'Why the Global Warming Skeptics Are Wrong'

[Old Rocks]

And nobody has said that it would. What has been pointed out is that in a world with 7 billion people and undependable weather, agriculture will be affected in an undesirable manner. And there will be starvation. In the last two years we have seen major damage to crops in various nations due to extreme weather events. By the figures of the world's two biggest re-insurance companies, Swiss Re, and Munich Re, the costs of extreme weather events has increased by a factor of five from 1970 to today.

Really?

Nobody is predicting mass famine, floods and death on a biblical scale?

Rapid global warming will create famine and drought, Lovelock warns - Climate Change - Environment - The Independent

env056 Global warming to produce famine and poverty in Africa

Michael Mann's counterstrike in the climate wars - latimes.com

Global warming causes 300,000 deaths a year, says Kofi Annan thinktank | Environment | guardian.co.uk

And is that increase in insurance claims merely a result of more people buying insurance?

I'm sure that a significantly higher number of people are buying insurance today than in 1970

You're one of the biggest alarmists on this board and yet you say no one is predicting epic disaster.

Here's a little news flash.

If the earth is a couple degrees warmer nothing will happen.

Skull, I will remind you of those words repeatedly in the coming years.

 

[Skull Pilot]

And nobody has said that it would. What has been pointed out is that in a world with 7 billion people and undependable weather, agriculture will be affected in an undesirable manner. And there will be starvation. In the last two years we have seen major damage to crops in various nations due to extreme weather events. By the figures of the world's two biggest re-insurance companies, Swiss Re, and Munich Re, the costs of extreme weather events has increased by a factor of five from 1970 to today.

Really?

Nobody is predicting mass famine, floods and death on a biblical scale?

Rapid global warming will create famine and drought, Lovelock warns - Climate Change - Environment - The Independent

env056 Global warming to produce famine and poverty in Africa

Michael Mann's counterstrike in the climate wars - latimes.com

Global warming causes 300,000 deaths a year, says Kofi Annan thinktank | Environment | guardian.co.uk

And is that increase in insurance claims merely a result of more people buying insurance?

I'm sure that a significantly higher number of people are buying insurance today than in 1970

You're one of the biggest alarmists on this board and yet you say no one is predicting epic disaster.

Here's a little news flash.

If the earth is a couple degrees warmer nothing will happen.

Skull, I will remind you of those words repeatedly in the coming years.

OK chicken little.

 

[Old Rocks]

As a long time cyclist, there is no need for someone to tell me the climate is changing. I know that.

If a scientist says so, then it is true, so according to some of the replies. They do.

....

You cycling anecdote aside (so scientific, ), and plenty of scientists say there is no evidence that any global warming is due to man's influence.

Stalemate.

.... If you wanted to prove the earth was round to a primitive would you two walk around the earth. Would that prove it.

....

Interesting you say that. Because of the flaw of conclusions based on consensus, many did believe that the Earth was flat. Thus, any conclusion based on some sort of imagined consensus is a flaw - nothing but a belief. Conclusions based on data and observations is how science is done, among other things that you clearly haven't grasped.

....If someone wants to believe or deny something, no argument, no matter how complete will convince them. Consider conspiracy thinkers.

As far as a demonstration that is below.


"We challenged two leading British scientists to try to prove the science of global warming to a group of people whose views very loosely reflect national opinions.

And, as if that wasn't tough enough we asked them to do it in my kitchen.

Can they do it? Well, you can see for yourself."

BBC - Ethical Man blog: In praise of scepticism

IPCC - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

The IPCC is a policy group. Policy and science are not the same thing, nor are activism and science. Now you know.

Now we know that Si is a bullshitter. But we knew that already.

Hey Si, name one Scientific Society that states AGW in not a fact. How about one National Academy of Science? Even that of Outer Slobovia. How about a major University?

Your whole schtick is based on your political views, with zero referance to real science. From glacier to icecaps, from biological cycles to ocean acidity, we are seeing far more results from the warming that we already have than was predicted by the alarmists.

In 2010 and 2011, we saw repeaded extreme weather events all over the world. Here in the US with the most effective tornado and weather system in the world, we still had over one thousand people killed by tornados last year.

Now, in 2012, we are seeing the same pattern. Very cold in some places, a very warm winter in others. Major floods and continueing droubts. All taking a toll on agriculture and infrastructure. We are no longer in a phase of prevention, far too late for that, now we have to deal with consequences.

 

[Old Rocks]

While some people cling to partisan or ideology driven beliefs, others consider the consequences of sailing to ends of the earth and finding it round and not flat. Discovery opens up a new chapter in human existence.

William D. Nordhaus

"Yale economist rebuts sceptics' arguments, point by point. The earth is getting warmer. Due to carbon dioxide pollution. Humans are responsible. The science is legitimate. It's a bad situation. It's worth taking action."

Why the Global Warming Skeptics Are Wrong by William D. Nordhaus | The New York Review of Books

And others look at the science when discussing science, you hack.

You are an enemy of science, hack. Science is not determined by economists, hack.

Stop soiling science by politicizing it.

Oh boy, here we go again. Soiling science by politicizing it. All the while the dumb ass is politicizing it, and never, never refering to science.

Here is some real science. From the American Institute of Physics, a Scientific Society composed of Scientific Societies.

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

From the American Geophysical Union;

AGU revises position on climate change

AGU revises position on climate change


WASHINGTON – A statement released on January 24 by the world’s largest scientific society of Earth and space scientists—the American Geophysical Union, or AGU—updates the organization’s position on climate change: the evidence for it, potential consequences from it, and how to respond to it.

The statement is the first revision since 2003 of the climate-change position of the AGU, which has a membership of 50,000 researchers, teachers, and students in 137 countries. The society adopted the statement at a meeting of AGU’s leadership body, the AGU Council, in San Francisco, California, on 14 December 2007. AGU position statements expire in four years, unless extended by the Council.

Following is the text of the revised statement (also available online at http://www.agu.org/sci_soc/policy/positions/climate_change2008.shtml).

Human Impacts on Climate

The Earth's climate is now clearly out of balance and is warming. Many components of the climate system—including the temperatures of the atmosphere, land and ocean, the extent of sea ice and mountain glaciers, the sea level, the distribution of precipitation, and the length of seasons—are now changing at rates and in patterns that are not natural and are best explained by the increased atmospheric abundances of greenhouse gases and aerosols generated by human activity during the 20th century. Global average surface temperatures increased on average by about 0.6°C over the period 1956–2006. As of 2006, eleven of the previous twelve years were warmer than any others since 1850. The observed rapid retreat of Arctic sea ice is expected to continue and lead to the disappearance of summertime ice within this century. Evidence from most oceans and all continents except Antarctica shows warming attributable to human activities. Recent changes in many physical and biological systems are linked with this regional climate change. A sustained research effort, involving many AGU members and summarized in the 2007 assessments of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, continues to improve our scientific understanding of the climate.

During recent millennia of relatively stable climate, civilization became established and populations have grown rapidly. In the next 50 years, even the lower limit of impending climate change—an additional global mean warming of 1°C above the last decade—is far beyond the range of climate variability experienced during the past thousand years and poses global problems in planning for and adapting to it. Warming greater than 2°C above 19th century levels is projected to be disruptive, reducing global agricultural productivity, causing widespread loss of biodiversity, and—if sustained over centuries—melting much of the Greenland ice sheet with ensuing rise in sea level of several meters. If this 2°C warming is to be avoided, then our net annual emissions of CO2 must be reduced by more than 50 percent within this century. With such projections, there are many sources of scientific uncertainty, but none are known that could make the impact of climate change inconsequential. Given the uncertainty in climate projections, there can be surprises that may cause more dramatic disruptions than anticipated from the most probable model projections.

With climate change, as with ozone depletion, the human footprint on Earth is apparent. The cause of disruptive climate change, unlike ozone depletion, is tied to energy use and runs through modern society. Solutions will necessarily involve all aspects of society. Mitigation strategies and adaptation responses will call for collaborations across science, technology, industry, and government. Members of the AGU, as part of the scientific community, collectively have special responsibilities: to pursue research needed to understand it; to educate the public on the causes, risks, and hazards; and to communicate clearly and objectively with those who can implement policies to shape future climate.


###


Adopted by AGU Council, December, 2003

Revised and Reaffirmed, December, 2007

 

[Si modo]

While some people cling to partisan or ideology driven beliefs, others consider the consequences of sailing to ends of the earth and finding it round and not flat. Discovery opens up a new chapter in human existence.

William D. Nordhaus

"Yale economist rebuts sceptics' arguments, point by point. The earth is getting warmer. Due to carbon dioxide pollution. Humans are responsible. The science is legitimate. It's a bad situation. It's worth taking action."

Why the Global Warming Skeptics Are Wrong by William D. Nordhaus | The New York Review of Books

And others look at the science when discussing science, you hack.

You are an enemy of science, hack. Science is not determined by economists, hack.

Stop soiling science by politicizing it.

Oh boy, here we go again. Soiling science by politicizing it. All the while the dumb ass is politicizing it, and never, never refering to science.

....

Well, perhaps you should address your whine to the OP as the OP cites some economist in a scientific matter.

..... Here is some real science. From the American Institute of Physics, a Scientific Society composed of Scientific Societies.

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

You posted about the greenhouse effect. Uh huh. Um, good for you. It's funny that you seem to believe I am arguing that there is no greenhouse effect. And, that that provides some sort of evidence that any warming is caused by man.

Perhaps you should concentrate on reading skills before trying to take on science. Just a suggestion.

.... From the American Geophysical Union;

AGU revises position on climate change

....

Science is not done by consensus. At some point I would have bet that you knew that, but now I wouldn't take that bet. You actually believe it.

Very sad.

 

[Si modo]

As a long time cyclist, there is no need for someone to tell me the climate is changing. I know that.

If a scientist says so, then it is true, so according to some of the replies. They do.

....

You cycling anecdote aside (so scientific, ), and plenty of scientists say there is no evidence that any global warming is due to man's influence.

Stalemate.

Interesting you say that. Because of the flaw of conclusions based on consensus, many did believe that the Earth was flat. Thus, any conclusion based on some sort of imagined consensus is a flaw - nothing but a belief. Conclusions based on data and observations is how science is done, among other things that you clearly haven't grasped.

....If someone wants to believe or deny something, no argument, no matter how complete will convince them. Consider conspiracy thinkers.

As far as a demonstration that is below.


"We challenged two leading British scientists to try to prove the science of global warming to a group of people whose views very loosely reflect national opinions.

And, as if that wasn't tough enough we asked them to do it in my kitchen.

Can they do it? Well, you can see for yourself."

BBC - Ethical Man blog: In praise of scepticism

IPCC - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

The IPCC is a policy group. Policy and science are not the same thing, nor are activism and science. Now you know.

Now we know that Si is a bullshitter. But we knew that already.

Hey Si, name one Scientific Society that states AGW in not a fact. How about one National Academy of Science? Even that of Outer Slobovia. How about a major University?

Your whole schtick is based on your political views, with zero referance to real science. From glacier to icecaps, from biological cycles to ocean acidity, we are seeing far more results from the warming that we already have than was predicted by the alarmists.

In 2010 and 2011, we saw repeaded extreme weather events all over the world. Here in the US with the most effective tornado and weather system in the world, we still had over one thousand people killed by tornados last year.

Now, in 2012, we are seeing the same pattern. Very cold in some places, a very warm winter in others. Major floods and continueing droubts. All taking a toll on agriculture and infrastructure. We are no longer in a phase of prevention, far too late for that, now we have to deal with consequences.

[Emphasis added]

There you go again, asking that a negative be proven.

So, simply for educational purposes, nothing personal, here is an example of such idiocy: You are a moron. Unless you prove that you are not a moron, you are a moron.

Regardless of that, when the state of the science supports no conclusion about the significance and magnitude of man's effect on any warming, it would be hard to find any scientific organization making such a conclusion. (I'm sure you have found one, and it's funny that a more than significant number of scientists, including Nobel laureates, protest such a statement because any conclusion is foolhardy - the science is not there.)

And, you know all this. All this has been shown to you. You keep posting the same, and we - the scientists - keep correcting you. Is your dishonesty at work or is it your stupidity? Or something else? Paid to spam?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

While some people cling to partisan or ideology driven beliefs, others consider the consequences of sailing to ends of the earth and finding it round and not flat. Discovery opens up a new chapter in human existence.

William D. Nordhaus

"Yale economist rebuts sceptics' arguments, point by point. The earth is getting warmer. Due to carbon dioxide pollution. Humans are responsible. The science is legitimate. It's a bad situation. It's worth taking action."

Why the Global Warming Skeptics Are Wrong by William D. Nordhaus | The New York Review of Books

Can you produce a single laboratory experiment that demonstrates how a even an instantaneous .01% change, much less one that happens over 150 years as you allege produces ANY of the results you allege?

Can you produce a single laboratory experiment, or even a coherent explanation, that demonstrates how CO2 is simultaneously leaving the ocean in a "Feedback loop" and increasing in the ocean turning them "Acidic" because the two concepts are mutually exclusive

these are almost irrelevant and highly stupid fucking questions that don't deserve answer, because the presumption here is that if an answer can't be produced, or a lab result shown, then AGW is false... well, that isn't true. A lab result has no absolute bearing on a reality that is so much bigger, and can not be produced in a small lab. We are talking about an organism as incredibly complex as Earth, and its weather system, which is too complex to model in a lab, yet dumbass are asserting that because it is still cold in certain places, AGW must be false... that is just base level idiocy. Either we are, or are not producing this global warming. We don't get to choose, and just because there is the possibility that some are making money off the possibility of this happening, or that some are using fear to get people concerned, doesn't change the objective reality. Godamn it you AGW deniers piss me off. You are as bad as creationists. AGW is real, and our children are going to pay for your fucking arrogance.

LOL

Whatever, Miss Cleo.

AGW as "Science" is slightly above phrenology and and below astrology

 

[MaryL]

I am well over fifty, and have seen the climate change in the last twenty years . To quote Bob Dylan, I don't need the weatherman to tell me which way the wind blows...I notice that the skeptics ( of
global warming) are mostly the youthful folks that seem to only have concern for preserving their financial or political lifestyles. They have no real window of reference here other than their biases and their own limited life experiences.

 

[Si modo]

I am well over fifty, and have seen the climate change in the last twenty years . To quote Bob Dylan, I don't need the weatherman to tell me which way the wind blows...I notice that the skeptics ( of
global warming) are mostly the youthful folks that seem to only have concern for preserving their financial or political lifestyles. They have no real window of reference here other than their biases and their own limited life experiences.

The 'damn whippersnapper' argument. I've not seen that one before. Novel, though, I guess.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

As a long time cyclist, there is no need for someone to tell me the climate is changing. I know that.

Good for you.

If a scientist says so, then it is true, so according to some of the replies. They do.

There are also scientists who say it isn't. Since they cannot both be right, I guess your simplistic position must be wrong.

If you wanted to prove the earth was round to a primitive would you two walk around the earth. Would that prove it.

I love it when people spout this nonsense. Anyone that has ever been on the ocean knows the world is round, only landlubbers who never got close to a boat think the Earth is flat. Watching a boat sail out to sea, and seeing the hull disappear before the mast, knows the Earth is far from flat. If sailors wrote history books there would be a lot fewer idiots like you that believe that think people in the past were stupid.

If someone wants to believe or deny something, no argument, no matter how complete will convince them. Consider conspiracy thinkers.

That certainly does explain the people who think that no one knew the Earth was wrong before Columbus.

As far as a demonstration that is below.


"We challenged two leading British scientists to try to prove the science of global warming to a group of people whose views very loosely reflect national opinions.

And, as if that wasn't tough enough we asked them to do it in my kitchen.

Can they do it? Well, you can see for yourself."

BBC - Ethical Man blog: In praise of scepticism

IPCC - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

Did those experiments explain why there is less water vapor in the atmosphere than models predict?

In other words, the question is not "Is climate changing?" it is "How accurate are the predictions and models, and how much impact is that change going to have?"

 

[Quantum Windbag]

And nobody has said that it would. What has been pointed out is that in a world with 7 billion people and undependable weather, agriculture will be affected in an undesirable manner. And there will be starvation. In the last two years we have seen major damage to crops in various nations due to extreme weather events. By the figures of the world's two biggest re-insurance companies, Swiss Re, and Munich Re, the costs of extreme weather events has increased by a factor of five from 1970 to today.

Really?

Nobody is predicting mass famine, floods and death on a biblical scale?

Rapid global warming will create famine and drought, Lovelock warns - Climate Change - Environment - The Independent

env056 Global warming to produce famine and poverty in Africa

Michael Mann's counterstrike in the climate wars - latimes.com

Global warming causes 300,000 deaths a year, says Kofi Annan thinktank | Environment | guardian.co.uk

And is that increase in insurance claims merely a result of more people buying insurance?

I'm sure that a significantly higher number of people are buying insurance today than in 1970

You're one of the biggest alarmists on this board and yet you say no one is predicting epic disaster.

Here's a little news flash.

If the earth is a couple degrees warmer nothing will happen.

Skull, I will remind you of those words repeatedly in the coming years.

You plan on living another century or two?

 

[Old Rocks]

At least another 30, just to annoy people like you

 

[Old Rocks]

By the way, Q, the human race survived Toba and the Black Plague. Enough of us will survive the coming times to carry on civilization and the specie. However, life may be a bit challenging.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

By the way, Q, the human race survived Toba and the Black Plague. Enough of us will survive the coming times to carry on civilization and the specie. However, life may be a bit challenging.

In other words, there is no reason to worry, Glad you agree with me.

 

[katzeundratze00]

While some people cling to partisan or ideology driven beliefs, others consider the consequences of sailing to ends of the earth and finding it round and not flat. Discovery opens up a new chapter in human existence.

William D. Nordhaus

"Yale economist rebuts sceptics' arguments, point by point. The earth is getting warmer. Due to carbon dioxide pollution. Humans are responsible. The science is legitimate. It's a bad situation. It's worth taking action."

Why the Global Warming Skeptics Are Wrong by William D. Nordhaus | The New York Review of Books

Can you produce a single laboratory experiment that demonstrates how a even an instantaneous .01% change, much less one that happens over 150 years as you allege produces ANY of the results you allege?

Can you produce a single laboratory experiment, or even a coherent explanation, that demonstrates how CO2 is simultaneously leaving the ocean in a "Feedback loop" and increasing in the ocean turning them "Acidic" because the two concepts are mutually exclusive

Und der Katze sagt:

You are aware, are you not, that the polar ice is melting?

 

[konradv]

By the way, Q, the human race survived Toba and the Black Plague. Enough of us will survive the coming times to carry on civilization and the specie. However, life may be a bit challenging.

In other words, there is no reason to worry, Glad you agree with me.

The Black Death wasn't something to worry about, even if you were one of the ones that survived? Typical CON "I got mine" philosophy. I thought it was lierals that didn't care if we went back to the Stone Age!

 

[Quantum Windbag]

By the way, Q, the human race survived Toba and the Black Plague. Enough of us will survive the coming times to carry on civilization and the specie. However, life may be a bit challenging.

In other words, there is no reason to worry, Glad you agree with me.

The Black Death wasn't something to worry about, even if you were one of the ones that survived? Typical CON "I got mine" philosophy. I thought it was lierals that didn't care if we went back to the Stone Age!

I actually support the government in its efforts to eradicate deadly disease. I also oppose them working to ban the more effective, less expensive, pesticides so that companies can manufacture less effective, more expensive, ones at a profit.

 

[code1211]

While some people cling to partisan or ideology driven beliefs, others consider the consequences of sailing to ends of the earth and finding it round and not flat. Discovery opens up a new chapter in human existence.

William D. Nordhaus

"Yale economist rebuts sceptics' arguments, point by point. The earth is getting warmer. Due to carbon dioxide pollution. Humans are responsible. The science is legitimate. It's a bad situation. It's worth taking action."

Why the Global Warming Skeptics Are Wrong by William D. Nordhaus | The New York Review of Books

There is only one point that actually deals with the science and that point sets up a very narrowly defined straw man and attacks it.

If you want to prove your case on this, you need to prove the that the AGW crowd can accurately predict the effects of the CO2 that they say are so dangerous.

They never have and I assume they cannot. If you assert that they can, prove it.

They need to prove that absent the added CO2, the warming would not and could not occur.

They never have proved this and I assume they cannot. If you assert they can, prove it.

They imply that the warming trend currently under way is caused by the effects of CO2 beginning in the Industrial Revolution and increasing since then. The warming trend we currently enjoy started when the cooling of the Little Ice Age stopped and the warming from those depths started. That was before 1600 ad.

Your case and theirs depends on proving that the increase in CO2 resultant from the widespread use of the Steam Engine after 1800 caused the warming to start in 1600, 200 years before.

They have never proved this and I assume they cannot. If you assert they can, prove it.

They need to prove that the increase in CO2 is causing unnaturally high temperatures and yet we know that we are cooler than we were 8000 years ago in this interglacial.

They have never proved this and i assume they cannot. If you assert they can, prove it.

 

[code1211]

And nobody has said that it would. What has been pointed out is that in a world with 7 billion people and undependable weather, agriculture will be affected in an undesirable manner. And there will be starvation. In the last two years we have seen major damage to crops in various nations due to extreme weather events. By the figures of the world's two biggest re-insurance companies, Swiss Re, and Munich Re, the costs of extreme weather events has increased by a factor of five from 1970 to today.

That ringing sound you hear is reality trying to get you on the phone.

During the Little Ice Age, our climate was cooler and closer to the ideal you desire.

There was famine, plague, crop failure and nearly universal misery. Iknow, I know. A liberal's Utopian dream. Still, I prefer a full stomach and chance at happiness.

Warm weather is good. Cold weather is bad.

I've lived in 5 states. In every one of them, the comments from the locals about the weather was that it was unpredictable. What makes you think that we can depend on the weather? The Spanish Armada had a little problem with this. The dust bowl was a little problem.

History is filled with stories of disasters that occurred when the anticipated weather did not occur.

If you think that weather is dependable, you are thinking wrong.

 

[code1211]

While some people cling to partisan or ideology driven beliefs, others consider the consequences of sailing to ends of the earth and finding it round and not flat. Discovery opens up a new chapter in human existence.

William D. Nordhaus

"Yale economist rebuts sceptics' arguments, point by point. The earth is getting warmer. Due to carbon dioxide pollution. Humans are responsible. The science is legitimate. It's a bad situation. It's worth taking action."

Why the Global Warming Skeptics Are Wrong by William D. Nordhaus | The New York Review of Books

Can you produce a single laboratory experiment that demonstrates how a even an instantaneous .01% change, much less one that happens over 150 years as you allege produces ANY of the results you allege?

Can you produce a single laboratory experiment, or even a coherent explanation, that demonstrates how CO2 is simultaneously leaving the ocean in a "Feedback loop" and increasing in the ocean turning them "Acidic" because the two concepts are mutually exclusive

these are almost irrelevant and highly stupid fucking questions that don't deserve answer, because the presumption here is that if an answer can't be produced, or a lab result shown, then AGW is false... well, that isn't true. A lab result has no absolute bearing on a reality that is so much bigger, and can not be produced in a small lab. We are talking about an organism as incredibly complex as Earth, and its weather system, which is too complex to model in a lab, yet dumbass are asserting that because it is still cold in certain places, AGW must be false... that is just base level idiocy. Either we are, or are not producing this global warming. We don't get to choose, and just because there is the possibility that some are making money off the possibility of this happening, or that some are using fear to get people concerned, doesn't change the objective reality. Godamn it you AGW deniers piss me off. You are as bad as creationists. AGW is real, and our children are going to pay for your fucking arrogance.

If we are producing it, then prove it. You can't.

A good place to start is this:

The AGW crowd claims that the production of CO2 starting in the Industrial Revolution and continuing through now is the cause of the warming that we currently enjoy.

However, the warming that we currently enjoy started in about 1600 when the cooling of the Little Ice Age ended. 1600 was the bottom of the graphed V of the Little Ice Age temperatures even though that period continued for a while while the warming gathered strength.

About 200 years later, the widespread use of the Steam engine started and with it the Industrial Revolution. It is your assignment to prove that the additional CO2 emissions of 1800 ad caused the warming that started in 1600 ad.

You are free to proceed.

You might also want to address why we re cooler today than we were 8000 years and why we are only 0.7 degrees warmer today than we were 2000 years ago.

For 10,000 years, our climate has moved up and down and today we are dead center in the middle of that range.

If ignorance is the justification for action, then, by all means, describe the actions that we need to take. All actions are justified by this standard.