Climate skeptics hold scientific review, unexpectedly find global warming is real

[Tom]

Of course...when I said human beings I meant 'all' human beings. It's curious though that you feel compelled to ask the question as if you're making some kind of profound point.

No more profound than your point. Which I guess is that we can't trust anything anyone says, which applies to both sides of every question, which means your post doesn't mean anything because we can't trust it ?

Or do you trust things you're disposed to believe in, and call into question the motivations of anyone who says something you don't want to be true ?

What kind of critical thinking would you call that ?

 

[chucky2]

Critical?

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

No more profound than your point. Which I guess is that we can't trust anything anyone says, which applies to both sides of every question, which means your post doesn't mean anything because we can't trust it ?

Or do you trust things you're disposed to believe in, and call into question the motivations of anyone who says something you don't want to be true ?

What kind of critical thinking would you call that ?

The motivations of human beings need to be taken into account when evaluating their "message". It's a legitmate variable (among many) that needs to be evaluated as part of the critical thinking process...no?

If I may ask...what's your true motivation here?

 

[Tom]

The motivations of human beings need to be taken into account when evaluating their "message". It's a legitmate variable (among many) that needs to be evaluated as part of the critical thinking process...no?

If I may ask...what's your true motivation here?

Overall ? Or my posts with you ?

Overall, I don't remember what I've posted, but in general I'm an optimist who uses what I consider my common sense, accumulated knowledge, and giving the benefit of the doubt, when it's prudent, to comment in favor of, or to dispute claims I disagree with, when I feel like it.

I like science, I love the world, I like to see progress. I like to see people have a chance. I believe progress can come from anywhere.

I didn't mean anytihng too much in my post to you. I'm not a fan of cynisicm, so i guess I wondered if you saw your posts that way ?

 

[ElFenix]

Again, who said there wasn't politics in science? Nice link by the way. The title page article: Election 2011: Liberals hide their agenda on Canada’s military. Got anything from WND I can read, I'd rather have an unbiased source.

that op-ed itself doesn't seem particularly biased.

 

[bfdd]

Grant money definitely corrupts and a politician with the fed on tap is much more influential than an oil company. It has happened before in different areas of science, what makes you guys think this shit is any different?

Again, I'm not saying climate change isn't happening. I'm saying we're idiots to think we're some how causing it when there's mountains and mountains of evidence proving the climate and the Earth in general have changed over time regardless of whatever it was anyone or anything was doing.

 

[jonks]

Again, I'm not saying climate change isn't happening. I'm saying we're idiots to think we're some how causing it when there's mountains and mountains of evidence proving the climate and the Earth in general have changed over time regardless of whatever it was anyone or anything was doing.

Even Krauthammer concedes "I'm a global warming agnostic who believes instinctively that it can't be very good to pump lots of CO2 into the atmosphere but is equally convinced that those who presume to know exactly where that leads are talking through their hats."

If we launched every nuclear weapon in the world we could blanket the earth in radiation and nuclear winter akin to the Matrix. Why is it so inconceivable to you that a century of heavy industrialization, billions of automobiles and planes burning fuel, massive deforestation, and the billions of tons of coal burning to generate electricity has absolutely no effect on the climate, and to think that it does makes one an idiot? Have your doubts on how to treat the problem, fine, but why deny not only what science has indicated to the point of consensus, but what your observations of human industrialization might lead you to conclude in its absence.

 

[werepossum]

Even Krauthammer concedes "I'm a global warming agnostic who believes instinctively that it can't be very good to pump lots of CO2 into the atmosphere but is equally convinced that those who presume to know exactly where that leads are talking through their hats."

If we launched every nuclear weapon in the world we could blanket the earth in radiation and nuclear winter akin to the Matrix. Why is it so inconceivable to you that a century of heavy industrialization, billions of automobiles and planes burning fuel, massive deforestation, and the billions of tons of coal burning to generate electricity has absolutely no effect on the climate, and to think that it does makes one an idiot? Have your doubts on how to treat the problem, fine, but why deny not only what science has indicated to the point of consensus, but what your observations of human industrialization might lead you to conclude in its absence.

Excellent Krauthammer quote, and I agree with him completely. I think the science on whether or not human activity significantly affects global temperatures is far from settled (to the degree that science can ever be settled) and the Earth has seen warmer periods within human history. But there are direct adverse effects of excess CO2, noticeably acidification of marine and aquatic environments, that argue persuasively for CO2 reduction, CO2 sequestering, and accelerated research and adoption of energy conservation and cleaner alternative energy production.

 

[monovillage]

Recent peer reviewed studies about sea level change rebut the scare mongering of global warming proponents.
http://www.jcronline.org/doi/abs/10.2112/JCOASTRES-D-10-00157.1

"Without sea-level acceleration, the 20th-century sea-level trend of 1.7 mm/y would produce a rise of only approximately 0.15 m from 2010 to 2100; therefore, sea-level acceleration is a critical component of projected sea-level rise."

OHHHHH a scary 6 inches or so of sea level rise by 2100!

 

[shira]

It is my position that the science is not settled.

I'm interpreting "not settled" to mean that there's no strong scientific consensus that all of the following are true:

(1) Significant climate change has occurred since the start of the industrial revolution and has been occurring at an accelerating rate into the present.
(2) Significant climate change is expected to occur for the foreseeable future, and this change will cause catastrophic damage.
(3) A significant portion of the observed and predicted climate change is attributable to the emission of CO2 caused by mankind's burning of fossil fuels.

Now, WHY is it "your position" that the above three statements are not all true? And if you want to cite a handful of studies supporting your position - and simultaneously IGNORE the far greater number of studies that undermine your position - then WHY are you selectively ignoring the preponderance of evidence?

 

[Matt1970]

Umm, why no mention of plants. An elevated level of CO2 would mean more food for plants. More food for plants = more oxygen.

 

[monovillage]

I'm interpreting "not settled" to mean that there's no strong scientific consensus that all of the following are true:

(1) Significant climate change has occurred since the start of the industrial revolution and has been occurring at an accelerating rate into the present.
(2) Significant climate change is expected to occur for the foreseeable future, and this change will cause catastrophic damage.
(3) A significant portion of the observed and predicted climate change is attributable to the emission of CO2 caused by mankind's burning of fossil fuels.

Now, WHY is it "your position" that the above three statements are not all true? And if you want to cite a handful of studies supporting your position - and simultaneously IGNORE the far greater number of studies that undermine your position - then WHY are you selectively ignoring the preponderance of evidence?

What studies ? Can you present a few studies that show the "catastrophic damage" caused by climate change since the industrial revolution ? You make no mention of the CO2 released by anthropogenic land use, do you think we should stop farming and end other agricultural uses to control our CO2?

 

[Matt1970]

I thought cows were the most damaging thing to the atmosphere ?????

 

[Darwin333]

I'm interpreting "not settled" to mean that there's no strong scientific consensus that all of the following are true:

(1) Significant climate change has occurred since the start of the industrial revolution and has been occurring at an accelerating rate into the present.
(2) Significant climate change is expected to occur for the foreseeable future, and this change will cause catastrophic damage.
(3) A significant portion of the observed and predicted climate change is attributable to the emission of CO2 caused by mankind's burning of fossil fuels.

Now, WHY is it "your position" that the above three statements are not all true? And if you want to cite a handful of studies supporting your position - and simultaneously IGNORE the far greater number of studies that undermine your position - then WHY are you selectively ignoring the preponderance of evidence?

(4) Short of killing them it is extremely unlikely you will convince the billions of people living in mud huts and shitting in holes they dug themselves to not increase their carbon footprint in order to better their lives. The world, at least in the here and now, simply can not afford or is unwilling to implement (as in lobbing a few hundred nukes) a true solution regardless of how bad the problem may be.

 

[DrPizza]

Jenny McCarthy is not a scientist, my point was that scientists are fucking shit up all the time for the sake of money. They cannot do research and do all the scientisty stuff they want to do without money. Not all, but some will falter and it has been proven to happen time and time again. Or do you not remember every single one of you guys yelling "OMG BUT THAT WAS PAID FOR BY THE OIL COMPANIES!!!" you don't think the other side has dollar signs in their eyes either? Please... I'm not saying ALL of it is like that, I'm saying you're fucking ignorant or a liar if you don't think scientists will cook results for money.

To borrow a phrase - "fucking ignorant" - that phrase works great for people who think that the vast majority of scientists would cook results for money. Not that it doesn't happen on occasion - it does. And, when it's discovered, their careers are destroyed in an instant. And, a nice thing about science - experiments are often repeated by others, *especially* when the others are skeptical about the results. i.e. cold fusion, vaccines causing autism, and a plethora of other examples. What happened to the doctor who faked his research to show that vaccines cause autism? Oh, that's right, he lost his license.

A agree - there's no shortage of scientists who will research particular areas of other people's interests - if it'll make money for those scientists. However, that doesn't necessarily mean that those scientists are going to ignore their data, "cook their data," or otherwise come to a conclusion unsupported by their data.

Here's an example: do cell phones cause cancer. There's no fucking way that cell phones can cause cancer. Albert Einstein figured out the science behind this in 19(05?) and won the Nobel prize in physics in 1921 for his efforts in that research. The vast majority of physicists laugh at the suggestion that cell phones cause cancer. But, it hasn't stopped researchers happily accepting a lot of money to continue researching it, despite study after study finding zero correlation.

 

[shira]

(4) Short of killing them it is extremely unlikely you will convince the billions of people living in mud huts and shitting in holes they dug themselves to not increase their carbon footprint in order to better their lives. The world, at least in the here and now, simply can not afford or is unwilling to implement (as in lobbing a few hundred nukes) a true solution regardless of how bad the problem may be.

But (4) isn't an argument against MMCC. It's merely a statement that many people are unwilling to voluntarily do anything about MMCC. In effect, you're arguing that the reason we shouldn't do anything to mitigate MMCC is that lots of people are unwilling to do anything to mitigate MMCC. They just want to pretend MMCC is not really a problem and hope it will magically go away.

This same attitude is why Democrats and Republicans try to score political points and play games of brinkmanship over whether we should cut $30 billion or $60 billion from the discretionary budget. ANYONE who understands the nature of the financial doomsday facing the U.S. realizes that the current fight is completely irrelevant to our financial future. Unfortunately, the American people don't want to hear that the real problem is dealing with the Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid.

 

[shira]

What studies ? Can you present a few studies that show the "catastrophic damage" caused by climate change since the industrial revolution ? You make no mention of the CO2 released by anthropogenic land use, do you think we should stop farming and end other agricultural uses to control our CO2?

What studies? Well, gee, about 30 seconds of google searching turned up this list of over 350:

http://mothincarnate.wordpress.com/...gw-theory-and-relevant-environmental-concern/

So the score is now 350 to 5. I'll bet the actual score is something like 5,000 to 200.

Let me guess: You haven't changed you mind. You're still a MMCC denier. You side with the 5, not the 350.

My question is: Why?

 

[Jaskalas]

I'm interpreting "not settled" to mean that there's no strong scientific consensus that all of the following are true:

(1) Significant climate change has occurred since the start of the industrial revolution and has been occurring at an accelerating rate into the present.
(2) Significant climate change is expected to occur for the foreseeable future, and this change will cause catastrophic damage.
(3) A significant portion of the observed and predicted climate change is attributable to the emission of CO2 caused by mankind's burning of fossil fuels.

Now, WHY is it "your position" that the above three statements are not all true?

Already posted that.

Just one of many reasons, besides the fact that it has not warmed in 12 years and over that time period it has began to recede. This decade will be quite telling.

The long list of contradictory climate science should be self explanatory. They have no clue on what is occurring. Faith decrees that you think they do. I appreciate that the failures of the AGW theory will not move you. Maybe the bitter cold and high energy prices will. Look for this the next time the ESNO turns positive.

 

[WHAMPOM]

I thought cows were the most damaging thing to the atmosphere ?????

Green house gasses in order by effective strenght, water vapor, methane, CO2. Green house gasses by their effect in Earth's atmosphere, water vapor(up and out in five to seven days), CO2( accumulates in the atmosphere for fifty to two hundred years+), methane(fifty days).

 

[WHAMPOM]

Already posted that.

Just one of many reasons, besides the fact that it has not warmed in 12 years and over that time period it has began to recede. This decade will be quite telling.

The long list of contradictory climate science should be self explanatory. They have no clue on what is occurring. Faith decrees that you think they do. I appreciate that the failures of the AGW theory will not move you. Maybe the bitter cold and high energy prices will. Look for this the next time the ESNO turns positive.

The past twelve years include ten of the warmest on record.

 

[shira]

Already posted that.

Just one of many reasons, besides the fact that it has not warmed in 12 years and over that time period it has began to recede. This decade will be quite telling.

The long list of contradictory climate science should be self explanatory. They have no clue on what is occurring. Faith decrees that you think they do. I appreciate that the failures of the AGW theory will not move you. Maybe the bitter cold and high energy prices will. Look for this the next time the ESNO turns positive.

No, this is the same reason as before: You're cherry picking information that supports your pre-determined beliefs and and you're ignoring the overwhelming preponderance of information that supports MMCC.

You're insisting that a score of - say - 5000 papers "for" versus 200 paper "against" indicates a "contradiction," when in fact that's about as overwhelming a consensus as one can find in any field of science.

AGAIN, WHY ARE YOU DOING THIS?

 

[SparkyJJO]

OK I want everyone who believes in man-made global warming to stop driving cars. Stop using electricity. Stop flying in planes.

Do NOT tell the rest of everyone else to stop doing things when you yourselves won't stop.

 

[monovillage]

What studies? Well, gee, about 30 seconds of google searching turned up this list of over 350:

http://mothincarnate.wordpress.com/...gw-theory-and-relevant-environmental-concern/

So the score is now 350 to 5. I'll bet the actual score is something like 5,000 to 200.

Let me guess: You haven't changed you mind. You're still a MMCC denier. You side with the 5, not the 350.

My question is: Why?

I asked for one freaking paper to back up your claim of "catastrophic damage" caused by MMCC, just one so i could check it out. You gave me 350 studies like.

"Greenhouse crises of the past 300 million years" and what the hell does that have to do with CC caused by the industrial revolution ? or "Proxy-based reconstructions of hemispheric and global surface temperature variations over the past two millennia" and (i love this one) "A strong bout of natural cooling in 2008" You made the catastrophic damage claim, now show it with an adequate study. Thanks for some of those 350 studies that support my opinion btw.

 

[IGBT]

OK I want everyone who believes in man-made global warming to stop driving cars. Stop using electricity. Stop flying in planes.

Do NOT tell the rest of everyone else to stop doing things when you yourselves won't stop.

call their bluff. Give the eco-KOOKS everything they want. Shut down all electrical generation. Tear down all the dams no more internal combustion engines. No nat.gas. Can't make solar panels due to the collateral side effects of manufacturing. Just shut it all down. That's what they want. Read their book,"The Earth Without Us". They want the return of contagious disease like small pox. They want a over grown choked out global jungle to satisfy their psychotic anti human self hate. This is today's democrat party.

 

[peonyu]

I dont know many who are denying climate change. What they are denying is we have a significant enough contribution to that warrants draconian govt regulation and taxation.

Earth at Night. Almost all of the lights are powered by Coal power plants, which equals huge amounts of Co2 released every day. Factor in the cars, the airplanes, the barges/naval vessels, burning down forests in S.America and Africa...And you have even more Co2 being released, plus worse elements such as Carbon Monoxide released.

But its easier to say that Humans might not effect the planet much [lol]. Keep telling yourself that.