A question for the AGW evangelists

[manifold]

If it turns out that there really is no hard evidence to support the A in AGW, wouldn't you want to know?

I ask this because it seems to me that the AGW evangelists here have completely shut their minds off to even the slightest possibility that the A remains purely speculative and categorically dismiss every shred of information that challenges their previously reached conclusion. Particularly odd to me is these same posters seem to keep a fairly open mind on other issues. So why do they keep their minds locked shut on this issue when lord knows, there is some pretty damn good reasons surfacing to open it back up.

 

[Oddball]

Your premise sells evangelicals short.

At least good faithful Christian fundies dropped the Bakkers and Jimmy Swaggert like hot potatoes, when it was discovered that they were frauds.

 

[manifold]

Your premise sells evangelicals short.

At least good faithful Christian fundies dropped the Bakkers and Jimmy Swaggert like hot potatoes, when it was discovered that they were frauds.

Perhaps I should have said prophets of doom instead of evangelists.

 

[hjmick]

Your premise sells evangelicals short.

At least good faithful Christian fundies dropped the Bakkers and Jimmy Swaggert like hot potatoes, when it was discovered that they were frauds.

Perhaps I should have said prophets of doom instead of evangelists.

More like "Profiteers of Doom."

 

[Oddball]

IlovemyworkhereattheCRU.

 

[rdean]

Your premise sells evangelicals short.

At least good faithful Christian fundies dropped the Bakkers and Jimmy Swaggert like hot potatoes, when it was discovered that they were frauds.

When it was "discovered"? Sheesh, I coulda told them that. Not everything takes a rocket scientist. Oh wait, they don't "believe" in science. Sorry, I forgot.

 

[uscitizen]

Your premise sells evangelicals short.

At least good faithful Christian fundies dropped the Bakkers and Jimmy Swaggert like hot potatoes, when it was discovered that they were frauds.

some, swaggert is still out there preaching and getting fools money.
The church of Swaggert and Baker is also the chruch of Sarah Palin.

 

[Oddball]

Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah....

Is there an analog to Godwin's law for Sarah Palin?

 

[hjmick]

IlovemyworkhereattheCRU.

Judging by the lighting, that looks like a shot from an episode of Star Trek, TOS. Though I can't put my finger on which one...

 

[Oddball]

Dagger of the Mind

Star Trek Sickbay - TOS - Menu - Frame

 

[Charles Stucker]

If it turns out that there really is no hard evidence to support the A in AGW, wouldn't you want to know?

Evidence is hard to get about the A, but I really feel that if we could isolate man made causes we would see an effect. Perhaps a whole degree in the centuries that people have been burning coal and oil.
Oh what the heck I'll go out on a limb and speculate that it could go as high as two whole degrees Fahrenheit.

But gobal climate collapse, ecological disaster?
That science is as bad as Al Gore's poetry (which someone has graciously posted in teh Writing section - if you really have to read it)
And trust me, the poetry is awful.

 

[rdean]

If it turns out that there really is no hard evidence to support the A in AGW, wouldn't you want to know?

Evidence is hard to get about the A, but I really feel that if we could isolate man made causes we would see an effect. Perhaps a whole degree in the centuries that people have been burning coal and oil.
Oh what the heck I'll go out on a limb and speculate that it could go as high as two whole degrees Fahrenheit.

But gobal climate collapse, ecological disaster?
That science is as bad as Al Gore's poetry (which someone has graciously posted in teh Writing section - if you really have to read it)
And trust me, the poetry is awful.

I'm sure pumping billions and billions of tons of crap into the atmosphere has no effect. It doesn't make any sense that it would. Besides, what's a few polar ice caps?

 

[manifold]

That science is as bad as Al Gore's poetry (which someone has graciously posted in teh Writing section - if you really have to read it)
And trust me, the poetry is awful.

Is it as bad as Vogon poetry?

 

[manifold]

BBC - Cult - Hitchhiker's - Vogon Poetry Generator

 

[Charles Stucker]

That science is as bad as Al Gore's poetry (which someone has graciously posted in teh Writing section - if you really have to read it)
And trust me, the poetry is awful.

Is it as bad as Vogon poetry?

I can stand Vogon poetry.
As long as I have a towel.

 

[Old Rocks]

A 40% increase in CO2 and a 250% increase in CH4 is hardly minor.

And the effects are being observed at present. The melting of both the Greenland and the Anarctic ice caps, the retreat of the continental glaciers worldwide, and the emission of the CO2 and CH4 from Siberian yedoma and peatbogs, as well as the emissions from the peatbogs of North America.

The climate for agriculture is getting more difficult to predict, with drought and unseasonal heavy rainfalls more common. The ocean is warmer than it has ever been in recorded history, and the rise is riding the upper boundry of the predictons of the IPCC from 2006.

The melt of the North Polar Ice is far below the lower boundry predicted by the IPCC. In fact, it looks much like a catastrophe curve.

 

[Oddball]

40% of .03% = ?

 

[Diuretic]

If it turns out that there really is no hard evidence to support the A in AGW, wouldn't you want to know?

I ask this because it seems to me that the AGW evangelists here have completely shut their minds off to even the slightest possibility that the A remains purely speculative and categorically dismiss every shred of information that challenges their previously reached conclusion. Particularly odd to me is these same posters seem to keep a fairly open mind on other issues. So why do they keep their minds locked shut on this issue when lord knows, there is some pretty damn good reasons surfacing to open it back up.

For the purposes of a response I'll assume tht "evangelist" equates to "I think there might be something in the evidence that's persuasive".

Is global warming happening? Yes.
Is it caused by human activity? Perhaps, partially, yes it is.
Should we do something about it if it's caused by human activity? You betcha!
Should we be open to evidence - evidence - that global warming is a natural phenomenon. Yes.
In that case should we be trying to do something about the effect of natural global warming? Yes.
Would lessening the amount of carbon we voluntarily put into the atmosphere help a bit?
I think so.
So should we do something about lessening our carbon input? Yes, remember, every little bit helps!

 

[ScreamingEagle]

A 40% increase in CO2 and a 250% increase in CH4 is hardly minor.

And the effects are being observed at present. The melting of both the Greenland and the Anarctic ice caps, the retreat of the continental glaciers worldwide, and the emission of the CO2 and CH4 from Siberian yedoma and peatbogs, as well as the emissions from the peatbogs of North America.

The climate for agriculture is getting more difficult to predict, with drought and unseasonal heavy rainfalls more common. The ocean is warmer than it has ever been in recorded history, and the rise is riding the upper boundry of the predictons of the IPCC from 2006.

The melt of the North Polar Ice is far below the lower boundry predicted by the IPCC. In fact, it looks much like a catastrophe curve.

Antarctic ice is growing, not melting away

ICE is expanding in much of Antarctica, contrary to the widespread public belief that global warming is melting the continental ice cap.
...
Dr Allison said there was not any evidence of significant change in the mass of ice shelves in east Antarctica nor any indication that its ice cap was melting. "The only significant calvings in Antarctica have been in the west," he said. And he cautioned that calvings of the magnitude seen recently in west Antarctica might not be unusual.

"Ice shelves in general have episodic carvings and there can be large icebergs breaking off - I'm talking 100km or 200km long - every 10 or 20 or 50 years."

Ice core drilling in the fast ice off Australia's Davis Station in East Antarctica by the Antarctic Climate and Ecosystems Co-Operative Research Centre shows that last year, the ice had a maximum thickness of 1.89m, its densest in 10 years. The average thickness of the ice at Davis since the 1950s is 1.67m.

Antarctic ice is growing, not melting away

 

[manifold]

If it turns out that there really is no hard evidence to support the A in AGW, wouldn't you want to know?

I ask this because it seems to me that the AGW evangelists here have completely shut their minds off to even the slightest possibility that the A remains purely speculative and categorically dismiss every shred of information that challenges their previously reached conclusion. Particularly odd to me is these same posters seem to keep a fairly open mind on other issues. So why do they keep their minds locked shut on this issue when lord knows, there is some pretty damn good reasons surfacing to open it back up.

For the purposes of a response I'll assume tht "evangelist" equates to "I think there might be something in the evidence that's persuasive".

Is global warming happening? Yes.
Is it caused by human activity? Perhaps, partially, yes it is.
Should we do something about it if it's caused by human activity? You betcha!
Should we be open to evidence - evidence - that global warming is a natural phenomenon. Yes.
In that case should we be trying to do something about the effect of natural global warming? Yes.
Would lessening the amount of carbon we voluntarily put into the atmosphere help a bit?
I think so.
So should we do something about lessening our carbon input? Yes, remember, every little bit helps!

I agree in principle, but all that comes at a cost. I'm just not one of those whatever the cost we have to do it sort of rabid evangelists. I'm not convinced that the dangers are sufficient to warrant the cost of what many want to do.