Playing to the ignorant or actually that ignorant?

[Francesca R]

While I am not defending the tone of the OP, the science is pretty much settled amongst the vast majority of climate scientist (not funded by the oil industry).

The science of AGW is not overwhelming.

 

[steve s]

Oh, and my favorite is when there is a massive snowstorm like the one that hit the east coast, and that is evidence of global warming.

Warmer air is capable of holding more moisture than colder air, hence there's a greater chance of snow the warmer it is. This is why St. Louis gets 18 times as much snowfall each year (on average) than the South Pole.

Steve S

 

[INRM]

I don't believe global warming doesn't exist, and I don't believe people can't cause it. I just believe that a number of climate-research scientists fudged a lot of data so as to downplay or ignore circumstances in the past where the planet got warmer, and exaggerating the severity of global warming in the modern day.

 

[theprestige]

er... both articles relate the individual events as part of larger patterns that are evidence for global warming rather than saying the events, themselves, prove global warming.

Juxtapose that against those who claim that a single cold day or cold winter disproves global warming.

Is anybody really claiming that? Or are they simply claiming that reports of cold days and cold winters justfies questioning the "settled science" of global warming?

I mean, how "settled science" is it, exactly, that the Haitian earthquake is linked to global warming? How "settled science" is it, exactly, that hurricane activity is linked to global warming?

And how dishonest is it, exactly, for you to imply that any crackpot idea about earthquakes or hurricanes is legitimate cause to be more confident in the "settled science" of global warming, but any doubt based on anything as simple and obvious as actual daily temperature readings or seasonal weather patterns is totally illegitimate and unscientific?

 

[Paulhoff]

I don't believe global warming doesn't exist, and I don't believe people can't cause it. I just believe that a number of climate-research scientists fudged a lot of data so as to downplay or ignore circumstances in the past where the planet got warmer, and exaggerating the severity of global warming in the modern day.

Really, I have heard about that stuff. But to think that 6 billion people don't change anything is, well, nuts.

Paul

 

[Cynic]

And how dishonest is it, exactly, for you to imply that any crackpot idea about earthquakes or hurricanes is legitimate cause to be more confident in the "settled science" of global warming, but any doubt based on anything as simple and obvious as actual daily temperature readings or seasonal weather patterns is totally illegitimate and unscientific?

Wait -- how did hurricane get excepted from the category of seasonal weather patterns?

 

[daredelvis]

The science of AGW is not overwhelming.

Overwhelming may be an overstatement, but there is no question that AGW is the scientific consensus.

From a 2004 Science mag article.

IPCC is not alone in its conclusions. In recent years, all major scientific bodies in the United States whose members' expertise bears directly on the matter have issued similar statements. For example, the National Academy of Sciences report, Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions, begins: "Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise"

The drafting of such reports and statements involves many opportunities for comment, criticism, and revision, and it is not likely that they would diverge greatly from the opinions of the societies' members. Nevertheless, they might downplay legitimate dissenting opinions. That hypothesis was tested by analyzing 928 abstracts, published in refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and listed in the ISI database with the keywords "climate change" (9).

The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.

Admittedly, authors evaluating impacts, developing methods, or studying paleoclimatic change might believe that current climate change is natural. However, none of these papers argued that point.

link
To not agree that it is the consensus (I am not claiming you don't) requires a real misunderstanding of how the peer review process works, or buying into some pretty hefty conspiracy theories. I personally have a very difficult time not pigeonholing AGW deniers with people who don't believe in evolution.

Daredelvis

 

[Francesca R]

Overwhelming may be an overstatement

Indeed. Thanks.

 

[Sporanox]

One hundred percent correct to say that the storm was caused by global warming.

The catastrophe that followed was caused by Ronald Reagan.

...

Juxtapose that against those who claim that a single cold day or cold winter disproves global warming.

Here's another one for you.

Yes. Chris, it's been 21 days of brutal heat, a coast-to-coast double heat wave leaving at least 186 people dead, massive damage to crops and livestock. And yes, it's got folks everywhere asking if it's part of global warming, and thus a sign that Earth will keep getting hotter. The scientists say yes, global warming is involved. First, it fits the pattern predicted 30 years ago, more frequent and intense heat waves. More than 50 cities just broke records.

http://newsbusters.org/node/9135

Now Chicago has its earliest snowfall, ABC decided to go with the line "weather is not climate"...not really a surprise, but they could at least try to be consistent.

 

[daredelvis]

Indeed. Thanks.

Yes, it is just the consensus that is overwhelming.

Daredelvis

 

[Beerina]

To be fair, single weather events are also wrongly touted as evidence of global warming.
Both positions are wrong.

This. And think about it -- an average rise of, say, 1 degree? You would never even notice it, and only long-term statistical measurements of things would even be able to discern it.

Even when I hear studies about this or that plant coming back to life a month earlier than normal, I have to wonder, as a few degrees should only shift that a few days or a week maybe. Winter-to-summer is what, 80 degrees F swing over, say, 4 months? That's 2 degrees every 3 days, so yeah, a few days to a week sounds about right. So what percent of that is cyclic and what percent is not? One month, if truly global warming (AGW or not) thus represents a 20 degree swing. And that's why this must be averaged over long periods of time.

 

[leftysergeant]

Is anybody really claiming that? Or are they simply claiming that reports of cold days and cold winters justfies questioning the "settled science" of global warming?Whatever. That the east coast is buried under snow does not mean that the climate is not changing in a way consistant with AGW.

Not when I am sitting here looking at mosquitoes breeding in the middle of winter.

I mean, how "settled science" is it, exactly, that the Haitian earthquake is linked to global warming?

I haven't heard anybody with a low enough IQ to be a right-wing talk-show host suggest that it was.

How "settled science" is it, exactly, that hurricane activity is linked to global warming?

100%. They are getting worse and they are tied to the El Nino, La Nina cycles.

And how dishonest is it, exactly, for you to imply that any crackpot idea about earthquakes or hurricanes is legitimate cause to be more confident in the "settled science" of global warming, but any doubt based on anything as simple and obvious as actual daily temperature readings or seasonal weather patterns is totally illegitimate and unscientific?

The only dishonesty I see here is the insertion of the idiotic idea that theHaiti quake is tied to AGW. No scientist or left-wing journalist is making that claim.

 

[Sporanox]

The only dishonesty I see here is the insertion of the idiotic idea that theHaiti quake is tied to AGW. No scientist or left-wing journalist is making that claim.

Oh come on, you didn't think ABC was a bit dishonest?

 

[Brainster]

What bothers me is that AGW is rapidly becoming unfalsifiable. An extremely hot day? Global warming must be to blame. Lots of snowfall? AGW must be the culprit. Normal weather? AGW predicted it.

This strikes me as profoundly unscientific, as did the emails exposed in the ClimateGate scandal, the refusals to share data, etc. I'm not yet ready to move back into the AGW skeptic crowd, but I am troubled by the actions of the proponents of AGW.

 

[leftysergeant]

This. And think about it -- an average rise of, say, 1 degree? You would never even notice it, and only long-term statistical measurements of things would even be able to discern it.

It only has to occassionally hit a high enough temperature to make the jet streams bobble to wipe out a year's agricultural production. Your raw numbers mean far less than you think they do.

Even when I hear studies about this or that plant coming back to life a month earlier than normal, I have to wonder, as a few degrees should only shift that a few days or a week maybe.

That accounts for one season.

But when species start showing up in new ranges and disappear from the old, something more than a seasonal variation is going on.

There are flowers and yellow jackets showing up in places in Canada where the local language does not even have a word for them. That is a change of climate, not of weather.

 

[Francesca R]

Yes, it is just the consensus that is overwhelming.

Whoops. False. You blew it

 

[leftysergeant]

Oh come on, you didn't think ABC was a bit dishonest?[/QUOTE

What ABC bit? I haven't been able to find any such dumb-az assertion by anyone other than known tin-foilers that are clearly not of right or left or believers in AGW.

 

[Cynic]

http://newsbusters.org/node/9135

Now Chicago has its earliest snowfall, ABC decided to go with the line "weather is not climate"...not really a surprise, but they could at least try to be consistent.

I'm not going to defend what ABC was saying because I don't know what was going on in their heads. But it's worth noting a few things:

1. AGW and GW are not the same concepts. GW is a trend. AGW is a trend with a cause attached.

2. We're talking about trends. By definition, if there is a warming trend and there's a string of unusually hot days, then those days are part of that trend. Unusually cold days are by definition exceptions to that trend. If you want to dispute that there hasn't been a warming trend, good luck with that.

3. Given the above, they're being perfectly consistent.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

What bothers me is that AGW is rapidly becoming unfalsifiable. An extremely hot day? Global warming must be to blame. Lots of snowfall? AGW must be the culprit. Normal weather? AGW predicted it.

This strikes me as profoundly unscientific, as did the emails exposed in the ClimateGate scandal, the refusals to share data, etc. I'm not yet ready to move back into the AGW skeptic crowd, but I am troubled by the actions of the proponents of AGW.

I was an AGW skeptic back in my pre-9/11 truther days. Somewhere on the path from skeptic/denier to accepting "the reality", I stopped my migration. Why? Because we already have the energy source of the future. One that will solve both peak oil and carbon release, if that is a problem, and will pave our way to the stars and will give our inheritors the ability to waste 10 times the energy that our generation has and keep doing so for tens of thousands of years.

We just need to overcome the political inertia and ignorance of its opponents.

 

[Sporanox]

Oh come on, you didn't think ABC was a bit dishonest?[/QUOTE

What ABC bit? I haven't been able to find any such dumb-az assertion by anyone other than known tin-foilers that are clearly not of right or left or believers in AGW.

It's in the earlier post.

2. We're talking about trends. By definition, if there is a warming trend and there's a string of unusually hot days, then those days are part of that trend. Unusually cold days are by definition exceptions to that trend. If you want to dispute that there hasn't been a warming trend, good luck with that.

When someone's reply to a year inconsistent with their personal beliefs is "weather is not climate," they've said something wrong.