• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Global Warming/Climate Change Super Thread

This thread is one of the saddest on this site.  I can't think of a single prominent scientist still in the denial camp. Even the guys working for the Heartland Institute have quit and jumped ship. No one with an academic background disputes this anymore. Only the USA is in denial of climate change. This tiny echo chamber is becoming more shrill as more and more people file out to join the scientific consensus.

Good luck staying immune to facts forever.
http://www.economist.com/blogs/babbage/2013/09/ipcc-climate-change-report

It's still our fault
Sep 27th 2013, 10:40 by J.P. | STOCKHOLM

IT HAS been a long time coming. But then the fifth assessment of the state of the global climate by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a United Nations body, was a behemoth of an undertaking. It runs to thousands of pages, involved hundreds of scientists and was exhaustively checked and triple-checked by hundredds of other boffins and government officials to whom they report—and whose policies are often based on what they read. The first tranche of the multi-volume report—an executive summary of the physical science—was released in Stockholm on September 27th. And it is categorical in its conclusion: climate change has not stopped and man is the main cause.

It may be the last report of its kind: a growing chorus of experts thinks a more frequent, less bally-hooed and more up-to-date assessments would be more useful. It is certainly the first since negotiations for a global treaty reining in carbon emissions collapsed in Copenhagen in 2009; the first since questions were raised about the integrity of the IPCC itself following mistaken claims about the speed of glacier melt in the Himalayas and, most important, the first since evidence became incontrovertible that global surface air temperatures have risen much less quickly in the past 15 years than the IPCC had expected. A lot is riding on its findings, from the public credibility of climate science to the chances of a new global treaty.

The report is more definitive than in the past about the role of people in causing climate change. It say that it is "extremely likely"—IPCC speak for having a probability of over 95%—that man is responsible. This contrasts with the tentative tone of the early IPCC reports. “The observed increase [in surface air temperatures] could be largely due to this natural variability,” said the first one, in 1990. The next report in 1995 merely suggested a link between rising temperatures and human activity. That link was deemed “likely” (which means probability of 66%) in 2001, and “very likely” (90%) in 2007.

The latest iteration identifies radiative forcing, the difference between the amount of heat coming into the climate and the amount reflected back, as the immediate cause of warming. Radiative forcing is expressed in watts per square metre (W/m2), a unit of energy. A rise indicates that heat is building up in the system.

Total radiative forcing from man-made sources since 1750 (ie, before industrialisation) has risen from 0.29-0.85W/m2 in 1950 to 0.64-1.86W/m2 in 1980 to 1.13-3.33W/m2 in 2011. The average has jumped from 0.57 to 1.25 to 2.29, respectively—a four-fold increase in 60 years. The big change recently, the report points out, is that the cooling effect of aerosols seems to have been less strong than it used to be. But there is no sign that the rise in radiative forcing has slowed during the past 15 years of flat surface temperatures. The best estimate for total man-made radiative forcing in 2011 is 43% above 2005 levels.

Of course, more heat does not necessarily equal perceptible climate change. The IPCC admits the pause in the rise of surface air temperatures is real. “The rate of warming over the past 15 years,” it says, “[is] 0.05ºC per decade...smaller than the rate calculated since 1951.” In its 2007 report the panel had said the rate of warming was 0.2ºC per decade in 1990-2005 (four times the current rate). It predicted that this would continue for the next two decades.

But it plays down the long-term significance of the shift, saying that “due to natural variability, trends based on short records are very sensitive to the beginning and end dates and do not in general reflect long-term climate trends.” The start of the recent 15-year trend, in 1998, was a year of a strong worldwide fluctutation in the climate known as El Niño. This produced a temperature spike.

Still, all the extra heat implied by higher radiative forcing has to go somewhere. It isn’t going into the air. It is possible that not all that much is going into the surface waters of the oceans, either. The report says that “it is about as likely as not that ocean heat content from 0-700 metres increased more slowly during 2003-2010 than during 1993-2002.” That only leaves one other heat sink: the deep oceans below 700 metres, where it could be locked up in the deep oceans without affecting other parts of the climate.

And indeed, most of the extra heat does go into the oceans, which is not surprising given that they cover two thirds of Earth’s surface and have a much greater capacity to absorb heat than the air does. “Ocean warming,” the report says, “is largest near the surface and the upper 75 metres warmed by 0.11ºC per decade over the period 1971-2010.” It adds that more than 60% of the net energy increase in the climate system is stored in the upper ocean (0-700 metres)...and about 30% is stored in the ocean below 700 metres.

In fact, vasty deeps are a plausible candidate to explain the pause in surface air temperatures. The trouble is that measurements deep down, while improving, remain patchy. The IPCC says that it is likely that the ocean warmed from 3,000 metres to the bottom in 1992-2005 and that heat will penetrate from the surface down. Moreover, in a report earlier this month in Nature (published too late to make it into the IPCC report), Yu Kosaka and Shang-Ping Xie of the Scripps Institute of Oceanography, in San Diego, suggests that a cooling trend in an area of the eastern equatorial Pacific ocean may be “the cause of the pause”. But at the moment, this conclusion remains tentative.

Global warming is, then, continuing unabated in the watery world. It is not clear whether the trend itself has changed dramatically since 1990 or whether the rise is due to improved measurements, which have enabled scientists to gauge more exactly what has been going on. Probably the latter. The new assessment says that, since the fourth report in 2007, "instrumental biases in upper-ocean temperature records have been identified and reduced, enhancing confidence in the assessment of change."

Either way, the trend is worrying. Since water, like almost everything else, expands as it gets hotter, its rising temperature causes sea levels to rise. It is "very likely", the report adds, “that the mean rate of global averaged sea level rise was 1.7mm a year between 1901 and 2010, 2.0mm a year between 1971 and 2010 and 3.2mm a year between 1993 and 2010.” The rate of sea-level rise all but doubled between the start of the 20th century and its end. That is a significant change and one that the first IPCC assessment report in 1990 had little inkling of. That report reckoned that “the average rate of rise over the last 100 years has been 1.0-2.0 mm a year. There is no firm evidence of acceleration in sea level rise during this century.” The rate is now thought to be higher—and growing.

New instruments are providing better information about the rate at which ice sheets and glaciers are melting, too. In particular, the launch of the twin GRACE satellites has provided more detail about how much ice there actually is. GRACE, which stands for Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment, enables the mass of objects on Earth to be worked out more precisely by measuring tiny changes in their gravitation pull. The report says that “the average rate of ice loss from glaciers around the world, excluding glaciers on the periphery of the ice sheets, was very likely 226Gt [trillion tonnes] a year over the period 1971-2009 and very likely 275Gt a year over the period 1993-2009.”

In other words, it has speeded up. The Greenland ice sheet, the Antarctic sea ice and the Arctic sea ice have all lost mass (got thinner). The extent of the Arctic sea ice has shrunk by 3.5-4.1% a decade in 1979-2012, more than was estimated in 2007, and the summer sea-ice minimum is shrinking by about 10% a decade, though this year’s summer ice melt was smaller than last year’s.

What does that mean for the future? The report uses four new sets of scenarios for greenhouse-gas concentrations to claim that “global surface temperature change for the end of the 21st century is projected to be likely to exceed 1.5ºC relative to 1850 to 1900 in all but the lowest scenario considered, and likely to exceed 2ºC for the two high scenarios.” The 2ºC mark is widely considered to be the dividing line between warming which is just about tolerable and that which is dangerous.

For the first time, the IPCC gives some credence to the possibility that Earth’s climate may not be responding to higher concentrations of greenhouse gases quite as sharply as was once thought. The response is referred to as “equilibrium climate sensitivity” and defined as the rise in surface temperatures in the long term which accompanies a doubling of the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere. In its previous report, the IPCC put this at between 2ºC and 4.5 ºC, with a most likely figure of 3ºC. But recent work, partly influenced by the pause in temperatures, has suggested sensitivity might be somewhat lower. The IPCC’s new range of 1.5-4.5ºC (the same as in its first report) reflects the new consensus (though some new research puts the upper bound of sensitivity below 4.5ºC).

The IPCC also decided to scrap its central “best guess”. Perhaps this is meant to reflect uncertainty in the science. If so, some scientists argue, then perhaps it should not have increased its confidence that man is the main cause of global warming.

In theory, a lower climate sensitivity means temperatures would rise more slowly for any given amount of extra radiative forcing. Earth might hence have a little more time to adjust to a changing climate. But whether such breathing space actually exists depends on how many tonnes of greenhouse gases people are putting into the atmosphere. So, for the first time, the IPCC has set what is usually called a carbon budget. To have a two-thirds chance of keeping global warming below 2ºC, it says, “will require cumulative CO2 emissions from all anthropogenic sources to stay between 0 and about 1,000 [trillion tonnes]”.

The world has already blown through just over half that amount (531 trillion tonnes) by 2011. At current rates of greenhouse-gas emission, the rest of the budget will have been spent before 2040. The odds of keeping the eventual rise in global temperatures to below 2ºC will lengthen—even if climate sensitivity is lower than was thought and even if the pause in surface air temperatures persists for a while. As Thomas Stocker, the co-chair of the report depressingly put it: “we are committed to climate change…for many centuries even if emissions of CO2 stop.”
 
Kilo_302 said:
All of which, incidentally, highlights why you should trust scientists on climate change: They know what they don't know and are honest about it . . .

Back in 2007 the Nobel committee awarded a shared Nobel Peace Prize to Al Gore and the IPCC re climate change. IPCC's chairman wrote to IPCC affiliated academics that this "makes each of you Nobel Laureates." There were some 9,000 contributors to the report. Many of these individuals now refer to themselves, or allow themselves to be referred to as "Nobel Laureates. Several years later the Nobel committee made it clear that only IPCC as an organization had received the prize and not any individual. The IPCC posted a disclaimer on its web site that it was incorrect for any one official or scientist who worked on the report to call themselves a "Nobel Laureate". IPCC did not issue a press release or send a message to its contributors to correct their misunderstanding/misuse of the honour.

Honesty. Sorry. These folks are fallible people like all of us. I've had years of working on boards and committees and have long ago learned to watch out for people who volunteer to do a job. While many are individuals who truly want to help out and share the task, many are also there to pad their resumes or to try to influence/hijack the committee to propound their own particular agendas.

When it comes to honesty in science I have only one criteria. Scientists should never express their conclusions in absolute terms when the evidence is equivocal. I don't deny global warming. I don't deny that there are human generated greenhouse emissions which play a part in global warming. Where I see the problem is that there are many factors and effects that the band wagon scientists cannot explain (such as Antarctic ice recovery, lack of increased hurricanes, declining temperature rise in the face of increased CO2 levels and basically why their 2007 award winning computer models didn't work). The fact of the matter is that there has been climate change long before humans emitted greenhouse gases.

I say this half facetiously but the whole Climate Change rhetoric reminds me of the religious concept of "Intelligent Design". In Intelligent Design every time that a scientist cannot establish a clear link of evolutionary progression, the proponents say well that's clear proof of an intervention by an intelligent creator. Same for Global Warming. Any time its proponents can't find a clear scientific explanation for a warming trend, its written off as a result of human induced greenhouse gases. My hope is that there will now be more concerted study of the various anomalies recorded in the data and we can get on with "honest" scientists studying just what is really going on without all the scaremongering.

:stirpot:

[url}http://opinion.financialpost.com/2013/09/26/9000-nobel-pretenders/[/url]
 
FJAG said:
Back in 2007 the Nobel committee awarded a shared Nobel Peace Prize to Al Gore and the IPCC re climate change. IPCC's chairman wrote to IPCC affiliated academics that this "makes each of you Nobel Laureates." There were some 9,000 contributors to the report. Many of these individuals now refer to themselves, or allow themselves to be referred to as "Nobel Laureates. Several years later the Nobel committee made it clear that only IPCC as an organization had received the prize and not any individual. The IPCC posted a disclaimer on its web site that it was incorrect for any one official or scientist who worked on the report to call themselves a "Nobel Laureate". IPCC did not issue a press release or send a message to its contributors to correct their misunderstanding/misuse of the honour.

Honesty. Sorry. These folks are fallible people like all of us. I've had years of working on boards and committees and have long ago learned to watch out for people who volunteer to do a job. While many are individuals who truly want to help out and share the task, many are also there to pad their resumes or to try to influence/hijack the committee to propound their own particular agendas.

When it comes to honesty in science I have only one criteria. Scientists should never express their conclusions in absolute terms when the evidence is equivocal. I don't deny global warming. I don't deny that there are human generated greenhouse emissions which play a part in global warming. Where I see the problem is that there are many factors and effects that the band wagon scientists cannot explain (such as Antarctic ice recovery, lack of increased hurricanes, declining temperature rise in the face of increased CO2 levels and basically why their 2007 award winning computer models didn't work). The fact of the matter is that there has been climate change long before humans emitted greenhouse gases.

I say this half facetiously but the whole Climate Change rhetoric reminds me of the religious concept of "Intelligent Design". In Intelligent Design every time that a scientist cannot establish a clear link of evolutionary progression, the proponents say well that's clear proof of an intervention by an intelligent creator. Same for Global Warming. Any time its proponents can't find a clear scientific explanation for a warming trend, its written off as a result of human induced greenhouse gases. My hope is that there will now be more concerted study of the various anomalies recorded in the data and we can get on with "honest" scientists studying just what is really going on without all the scaremongering.

:stirpot:

[url}http://opinion.financialpost.com/2013/09/26/9000-nobel-pretenders/[/url]


That is suggesting that you are somehow more qualified than thousands of scientists to interpret the data. There are plausible explanations for each of the trends you mentioned, but they aren't 100% on them, so they haven't published those theories yet. If you read the link I posted, and the others earlier on this thread, each of your points is addressed, and rebutted. You can still disagree, but that would mean you have access to information know else does?
 
FJAG said:
Back in 2007 the Nobel committee awarded a shared Nobel Peace Prize to Al Gore and the IPCC re climate change. IPCC's chairman wrote to IPCC affiliated academics that this "makes each of you Nobel Laureates." There were some 9,000 contributors to the report. Many of these individuals now refer to themselves, or allow themselves to be referred to as "Nobel Laureates. Several years later the Nobel committee made it clear that only IPCC as an organization had received the prize and not any individual. The IPCC posted a disclaimer on its web site that it was incorrect for any one official or scientist who worked on the report to call themselves a "Nobel Laureate". IPCC did not issue a press release or send a message to its contributors to correct their misunderstanding/misuse of the honour.

Honesty. Sorry. These folks are fallible people like all of us. I've had years of working on boards and committees and have long ago learned to watch out for people who volunteer to do a job. While many are individuals who truly want to help out and share the task, many are also there to pad their resumes or to try to influence/hijack the committee to propound their own particular agendas.

When it comes to honesty in science I have only one criteria. Scientists should never express their conclusions in absolute terms when the evidence is equivocal. I don't deny global warming. I don't deny that there are human generated greenhouse emissions which play a part in global warming. Where I see the problem is that there are many factors and effects that the band wagon scientists cannot explain (such as Antarctic ice recovery, lack of increased hurricanes, declining temperature rise in the face of increased CO2 levels and basically why their 2007 award winning computer models didn't work). The fact of the matter is that there has been climate change long before humans emitted greenhouse gases.

I say this half facetiously but the whole Climate Change rhetoric reminds me of the religious concept of "Intelligent Design". In Intelligent Design every time that a scientist cannot establish a clear link of evolutionary progression, the proponents say well that's clear proof of an intervention by an intelligent creator. Same for Global Warming. Any time its proponents can't find a clear scientific explanation for a warming trend, its written off as a result of human induced greenhouse gases. My hope is that there will now be more concerted study of the various anomalies recorded in the data and we can get on with "honest" scientists studying just what is really going on without all the scaremongering. :stirpot:

[url}http://opinion.financialpost.com/2013/09/26/9000-nobel-pretenders/[/url]


Now that is a very apt analogy.

Just as I accept Darwin's teachings and yet at the same time have a strong faith and belief in God, I remain very sceptical of the consensus of these so called objective and critically thinking Climatology Scientists.

 
Kilo_302 said:
That is suggesting that you are somehow more qualified than thousands of scientists to interpret the data. There are plausible explanations for each of the trends you mentioned, but they aren't 100% on them, so they haven't published those theories yet. If you read the link I posted, and the others earlier on this thread, each of your points is addressed, and rebutted. You can still disagree, but that would mean you have access to information know else does?

Perhaps if these thousands of scientists had been more outspoken when zealots hijacked the agenda, I might be more willing to trust their word now. Or are "deniers" still to be jailed?

Meh. Climates change.  By definition. 

Better to adapt, like our ancestors did after the last ice age.

 
The IPCC was 66% sure in 2001, 90% sure in 2007 and currently 95% certain.

If a panel of the world's best doctors were 95% sure you had terminal cancer that could be cured by simple lifestyle changes wouldn't you make them?
 
Kilo_302 said:
That is suggesting that you are somehow more qualified than thousands of scientists to interpret the data. There are plausible explanations for each of the trends you mentioned, but they aren't 100% on them, so they haven't published those theories yet. If you read the link I posted, and the others earlier on this thread, each of your points is addressed, and rebutted. You can still disagree, but that would mean you have access to information know no else does?

FTFY

I'm not sure how you came to the conclusion that I am suggestion that I am "somewhat more qualified than thousands of scientists". It's their computer models and predictions which fail to explain the data. I claim no expertise whatsoever.

I've been following the thread and the links (even yours to Chris Mooney at MotherJones - he's got a BA in English, not in science. He makes his living on the backs of controversial science and politics. I don't consider him an expert but just a reporter with an agenda who reports what he thinks is relevant.). The simple fact is that there is a lot of scientific literature out there, most pro, some con, and one has to take much of it on faith - but not blind faith. One ought to be sceptical, even in the face of consensus, when it is apparent that there are players in the game with vested interests.

I'm usually on the side of science without much scepticism, but let's face it in the history of science there have been literally thousands of cases of consensus on a scientific issue which subsequently fell to the wayside when better data became available. I sense--I don't say that I know, or even that I suspect--I just sense that there's more to Global Warming than the scientists have a handle on.

Maybe it's because in the 1970s I was told we'd run out of oil by 1984; or maybe its because I detest Gore so much that I was even glad to see that dimwit Bush beat him; all I know in the end is that if you're going to yell "Fire" in a crowded theatre, you'd better be sure that there are flames, not just a 0.12 degree rise in temperature a decade over the last seventy years (Oh yeah, except the last 15 years where the rate is only 0.05/decade).

Anyway, my post wasn't to call myself an expert on the topic but only to point out that a bunch of these folks called themselves, or let themselves be called Nobel Laureates when they had merely been one of thousands of scientists who contributed to a report that got the Peace Prize (and note it was the Peace Prize and not a scientific prize). It reminded me that academia was a "publish or perish" environment and that sometimes one had to take great care about the positions such folks take when they gang up on their dissenting peers--especially when you personally don't have the qualifications to interpret the data--and especially when billions or  trillions of dollars are at stake.

:cheers:



 
Nemo888 said:
The IPCC was 66% sure in 2001, 90% sure in 2007 and currently 95% certain.

If a panel of the world's best doctors were 95% sure you had terminal cancer that could be cured by simple lifestyle changes wouldn't you make them?

Your analogy fails on the words "simple lifestyle changes".

:cheers:
 
I said simple, not to be confused with easy. I lived off grid for a few years. It wasn't that bad. If my kids needed me to make that sacrifice so they could enjoy the same sustainable lifestyle I'd have to be a right prick to refuse. I'm not the last bloody generation on earth.
 
David Suzuki is exactly the reason we should be sckeptical.

As a geneticist who studied mutations in fruit flies, he is only qualified to speak on that subject as an expert. He is quite free to offer an opinion (as is everyone else), but having him claim some sort of special privilage or expertise isn't born out by the facts (see above for his embarrasing performance in Australia). Having him expound on climate as an expert makes as much sense as him coming to Gagetown and instructing on a machine gun course.

The vast majority of people involved are only offering opinions, not facts and analysis. And I note with interest that when people do look at facts and analysis (historical data like the European Warm Period and the Little Ice Age, real temperature data from 1998-present not matching the computer predictions, the actual amounts of arctic ice vs the predicted models, the temperature of other planets in the solar system etc.) they get shouted down the loudest, even though they are using the scientific method.

Makes you wonder....
 
Thucydides said:
David Suzuki is exactly the reason we should be sckeptical.

As a geneticist who studied mutations in fruit flies, he is only qualified to speak on that subject as an expert. He is quite free to offer an opinion (as is everyone else), but having him claim some sort of special privilage or expertise isn't born out by the facts (see above for his embarrasing performance in Australia). Having him expound on climate as an expert makes as much sense as him coming to Gagetown and instructing on a machine gun course.

The vast majority of people involved are only offering opinions, not facts and analysis. And I note with interest that when people do look at facts and analysis (historical data like the European Warm Period and the Little Ice Age, real temperature data from 1998-present not matching the computer predictions, the actual amounts of arctic ice vs the predicted models, the temperature of other planets in the solar system etc.) they get shouted down the loudest, even though they are using the scientific method.

Makes you wonder....

Yes but the latest report addresses all the concerns you just raised. As do the links I have posted repeatedly in this thread. Everyone knows that the planet as not warmed as much in the last 15 years, and many believe that's because the oceans are bearing the brunt, and we do  not measure average global temperature in the ocean. And yes arctic ice extent is larger this year than it was the last. But we don't roll a dice 50 times and only measure the last 3 rolls to obtain an average number. This is pretty basic stuff here.

The latest report admits what we don't know, and is still unequivocal in its assertion that warming is caused by human activity and IS happening. Nothing I have seen on this thread suggests that anyone here is more qualified or has access to a different set of data than the likes of NASA or the Met. Are you suggesting that scientists are not aware of the European Warm period?

Though I have to admit it would be hilarious if Suzuki DID show up to Gagetown and turned out to be an expert machine gunner.
 
Kilo_302 said:
Yes but the latest report addresses all the concerns you just raised. As do the links I have posted repeatedly in this thread. Everyone knows that the planet as not warmed as much in the last 15 years, and many believe that's because the oceans are bearing the brunt, and we do  not measure average global temperature in the ocean. And yes arctic ice extent is larger this year than it was the last. But we don't roll a dice 50 times and only measure the last 3 rolls to obtain an average number. This is pretty basic stuff here.

The latest report admits what we don't know, and is still unequivocal in its assertion that warming is caused by human activity and IS happening. Nothing I have seen on this thread suggests that anyone here is more qualified or has access to a different set of data than the likes of NASA or the Met. Are you suggesting that scientists are not aware of the European Warm period?

Though I have to admit it would be hilarious if Suzuki DID show up to Gagetown and turned out to be an expert machine gunner.

If he does, let's appoint him NCO of the butt party.  8)
 
Here is a link that I posted earlier. It refutes, I think, all of the main arguments against the notion of anthropomorphic climate change. I would encourage those of you who have reasonable science based arguments to find your argument at the link and read the associated rebuttal. The rebuttals are well sourced, using mainly scientific primary documents.

http://grist.org/series/skeptics/

Here also is a link to the executive summary from the latest IPCC report, just so we all know what we are referencing.

http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/uploads/WGIAR5-SPM_Approved27Sep2013.pdf
 
Kilo_302 said:
Nothing I have seen on this thread suggests that anyone here is more qualified or has access to a different set of data than the likes of NASA or the Met.

The reason you don't see that is because none of us are trying to convince you of the rightness of our opinions. All we are doing is explaining why we are still sceptical.

I appreciate the fact that you feel a burning desire to convert us to the righteousness of your cause. I honestly don't mind it although some of the articles which you post like the one from grist.org remind me of those little Watchtower flyers that get passed out at the corner of the street to try to convert one to becoming a Jehovah's Witness. I give them about the same amount of credence (have you even noticed that the blogger who wrote those articles describes himself as a "Former musician, turned tree planter, turned software engineer" ?)  :o

That said I think, as a generality, most of us here on the dark side don't deny the general concepts of Global Warming. What we are is sceptical as to the drama it has engendered and whether it merits some of the extreme solutions being propounded. You'll have a hard row to hoe to get us on board.  :brickwall:

:cheers:
 
FJAG said:
You'll have a hard row to hoe to get us on board.

Today's Kirkhill Award for the most gloriously mixed metaphor goes to .....

;D  :cheers:

By the way I agree with your points.
 
FJAG said:
That said I think, as a generality, most of us here on the dark side don't deny the general concepts of Global Warming. What we are is sceptical as to the drama it has engendered and whether it merits some of the extreme solutions being propounded. You'll have a hard row to hoe to get us on board.  :brickwall:

Very well said!  Probably the most accurate statement of the entire thread  ;D
 
FJAG said:
The reason you don't see that is because none of us are trying to convince you of the rightness of our opinions. All we are doing is explaining why we are still sceptical.

I appreciate the fact that you feel a burning desire to convert us to the righteousness of your cause. I honestly don't mind it although some of the articles which you post like the one from grist.org remind me of those little Watchtower flyers that get passed out at the corner of the street to try to convert one to becoming a Jehovah's Witness. I give them about the same amount of credence (have you even noticed that the blogger who wrote those articles describes himself as a "Former musician, turned tree planter, turned software engineer" ?)  :o

That said I think, as a generality, most of us here on the dark side don't deny the general concepts of Global Warming. What we are is sceptical as to the drama it has engendered and whether it merits some of the extreme solutions being propounded. You'll have a hard row to hoe to get us on board.  :brickwall:





:cheers:


I am certainly aware of the author's lack of credentials. What he has done is placed all the arguments in one place. But everything is sourced well, which is what I have been emphasizing.  I also don't think the solutions are all that extreme. If without climate concerns, emissions cause thousands of deaths, have been linked to respiratory illness and a host of other problems. Just today for example, a US study was released that found the cost of wind energy per kilowatt is cheaper than that of coal once other associated costs are counted. By embracing these "extreme" solutions we are really just improving the conditions in which we live. And still saving lives.
 
the global warming thingy is so over, a dead end of public policy initiatives.  AR5 SPM gets released and within 24 hours is virtually out of the news cycle. 

Nobody gives  a crap anymore. The Euros are pulling back from their shoot  themselves in the foot energy policies, the world is just awash in hydrocarbons and ordinary people are beyond fed up with the incessent far mongering and green hysteria. Folks just want to get on with enjoying life rather than know-tow to some self anointed doomsday cultists who believe Al Gore made a truthful documentary.

You can believe the IPCC and their vaunted computer models or you can believe reality as measured by actual temperature data.  But you cannot believe both. 

Your choice, have a nice life.  And pray for Ontario because the nutters running that economy onto the rocks are still chugging from the global warming cup of climate hysteria.

Can't wait until w start shipping Alberta oil by rail to the BC coast and then over to China.  Going to make this lady reprise her angst that she felt when she was photographed at NDP HQ the night Christy Clark spanked the BC NDP.

 
Haletown said:
. . .  And pray for Ontario because the nutters running that economy onto the rocks are still chugging from the global warming cup of climate hysteria. . . .

Yes please do.

I live down here in SW Ontario on the shores of Lake Erie. From my front porch I can see 18 wind turbines, the closest is 750m away (I've measured it on Google Earth). I quite frankly don't mind them but am worried about how they impact my property value because quite a few people have concerns about them. (I can't hear them; I doubt that they impact my health with electro-magnetic radiation; and I figure any bird that flies into the blades will result in Darwinian natural selection in favour of those birds who don't)

What pisses me off the most is that their power costs Hydro One about four times as much as hydro/nuclear power and that, notwithstanding their proximity to my house, I have a monthly "delivery" cost on my hydro bill that typically exceeds my actual power consumption costs by about 10-15%.  :clubinhand:
 
I feel your pain FJAG.

Every day when I go down to the gym or over the causeway in Kingston I see the forest of wind turbines on Wolfe Island standing like the Martian Tripods from "War of the Worlds". There is one consant in my observations: they are usually still during peak demand times and are spinning merrily during off peak times.

I hope the State of New York is enjoying the $.04 KW/h price they are paying for the wind turbine energy, since we have to dump it during off peak times to keep the grid stable (even more ironic when there are two perfectly good thermal generators down the road that provide 8% of the entire grid demand for the Province), while consumers are stuck with paying  $.135 KWh for wind vice the $.08 KWh for conventional sources.

Kilo, once you track those price differentials and realize the ONLY reason they exist is to line the pockets of Green crony capitalists (or pay for their mistakes) then you will understand the real and deep opposition to global warming moonshine. Since the Vikings didn't cause global warming when they were farming Greenland, and NASA isn't causing Martian warming by idling their rovers, then it is a pretty big stretch to think that the smaller amounts of global warming in the 20th century have much, if anything, to do with human agency.
 
Back
Top