The current decade is the warmest on record

[PingSpike]

Apparently they'd rather have another ice age. I'd rather be able to grow grapes in England (like during the MWP), than try to grow wheat or corn under a glacier.

The myth that the earth's climate is naturally static without human involvement is quite laughable.

Yeah, I don't really get it. Ok, we're causing it. Who cares? If I have to buy a less snow tires and heating oil then life is good. It'd also be nice if my gardening season was longer then 3 weeks.

 

[IceBergSLiM]

20 meter higher seas, dead polar bears, earthquakes, droughts, monsoons, volcanoes, oceans boiling, etc.

So global warming causes massive empty speculation?

 

[MrEgo]

There are skeptics and there are deniers. The skeptics rely on hard evidence to convince them either way, but the deniers are different.

Deniers will look at studies that suggest MMCC is real and immediately dismiss its validity for any given reason and not even stop to consider that it is indeed a possibility that humans are unnaturally changing the climate of Earth. These people are also willing to accept any anti-MMCC studies as gospel, even though said study provides just as much, or even less evidence than the opposition.

We have quite a few of both in this thread. Feel free to change "skeptics" and "deniers" with whatever words you see fit.

 

[MrEgo]

Yeah, I don't really get it. Ok, we're causing it. Who cares? If I have to buy a less snow tires and heating oil then life is good. It'd also be nice if my gardening season was longer then 3 weeks.

Keep in mind that not everyone lives where you do.

 

[Darwin333]

Its getting colder... its getting warmer... its getting colder.... now its getting warmer again.

Will someone make up their damn minds please. This back and forth crap is getting old.

 

[Darwin333]

There are skeptics and there are deniers. The skeptics rely on hard evidence to convince them either way, but the deniers are different.

Deniers will look at studies that suggest MMCC is real and immediately dismiss its validity for any given reason and not even stop to consider that it is indeed a possibility that humans are unnaturally changing the climate of Earth. These people are also willing to accept any anti-MMCC studies as gospel, even though said study provides just as much, or even less evidence than the opposition.

We have quite a few of both in this thread. Feel free to change "skeptics" and "deniers" with whatever words you see fit.

What I find even funnier is, I doubt anyone on this board has the required knowledge and ability to accurately and competently comprehend the science behind the studies that they are denying or accepting. That is why I am sorta in between on the entire global warming (or whatever the hell we are calling it this week) thing. When scientific debates turn political, as this one has, you literally get the best bullshit artists in the country trying to sell their side and I say fuck em both. There are issues that both sides readily agree on that we could be doing right now but hell no, they don't really want to get anything done, they just want to be "right".

 

[QuantumPion]

There are skeptics and there are deniers. The skeptics rely on hard evidence to convince them either way, but the deniers are different.

Deniers will look at studies that suggest MMCC is real and immediately dismiss its validity for any given reason and not even stop to consider that it is indeed a possibility that humans are unnaturally changing the climate of Earth. These people are also willing to accept any anti-MMCC studies as gospel, even though said study provides just as much, or even less evidence than the opposition.

You mean like how the AGW-supporters immediately deny and reject any study or publication suggesting there is no warming for reasons such as "they are paid for by the oil industry" or some such? And then go on to post a wall-of-text links to realclimate.org to rebutt? Gospel indeed.

 

[Moonbeam]

Hey, Moonbeam, we have had our go arounds on this issue a couple of months ago. You did a great job in posting a lot of references in support of your position.

Seriously, do you still have faith or are you re-examining?

I have faith in the scientific method. That means I go with what the scientific consensus is. That hasn't changed in the last few months.

What I see is the politicization of a matter that can only be settled by science, a blatant and brazen attempt to shift the matter away from scientific evidence onto a political agenda, a need to obfuscate scientific evidence with unconscious emotional needs and party identification. We see a mass movement of conservatives away from rational scientific debate into a form of emotional denial just as we have seen with everything in history, from the threat that the earth isn't the center of the universe and the persecution of Galileo, right on down to the cigarettes don't cause cancer decibel where millions die from denial and health costs go through the roof so some assholes can make a profit. It is the same thing here. There are interests that want to keep the status quo and don't want to pay for polluting even though it kills the earth. The world if filled chock full of assholes who want to hold back scientific knowledge and progress. They are, in my opinion worthless swine who will end up killing our children. The are unnameable to reason and intelligent debate and bullet proof to scientific reasoning.

I no longer care to debate such fools. There is nothing to be done but identify them as assholes. The time will come, if global warming is a fact, that all doubters will be seen as the assholes they are. They will earn the rank of praise given the Spanish Inquisition. Scum of the earth, swine, filth, worthless shit, whatever suites your tastes.

 

[Moonbeam]

Wow, straw man again. I think I'm going to start a tally for how many times it's used to refute things I say.

drebo: (rational, thoughtful post with evidence and conclusions)
liberal alarmist: "You suck, you're uneducated and don't know how to think for yourself"

+1 for the Straw Man-o-Matic(tm)

Hehehehe

 

[MrEgo]

What I find even funnier is, I doubt anyone on this board has the required knowledge and ability to accurately and competently comprehend the science behind the studies that they are denying or accepting. That is why I am sorta in between on the entire global warming (or whatever the hell we are calling it this week) thing. When scientific debates turn political, as this one has, you literally get the best bullshit artists in the country trying to sell their side and I say fuck em both. There are issues that both sides readily agree on that we could be doing right now but hell no, they don't really want to get anything done, they just want to be "right".

Exactly. So many people on here talk as if they know what's really going on or they know what's best for Earth.

 

[JS80]

20 meter higher seas, dead polar bears, earthquakes, droughts, monsoons, volcanoes, oceans boiling, etc.

I don't worry about things that may happen the day after tomorrow. I live for today.

 

[Genx87]

Exactly. So many people on here talk as if they know what's really going on or they know what's best for Earth.

They either have the manual God left for Earth or they stayed at a Holiday Inn lastnight.

 

[werepossum]

What I find even funnier is, I doubt anyone on this board has the required knowledge and ability to accurately and competently comprehend the science behind the studies that they are denying or accepting. That is why I am sorta in between on the entire global warming (or whatever the hell we are calling it this week) thing. When scientific debates turn political, as this one has, you literally get the best bullshit artists in the country trying to sell their side and I say fuck em both. There are issues that both sides readily agree on that we could be doing right now but hell no, they don't really want to get anything done, they just want to be "right".

That's a good point. This and other outright frauds have pretty much moved me from skeptic to denier, but I do agree that there are other bad side affects of excess CO2 - acid rain (not primarily caused by CO2, but it contributes), ocean acidification, and increased weathering on most exterior surfaces come to mind. (Aquatic plants on the other hand love it as they are often primarily limited by CO2.) We should definitely be looking at and developing alternative energy methods as well as methods of directly removing (and hopefully using) CO2 from the atmosphere. Just stop with the catastrophe talk, the attempts (a la Pinky and the Brain) to seize control of the world, and the demands that the USA pay "developing" nations (a.k.a. hell holes intentionally without personal and economic freedom) for their lost dignity, and get on with funding research and development. And for G-d's sake stop demanding that the oil companies "do something". Any alternative energy developed and/or controlled by the oil companies will be as expensive as oil, or else it won't come to fruition until the oil is gone; that's how business works.

And please, please stop defending people when they are caught in blatant fraud. Even if you absolutely believe in CAGW, fraud is never a good public policy.

 

[OutHouse]

OP is a tool to keep posting hack reports made from flawed manipulated data.

 

[drebo]

What I find even funnier is, I doubt anyone on this board has the required knowledge and ability to accurately and competently comprehend the science behind the studies that they are denying or accepting. That is why I am sorta in between on the entire global warming (or whatever the hell we are calling it this week) thing. When scientific debates turn political, as this one has, you literally get the best bullshit artists in the country trying to sell their side and I say fuck em both. There are issues that both sides readily agree on that we could be doing right now but hell no, they don't really want to get anything done, they just want to be "right".

What's so difficult about looking at temperature trends?

You make it out to be this big obscure process, when it's really just comparing numbers. Is this number higher or lower than that number?

If it is any more complex than that, then they aren't telling you the truth. If the raw data doesn't show warming, then there is no warming. However, we don't have the raw data because the CRU refuses to let anyone see anything other than their "adjusted" data, which we now know for fact has been tampered with.

If the data needs to be tampered with to show a certain conclusion, that conclusion is false. If plotting the points on a graph and reading the trend of that graph isn't adequate, then the "science" involved must not be real.

 

[Moonbeam]

Exactly. So many people on here talk as if they know what's really going on or they know what's best for Earth.

This is exactly what the deniers intended, that the fast majority of folk who never learned to think should be in doubt. They did the same for cancer and cigarettes so the fools who questioned would keep right on smoking until the died from it.

You don't have to be a scientist to see the world for what it is, that there exi

 

[MrEgo]

What's so difficult about looking at temperature trends?

You make it out to be this big obscure process, when it's really just comparing numbers. Is this number higher or lower than that number?

If it is any more complex than that, then they aren't telling you the truth. If the raw data doesn't show warming, then there is no warming. However, we don't have the raw data because the CRU refuses to let anyone see anything other than their "adjusted" data, which we now know for fact has been tampered with.

If the data needs to be tampered with to show a certain conclusion, that conclusion is false. If plotting the points on a graph and reading the trend of that graph isn't adequate, then the "science" involved must not be real.

So you think it's easy to prove that man-made C02 emissions are or are not affecting the temperature of Earth? There is more to it than checking how high the mercury went up on the thermometer.

 

[drebo]

So you think it's easy to prove that man-made C02 emissions are or are not affecting the temperature of Earth? There is more to it than checking how high the mercury went up on the thermometer.

No, there isn't.

If the trends we see within the last 100 years match the trends for every 100 year period before that, then we have no effect. Extrapolate out to 1000 year, 10000 year, etc, and compare the trends for each period.

Lots of people have already done just this and shown that the current cycle we're in is no different than any number of cycles we've had before. In addition, the world has been both much warmer and much colder many times in the past, completely without human technology.

The only figures showing any kind of impact from humans are models created based upon data which has been falsified. Models are not real data, and can be manipulated (as we've seen) to say just about anything. Historical temperature data is the only data we have, and that data shows that our current trends are in no way out of order with trends that have occured throughout the live of the Earth.

 

[MrEgo]

And just how many scientists were there taking temperature samples 10,000 years ago to the extent that we are today?

 

[PJABBER]

I have faith in the scientific method. That means I go with what the scientific consensus is. That hasn't changed in the last few months.

What I see is the politicization of a matter that can only be settled by science, a blatant and brazen attempt to shift the matter away from scientific evidence onto a political agenda, a need to obfuscate scientific evidence with unconscious emotional needs and party identification. We see a mass movement of conservatives away from rational scientific debate into a form of emotional denial just as we have seen with everything in history, from the threat that the earth isn't the center of the universe and the persecution of Galileo, right on down to the cigarettes don't cause cancer decibel where millions die from denial and health costs go through the roof so some assholes can make a profit. It is the same thing here. There are interests that want to keep the status quo and don't want to pay for polluting even though it kills the earth. The world if filled chock full of assholes who want to hold back scientific knowledge and progress. They are, in my opinion worthless swine who will end up killing our children. The are unnameable to reason and intelligent debate and bullet proof to scientific reasoning.

I no longer care to debate such fools. There is nothing to be done but identify them as assholes. The time will come, if global warming is a fact, that all doubters will be seen as the assholes they are. They will earn the rank of praise given the Spanish Inquisition. Scum of the earth, swine, filth, worthless shit, whatever suites your tastes.

I am hoping the scientific method is allowed to progress without politicization, but it looks like that has not been the case thus far. The game involves too much money, there are too many special interests on both sides to hope for more than a balance.

Scientific inquiry builds on others work, which is why most every new study being released, along with many of those that have been released, are being questioned. Hopefully the data sets will now be cleaned up with review, hopefully more primary research will occur and we will be able to break through with more independent study as a result of the scandal.

No matter how valid the arguments are on either side, shining a bright light has made everyone involved in this field of research sit up and take notice. If anyone has tried some tricks before, they are likely to stop now, at least until the spotlight has shifted. That is a good thing.

We will see how long that lasts under the corruptive pressures that still exist and, to a great extent, are likely to grow with the impetus of governmental inertia.

 

[Darwin333]

What's so difficult about looking at temperature trends?

You make it out to be this big obscure process, when it's really just comparing numbers. Is this number higher or lower than that number?

If it is any more complex than that, then they aren't telling you the truth. If the raw data doesn't show warming, then there is no warming. However, we don't have the raw data because the CRU refuses to let anyone see anything other than their "adjusted" data, which we now know for fact has been tampered with.

If the data needs to be tampered with to show a certain conclusion, that conclusion is false. If plotting the points on a graph and reading the trend of that graph isn't adequate, then the "science" involved must not be real.

Come on, are you serious?

Raw temperature data is downright worthless and even I, as an admittedly ignorant person on the subject, know that. Even if we had thermometers for the last 500 years and had the raw data from them AND we could, without question, see a trend of rising temps.... all you know is its getting warmer. Its the "why" and more importantly "can we do fuckall about it" that gets really hard to answer and I honestly don't know. I do not have the knowledge to even make an educated guess and I would bet a paycheck that you don't either. Just like the folks on the other side that have just as much education and training as me but they know for a fact what the answer is...

I DO know that we need some serious reform on our sources of energy in this country. That is something the right and left agree on as well but instead of doing that we are having an argument that neither of us can really comprehend. Do you guys on the right really like sending a ton of money to the middle east every day? What do you suppose some of that money buys? Naw, wouldn't want to address that issue would we because everyone is too busy trying to be right.

 

[First]

Evolution science doesn't have to cook the books and hide data to prove they are right. It has credibility that AGW science currently does not. I guess valid science doesn't matter to those atttending the Church of Al Gore though. Just keep chanting about "deniers" instead. Now THAT'S real science, eh?

Evolution scientists have falsified data before. Practically every field has. But you don't see significant numbers of credible scientists denying evolution. Same with MMGW scientists. If you were to deny MMGW you'd have to have significant standing, but it's rare. Not as rare as scientists that deny evolution, but rare nonetheless.

 

[bob4432]

a whole decade? wow, and the earth is how old? and has supported the current thread of life for how long?

 

[Darwin333]

No, there isn't.

If the trends we see within the last 100 years match the trends for every 100 year period before that, then we have no effect. Extrapolate out to 1000 year, 10000 year, etc, and compare the trends for each period.

Lots of people have already done just this and shown that the current cycle we're in is no different than any number of cycles we've had before. In addition, the world has been both much warmer and much colder many times in the past, completely without human technology.

The only figures showing any kind of impact from humans are models created based upon data which has been falsified. Models are not real data, and can be manipulated (as we've seen) to say just about anything. Historical temperature data is the only data we have, and that data shows that our current trends are in no way out of order with trends that have occured throughout the live of the Earth.

Whats your PHD in again? Exactly how accurate are those temps you are using to extrapolate 10,000 year trends and hasn't your side argued against the accuracy of those temps for some time?

IF we had that type of raw data then my attitude would probably be different but we don't. We have tree rings and ice cores and I "think" they extrapolate temps from the CO2 present in them. That means there is some sort of correlation between CO2 and temps, right? How the hell am I supposed to know if all of that crap is correct or not yet I am supposed to leap to other conclusions based on it?

Out of curriousity, if my understanding of the tree/ice core crap is correct (I would be impressed if it is) how does that validate your argument? Either there is a correlation between CO2 and temps or there isn't, right? Since I really don't know the answers to all those questions I just asked, a crapton of scientists are arguing over it, and our supposed representation disagrees over it, exactly how am I supposed to feel reasonably comfortable with any conclusion I might come up with?

 

[Jaskalas]

20 meter higher seas, dead polar bears, earthquakes, droughts, monsoons, volcanoes, oceans boiling, etc.

Biblical? Oh wait...