually, the role of CO2 in the greenhouse effect has been understood for over a century. Arrhenius calculated in 1896 that a doubling the amount of CO2 (then) in the atmosphere would lead to a 5-6C increase in the average temperature...

...Theoretically, this sensitivity is explained by CO2's strong greenhouse effect (10-20% of GH warming is due to CO2, compared with 30% for H20) combined with its large atmospheric longevity.

this was the most useful post in this entire thread, i think. thank you very much for actually posting some serious argument, rather than simply attacking the character of those who have offered counter argument.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

i've posted previously regarding the use of the term "denier" in the GW/AGW context. i thought that perhaps my point had, hopefully, been understood by others, but it appears not.

the term "denier" is condescending. using such a term will only encourage emotional based discourse. if you have no interest in good argument, then please, continue referring to others as "deniers", because it will only make the readers resent you, and stack the deck against anyone changing their mind. it's much more difficult for one to accept that one has been incorrect if the opposing argument comes from a dick, so if you care at all about GW/AGW, stop being dicks.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

i've posted previously regarding the personal attacks of those who offer counter argument-- such as junkscience.com-- and suggested that the very specific arguments made by junkscience be challenged instead.

under the assumption that junkscience.com is run by hitler, it is still much less productive to attack hitler than it is to attack hitler's arguments. despite the fact that hitler may have personal or financial bias to make any array of claims, and despite the fact that hitler is, well, hitler, he could still be right, at least, some of the times.

those who offer opposing argument seem to be consistantly dismissed as shills. as i spend a great deal of time arguing with the 911 truther folk, i can't help but notice that the same tactics are used by 911 truthers.

the fact is, the specific arguments made by those with opposing argument are easily accessable for debunking, so there's no excuse to simply dismiss the arguments. while you may not like it, those that are doubting GW/AGW are likely going to interpret the constant dismissal of oppositional argument as an inherent weakness of those arguing for GW/AGW.

in example, pointing out stupid mathematical errors previously made by those arguing against the hockey stick graph, rather than addressing the oppositional arguments, is both unproductive and inefficient.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

i'm also annoyed at the continual bickering regarding scientific consenses. from what i can gather, it seems to me that we all (mostly)-- even many of the evil "deniers"-- agree that:

1. the earth currently seems to be warming.
2. CO2 in the atmosphere causes heating.
3. humans are contributing to the CO2 in the atmosphere.

so, at least to some extent, we all agree that humans are, at least, partially responsible for the earth's current warming trend.

it seems like to me that there is good room for debate regarding how significantly humans are impacting the climate. while i've attempted to study this issue for quite awhie now, i still think i'm far too ignorant to hold any sort of conclusions that i can put any stock into. i'm also not any closer to understanding exactly what the scientific consensus is regarding the extent to which humans are contributing to the climate. the sense i gather from major media-- i don't tend to find the major media very reliable--, for example, leads me to believe that the scientific consensus is that humans are the main factor in the recent, observed warming, but when talking with relatives and others who are actual scientists-- anecdotal, i know-- i am lead to believe that the consensus is much less certain. the question i am faced with, then, is what evidence is less reliable: that which is presented by the major media, or that which is anecdotal?

i honestly don't understand how so many of you, on either side, can be so certain in your conclusions. before that gets me labeled as a "denier", let me make it abundantly clear that i certainly agree that the earth is warming, and that humans certainly play a role. i'd like to believe that the role is insignificant, but in the past months i've seen evidence enough that i've changed my mind, and i think that there certainly is a significant A in the GW-- i'm just not so sure that i'm right.

 

[hammegk]

Argh. I know better too.

Huh? You were right the first time.

What is 'affected' are the mindsets of people like Al Gore (and apparently all Australians).

What is disputed is the actual amount human endeavors are effecting the climate that enhance the current warming trend.

 

[a_unique_person]

i'm also annoyed at the continual bickering regarding scientific consenses. from what i can gather, it seems to me that we all (mostly)-- even many of the evil "deniers"-- agree that:

1. the earth currently seems to be warming.
2. CO2 in the atmosphere causes heating.
3. humans are contributing to the CO2 in the atmosphere.

so, at least to some extent, we all agree that humans are, at least, partially responsible for the earth's current warming trend.

it seems like to me that there is good room for debate regarding how significantly humans are impacting the climate. while i've attempted to study this issue for quite awhie now, i still think i'm far too ignorant to hold any sort of conclusions that i can put any stock into. i'm also not any closer to understanding exactly what the scientific consensus is regarding the extent to which humans are contributing to the climate. the sense i gather from major media-- i don't tend to find the major media very reliable--, for example, leads me to believe that the scientific consensus is that humans are the main factor in the recent, observed warming, but when talking with relatives and others who are actual scientists-- anecdotal, i know-- i am lead to believe that the consensus is much less certain. the question i am faced with, then, is what evidence is less reliable: that which is presented by the major media, or that which is anecdotal?

i honestly don't understand how so many of you, on either side, can be so certain in your conclusions. before that gets me labeled as a "denier", let me make it abundantly clear that i certainly agree that the earth is warming, and that humans certainly play a role. i'd like to believe that the role is insignificant, but in the past months i've seen evidence enough that i've changed my mind, and i think that there certainly is a significant A in the GW-- i'm just not so sure that i'm right.

I have read either Christy or the other guy who is a denier state that 1,2,3 are true. Their apparent problem is with the fact that the concentrations of CO2 that we already have take up 95% or so of the radiation that CO2 can absorb. A doubling in the CO2 concentration won't double the effect of CO2 on warming. However, just that slight increase will be enough, apparently, to cause other effects to kick in in a positive feedback loop, which is inherently unstable. Eg, the albedo of the earth will change so that the earth itself will absorb more radiation, rather than reflect it.


A big problem people have is with the models. We know that they will not be perfect, but that doesn't matter so much. All they are trying to do is show what could happen given that the earth is warming. The insight we get from the models will always be a lot better than just saying we can't know, so don't even bother trying to find out.

As it is, the models have been shown to be correct, for example, in the case of Australia. The current unprecedented drought is going to cost the economy a lot of money in lost productivity and expensive solutions to fix the water shortage manually, if it doesn't break. The current trend in bushfires is predicted to mean that by the end of the century, there won't be anything left to burn. That is, the whole of Australia will have reverted to desert.

Also, as has been stated here, the concern that the whole AGW concept is purely a fraud to attack the USA and other capitalist countries, and somehow steal wealth of them. That is, conspiracy theory.

 

[robinson]

Huh? You were right the first time.

What is 'affected' are the mindsets of people like Al Gore (and apparently all Australians).

What is disputed is the actual amount human endeavors are effecting the climate that enhance the current warming trend.

I was? Damn. That effects always gets me.

If stopping greenhouse emissions was profitable, I doubt this debate would even be happening. The loss of glaciers worldwide is without a doubt, one of the most alarming events. If greenhouse emissions are not causing GW, then we may be in for an even worse time than anyone can imagine. Climate change is probably one of the most dangerous situations for many species.

I could be wrong, but I like to think real scientist actually just want to know what is going on.

 

[lenny]

A big problem people have is with the models. We know that they will not be perfect, but that doesn't matter so much. All they are trying to do is show what could happen given that the earth is warming. The insight we get from the models will always be a lot better than just saying we can't know, so don't even bother trying to find out.

the models being far from perfect is a problem mainly when they are presented as being "reliable" (decision-support relevant) when they are almost certainly not.

that does not mean other GCM results (including simply supporting results from less complicated models) are not of value, and it is a far cry from saying we should not bother trying to find out!

science based policy has to find a way to live with imperfect, often very-limited, models if it is going to thrive.

 

[Piggy]

What is disputed is the actual amount human endeavors are effecting the climate that enhance the current warming trend.

Your assumptions are showing. Apparently, you view the "current warming trend" as a natural phenomenon which may or may not be merely "enhanced" by human activity.

On what do you base these assumptions?

Or am I misreading you?

 

[lenny]

I could be wrong, but I like to think real scientist actually just want to know what is going on.

many real scientists studying climate work on little pieces, or on studying what happens when you simulate these little pieces, or on what happens in their subsystem when you put them all together.

many would be happy just to better understand is going on in their subset of study (both the model and the corresponding real world bits)

 

[Slimething]

science based policy has to find a way to live with imperfect, often very-limited, models if it is going to thrive.

Science already lives quite comfortably with imperfect models. These models are acknowledged for their incorporation of known phenomena (or as far as can be comfortably incorporated by computer programing) but are also acknowledged for their inaccuracy. Still, the predictions of these models are taken as an index of comparison, not an absolute prediction. These models are mostly found in public health (epidemiology) where disease rates cannot be predicted but the output of a model can predict that one scenario is worse than another.

Frankly, I'm not sure I listen any more to the public pronouncements of GW experts. The planet is warming, of that there is little doubt as the measurements are quite tangible. I am suffering from real cynicism as to whether or not humanity's role in this can be credibly ascertained as we are dealing with a lot of new measurements and, in my view, politicians and those with "agendas" have completely taken over this process.

My current thinking is that, say this GW thing does not pan out to be as bad as the pessimits predict, then we may have dodged a bullet. Humanity has been ridding itself of waste products into the vast dumping grounds offered by this planet. When is it going to bite us in the ass? We really, as a species, should look at this instance maybe not as a fixed instance but as the first of many possible retribution events for living high off the hog with respect to the planet.

 

[lenny]

science based policy has to find a way to live with imperfect, often very-limited, models if it is going to thrive.

Science already lives quite comfortably with imperfect models.

agreed, that is why i said "science based policy". (and hopefully i added a "decision support" nearby).

all our models are imperfect, that does not stop them from being useful...

Frankly, I'm not sure I listen any more to the public pronouncements of GW experts. The planet is warming, of that there is little doubt as the measurements are quite tangible.

... you may not listen, but should people making infrastructure decisions with 50 year impacts listen? how high to build the Thames barrier (or its foundation), what types of cables to put under the streets of new york city?

but then you did say "public pronouncements of GW experts", is there not some GW question close to something you care about, where decisions being made now will have direct impact? "public health (epidemiology)" ... there must be water resource projects with hundred year footprints which would be done one way in an environment with malaria, and differently in a malaria free environment. no?

how do you make such decisions, if the answer is due next month?

 

[Slimething]

... you may not listen, but should people making infrastructure decisions with 50 year impacts listen? how high to build the Thames barrier (or its foundation), what types of cables to put under the streets of new york city?

Of course, decision makers who will influence the future should listen. Don't misunderstand me: I'm not proud of my cynicism but cynical I am.

but then you did say "public pronouncements of GW experts", is there not some GW question close to something you care about, where decisions being made now will have direct impact? "public health (epidemiology)" ... there must be water resource projects with hundred year footprints which would be done one way in an environment with malaria, and differently in a malaria free environment. no?

how do you make such decisions, if the answer is due next month?

Damned good questions, lenny. I wish I had answers that measured up.

Your question did get me thinking though. What would I do if my boss told me that I had to figure out something that had an impact for the next fifty years but that I had to include GW in my planning. Obviously, I would have to do my due diligence (educate myself). However, the task may not be as daunting as that being faced by GW scholars as my scope of interest would be minute compared to their global considerations. I am happy I'm not in that position.

For the time being, suffice it to say that I am concerned and fully intend to do what I can. I've always been an advocate of conservation and reducing waste.

 

[sbernie87]

All in all though the only reason I have a problem with any of this is because of what I pay in taxes...

This is what is called "confirmation bias," I am surprised no one picked up on it... I would suggest that perhaps the laws of physics are not dependent on the state of your taxes? The level of doublethink required to believe that global warming is a leftist conspiracy to raise your taxes while simultaneously understanding the idiocy of the 911 truth movement (as most climate change deniers do - though I don't mean to put words in Ceritus' mouth) is astounding.