Global Warming/Climate Change Super Thread

[Michael OLeary]

It's clear you're not scientifically literate enough to understand your own statement.

That makes me curious. What, exactly, are your qualifications to be a self-proclaimed expert on this topic?

 

[SeaKingTacco]

Yes, I am suddenly curious, too.

I know who Journeyman is in real life. He is actually a pretty smart dude. And has some pretty cool academic qualifications.

Kilo...who are you, exactly?

 

[Journeyman]

(some say it's 0.8 degrees in 100 years)

"Some say" lots of things.  :dunno:  I just used what you posted -- feel free to contradict yourself as readily as everyone else.

Quite frankly, I posted my views here.  I assure you, I haven't been swayed otherwise in the interim.

It's clear you're not scientifically literate enough...

Hurtful man, just hurtful.  :'(

I think I'll stick to the chemtrail, alien landing, and lizard overlord conspiracy sites; they don't throw it in my face that I'm just a simple country bumpkin.

I know who Journeyman is in real life.

        shhhh

I was going to say "don't listen to him Kilo,"  but then, I can't imagine him starting to listen now.  ;D

 

[Kilo_302]

Once again, Kilo, I will ask you-

Why do you bother?

You roll in here about monthly, post a bunch of links and articles, state how (obviously) smart and enlightened you are, call us a bunch of stupid jerks for not applauding your brilliance, then leave in a huff for about a month.

This question has nothing to do with AGW, per se. And it is not designed to trap you. I am genuinely curious to understand your motivation.

You seem to have a clarity of view on the data set that I do not share (admittedly, I don't spend my whole online like immersed in AGW). Maybe it because I am old and always figure when that when someone is trying really, really hard to sell me something, there is more at work than meets the eye.

I'm on this site mainly because of my interest in the military. But when I see threads like this, where people are posting what are clearly fraudulent articles, attaching very political rhetoric to what should be straightforward data (ie green conspiracy, socialist agenda, the UN blah blah) I try to present "the other side" which in this case, I'm sorry to say, is simply reality.

I could just as easily question the motivation of many posters here. Why deny all of this science? Do they believe what they are posting, or does it merely fit within a rigid ideology? I think they main reason people deny this science is that accepting it would require some sort of collective action. That doesn't sound very libertarian or jive with more conservative views on the role of government, so they merely deny the science. Does carbon still absorb infrared radiation if you're a conservative? I don't know.

A true debate around climate change should consist of, "We know it's happening, but what do we do about it?"

Yes, I am suddenly curious, too.

I know who Journeyman is in real life. He is actually a pretty smart dude. And has some pretty cool academic qualifications.

Kilo...who are you, exactly?

A concerned citizen who has a hard to kick interest in the military.

That makes me curious. What, exactly, are your qualifications to be a self-proclaimed expert on this topic?

I can read (and navigate the interweb), and did a minor in biology at university. This gives me a basic level of scientific literacy that exceeds that of the average Canadian. That's not a boast, that's a fact.
Instead of questioning who I am, address the argument I just made.

Do you, Michael O'Leary, personally know everyone on this site who has argued AGW is NOT occurring? Are their backgrounds up for questioning as well?

Is anyone going to deny that carbon absorbs infrared radiation?

Can anyone present evidence that the 0.8 (or 0.7) temperature rise in the last 100 or so years has no correlation with increasing carbon emissions over the same period?

"Some say" lots of things.  :dunno:  I just used what you posted -- feel free to contradict yourself as readily as everyone else.

Quite frankly, I posted my views here.  I assure you, I haven't been swayed otherwise in the interim.
Hurtful man, just hurtful.  :'(

I think I'll stick to the chemtrail, alien landing, and lizard overlord conspiracy sites; they don't throw it in my face that I'm just a simple country bumpkin.

        shhhh

I was going to say "don't listen to him Kilo,"  but then, I can't imagine him starting to listen now.  ;D

So do you accept that 0.7 (or 0.8, I included that because there IS a range within the overall consensus) IS a major increase given that it's 10 times the rate of any historical warming?

Your assumption that this increase is nothing to worry about is demonstrably false. Can you elaborate as to why YOU are qualified to infer that a temperature increase 10 times the rate of any naturally occurring warming in the past is not cause for alarm?

I assume we are agreeing that the temperature HAS increased by at least 0.7 degrees right? Why isn't that rate a problem for you?

 

[SeaKingTacco]

Kilo,

I want to thank-you for answering my question frankly. Your answer humanizes you.

However, it is clear to me that your day job is not sales. The first rule of selling something is: do not insult your customers, ever.

In short- you want to convince me of something, try to avoid calling me an idiot while you are doing so. I too, happen to both care about the environment and the future of humanity. I just happen to see the potential cures for AGW (if it truly exists and is not caused by volcanoes, solar cycles or space aliens) as way worse than the disease.

 

[Kilo_302]

I believe it was someone else who used the term "idiot." However if I have come across as being rude I apologize. 

At the same time, using the term "scientific literacy" is not meant to insult, it's a widely used term and the most descriptive I think.

Actually my day job IS sales  ;D

As far as actions (or cures) around climate change, that is EXACTLY where I think the discussion should be taking place. Rational and informed people can certainly disagree on how much of a role government should play, or the "market." But we are really wasting time discussing the science behind it. Many conservatives the world over have accepted AGW as reality, so let's focus on what we should do.

 

[George Wallace]

That makes me curious. What, exactly, are your qualifications to be a self-proclaimed expert on this topic?

If I remember correctly, you may have already asked that question many pages ago, and the reply was that he had no such qualifications; but I could be wrong.  :dunno:

 

[Kilo_302]

If I remember correctly, you may have already asked that question many pages ago, and the reply was that he had no such qualifications; but I could be wrong.  :dunno:

If the weight of scientific evidence is on "my" side, shouldn't you be more (or at least equally) concerned with the qualifications of people who are denying AGW even exists?

All I'm doing here is quoting readily available scientific reports, and that's all the other side is doing. The difference is again, the weight of evidence I'm presenting. Mathematically, the vast majority of serious scientists and scientific institutions in the world agree AGW is a reality.

As I've posted above, you have to start denying the very basics of science to deny AGW.

So again, when your buddy posts something like "Gee it's snowing today so AGW can't be happening," do you also question HIS background or qualifications? If you don't then it's clear this isn't a real debate for you, your mind is made up no matter what evidence you're presented with.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

cld617 & kilo-302,

You have both received warning for your ad hominem attacks. No one has the right to attack others by calling them idiots, nor is it acceptable to keep inferring (yes, this is not the first time) that others lack any kind of scientific literacy. It simply alludes to the intolerance of your own positions, not any kind of superiority on your parts. The Warning ladder has very few rungs on it.

---Staff---

 

[George Wallace]

There are mountains and mountains of data that show AGW is a reality, and the data is only getting stronger. [/url]

Of course there are mountains and mountains of data that 'may' show AGW is a reality.  There are also mountains of data that will show that there is not as serious of a threat as you may seem to think.  What is even more important is the lack of mountains and mountains of data that explore other non-man-made causes. 

What exactly has been researched on the expansion of the Sun in its aging process, or the affects of Solar Activity?  If the surface of Mars is experiencing similar climatic changes as Earth, what has mankind done to affect that planet?  Huh? 

What exactly has been researched in the change in our Magnetic North Pole over the years and its' affect on the climate?  As our Magnetic Poles shift, there must be some affect on our environment.  Does mankind have any affect on the annual Magnetic Declination?  Do we have to research a means to stop it?

There are mountains and mountains of data that still do not exist to explain a vast number of things that may affect our environment, so I personally am not going to get into a panic and do the "Chicken Little - The Sky is Falling.  The Sky is Falling." dance.

 

[Kilo_302]

cld617 & kilo-302,

You have both received warning for your ad hominem attacks. No one has the right to attack others by calling them idiots, nor is it acceptable to keep inferring (yes, this is not the first time) that others lack any kind of scientific literacy. It simply alludes to the intolerance of your own positions, not any kind of superiority on your parts. The Warning ladder has very few rungs on it.

---Staff---

I will agree that calling someone an idiot is not acceptable, but I will disagree that using the term scientific literacy should be construed as an insult when we are attempting to debate science.

In the specific instance you are referring to, Journeyman suggested (with no small amount of sarcasm which I think is equally unhelpful) that 0.7 degrees is insignificant. This demonstrates a lack of scientific literacy, as we have seen this rate of warming is 10 times above anything that's ever occurred.

"Idiot" comment aside, the fact that you're singling out cld617 and myself for "ad hominem" attacks and no one else underlines you're more concerned with our positions than our civility (or lack thereof). Singling us out also means you're suggesting no one else has made ad hominem attacks against us. I just finished explaining who I was and why I was on this site. That is the very definition of ad hominem.

I would ask then that you retract your suggestion that only cld617 and I have engaged in ad hominem attacks, or modify it by including at least some of the litany of ad hominem attacks we have faced recently on this thread. Or I can re-post them OR send them to you via PM.

 

[Journeyman]

Your assumption that this increase is nothing to worry about is demonstrably false. Can you elaborate as to why YOU are qualified to infer that a temperature increase 10 times the rate of any naturally occurring warming in the past is not cause for alarm?

I assume we are agreeing that the temperature HAS increased by at least 0.7 degrees right? Why isn't that rate a problem for you?

I'll try again:

I        <-- inferring me only;
don't <-- a contraction for "do not" (to avoid any misunderstanding; it denotes a negative)
care  <-- there are many, many issues in my life involving f*ck-giving -- maybe even cause for alarm; global warming, regardless of its degree of natural or anthropogenic causality, is not one of them.


Now, I know people for whom the juniper berry blight in Scotland and Argentina is cause for alarm.  I don't drink gin, therefore it's not a problem for me.

I know some people who drive diesel-fueled Volkswagens, so they're concerned about their next emissions test.  I don't drive a VW, therefore it's not a problem for me.

I know people who can't get past PM Trudeau's hair; I'm not a hairdresser, therefore it's not a problem for me.

The main difference in all of these is, not one of these people wants my money because of something they  consider alarming.


And I assure you, my "suggestion" that a 0.7 degree temperature change is insignificant is not remotely sarcastic -- it is simply my perspective. 

 

[Kilo_302]

I'll try again:

I        <-- inferring me only;
don't <-- a contraction for "do not" (to avoid any misunderstanding; it denotes a negative)
care  <-- there are many, many issues in my life involving ****-giving -- maybe even cause for alarm; global warming, regardless of its degree of natural or anthropogenic causality, is not one of them.


Now, I know people for whom the juniper berry blight in Scotland and Argentina is cause for alarm.  I don't drink gin, therefore it's not a problem for me.

I know some people who drive diesel-fueled Volkswagens, so they're concerned about their next emissions test.  I don't drive a VW, therefore it's not a problem for me.

I know people who can't get past PM Trudeau's hair; I'm not a hairdresser, therefore it's not a problem for me.

The main difference in all of these is, not one of these people wants my money because of something they  consider alarming.


And I assure you, my "suggestion" that a 0.7 degree temperature change is insignificant is not remotely sarcastic -- it is simply my perspective.

So now your perspective (I reuse this term because by definition a perspective is NOT a position) is "it might be happening, but I don't care." If this is the case, your contributions are meaningless.

If on the other hand, you're suggesting that we needn't be worried by AGW, that's another discussion I am happy to have.

 

[Journeyman]

If this is the case, your contributions are meaningless.

Unless one is willing to consider that their pet project is not necessarily all-consuming for everyone.  Not everyone's world is black & white.  You may wish to consider that there is another group of people who are neither fixated and 'right-thinking,' nor in complete, apparently-deluded denial when it comes to demanding government funding.

 

[Good2Golf]

...None of us are specialists here, so I'm not sure why anyone here thinks their analysis of scientific data is relevant at all. Not when you can easily find the official position of any institution on climate change.

So critical thought is not required, just trust the [insert personal choice of scientific organization] web site? (or singular parts you like)

Thanks, but no thanks.  As a physicist and engineer with a fairly decent background in statistics, I'll apply a bit of my own critical thought to data and various organizations' analysis of them, but you are of course welcome to defer personally to others' views with which you agree.

You will note in the previous discourse, that not only did I acknowledge AGW as a contributor to the overall issue, but also pointed to direct links to a fairly reputable scientific body (you don't seem to have an issue picking phrases of theirs with which you generally agree) and noted my own personal views of what the statistical trending in the last decade and a half meant to me.  You can see a continuing upward trend, that is your right.  I see a statistical flattening of the previous steeper curve.  Perhaps we can continue this discussion in another five years when you can take NOAA up on their recommendation to look at things in context, considering decade averages to be a greater indicator of overall trends in GM, natural and man-made.

Regards
G2G

p.s.  Go CANDU!

 

[Kilo_302]

So critical thought is not required, just trust the [insert personal choice of scientific organization] web site? (or singular parts you like)

Thanks, but no thanks.  As a physicist and engineer with a fairly decent background in statistics, I'll apply a bit of my own critical thought to data and various organizations' analysis of them, but you are of course welcome to defer personally to others' views with which you agree.

You will note in the previous discourse, that not only did I acknowledge AGW as a contributor to the overall issue, but also pointed to direct links to a fairly reputable scientific body (you don't seem to have an issue picking phrases of theirs with which you generally agree) and noted my own personal views of what the statistical trending in the last decade and a half meant to me.  You can see a continuing upward trend, that is your right.  I see a statistical flattening of the previous steeper curve.  Perhaps we can continue this discussion in another five years when you can take NOAA up on their recommendation to look at things in context, considering decade averages to be a greater indicator of overall trends in GM, natural and manx-made.

Regards
G2G

p.s.  Go CANDU!

If you can provide greater context then I will look at it. But you haven't explained why on the very NOAA site they state their position on climate change quite clearly. They list the causes and the potential negative effects. I'm of the mind that an organization's officially stated opinion in the matter provides more context than the specific report you cited. Presumably, the NOAA took that report into consideration when forming their public opinion on the matter.

 

[Kilo_302]

So critical thought is not required, just trust the [insert personal choice of scientific organization] web site? (or singular parts you like)

Thanks, but no thanks.  As a physicist and engineer with a fairly decent background in statistics, I'll apply a bit of my own critical thought to data and various organizations' analysis of them, but you are of course welcome to defer personally to others' views with which you agree.

You will note in the previous discourse, that not only did I acknowledge AGW as a contributor to the overall issue, but also pointed to direct links to a fairly reputable scientific body (you don't seem to have an issue picking phrases of theirs with which you generally agree) and noted my own personal views of what the statistical trending in the last decade and a half meant to me.  You can see a continuing upward trend, that is your right.  I see a statistical flattening of the previous steeper curve.  Perhaps we can continue this discussion in another five years when you can take NOAA up on their recommendation to look at things in context, considering decade averages to be a greater indicator of overall trends in GM, natural and man-made.

Regards
G2G

p.s.  Go CANDU!

As for "just trust the [insert personal choice of scientific organization] web site? (or singular parts you like)", I'll post this list again:

http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

http://opr.ca.gov/s_listoforganizations.php


    Academia Chilena de Ciencias, Chile
    Academia das Ciencias de Lisboa, Portugal
    Academia de Ciencias de la República Dominicana
    Academia de Ciencias Físicas, Matemáticas y Naturales de Venezuela
    Academia de Ciencias Medicas, Fisicas y Naturales de Guatemala
    Academia Mexicana de Ciencias,Mexico
    Academia Nacional de Ciencias de Bolivia
    Academia Nacional de Ciencias del Peru
    Académie des Sciences et Techniques du Sénégal
    Académie des Sciences, France
    Academies of Arts, Humanities and Sciences of Canada
    Academy of Athens
    Academy of Science of Mozambique
    Academy of Science of South Africa
    Academy of Sciences for the Developing World (TWAS)
    Academy of Sciences Malaysia
    Academy of Sciences of Moldova
    Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic
    Academy of Sciences of the Islamic Republic of Iran
    Academy of Scientific Research and Technology, Egypt
    Academy of the Royal Society of New Zealand
    Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei, Italy
    Africa Centre for Climate and Earth Systems Science
    African Academy of Sciences
    Albanian Academy of Sciences
    Amazon Environmental Research Institute
    American Academy of Pediatrics
    American Anthropological Association
    American Association for the Advancement of Science
    American Association of State Climatologists (AASC)
    American Association of Wildlife Veterinarians
    American Astronomical Society
    American Chemical Society
    American College of Preventive Medicine
    American Fisheries Society
    American Geophysical Union
    American Institute of Biological Sciences
    American Institute of Physics
    American Meteorological Society
    American Physical Society
    American Public Health Association
    American Quaternary Association
    American Society for Microbiology
    American Society of Agronomy
    American Society of Civil Engineers
    American Society of Plant Biologists
    American Statistical Association
    Association of Ecosystem Research Centers
    Australian Academy of Science
    Australian Bureau of Meteorology
    Australian Coral Reef Society
    Australian Institute of Marine Science
    Australian Institute of Physics
    Australian Marine Sciences Association
    Australian Medical Association
    Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society 
    Bangladesh Academy of Sciences
    Botanical Society of America
    Brazilian Academy of Sciences
    British Antarctic Survey
    Bulgarian Academy of Sciences
    California Academy of Sciences
    Cameroon Academy of Sciences
    Canadian Association of Physicists
    Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences
    Canadian Geophysical Union
    Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
    Canadian Society of Soil Science
    Canadian Society of Zoologists
    Caribbean Academy of Sciences views
    Center for International Forestry Research
    Chinese Academy of Sciences
    Colombian Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences
    Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization (CSIRO) (Australia)
    Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research
    Croatian Academy of Arts and Sciences
    Crop Science Society of America
    Cuban Academy of Sciences
    Delegation of the Finnish Academies of Science and Letters
    Ecological Society of America
    Ecological Society of Australia
    Environmental Protection Agency
    European Academy of Sciences and Arts
    European Federation of Geologists
    European Geosciences Union
    European Physical Society
    European Science Foundation
    Federation of American Scientists
    French Academy of Sciences
    Geological Society of America
    Geological Society of Australia
    Geological Society of London
    Georgian Academy of Sciences 
    German Academy of Natural Scientists Leopoldina 
    Ghana Academy of Arts and Sciences
    Indian National Science Academy
    Indonesian Academy of Sciences 
    Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management
    Institute of Marine Engineering, Science and Technology
    Institute of Professional Engineers New Zealand
    Institution of Mechanical Engineers, UK
    InterAcademy Council
    International Alliance of Research Universities
    International Arctic Science Committee
    International Association for Great Lakes Research
    International Council for Science
    International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences
    International Research Institute for Climate and Society
    International Union for Quaternary Research
    International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics
    International Union of Pure and Applied Physics
    Islamic World Academy of Sciences
    Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities
    Kenya National Academy of Sciences
    Korean Academy of Science and Technology
    Kosovo Academy of Sciences and Arts
    l'Académie des Sciences et Techniques du Sénégal
    Latin American Academy of Sciences
    Latvian Academy of Sciences
    Lithuanian Academy of Sciences
    Madagascar National Academy of Arts, Letters, and Sciences
    Mauritius Academy of Science and Technology
    Montenegrin Academy of Sciences and Arts
    National Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences, Argentina
    National Academy of Sciences of Armenia
    National Academy of Sciences of the Kyrgyz Republic
    National Academy of Sciences, Sri Lanka
    National Academy of Sciences, United States of America
    National Aeronautics and Space Administration 
    National Association of Geoscience Teachers
    National Association of State Foresters
    National Center for Atmospheric Research 
    National Council of Engineers Australia
    National Institute of Water & Atmospheric Research, New Zealand
    National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
    National Research Council
    National Science Foundation
    Natural England
    Natural Environment Research Council, UK
    Natural Science Collections Alliance
    Network of African Science Academies
    New York Academy of Sciences
    Nicaraguan Academy of Sciences
    Nigerian Academy of Sciences
    Norwegian Academy of Sciences and Letters
    Oklahoma Climatological Survey
    Organization of Biological Field Stations
    Pakistan Academy of Sciences
    Palestine Academy for Science and Technology
    Pew Center on Global Climate Change
    Polish Academy of Sciences
    Romanian Academy
    Royal Academies for Science and the Arts of Belgium
    Royal Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences of Spain
    Royal Astronomical Society, UK
    Royal Danish Academy of Sciences and Letters
    Royal Irish Academy
    Royal Meteorological Society (UK)
    Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences
    Royal Netherlands Institute for Sea Research
    Royal Scientific Society of Jordan
    Royal Society of Canada
    Royal Society of Chemistry, UK
    Royal Society of the United Kingdom
    Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences
    Russian Academy of Sciences
    Science and Technology, Australia 
    Science Council of Japan
    Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research
    Scientific Committee on Solar-Terrestrial Physics
    Scripps Institution of Oceanography
    Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts
    Slovak Academy of Sciences
    Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts
    Society for Ecological Restoration International
    Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics
    Society of American Foresters 
    Society of Biology (UK) 
    Society of Systematic Biologists
    Soil Science Society of America 
    Sudan Academy of Sciences
    Sudanese National Academy of Science
    Tanzania Academy of Sciences
    The Wildlife Society (international)
    Turkish Academy of Sciences
    Uganda National Academy of Sciences
    Union of German Academies of Sciences and Humanities
    United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
    University Corporation for Atmospheric Research
    Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution
    World Association of Zoos and Aquariums
    World Federation of Public Health Associations
    World Forestry Congress
    World Health Organization
    World Meteorological Organization
    Zambia Academy of Sciences
    Zimbabwe Academy of Sciences

 

[Kilo_302]

Critical thought is exactly what this is about. Being able to understand what a quality source is versus one that doesn't stand up to academic rigour is exactly what we are doing here. The list I posted above clearly shows that a vast majority of recognized scientific institutions are in broad agreement that climate change is anthropomorphic. In the scientific community, the real discussion now is what we do about it.

Scientists have been wrong before, of that there is no doubt.

 

[Kilo_302]

Was going to continue...but with this much consensus the onus is definitely on the tiny minority of voices who doubt that AGW exists or is even problem.

 

[Good2Golf]

Kilo_302:
Was going to continue...but with this much consensus the onus is definitely on the tiny minority of voices who doubt that AGW exists or is even problem.

Since I have repeatedly acknowledged AGW's contribution to overall GW, I see you're not referring to me then.

As an aside, what is your perspective on the validity of 'qualified' statements, versus I 'quantified' statements,  you seem to like qualified statements, yet eschew quantified statements and/or records that are demonstrably detailed and agreed upon by all, including that long list of organizations you provided. 

I agree that consolidated support appears to be an important factor for you, as it should.  There is also no doubt that whether it is flattening or still trending towards an increase, that 0.6°C incremental anomoly above mean is a rather large amount of increased energy within the Earth's atmosphere, and whatever reasonable an truly achievable measures that can be taken to reduce the trend, should be. Banning of CFCs was a worthy, and although arguable to some, positive action taken by mankind to reduce the pact of humans upon the environment.  Until true alternatives are found for fossil fuels, GW, be it A or N, will continue to influence the oceanic and terrestrial environments. My own personal choices for high energy efficiency at home and a ULEV for both me and my wife (and use of oublic transportation where possible) sit well with me as my part to directly reduce the impact I personally place on the Earth.  Getting grid-neutral, or even off-grid and minimal impact footprint (abd not just CO2, or whatever the next flavour of the month/year will be) remains a personal lifestyle goal, but that will occur within my own educated and analytical framework/perspective. 

Let me ask you this, Kilo, do you volunteer your own frequent flyer points to help reduce green house gas emmisions when you buy your ticket?  I don't because I don't trust the Governments or other regulatory agencies to translate such personal concessions into actions/activities that positively and correlatably improve the  AGW situation.

:2c:

Regards,
G2G