'Global Warming' Losing Support

[Flopper]

Climate change is a very long term phenomena. You can't look at what the weather was last year or even the last decade to validate global climate change. For concrete proof, you would need reliable climate data for hundreds of years. We have good data for only about 130 years. We do have a lot of scientific evidence form many branches of science that the planet is warming, however none of this evidence will ever be as convincing as actual long term recorded climate data. Unfortunately, by the time we have that data, it won't be needed to validate climate change.

I am very pessimistic about our ability to do anything about climate change for several reasons:

1. The impact on life styles and world economics are huge. Most people are not willing to make the sacrifices today to avert some poorly defined world wide disaster that may occur in a hundred or so years from now. No matter how strong the evidence, many will still claim that this is a natural phenomenon and nothing can be done.

2. Any plan to deal with global climate change would require support from most of the nations on earth. This seems very unlikely.

3. We have never been very good at forming lone term plans and sticking to them. Look at the wars we have engaged in, 8 or 10 years and we are ready to call it quits. The time frame of putting a man on the moon in 10 years was based on the belief that American support would dwindle if the program lasted longer. Plans to deal with global climate change would need public support for much longer 10 years.

Faced with the above problems, political leaders have given mostly lip service to the problem. Our best shot at dealing with global climate change is to push programs for energy independence with cleaner forms of energy, not as a solution for climate change but as a solution to a host of other problems in which we would see results in a short time period.

I thought the Vostok ice cores showed an 800 year lag between the warming and then a subsequent rise in CO2.

Do you feel that modern CO2 is somehow different, more sensitive?

Sure, we have studies of ice cores, tree rings, geologic rock studies, anthropological studies, and a lot more. The problem is that the only people that can judge the validity of the study is other scientist in that field. The general public is often left perplexed. Temperature data is easily understood and there is really not much room for argument. Of course one can always claim that whatever climate change occurs is part of a natural cycle.

 

[westwall]

Climate change is a very long term phenomena. You can't look at what the weather was last year or even the last decade to validate global climate change. For concrete proof, you would need reliable climate data for hundreds of years. We have good data for only about 130 years. We do have a lot of scientific evidence form many branches of science that the planet is warming, however none of this evidence will ever be as convincing as actual long term recorded climate data. Unfortunately, by the time we have that data, it won't be needed to validate climate change.

I am very pessimistic about our ability to do anything about climate change for several reasons:

1. The impact on life styles and world economics are huge. Most people are not willing to make the sacrifices today to avert some poorly defined world wide disaster that may occur in a hundred or so years from now. No matter how strong the evidence, many will still claim that this is a natural phenomenon and nothing can be done.

2. Any plan to deal with global climate change would require support from most of the nations on earth. This seems very unlikely.

3. We have never been very good at forming lone term plans and sticking to them. Look at the wars we have engaged in, 8 or 10 years and we are ready to call it quits. The time frame of putting a man on the moon in 10 years was based on the belief that American support would dwindle if the program lasted longer. Plans to deal with global climate change would need public support for much longer 10 years.

Faced with the above problems, political leaders have given mostly lip service to the problem. Our best shot at dealing with global climate change is to push programs for energy independence with cleaner forms of energy, not as a solution for climate change but as a solution to a host of other problems in which we would see results in a short time period.

I thought the Vostok ice cores showed an 800 year lag between the warming and then a subsequent rise in CO2.

Do you feel that modern CO2 is somehow different, more sensitive?

Sure, we have studies of ice cores, tree rings, geologic rock studies, anthropological studies, and a lot more. The problem is that the only people that can judge the validity of the study is other scientist in that field. The general public is often left perplexed. Temperature data is easily understood and there is really not much room for argument. Of course one can always claim that whatever climate change occurs is part of a natural cycle.

This satement is COMPLETELY untrue. Any competent scientist and any reasonably well read non scientist can make very accurate determinations of whether data is accurate or not. It is only the alarmists who make the claim that only climatologists can understand what climatologists are saying. That's simply ludicrous. That's like saying only this person can speak to the dead because he is psychic..............oh wait that IS what they are saying isn't it

 

[Flopper]

I thought the Vostok ice cores showed an 800 year lag between the warming and then a subsequent rise in CO2.

Do you feel that modern CO2 is somehow different, more sensitive?

Sure, we have studies of ice cores, tree rings, geologic rock studies, anthropological studies, and a lot more. The problem is that the only people that can judge the validity of the study is other scientist in that field. The general public is often left perplexed. Temperature data is easily understood and there is really not much room for argument. Of course one can always claim that whatever climate change occurs is part of a natural cycle.

This satement is COMPLETELY untrue. Any competent scientist and any reasonably well read non scientist can make very accurate determinations of whether data is accurate or not. It is only the alarmists who make the claim that only climatologists can understand what climatologists are saying. That's simply ludicrous. That's like saying only this person can speak to the dead because he is psychic..............oh wait that IS what they are saying isn't it

You say "Any competent scientist and any reasonably well read non scientist can make very accurate determinations of whether data is accurate or not." I agree with you but the general public is not well read and there are a number of non-believes that are all too ready to take issue with any finding that supports climate change.

 

[westwall]

Sure, we have studies of ice cores, tree rings, geologic rock studies, anthropological studies, and a lot more. The problem is that the only people that can judge the validity of the study is other scientist in that field. The general public is often left perplexed. Temperature data is easily understood and there is really not much room for argument. Of course one can always claim that whatever climate change occurs is part of a natural cycle.

This satement is COMPLETELY untrue. Any competent scientist and any reasonably well read non scientist can make very accurate determinations of whether data is accurate or not. It is only the alarmists who make the claim that only climatologists can understand what climatologists are saying. That's simply ludicrous. That's like saying only this person can speak to the dead because he is psychic..............oh wait that IS what they are saying isn't it

You say "Any competent scientist and any reasonably well read non scientist can make very accurate determinations of whether data is accurate or not." I agree with you but the general public is not well read and there are a number of non-believes that are all too ready to take issue with any finding that supports climate change.

You see that little two word descriptor that you used...."non-believer"......that is for religion when you are arguing about blasphemy and heresy and all that nonsense. Science doesn't use that term, nor do good scientists even have it in their lexicon.

Science is about finding out what is true. Science is about scepticism. Science is about pushing the boundaries of what is known an in some cases knowable.

"Belief", or "faith" if you prefer, is only for the religious my friend.

 

[Flopper]

This satement is COMPLETELY untrue. Any competent scientist and any reasonably well read non scientist can make very accurate determinations of whether data is accurate or not. It is only the alarmists who make the claim that only climatologists can understand what climatologists are saying. That's simply ludicrous. That's like saying only this person can speak to the dead because he is psychic..............oh wait that IS what they are saying isn't it

You say "Any competent scientist and any reasonably well read non scientist can make very accurate determinations of whether data is accurate or not." I agree with you but the general public is not well read and there are a number of non-believes that are all too ready to take issue with any finding that supports climate change.

You see that little two word descriptor that you used...."non-believer"......that is for religion when you are arguing about blasphemy and heresy and all that nonsense. Science doesn't use that term, nor do good scientists even have it in their lexicon.

Science is about finding out what is true. Science is about scepticism. Science is about pushing the boundaries of what is known an in some cases knowable.

"Belief", or "faith" if you prefer, is only for the religious my friend.

The general public certainly will use the terms believer and non-believer, possibly because a large percentage are religious and it is the general public that must be convinced, not scientists.

 

[westwall]

You say "Any competent scientist and any reasonably well read non scientist can make very accurate determinations of whether data is accurate or not." I agree with you but the general public is not well read and there are a number of non-believes that are all too ready to take issue with any finding that supports climate change.

You see that little two word descriptor that you used...."non-believer"......that is for religion when you are arguing about blasphemy and heresy and all that nonsense. Science doesn't use that term, nor do good scientists even have it in their lexicon.

Science is about finding out what is true. Science is about scepticism. Science is about pushing the boundaries of what is known an in some cases knowable.

"Belief", or "faith" if you prefer, is only for the religious my friend.

The general public certainly will use the terms believer and non-believer, possibly because a large percentage are religious and it is the general public that must be convinced, not scientists.

The general public have allready decided that the alarmists are wrong. That's why the general public no longer cares about global warming.

 

[Old Rocks]

Well, PC, first, this is just for you. Why don't you get fitted for a tin hat? Because you are obviously a wingnut conspiracy kook.

You see, all the Scientific Societies in the world, all the National Academies of Science, and all the major Universities have stated that AGW is real, and that it is a clear and present danger. Not just those in the US, but all in the world. So what you are claiming is that all of these are in on a 'liberal' conspiracy. Real tinfoil hat stuff.

Second, this is not some recent scientific fad or theory, this dates back to the math of Foirier in 1820. And Tyndall in 1858 did the work establishing the absorption spectra of the gases in the atmosphere. In 1896, Arnhenius did the first quantitative work, and made some astute predictions concerning the warming of the earth by GHGs. And Dr. James Hansen made some predictions before Congress in 1988 that were quite close to what we are seeing today.

The politics is by people like yourself acting as shills for the energy companies that stand to lose much money and power if we address this issue. But you should feel pleased with yourself. Witless shills like yourself will manage to keep this nation from addressing the issue, and keep us in thrall to those selling us the means to poisoning our childrens future.

For the effects of the GHGs are very much evident now. The melt predicted for the Arctic Ice pack for 2050 has already been exceeded. Some of the Arctic Ocean clathrates are already starting to outgas, something we did not expect to see until around 2100. In 2008, we had a very strong and persistant La Nina event. At the same time, we had a solar minimum that was the most quiesant in nearly a century. It should have been one of the coldest years on record with that combination. Instead, it ranks as at least the tenth warmest year on record. Thus far, this year, we are neck and neck with 1998 and 2005 for the warmest year on record.

Then we have the crop damage created by extreme weather events this year. Now estimated to be a 38% loss of the Russian grain crop. The coming year, Russia will have to import grain. Pakistan? The whole of their agriculture has been effectively wiped out. Germany has lost a substancial proportion of their grain crops, also. Checked the wheat futures lately?

The scientific evidence for a climate change created by the global warming caused by human burning of fossil fuels in irrefutable. And we are seeing the damage already. But for the PC's of this world, politics always outweighs reality, no matter how her children will suffer for her idiocy.

 

[Oddball]

 

[Old Rocks]

Ah, mindless derision from the mindless. But what else to expect of Oddie, whether in science or politics. Clueless.

 

[westwall]

Well, PC, first, this is just for you. Why don't you get fitted for a tin hat? Because you are obviously a wingnut conspiracy kook.

You see, all the Scientific Societies in the world, all the National Academies of Science, and all the major Universities have stated that AGW is real, and that it is a clear and present danger. Not just those in the US, but all in the world. So what you are claiming is that all of these are in on a 'liberal' conspiracy. Real tinfoil hat stuff.

Second, this is not some recent scientific fad or theory, this dates back to the math of Foirier in 1820. And Tyndall in 1858 did the work establishing the absorption spectra of the gases in the atmosphere. In 1896, Arnhenius did the first quantitative work, and made some astute predictions concerning the warming of the earth by GHGs. And Dr. James Hansen made some predictions before Congress in 1988 that were quite close to what we are seeing today.

The politics is by people like yourself acting as shills for the energy companies that stand to lose much money and power if we address this issue. But you should feel pleased with yourself. Witless shills like yourself will manage to keep this nation from addressing the issue, and keep us in thrall to those selling us the means to poisoning our childrens future.

For the effects of the GHGs are very much evident now. The melt predicted for the Arctic Ice pack for 2050 has already been exceeded. Some of the Arctic Ocean clathrates are already starting to outgas, something we did not expect to see until around 2100. In 2008, we had a very strong and persistant La Nina event. At the same time, we had a solar minimum that was the most quiesant in nearly a century. It should have been one of the coldest years on record with that combination. Instead, it ranks as at least the tenth warmest year on record. Thus far, this year, we are neck and neck with 1998 and 2005 for the warmest year on record.

Then we have the crop damage created by extreme weather events this year. Now estimated to be a 38% loss of the Russian grain crop. The coming year, Russia will have to import grain. Pakistan? The whole of their agriculture has been effectively wiped out. Germany has lost a substancial proportion of their grain crops, also. Checked the wheat futures lately?

The scientific evidence for a climate change created by the global warming caused by human burning of fossil fuels in irrefutable. And we are seeing the damage already. But for the PC's of this world, politics always outweighs reality, no matter how her children will suffer for her idiocy.

Sure whatever you say. Seems Mann could only get 5 people to support him in the hearing in Viginia. Yep the people sure do believe your swill olfraud.

Standing by Mann: Small but punchy protest blasts Cuccinelli’s ‘climategate’ inquest | The Hook News Blog

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Ah, mindless derision from the mindless. But what else to expect of Oddie, whether in science or politics. Clueless.

it's like the "Magic Eye" pictures. Stare fixedly for 5 minutes and you'll soon see a hockey stick graph

 

[code1211]

All you've proved is MY thesis on the controversy. Those that believe AGW is real, do it on a scientific basis. The deniers are doing it on a political basis with scientific window dressing. Thanks for playing.

I find fault with the train of logic that must be accepted for anyone to believe in AGW.

The Earth was warmer than today during this Interglacial by at least 1 degree when there was a far lower level of CO2. This was about 8000 years ago.

The Earth's climate started to warm in this current period of warming before 1700. The start of the Industrial Revolution was after that date. Warmists generally point to the near coincidence of the warming and the Industrial Revolution as proof that the rise in CO2 caused the warming.

However, since the warming predates the Industrial Revolution, this is arguing that the future causes the past.

Warmists claim that higher amounts of CO2 will certainly cause a warmer climate. This in spite of various observations that the exact reverse is true and that even with increased CO2, we have often seen temperatures flatten or drop as was true from 2001 through 2009.

The rate of warming from the year 11 through the year 1010 was greater than the warming from the year 1011 through 2010.

See? No politics at all. Just doubt that proofs that don't exist should guide policy that is costly and emotionally unbalanced.

Present the proof and I'll be on board with your hysteria.

 

[code1211]

Climate change is a very long term phenomena. You can't look at what the weather was last year or even the last decade to validate global climate change. For concrete proof, you would need reliable climate data for hundreds of years. We have good data for only about 130 years. We do have a lot of scientific evidence form many branches of science that the planet is warming, however none of this evidence will ever be as convincing as actual long term recorded climate data. Unfortunately, by the time we have that data, it won't be needed to validate climate change.

I am very pessimistic about our ability to do anything about climate change for several reasons:

1. The impact on life styles and world economics are huge. Most people are not willing to make the sacrifices today to avert some poorly defined world wide disaster that may occur in a hundred or so years from now. No matter how strong the evidence, many will still claim that this is a natural phenomenon and nothing can be done.

2. Any plan to deal with global climate change would require support from most of the nations on earth. This seems very unlikely.

3. We have never been very good at forming lone term plans and sticking to them. Look at the wars we have engaged in, 8 or 10 years and we are ready to call it quits. The time frame of putting a man on the moon in 10 years was based on the belief that American support would dwindle if the program lasted longer. Plans to deal with global climate change would need public support for much longer 10 years.

Faced with the above problems, political leaders have given mostly lip service to the problem. Our best shot at dealing with global climate change is to push programs for energy independence with cleaner forms of energy, not as a solution for climate change but as a solution to a host of other problems in which we would see results in a short time period.

I thought the Vostok ice cores showed an 800 year lag between the warming and then a subsequent rise in CO2.

Do you feel that modern CO2 is somehow different, more sensitive?

Sure, we have studies of ice cores, tree rings, geologic rock studies, anthropological studies, and a lot more. The problem is that the only people that can judge the validity of the study is other scientist in that field. The general public is often left perplexed. Temperature data is easily understood and there is really not much room for argument. Of course one can always claim that whatever climate change occurs is part of a natural cycle.

Given the evidence, that's the most rational conclusion.

 

[Flopper]

You see that little two word descriptor that you used...."non-believer"......that is for religion when you are arguing about blasphemy and heresy and all that nonsense. Science doesn't use that term, nor do good scientists even have it in their lexicon.

Science is about finding out what is true. Science is about scepticism. Science is about pushing the boundaries of what is known an in some cases knowable.

"Belief", or "faith" if you prefer, is only for the religious my friend.

The general public certainly will use the terms believer and non-believer, possibly because a large percentage are religious and it is the general public that must be convinced, not scientists.

The general public have allready decided that the alarmists are wrong. That's why the general public no longer cares about global warming.

Most people believe the climate is changing. It's not that people don't think global climate change is a problem, they just believe there are more immediate problems to be dealt with.

 

[westwall]

The general public certainly will use the terms believer and non-believer, possibly because a large percentage are religious and it is the general public that must be convinced, not scientists.

The general public have allready decided that the alarmists are wrong. That's why the general public no longer cares about global warming.

Most people believe the climate is changing. It's not that people don't think global climate change is a problem, they just believe there are more immediate problems to be dealt with.

No, I don't agree with you on this. People realize that the climate is never static no matter what the alarmists say. They realise that after 30+ years of doom and gloom the alarmists are wrong so the general public no longer pay any attention to what the alarmists have to say. It's not because they think other problems are more important. It's because they fundamentally understand that the climate will do what it will do as certainly as the sun will rise tomorrow.

 

[Flopper]

The general public have allready decided that the alarmists are wrong. That's why the general public no longer cares about global warming.

Most people believe the climate is changing. It's not that people don't think global climate change is a problem, they just believe there are more immediate problems to be dealt with.

No, I don't agree with you on this. People realize that the climate is never static no matter what the alarmists say. They realise that after 30+ years of doom and gloom the alarmists are wrong so the general public no longer pay any attention to what the alarmists have to say. It's not because they think other problems are more important. It's because they fundamentally understand that the climate will do what it will do as certainly as the sun will rise tomorrow.

I am not going to waste my time defending what most of the scientific community is now excepting as fact. The evidence is overwhelming. An increasing body of observations gives a collective picture of a warming world and other changes in the climate system... There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities.
No scientific body of national or international standing has maintained a dissenting opinion.
Scientific opinion on climate change - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Old Rocks]

Pyrrhic victory: the death spiral of the denial movement Watching the Deniers

It is far too early to declare “victory”, but its clear the denial movement is entering a death spiral.

Within a few years they will be a spent force.

I take no comfort in this: ”winning” the climate debate is the ultimate Pyrrhic victory.

An article in today’s Age notes the recent conversion of some high-profile sceptics of climate change:

“…has a confluence of extreme weather (fire, floods, heatwaves, mud slides) and dogged science – sober, clear consensus statements such as that released yesterday by the Australian Academy of Science – finally outmanoeuvred the engineers of denial? Are we at a tipping point in terms of public comprehension of the climate crisis? In terms of campaign denialism, is the jig up?”

The article describes the about-face of one of the UK’s most prominent sceptics:

“Last week, the science editor of Britain’s proudly sceptical Daily Mail filed a long article from the Arctic under the headline, ”The Crack in the Roof of the World: Yes, Global Warming is Real – and Deeply Worrying”.

 

[Old Rocks]

I find fault with the train of logic that must be accepted for anyone to believe in AGW.

The Earth was warmer than today during this Interglacial by at least 1 degree when there was a far lower level of CO2. This was about 8000 years ago.

The Earth's climate started to warm in this current period of warming before 1700. The start of the Industrial Revolution was after that date. Warmists generally point to the near coincidence of the warming and the Industrial Revolution as proof that the rise in CO2 caused the warming.

However, since the warming predates the Industrial Revolution, this is arguing that the future causes the past.

Warmists claim that higher amounts of CO2 will certainly cause a warmer climate. This in spite of various observations that the exact reverse is true and that even with increased CO2, we have often seen temperatures flatten or drop as was true from 2001 through 2009.

The rate of warming from the year 11 through the year 1010 was greater than the warming from the year 1011 through 2010.

See? No politics at all. Just doubt that proofs that don't exist should guide policy that is costly and emotionally unbalanced.

Present the proof and I'll be on board with your hysteria.

You just made a butt load of statements that originated exactly there.

You have yet to present any proof whatsoever for your statements.

 

[westwall]

Pyrrhic victory: the death spiral of the denial movement Watching the Deniers

It is far too early to declare “victory”, but its clear the denial movement is entering a death spiral.

Within a few years they will be a spent force.

I take no comfort in this: ”winning” the climate debate is the ultimate Pyrrhic victory.

An article in today’s Age notes the recent conversion of some high-profile sceptics of climate change:

“…has a confluence of extreme weather (fire, floods, heatwaves, mud slides) and dogged science – sober, clear consensus statements such as that released yesterday by the Australian Academy of Science – finally outmanoeuvred the engineers of denial? Are we at a tipping point in terms of public comprehension of the climate crisis? In terms of campaign denialism, is the jig up?”

The article describes the about-face of one of the UK’s most prominent sceptics:

“Last week, the science editor of Britain’s proudly sceptical Daily Mail filed a long article from the Arctic under the headline, ”The Crack in the Roof of the World: Yes, Global Warming is Real – and Deeply Worrying”.

Yep, we're certainly losing all right

Obama Admin Urges Supreme Court to Vacate Greenhouse Gas 'Nuisance' Ruling - NYTimes.com

Enjoy your fantasy there old fraud it's pretty much all you have left.

 

[Old Rocks]

Well, what seems to be going on here is a dispute over jurusdiction. If the Obama administration wins, and takes no action concernng emissions, then they will have to answer to the base in 2012. If they win and clamp down on the major emmitters, then people like you will by calling them tyrants.

I think that they will find the base to be more important.

Obama Admin Urges Supreme Court to Vacate Greenhouse Gas 'Nuisance' Ruling - NYTimes.com

Katyal urged the court to vacate the decision and remand the case to the 2nd Circuit for further proceedings, this time taking into account the administration's push to regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act.

The 2nd Circuit's decision rested on the assertion that "EPA does not currently regulate carbon dioxide," but that has since changed. The Obama administration has finalized several regulations in response to the Supreme Court's 2007 decision in Massachusetts v. EPA, which told the agency to decide whether greenhouse gases were pollutants under the Clean Air Act.

"Since this court held in 2007 that carbon dioxide falls within that regulatory authority, EPA has taken several significant steps toward addressing the very question presented here," Katyal wrote. "That regulatory approach is preferable to what would result if multiple district courts -- acting without the benefit of even the most basic statutory guidance -- could use common-law nuisance claims to sit as arbiters of scientific and technology-related disputes and de facto regulators of power plants and other sources of pollution both within their districts and nationwide."