Global Warming/Climate Change Super Thread

[Redeye]

Ad Hominem attacks lend nothing to the discussion. If you disagree with a viewpoint, you can at least be polite in your discussion. Calling those with other viewpoints names only demonstrates an inability to support one's argument with rational discourse.


And no, I'm not a fan or supporter of Fox News.

Revised accordingly.

 

[vonGarvin]

Imagine the horror of these guys laughing at you:

I think that the scepticism is healthy.  Especially when sceptics are "dismissed" so casually.  I don't think the issue of "climate change" is such that people don't see changes; however, let me illustrate one example.  Hurricane Katrina is often put forth as an example of the effects of anthropromorphic climate change because New Orleans was flooded.  Oddly, it was the after effects of Katrina that caused that damage, not the hurricane itself.  As well, the disaster was more due to faulty civil engineering than anything else.  After all, doesn't it lie below sea level?  But sceptics are pointed at and laughed at with such vigour that it bothers me.  So, instead of showing how we (humans) are causing the climate to change, shady data is presented.  The East Anglia emails only raise more questions.


Having said all this, it makes perfect sense to reduce or eliminate (if possible) pollutants from entering our environment.

 

[Haletown]

OK . . .  in summary

Climate changes . . . it is supposed to change. Climate is a dynamic chaotic energy transfer system.

Dynamic + chaotic = change.  Change is good & normal.

Change is to Climate what Wet is to Water.

Humans impact Climate – yes we always have impacted climate.  So do beavers and termites

Yes scientists agree humans impact climate.  That’s a no brainer.

They don’t agree on two points – the impact of miniscule changes in the atmosphere’s composition and the second part of the AGW theory that says  CO2 causes positive feedback loops – loops that are theoretical, have yet to be measured and likely don’t exist.

So far the AGW theory has resulted numerous climate models that have been proven to not yield accurate results – when they hindcast them, the results do not reflect reality. The GCM’s don’t work at predicting the future.

The atmosphere warms up and cools down – always has, hopefully always will.  We have just come through a 30+ year scheduled warming cycle phase.  The change in temperature is not  unusual in its rate or duration . . .  totally normal.

The oceans are not rising rapidly, the polar ice caps are not dramatically melting– I checked the NSIDC yesterday and low & behold the ice coverage is over 1 Million Km2 above the average – go figure.  Tropical storm/Hurricane activity – number, intensity and Ace are way down – 60 year lows – somebody please tell Al Gore to fix his movie.


It has been a great public relations ride for the eco greenies –  those photoshopped pictures of cuddly drowning polar bears worked wonders to raise money from the gullible and they did a fantastic job at organizing governments into jumping on the bandwagon.  How could anyone be against “saving the planet”.

The unfortunate part of any con job is when reality imposes itself on the wild & crazy eco hysterical claims. That is what is happening now – reality diverging from the forecast of doom & gloom.

But you can believe whatever you want . . . 

 

[TheHead]

The same people who think An Inconvenient Truth is a documentary.

And their friends 

      Ahh I see you're just making shit up now. 

 

[Haletown]

      Ahh I see you're just making crap up now.

I prefer to think of it as educated speculation.  Herds tend to stick together.

 

[a_majoor]

If you go upthread a few pages you can read some of the actual "Climategate" emails.

Emails planning boycotts of Science journals which demanded methodology and raw data along with the papers the AGW crew were submitting.
Emails on how to transfer large sums of money from "carbon exchanges" without attracting tax.
Emails suggesting ignoring legal demands to produce evidence in the form of raw data and methodology.

There are other posts where the various actors specifically state their intentions likehere, or simply reveal themselves to be hypocrites of the first order (Al Gore telling us to reduce carbon emissions from one of his three mansions while being ferried around in a private jet) or totally ignorant of science at all (Cancun delegates signing petitions to ban "Dihydrogen Oxide").

It is things like the "Hockey stick" graph which are "made up crap", and the response demanded by the AGW/Global warming/Climate change crowd which has little to do with climate or science at all and everything to do with getting funding and influence, and pushing a particular and destructive set of policies on the Western world.

Climate is indeed changing (just ask the Scottish wine makers who had a profitable business until the 1400's), mankind will adjust as we have done in the past. Schemes to transfer wealth from the productive to the unproductive on a global scale will simply reduce and retard the ability to make those adjustments, and vastly increase any suffering caused by natural climate changes.

 

[Redeye]

The reality is that every model I've read seems to predict that positive feedback loop (ie accelerating change at an accelerating rate), as well as other significant non-climate related problems of unrestrained CO2 emissions like ocean acidification.  See, carbon dioxide dissolves in water to form carbonic acid, screwing with pH levels and thus the chemistry of the ocean.  That causes problems with trophics, you start screwing with life at the bottom of the food chain, and well, I shouldn't need to explain anything else, this is pretty much Grade 9 science.

The thing I don't get is why some people get all up in arms about the concept of ecological stewardship.  That we have dramatically altered the planet is undeniable, and that the repercussions of doing so are potentially very severe is equally obvious.  One wonders when we'll wind up like the guy on Easter Island cutting down the last tree.  As the quotation, attributed to various people, goes, "Only after the last tree has been cut down, only after the last river has been poisoned, only after the last fish has been caught... Only then will you find that you cannot eat money."

And more interestingly, there's simply a lot of money to be made in the process of altering our consumption patterns to be sustainable.  The technological development potential is huge.  I'm in the process of planning to build a house, and the technologies I am looking at to incorporate into my design will add to my building costs potentially but in the long run (and not even that long, really, a matter of a few of years in most cases), the money they will save me makes them completely worth it.  Things like ICF construction, drain heat recovery systems, all fascinating to me, and good investments if they keep my costs of home ownership down and happen to reduce the amount of fossil fuels that I consume.  Same with my choice of car (a diesel engine, I wish some of the diesel-electric hybrids sold in Europe were available here).  In Nova Scotia where I live I don't know if a plug-in hybrid would be a good option given that virtually all our power comes from coal, oil, and gas, but once I see how they pan out for reliability it's also something I'd give a serious look.

The massive amount of money being pumped into trying to claim that CO2 isn't a problem by those who stand to lose if we shift our consumption habits is what seems to be distorting the discussion.  Look at the effort to vilify "The Story Of Stuff", a rather simple video about sustainability which I cannot seem to find anything factually incorrect about... it's just "inconvenient" to suggest that we can't go on consuming resources forever when they are finite.  And the fact that people still talk about "Climategate" as though it meant anything is just showing the power of that lobbying effort.

Capitalism and environmental stewardship can coexist - but the reality is that regulation must force them to for the time being though I think over time the free market will accomplish much of what's needed as people learn more sustainability and realize that the choices are actually workable (or better).

 

[Haletown]

Donna does lyrics . . .

1
On the first day of Christmas, my true love gave to me a climate bible with integrity.

2
On the second day of Christmas, my true love gave to me
-2 flying pigs
-and a climate bible with integrity.

3
On the third day of Christmas, my true love gave to me
-3 working groups
-2 flying pigs
-and a climate bible with integrity.

4
On the fourth day of Christmas, my true love gave to me
-4 big reports
-3 working groups
-2 flying pigs
-and a climate bible with integrity.

5
On the fifth day of Christmas, my true love gave to me
-5 hockey sticks
-4 big reports
-3 working groups
-2 flying pigs
-and a climate bible with integrity.

6
On the sixth day of Christmas, my true love gave to me
-6 pal reviews
-of 5 hockey sticks
-4 big reports
-3 working groups
-2 flying pigs
-and a climate bible with integrity.

7
On the seventh day of Christmas, my true love gave to me
-7 pressure groups
-6 pal reviews
-of 5 hockey sticks
-4 big reports
-3 working groups
-2 flying pigs
-and a climate bible with integrity.

8
On the eighth day of Christmas, my true love gave to me
-8 cut-off dates
-7 pressure groups
-6 pal reviews
-of 5 hockey sticks
-4 big reports
-3 working groups
-2 flying pigs
-and a climate bible with integrity.

9
On the ninth day of Christmas, my true love gave to me
-9 pine tree cones
-8 cut-off dates
-7 pressure groups
-6 pal reviews
-of 5 hockey sticks
-4 big reports
-3 working groups
-2 flying pigs
-and a climate bible with integrity.

10
On the tenth day of Christmas, my true love gave to me
-10 student experts
-9 pine tree cones
-8 cut-off dates
-7 pressure groups
-6 pal reviews
-of 5 hockey sticks
-4 big reports
-3 working groups
-2 flying pigs
-and a climate bible with integrity.

11
On the eleventh day of Christmas, my true love gave to me
-11 dirty pools
-10 student experts
-9 pine tree cones
-8 cut-off dates
-7 pressure groups
-6 pal reviews
-of 5 hockey sticks
-4 big reports
-3 working groups
-2 flying pigs
-and a climate bible with integrity.

12
On the twelfth day of Christmas, my true love gave to me
-12 lumps of coal
-11 dirty pools
-10 student experts
-9 pine tree cones
-8 cut-off dates
-7 pressure groups
-6 pal reviews
-of 5 hockey sticks
-4 big reports
-3 working groups
-2 flying pigs
-and a climate bible with integrity.

I’m no vocalist, but would be thrilled if someone cared to record an MP3 or make a video. Let me know about it and I’ll post and/or link to it (e-mail me: Donna AT noconsensus.org).

 

[Haletown]

The reality is that every model I've read seems to predict that positive feedback loop (ie accelerating change at an accelerating rate)

ALL the models predict positive feedback loops.  Warming caused by adding CO2 to the atmosphere is an old theory . . been around since the mid 1800's. When the current round of fear & hysteria popped up in the mid 80's someone pointed out that adding CO2 to the atmosphere doesn't have a linear effect - it is logarithmic , so they dreamed up the Part 2 of the AGW theory - Positive Feedback Loops. 

The problem the Warmistas have is that they can't find the predicted Positive Feedback . . because they don'texist.  This is why the dozen+ or so General Circulation Models don't actually predict the future - we know this - the models have been hindcasted and when we run actual numbers through the computers they "predict" something that didn't and won't happen.


So if you want to base Public Policy - and the spending of hundreds of billions of public dollars trying to limit CO2 production  instead of spending it on better hospitals and schools, that is your right.

Not something I think is a good use of scarce tax resources, not something that has a positive Opportunity Cost, but then I have been watching this public relations scam for years and have made moves to protect myself from the resulting public policy stupidity.

It is a both fascinating and amusing to watch this event rise up in the public debate, take hold and now struggle to maintain its hold on the public.  It is really over, but the Warmistas have such a huge vested interest in the scam  that they will continue to fight desperate rear guard actions to save their reputations and their perceived political power.

The tragedy is the damage being down to the credibility of the real Environmental movement which will not be trusted in the future after this con is slowly revealed. 

Once an eco-grifter, always an eco-grifter?

 

[Cdn Blackshirt]

For Redeye,

For the record I started out 5 or 6 years ago on your side of the argument.  The problem was that there were questions that were asked in some debates that made me think....and then I went and did further due diligence to research what I was being told.  I'm not going to try to change your mind directly as I think that's a waste of time.  Unfortunately this debate has become much more theological than rational with people associating with alarmism in particular as a type of personal brand (I'm for Global Warming, therefore I'm a good environmentalist, therefore I'm a good person). 

What I would do is challenge you to spend some time on the sceptic sites.  If your hypothesis is true, it will always stand up to alternate models and counterarguemnts.  Since I've moved the to skeptic side of the debate I regularly frequent the alarmists sites just to look for new information that overrides my current model....primarily because I believe this to be the most intellectually healthy way to assess anything.

In any case, ball is in your court....hope to hear back in a couple of weeks how you did check out the skeptic sites, looked at their primary arguments (in particular the urban heat sink impact on surface sites, and the southern shift of surface sites for data collection, and why the computer models being touted as accurate are not backtestable - that is that results are not at all what the models have been predicting, etc.) and have comfortably countered all those arguments.

Best wishes on your intellectual adventure....


Cheers, Matthew. 

P.S.  Just as a little further background, although I disagree with Manmade Climate Change, I absolutely am an environmentalist.  My frustration with so-called Climate Change action is that I think it steals funds away from projects that are so much important (heavy metals in our water and air, and the denuding of both our forests and oceans).  Governments I believe are currently playing with budgets measured in the hundreds of billions of dollars....Small example:  Imagine how much rainforest or other critical ecosystem that could be purchased and protected as a National Parks FOREVER with even a fraction of that money?  How much land could we reforest?  You can do your own math....but regardless of anything else, make sure you do assess the opportunity costs and specifically "What else could we be doing with that money and is it more environmentally friendly in the long run for the planet?". 

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Everybody here is way too intense. I really don't give a fuck.

My stance is..........when I can grow bananas in my backyard, I'll be happy.

 

[Haletown]

Everybody here is way too intense. I really don't give a frig.

My stance is..........when I can grow bananas in my backyard, I'll be happy.

I'm with you man . . .  banana trees in the backyard to provide shade for my outdoor beer fridge.

 

[jhk87]

OK . . .  in summary

Climate changes . . . it is supposed to change. Climate is a dynamic chaotic energy transfer system.

Dynamic + chaotic = change.  Change is good & normal.

Change is to Climate what Wet is to Water.

Humans impact Climate – yes we always have impacted climate.  So do beavers and termites

Yes scientists agree humans impact climate.  That’s a no brainer.

They don’t agree on two points – the impact of miniscule changes in the atmosphere’s composition and the second part of the AGW theory that says  CO2 causes positive feedback loops – loops that are theoretical, have yet to be measured and likely don’t exist.

So far the AGW theory has resulted numerous climate models that have been proven to not yield accurate results – when they hindcast them, the results do not reflect reality. The GCM’s don’t work at predicting the future.

The atmosphere warms up and cools down – always has, hopefully always will.  We have just come through a 30+ year scheduled warming cycle phase.  The change in temperature is not  unusual in its rate or duration . . .  totally normal.

The oceans are not rising rapidly, the polar ice caps are not dramatically melting– I checked the NSIDC yesterday and low & behold the ice coverage is over 1 Million Km2 above the average – go figure.  Tropical storm/Hurricane activity – number, intensity and Ace are way down – 60 year lows – somebody please tell Al Gore to fix his movie.


It has been a great public relations ride for the eco greenies –  those photoshopped pictures of cuddly drowning polar bears worked wonders to raise money from the gullible and they did a fantastic job at organizing governments into jumping on the bandwagon.  How could anyone be against “saving the planet”.

The unfortunate part of any con job is when reality imposes itself on the wild & crazy eco hysterical claims. That is what is happening now – reality diverging from the forecast of doom & gloom.

But you can believe whatever you want . . .

This is the problem precisely. You have your line of reasoning. People who, in all reasonable likelihood, know far mroe about it than you do, disagree. They, in turn, are branded as wrong, corrupt or worse.

I do find it interesting, though, that you of all people derided  ad hominem attacks, and then go on the offensive against, well, anyone who disagrees with you on a personal level.

ALL the models predict positive feedback loops.  Warming caused by adding CO2 to the atmosphere is an old theory . . been around since the mid 1800's. When the current round of fear & hysteria popped up in the mid 80's someone pointed out that adding CO2 to the atmosphere doesn't have a linear effect - it is logarithmic , so they dreamed up the Part 2 of the AGW theory - Positive Feedback Loops. 

Actually, the reason that the theories weren't taken seriously in the early 19th century was because our understanding was not certain, and scientific organisation tend to b very conservative. Around the 1980s, enough evidence had ammassed to support a boom in research. This is a normal scientific process.

We are seeing positive feedback loops in effect - even now, some of the southern permafrost is softening, and it is no coincidence that Russia is having record wildfires.

Also, if you claim that the scientific community - nearly all of it - is biased, then why don't you take claims from think-tanks and industry with a similar sceptical attittude?

 

[Fishbone Jones]

This is the problem precisely. You have your line of reasoning. People who, in all reasonable likelihood, know far mroe about it than you do, disagree. They, in turn, are branded as wrong, corrupt or worse.

Go look in the mirror :

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

Actually, the reason that the theories weren't taken seriously in the early 19th century was because our understanding was not certain,

How egotistical.
If "our understanding" was that certain today I hardly think we would have a thread 59 pages long, and counting, on a website that really exists for a whole another topic.

 

[Haletown]

Go look in the mirror :

Amen bro . . .  can't say we didn't try but I haven't the time or patience to help any Warmistas any more.

Have to go do my Christmas shopping. 

Sure hope Santa can get his sled airborne what with all the melted North Pole & stuff. 

Maybe he's using pontoons now ?

 

[Old Sweat]

May I suggest a book that at least raises some questions about the veracity of the data? Try The Hockey Stick Illusion. Climategate and the Corruption of Science by A. W. Montford.

Warning - its title indicates its point of view. Having said that, it takes a reasoned approach. It also is very hard going in places when the author dissects the statistics behind the analysis. Bascially he asserts that some basic rules of statistics have been broken, knowingly or not, and this has skewed the results in favour of the manmade global warming thesis.

If nothing else, it raises some points regarding the scientific method employed by the climate science community.

 

[Journeyman]

People who, in all reasonable likelihood, know far mroe [sic] about it than you do, disagree. They, in turn, are branded as wrong, corrupt or worse.

Not wishing to be branded as one resorting to ad hominum reasoning, I have asked you (now THREE times) simply for clarification.
In response to YOUR claim of tangible improvements to IPCC, I've asked:
Name two tangible improvements and what they've done to correct/balance the earlier discredited reports.

Thus far, you've repeatedly dodged the request and posted irrelevantly that "some of the southern permafrost is softening, and it is no coincidence that Russia is having record wildfires."

No one is arguing against the world getting warmer

The point is how much of it is naturally cyclic (there's a reason Greenland was named Greenland) and how much is my personal fault because I own a Jeep and a Harley? IPCC has been unable to produce credible evidence to support the latter proposition's gloom & doom to justify legislation that my lifestyle and taxable income must suffer.

You are more than free to wring your hands and gnash your teeth.
But if you have no evidence beyond the discredited IPCC (see the clarification requested three-times), relying instead upon unsubstantiated supposition ("it's no coincidence....),
....then keep your hands out of my wallet.


ps:

Actually, the reason that the theories weren't taken seriously in the early 19th century was because our understanding was not certain,

Actually.....you do understand that the early 19th century spanned 1800-1820ish -- global warming wasn't really an issue   

 

[jhk87]

When have I ever called cliamte sceptics a corrupt cabal? This habit of one-liners which deflect any sort of challenge to the sceptical line of reasoning on this thread really has to stop if it will be of benefit to anyone.

 

[aesop081]

People who, in all reasonable likelihood, know far mroe about it than you do, disagree.

Let me fix that for you :

"People who, in all reasonable likelihood, know far more about it than you do, cannot even agree amongst themselves."

The falacy of the whole crisis has been show clearly enough. "Climategate" was just the final nail.