Climate Change: Hoax/Real? Depends on YOUR Source

[gnarlylove]

Many climate change skeptics and advocates believe each other's sources are wrong. With such an impasse, deniers point to the fact they "are winning the debate." But having the majority opinion does not make it correct. Many instances of bad science like Flat Earth and Geocentric ideas were widespread but undoubtedly false in hindsight. I'm not saying climate change skeptics are wrong per se, just that pointing to majority opinion is a non-argument riddled with fallacy and disease.

So what are the SOURCES REALLY telling us?

Climate Change Denial Books and Conservative Think Tanks: Exploring the Connection

Abstract
The conservative movement and especially its think tanks play a critical role in denying
the reality and significance of anthropogenic global warming (AGW), especially by
manufacturing uncertainty over climate science. Books denying AGW are a crucial
means of attacking climate science and scientists, and we examine the links between
conservative think tanks (CTTs) and 108 climate change denial books published
through 2010. We find a strong link, albeit noticeably weaker for the growing number
of self-published denial books. We also examine the national origins of the books and
the academic backgrounds of their authors or editors, finding that with the help of
American CTTs climate change denial has spread to several other nations and that
an increasing portion of denial books are produced by individuals with no scientific
training. It appears that at least 90% of denial books do not undergo peer review,
allowing authors or editors to recycle scientifically unfounded claims that are then
amplified by the conservative movement, media, and political elites.

Take this peer reviewed article along with:
Expert Opinion on Climate Change and Threats to Biodiversity

Climate experts (i.e., those with a high self-assessed level of knowledge and high number of publications) estimated, on average, that temperature will increase between 3.3°C and 3.5°C over the next 100 years. These estimates are conservative relative to the range of “likely” projected temperature change by the end of the century, according to the IPCC summary for policymakers (2.4°C–6.4°C; Bernstein et al. 2007)....

There was wide agreement that a large percentage of species will go extinct in response to the combined effects of climate change and other causes over the next 100 years, but those respondents with poor self-assessed knowledge of climate change or biotic responses to climate change estimated a mean of 17% and 16%, respectively, whereas those with excellent self-assessed knowledge estimated a mean of 23%. There was also wide agreement among the respondents that a large percentage of species would alter their geographic ranges because of climate change over the next 100 years, but those with poor self-assessed knowledge of climate change or biotic responses to climate change estimated a mean of 46% or 44%, respectively, whereas those with excellent self-assessed knowledge of climate change or biotic responses estimated a mean of 59% or 62% of species, respectively.

Conclusions:
Our survey of 2329 environmental biologists is, to our knowledge, the largest systematic survey of expert opinion about climate change and its impacts...The respondents at all levels of expertise offered fairly conservative estimates of future climate change...Still, the lower values revealed in this survey represent an alarmingly large change.

So in summary, with a overwhelming majority of peer reviewed Environmental Biologists expecting a 3.4C climate change over the next 100 years coupled with 90% skeptic material undergoing no rigorous peer review process, we can confidently say climate change skeptics and advocates live in separate worlds.

Skeptics live in the world were you can claim doubt as long as your don't get serious about your research and credibility. Remain at the surface for jabs and personal attacks, these stratagems are typically more satisfying and credible to the skeptic to begin with.

Advocates for climate change recognize the legitimacy of the majority of experts and dismiss skeptics sources because they lack peer-review credibility, among other reasons. Especially given media slant and a personal mission to isolate focus towards climate change denial can easily produce a rapidly growing tumor of ignorance. Fortunately for the skeptic it is not malignant. It's benign because climate change won't greatly affect the biota till they are dead and gone and inaction leads to them having no action. Their children and grandchildren remain in question but they themselves have NO NEED to seek peer-reviewed science that is laborious to read. Thus the Cato Institute among dozens of other highly funded POLICY institutes frame the debate in an easy to digest manner that focuses on money incentives and casting doubt--not peer review science. So since neither skeptic nor advocate can meet halfway, the last remaining question is:

What if climate change skeptics are wrong?

...if advocates are wrong, another century of petroleum summer....if skeptics are wrong, potentially the greatest risk to humanity's prosperity that has ever been dismissed.

 

[SSDD]

Science is by its very nature, skeptical. Consensus opinion smacks of politics and religion. The AGW hypothesis states that because so called greenhouse gases trap energy with the atmosphere, there will be a hot spot in the troposphere. It also says that as a result of that energy trapping property of so called greenhouse gasses, there will be less outgoing long wave energy at the top of the atmosphere. Then there were the claims of rapidly decreasing antarctic ice....an ice free arctic by 2012...islands being inundated by sea level rise as a result of the rapidly melting Antarctic ice...and according to the hypothesis, the more CO2 we pump into the atmosphere, the more and worse these things will be.

Observation tells us that none of these things have come to pass but what does the climate change community do? They tell us that every thing that happens is the result of AGW....AGW makes it warmer and cooler, it makes flooding and drought...it causes more less snow...it causes more less ice at the poles....it causes faster slower sea level change...and on and on.

Observation tells us that there is no tropospheric hot spot...the longwave radiation at the top of the atmosphere is increasing, sea level rise is slowing down, sea ice is at record levels, it has been more than 3000 days since a real hurricane has hit the US...the gulf stream is not slowing down as predicted and in fact, nothing that has been predicted by the AGW hypothesis has come to pass. Frankly, if I had ever believed in the hypothesis, at this point I would be embararassed to admit to it.

You tell me, in the face of observation after observation that flies in the face of the predictions made by the AGW hypothesis and a scientific community desperately claiming that everything is due to AGW, why are you not skeptical.....why would anyone who has a true interest in science not be skeptical?

 

[mamooth]

Observation tells us that none of these things have come to pass

Because they weren't predicted by mainstream science. You're just lying your ass off about that, and then deliberately ignoring the vast numbers of thing that did come to pass.

The only thing denialists are good at is lying and cherrypicking. It's why most decent people feel like spitting on the sidewalk as a denialist passes.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

The only thing denialists are good at is lying and cherrypicking.

When did you become a "denialist?"

 

[mamooth]

This is a kind of humorous paper, "Recursive fury: Conspiracist ideation in the blogosphere in response to research on conspiracist ideation". When papers showed denialists tended to fall for conspiracy theories of all types, denialists responded by ... declaring those papers were a conspiracy against them.

Frontiers | Recursive fury: Conspiracist ideation in the blogosphere in response to research on conspiracist ideation | Frontiers in Personality Science and Individual Differences

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Of course climate change is happening. It's been happening for 5 billion years. What isn't happening is a negative acceleration due to human activity. That is a lie that has been used to exert more government control over people's lives.

 

[gnarlylove]

So TAZ, you gotta check out deforestation.

It is totally man made. And time and time again shows us when you log too much and don't leave enough rooted forests and habitat to absorb water and release it properly, you get droughts and famine or floods and destruction.
see CROPS and DROPS. A really great case example is the Yangtze flooding in 97. Its cost for lost production in agriculture due to the flood and soil erosion was far greater than the profit from timber sales. Nor did the timber reflect the cost on the local economy, which would have doubled the price of timber if it reflected its costs.

The same logic applies: the more humans extract resources from the planet (and consume), faster than it can be renewed, we will run into shortages and problems. But as long as TAZ's wallet goes unaffected, everybody is in the clear.

The science is clear: we need to address this problem before it becomes an immense issue that will grind economies and add unnecessary suffering from famine and droughts. That's why I wanna know, what's your response if you are wrong and climate change is directly linked to human activity--and we do nothing to curb it. What is your plan B?

 

[HelenaHandbag]

So in summary, with a overwhelming majority of peer reviewed Environmental Biologists expecting a 3.4C climate change over the next 100 years coupled with 90% skeptic material undergoing no rigorous peer review process, we can confidently say climate change skeptics and advocates live in separate worlds.

Skeptics live in the world were you can claim doubt as long as your don't get serious about your research and credibility. Remain at the surface for jabs and personal attacks, these stratagems are typically more satisfying and credible to the skeptic to begin with.

Advocates for climate change recognize the legitimacy of the majority of experts and dismiss skeptics sources because they lack peer-review credibility, among other reasons. Especially given media slant and a personal mission to isolate focus towards climate change denial can easily produce a rapidly growing tumor of ignorance. Fortunately for the skeptic it is not malignant. It's benign because climate change won't greatly affect the biota till they are dead and gone and inaction leads to them having no action. Their children and grandchildren remain in question but they themselves have NO NEED to seek peer-reviewed science that is laborious to read. Thus the Cato Institute among dozens of other highly funded POLICY institutes frame the debate in an easy to digest manner that focuses on money incentives and casting doubt--not peer review science. So since neither skeptic nor advocate can meet halfway, the last remaining question is:

What if climate change skeptics are wrong?

...if advocates are wrong, another century of petroleum summer....if skeptics are wrong, potentially the greatest risk to humanity's prosperity that has ever been dismissed.

Pascal's Wager (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

 

[gnarlylove]

Before the skeptics admit climate change is mostly human activity, their beloved corporations will have to be on board. The modern Yahweh, Our Provider, the Corporations are waking up to this increasing threat from climate change....TO BUSINESS. That's where climate change's problems become too immense to say "WE SORRY. Luckily some corporations are waking up...

"Industry Awakens to Threat of Climate Change

Coke reflects a growing view among American business leaders and mainstream economists who see global warming as a force that contributes to lower gross domestic products, higher food and commodity costs, broken supply chains and increased financial risk. Their position is at striking odds with the longstanding argument, advanced by the coal industry and others, that policies to curb carbon emissions are more economically harmful than the impact of climate change.

...

In 2008, floods temporarily shut down four Nike factories in Thailand, and the company remains concerned about rising droughts in regions that produce cotton, which the company uses in its athletic clothes.

“That puts less cotton on the market, the price goes up, and you have market volatility,” said Hannah Jones, the company’s vice president for sustainability and innovation. Nike has already reported the impact of climate change on water supplies on its financial risk disclosure forms to the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Both Nike and Coke are responding internally: Coke uses water-conservation technologies and Nike is using more synthetic material that is less dependent on weather conditions. At Davos and in global capitals, the companies are also lobbying governments to enact environmentally friendly policies.

...

“There are a lot of really significant, monumental issues facing the global economy, but this supersedes all else,” Mr. Rubin said in an interview. “To make meaningful headway in the economics community and the business community, you’ve got to make it concrete.”

Sounds like the essential complaint by deniers of "it costs too much" is being challenged headlong. The energy market is not the only concern for climate change, its our whole global economic dependency that is being routinely affected by undeniable sources: resource extraction (whether timber, chemicals, or petroleum). Climate affects starts small but builds and is making its presence felt by major corporations who's main concern is also money.

Once the money argument erodes, so does denier's unity. This has yet to be too public, but as reports come, like "Risky Business" and "natural capital" is recongized, so will the denier's only valid argument.

 

[gnarlylove]

I noted elsewhere that this was not an argument for climate change per se. But is the only question left that can spark thoughtful debate. Otherwise, we are at an impasse of source A versus source Z.

 

[HelenaHandbag]

I noted elsewhere that this was not an argument for climate change per se. But is the only question left that can spark thoughtful debate. Otherwise, we are at an impasse of source A versus source Z.

Your question is the philosophical and logical fallacy known as Pascal's Wager.

All the text brick posts in the world won't change that.

 

[gnarlylove]

Again, I agree with you.

If I'm wrong, another 100 years of perfect petroleum summer. If you're wrong, the world's worst disaster ever recorded and will continue indefinitely. Don't take this as my definitive argument for why you should believe climate change. It is not an argument per se, just as Pascal's Wager is not an argument. I don't intend you to take away anything meaningful but on the off chance you care about your children, you might think about doing some more homework, just to be sure you right.

 

[HelenaHandbag]

Hiding behind children is the last refuge of people who really have no argument.

Give it up.

 

[SSDD]

Observation tells us that none of these things have come to pass

Because they weren't predicted by mainstream science. You're just lying your ass off about that, and then deliberately ignoring the vast numbers of thing that did come to pass.

Of course they were, and I am afraid it is you who is lying.

The tropospheric hot spot is predicted by all the major climate models.....which one(s) do you claim don't predict it? Here, predictions from the IPCC itself....you want to tell me the IPCC isn't mainstream climate science?

Less outgoing longwave at the ToA predicted by Burch & Gryvnak (1966), Miller & Watts (1984), Tubbs & Williams (1972), Rubens & Aschkinass (1898) and Ångström (1900), Predoi-Cross et al. (2007), Miller & Brown (2004), and here is a quote from your very own skeptical science:

So with more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, we expect to see less longwave radiation escaping to space at the wavelengths that carbon dioxide absorb.

So there is no doubt that mainstream climate science predicted less outgoing long wave at the top of the atmosphere...here, however, is what NOAA's satellites see:



And the predicted rapid melt of Antarctic ice....you have been denying that one for a long time but a look at the published material shows that it was indeed a prediction of main stream climate science.

Rapid Bottom Melting Widespread near Antarctic Ice Sheet Grounding Lines, Eric Rignot1,*, Stanley S. Jacobs2,* Science 14 June 2002: Vol. 296 no. 5575 pp. 2020-2023

Global warming and the stability of the West Antarctic Ice SheetMichael Oppenheimer1, Nature 393, 325-332 (28 May 1998)

Modelling West Antarctic ice sheet growth and collapse through the past five million years, David Pollard1 & Robert M. DeConto2, Nature 458, 329-332 (19 March 2009)

Warm ocean is eroding West Antarctic Ice Sheet, Andrew Shepherd1, Duncan Wingham2, Eric Rignot3, Geographical Research Letters, : 9 DEC 2004

Effect of climatic warming on the West Antarctic ice sheet, ROBERT H. THOMAS†, TIMOTHY J. O. SANDERSON*‡ & KEITH E. ROSE§, Nature 277, 355 - 358 ?

You want to tell me that Science, Nature, and Geographical Research Letters don't represent mainstream climate science? These are just the first few I came to....a google search of scholarly papers predicting rapid melt of the antarctic ice sheet yields hundreds of papers.

And do you seriously want to claim that mainstream climate science hasn't predicted rapid sea level rise? How big a liar are you exactly?

Just to prove my point, here are a few for your reading enjoyment.

Model projections of rapid sea-level rise on the northeast coast of the United States, Jianjun Yin1, Michael E. Schlesinger2 & Ronald J. Stouffer3, Nature Geoscience 2, 262 - 266

Rapid sea-level rise, Thomas M. Cronin, Quarternary Science Review

Rapid Sea-Level Rise Soon from West Antarctic Ice-Sheet Collapse?, Charles R. Bentley, Science 21 February 1997: Vol. 275 no. 5303 pp. 1077-1078

The only thing denialists are good at is lying and cherrypicking. It's why most decent people feel like spitting on the sidewalk as a denialist passes.[/QUOTE]

So now you are reduced to denying the very predictions the science you have so much faith in made. You are a sad sad example of what blind faith in bogus science creates.

 

[SSDD]

The only thing denialists are good at is lying and cherrypicking.

When did you become a "denialist?"

How about that, they have been reduced to denying the very predictions their "settled science" has been making over the years...as if all those predictions aren't easily found scattered like so much jetsam and flotsam across the internet.

 

[gnarlylove]

You keep arguing I am wrong but I keep saying I agree with you.

You were so impressed with your ability to connect the argument to Pascal's Wager you felt like you were really blowing me away. I'm merely noting I am 100% aware of this style of argument and agree you should never believe something based on this posh logic. The bit about children was part of the context of that post. I don't have children but the person I was talking about did.

So we agree on your first point that this is no reason to believe in climate change. Why do you not allow me to agree with you? Right. Your insistent need to be right, which is really a cripling factor in rational thought. Not being able to conceive of being wrong is a really strong example of some major hubris.
But I'd like to know what we are going to do if we neglect climate change now and it smacks us in the face a century from now? This is a situation that if real is a major threat to prosperity.

 

[SSDD]

So TAZ, you gotta check out deforestation.

It is totally man made. And time and time again shows us when you log too much and don't leave enough rooted forests and habitat to absorb water and release it properly, you get droughts and famine or floods and destruction.
see CROPS and DROPS. A really great case example is the Yangtze flooding in 97. Its cost for lost production in agriculture due to the flood and soil erosion was far greater than the profit from timber sales. Nor did the timber reflect the cost on the local economy, which would have doubled the price of timber if it reflected its costs.

The same logic applies: the more humans extract resources from the planet (and consume), faster than it can be renewed, we will run into shortages and problems. But as long as TAZ's wallet goes unaffected, everybody is in the clear.

The science is clear: we need to address this problem before it becomes an immense issue that will grind economies and add unnecessary suffering from famine and droughts. That's why I wanna know, what's your response if you are wrong and climate change is directly linked to human activity--and we do nothing to curb it. What is your plan B?

No one is arguing that mankind can't have an effect on the environment and climate. In fact. much of what climate science blames on CO2 is actually the result of changes in land use. There are a ton of legitimate environmental problems that need to have been seriously addressed a decade ago, but AGW based on bogus CO2 claims sucks all the air out of the room and the really important issues go unaddressed. The AGW hoax is about political power and money...there isn't nearly as much of either to be had in addressing the legitimate environmental issues we face.

 

[mamooth]

The tropospheric hot spot is predicted by all the major climate models.

And is observed. Try to stay up to date.

So there is no doubt that mainstream climate science predicted less outgoing long wave at the top of the atmosphere...

No, no, no. Totally wrong. Wow, did you ever botch it huge this time. Read it again.

So with more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, we expect to see less longwave radiation escaping to space at the wavelengths that carbon dioxide absorbs.

_Total_ longwave radiation is supposed to go _up_ as the atmosphere warms. Only longwave radiation in the greenhouse gas absorption bands is supposed to go down. Your chart shows total longwave going up, as AGW theory predicts. The science is right. You just failed hard at understanding what the science is.

And the predicted rapid melt of Antarctic ice

Observed. And so on.

You're giving us a list of AGW predictions that have been observed. Was it your goal to show how accurate the predictions of AGW science have been?

 

[gnarlylove]

Well, if this is regarding politics, both sides exaggerate for benefit. No doubt there. But only was side represents specious argument--the one that denies mankind needs to reevaluate how we approach production and consumption.

We demand so many pigs that their piss and waste alone is ruining certain local areas in Virgina (Smithfield) and NC among others. US hog farm pollution threatens human health and the environment - The Scavenger

In 1995, a 120,000-square-foot hog cesspool lagoon released over 25 million gallons of crap into the headwaters of North Carolina’s New River. It took months to reach the ocean and killed millions of fish and unknown numbers of water mammals unfortunate enough to be in the contaminated river.

In 1999 Hurricane Floyd caused so much flooding in Eastern North Carolina that it is estimated that well over 120 million gallons of hog waste made its way into the rivers, and out to the sea. It carried with it tens of thousands of drowned pigs, and killed unknown millions of fish.

Nitrate-nitrogen from the hog cesspools continues to leak into ground water. This is a major problem because the chemical causes methemoglobinemia, a disease that hampers the ability of the blood to absorb oxygen. It can be particularly lethal to infants who drink contaminated water.

 

[SSDD]

The tropospheric hot spot is predicted by all the major climate models.

And is observed. Try to stay up to date.

Sorry, but it isn't. There was an attempt to equate wind to a hot spot, but that was laughted out of existence quite quickly.

, no, no. Totally wrong. Wow, did you ever botch it huge this time. Read it again.

So you are denying all that peer reviewed science published in main stream journals that said there would be less outgoing LW radiation at the ToA? Interesting. And you have never said Abraham was wrong when he wrongly claimed less LW at the ToA.

longwave radiation is supposed to go _up_ as the atmosphere warms. Only longwave radiation in the greenhouse gas absorption bands is supposed to go down. Your chart shows total longwave going up, as AGW theory predicts. The science is right. You just failed hard at understanding what the science is.

That hasn't decreased either. Sorry that you are so terribly misinformed.

And the predicted rapid melt of Antarctic ice

Observed. And so on.

What is observed is record amounts of Antarctic ice...

giving us a list of AGW predictions that have been observed. Was it your goal to show how accurate the predictions of AGW science have been?

I am giving you all the failures of climate science and it warms my heart to see you denying them all.