Real Science

[woodchip]

In merry olde England science is only for those who toe the official cant, all others need to be muzzled:

"Ministers who question the majority view among scientists about climate change should “shut up” and instead repeat the Government line on the issue, according to MPs.

The BBC should also give less airtime to climate skeptics and its editors should seek special clearance to interview them, according to the Commons Science and Technology Committee. Andrew Miller, the committee’s Labour chairman, said that appearances on radio and television by climate skeptics such as Lord Lawson of Blaby, the former Chancellor of the Exchequer, should be accompanied by “health warnings”. "
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/environme ... 051905.ece

So do you understand why I look on warmers in the same light as Scientology members? Only by promoting opposing views will real science develop.

[Tunnelcat]

Ignore the peril at your own risk.

[callmeslick]

exactly, TC. The preponderance of data supporting rather rapid sea level rises, and other climatic changes(whether one wishes to parse the causation) is overwhelming, and essentially doubted by no one of any professional repute in the fields related to it.

[Will Robinson]

It is pretty disingenuous, or ignorant depending on if you are aware of the distinction, to characterize all the non conformist scientists as being of one stubborn block denying the climate is in flux and currently trending warmer.
It is a convenient strawman to attack when it is easy enough to illustrate the temp rising etc. and thus 'everyone who questions *that* is obviously stupid'. When in fact, many of them don't deny the temp change.

The nuance that is being ignored for the sake of an easier argument is how much of that rise is due to anthropogenic factors...and of that factor how much is truly avoidable...and finally how much wealth redistribution is having any effect on the human caused warming?

Those are the details that some scientists have dared to point out at the risk of being ostracized for not going along with the cool kids.

[vision]

The nuance that is being ignored for the sake of an easier argument is how much of that rise is due to anthropogenic factors...and of that factor how much is truly avoidable...and finally how much wealth redistribution is having any effect on the human caused warming?

How is this being ignored? This is exactly what United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change addresses. And we already went through all of this three months ago.

The sad news is, we have a very good idea how much of the warming is due to human activity and we also understand it's is relatively impossible to stop. You should have noticed the conversation has changed from "stop global warming" to "minimize the forthcoming disaster" because that's what is realistic now. The window to stop anthropogenic warming closed years ago. But unfortunately there are still people who think warming isn't happening or that it is not a problem. This belief is dangerous and can be compared to people who engage in any type of risky behavior and think "oh, that wont happen to me."

[Will Robinson]

The distinction is not being addressed in the everyday civilian discussion. From the bully pulpits of celebrity and politician we hear polarizing name calling that turns the discussion into a political hot potato game.

We saw the UN alter publications to remove temp spikes in graphs etc because it was making their argument harder to get across to the average Joe...well that is a shame but they shot themselves in the foot by doing those things. And now you have so called 'leaders' acting like asshats shouting down any one who dares question their plans.

Those things have made it very easy for the opposition to make a lot of people very skeptical of the arrogant clique of self appointed authority on what-is-a-proper-plan.

By the way, you may be too young to remember previous looming eco-disasters but I was an original tree hugging hippy leading up to the last one. I was working in the desert building nature trails in science class on the first Earth Day and I recall being told an ice age was going to happen by the year 2000. There was a lot of serious science and consensus behind those warnings too. I was preaching it to the adults back then and full of self righteous warnings that my science teacher infected me with.

Funny how the big blue marble just laughed at that nonsense and got warm instead of cold.

[vision]

Those things have made it very easy for the opposition to make a lot of people very skeptical of the arrogant clique of self appointed authority on what-is-a-proper-plan.

Who is self appointed? Please name these self-appointed authorities. Also, when you make a career out of a specific field, you become and expert and your word should be taken at a higher regard than someone who is simply contrarian.

By the way, you may be too young to remember previous looming eco-disasters...

Actually, I was there too. It's because of growing up with global-cooling that I was a hardcore denier of global-warming for all the same skeptical reasons. I also had teachers reinforce this view. Guess what? I was wrong and I'm not afraid to admit it. The science it there for all to look at. In fact the science of global-cooling is available too, and as it turns out there was nowhere near a scientific consensus on cooling in the 70's, let alone the overwhelming consensus we see on warming today. Of course, you think it's all a conspiracy so I'm not sure why I'm explaining this to you.

[snoopy]

It is pretty disingenuous, or ignorant depending on if you are aware of the distinction, to characterize all the non conformist scientists as being of one stubborn block denying the climate is in flux and currently trending warmer.
It is a convenient strawman to attack when it is easy enough to illustrate the temp rising etc. and thus 'everyone who questions *that* is obviously stupid'. When in fact, many of them don't deny the temp change.

The nuance that is being ignored for the sake of an easier argument is how much of that rise is due to anthropogenic factors...and of that factor how much is truly avoidable...and finally how much wealth redistribution is having any effect on the human caused warming?

Those are the details that some scientists have dared to point out at the risk of being ostracized for not going along with the cool kids.

It's funny, the way that this is being handled by the majority scientists seems very similar to the old square earth, earth center of the universe arguments. My personal lesson from all of this is that I need to be very careful to objectively listen of other opinions before I simply dismiss them... or try to shout them down. When I see people trying to suppress the voices of the dissidents, I usually start to suspect the arguments of the majority...

[Will Robinson]

Those things have made it very easy for the opposition to make a lot of people very skeptical of the arrogant clique of self appointed authority on what-is-a-proper-plan.

Who is self appointed? Please name these self-appointed authorities. Also, when you make a career out of a specific field, you become and expert and your word should be taken at a higher regard than someone who is simply contrarian.

Al Gore, he has no credentials, but he built a carbon credit brokerage to handle the transfer of wealth...for a fee of course...you can catch his 'concern show' world wide wherever his private jet can land.
Most of the mainstream media talking heads who don't just report the data but editorialize constantly.
Every politician who knows their constituents gobble this stuff up will blame all sorts of events on global warming...hurricane Sandy for example.

By the way, you may be too young to remember previous looming eco-disasters...

Actually, I was there too. It's because of growing up with global-cooling that I was a hardcore denier of global-warming for all the same skeptical reasons. I also had teachers reinforce this view. Guess what? I was wrong and I'm not afraid to admit it. The science it there for all to look at. In fact the science of global-cooling is available too, and as it turns out there was nowhere near a scientific consensus on cooling in the 70's, let alone the overwhelming consensus we see on warming today. Of course, you think it's all a conspiracy so I'm not sure why I'm explaining this to you.

There you go, shout me down with accusations I'm a denier who thinks it is all conspiracy. Even though that isn't true. You are just afraid to have the tactics and plans and extortionists of the 'consensus movement' challenged so you characterize my comments as being completely loony so you can dismiss them.

[callmeslick]

as I said earlier in this thread, folks can parse the causation if that floats their boat, but for anyone remotely near a coastline, failure to plan and prepare for the rather well accepted trend is courting long-term disaster. Playing politics, and in so doing, fooling the slow-witted into thinking 'there is no real global warming, or climate change, occurring' is irresponsible to the point of near-criminal.

[woodchip]

as I said earlier in this thread, folks can parse the causation if that floats their boat, but for anyone remotely near a coastline, failure to plan and prepare for the rather well accepted trend is courting long-term disaster. Playing politics, and in so doing, fooling the slow-witted into thinking 'there is no real global warming, or climate change, occurring' is irresponsible to the point of near-criminal.

And once again your argument is specious. Most all the critics are not saying there is not global warming occurring, they just question if it is human induced. So what is really criminal are people like you trying to block dissenting science so your viewpoint is the only one those "dimwitted" individuals hear. Science based on fear of the majority is not real science.

[callmeslick]

as I said earlier in this thread, folks can parse the causation if that floats their boat, but for anyone remotely near a coastline, failure to plan and prepare for the rather well accepted trend is courting long-term disaster. Playing politics, and in so doing, fooling the slow-witted into thinking 'there is no real global warming, or climate change, occurring' is irresponsible to the point of near-criminal.

And once again your argument is specious. Most all the critics are not saying there is not global warming occurring, they just question if it is human induced. So what is really criminal are people like you trying to block dissenting science so your viewpoint is the only one those "dimwitted" individuals hear. Science based on fear of the majority is not real science.

sorry, but the deniers take the implication FAR past causation, to where they (purposely, I think) seem to encourage doubt about the entire reality unfolding. As Vision noted, it is quite likely that we can't stop the processes caused by man(and those are VERY well researched and documented, FWIW), and can, at best, hope to mitigate some of them. But we can do things to protect our coastal communities, and prepare for the types of severe weather events which are become more frequent.

[woodchip]

sorry, but the deniers take the implication FAR past causation, to where they (purposely, I think) seem to encourage doubt about the entire reality unfolding. As Vision noted, it is quite likely that we can't stop the processes caused by man(and those are VERY well researched and documented, FWIW), and can, at best, hope to mitigate some of them. But we can do things to protect our coastal communities, and prepare for the types of severe weather events which are become more frequent.[/quote]

So lets look at a peer reviewed "Denier":

ABSTRACT
"Conventional theory of global warming states that heating of atmosphere occurs as a result of accumulation of CO2 and CH4 in atmosphere. The writers show that rising concentration of CO2 should result in the cooling of climate. The methane accumulation has no essential effect on the Earth’s climate. Even significant releases of the anthropogenic carbon dioxide into the atmosphere do not change average parameters of the Earth’s heat regime and the atmospheric greenhouse effect. Moreover, CO2 concentration increase in the atmosphere results in rising agricultural productivity and improves the conditions for reforestation. Thus, accumulation of small additional amounts of carbon dioxide and methane in the atmosphere as a result of anthropogenic activities has practically no effect on the Earth’s climate."

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009EnGeo..58.1207C

So what you are saying slick, is this researcher a criminal and needs to be locked up?

[callmeslick]

no, it's over 5 years old. IIRC, there was some debate, but the models were found faulty by peer-review.

[woodchip]

no, it's over 5 years old. IIRC, there was some debate, but the models were found faulty by peer-review.

Yeah right. Until you bring up some peer reviewed links your fantasy opinions are just that.

[callmeslick]

woody, here's a link to the first major rebuttal:
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1 ... 0600968648

what, in a nutshell, was shown in this and a few others, were that the geologists in your reference(hardly criminals, well-meaning learned men/women) failed, in their modelling, to account to the complexities of biological response in the ecosystem of the rise in CO2 and methane. In other words, they simply looked at the increase as a static phenomenon, when, in fact, it leads to a massive amount of bacteriological activity and other activity within the Earth's biomass, that, when all is said and done, create a sort of solar energy trap within our atmosphere.

[callmeslick]

note, also, Woody, that the article you cited at no time denied that the warming was occurring. They merely questioned the WHY of such occurrance, and expressed doubt within their model that CO2 and methane were the actual culprits.

[woodchip]

woody, here's a link to the first major rebuttal:
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1 ... 0600968648

what, in a nutshell, was shown in this and a few others, were that the geologists in your reference(hardly criminals, well-meaning learned men/women) failed, in their modelling, to account to the complexities of biological response in the ecosystem of the rise in CO2 and methane. In other words, they simply looked at the increase as a static phenomenon, when, in fact, it leads to a massive amount of bacteriological activity and other activity within the Earth's biomass, that, when all is said and done, create a sort of solar energy trap within our atmosphere.

I don't see a rebuttal to the paper I listed. I see a different study that may or may not contradict the study I linked but not directly so.

[woodchip]

note, also, Woody, that the article you cited at no time denied that the warming was occurring. They merely questioned the WHY of such occurrance, and expressed doubt within their model that CO2 and methane were the actual culprits.

And is CO2 is the big monster the warmers all default to. Point here is you'll never see my linked report being in media print as it goes against the holy Grail of man made warming.

[snoopy]

Here's where I agree:

A significant rise in ocean temperature, level, and/or carbon dioxide concentration will have very large effects on the global ecosystem. I think that displacement of our living locations will only the be beginning of it - I'd expect large-scale extinctions, etc. especially in the oceans - any of these changes are likely to result in mass algae blooms which will throw off the balance of the oceanic ecosystem in catastrophic ways. I think that all of this global warming/climate change stuff is a likely reality and that it'll lead to a "shakeup" on the scale of when dinosaurs went extinct. What we don't really know is exactly how "positively stable" or "negatively stable" everything is on a global scale... so maybe nature will self-correct faster than we predict, or maybe it'll be way worse than we fear...

Here's where I don't agree:

(I've said this before) I don't like the idea of artificially shifting wealth in the name of ecology. We should all, as individuals, care about the environment and we should all, as individuals encourage companies to act ecologically with the voting power of our spending choices. That being said, I see it as a matter of personal conviction and personal responsibility - and I think it's a mistake to make it into a political thing... and I especially think it's a mistake to latch onto "miracle cures" and legislate everyone into them. My philosophy is that the government should help make it beneficial to be "green" - but it should aim to stay away from being too specific about how to make that happen... and it should stay away from making "greenness" into a commodity market that transfers wealth without really reducing our global footprint.

[Will Robinson]

as I said earlier in this thread, folks can parse the causation if that floats their boat, but for anyone remotely near a coastline, failure to plan and prepare for the rather well accepted trend is courting long-term disaster. Playing politics, and in so doing, fooling the slow-witted into thinking 'there is no real global warming, or climate change, occurring' is irresponsible to the point of near-criminal.

It is equally criminal to politicize the argument from the other side as well in order to enable the foolish policy wrapped in the eco flag. For them to shout down opposition to the highly questionable policy, labeling all who dare raise a question as 'deniers' in order to make it a political fight instead of an honest discussion is just as bad as anything the oil companies do to maintain denial of temp rise/effect.

Glass houses, stones cast, and all that...

[vision]

Will has a hard-on for Al Gore. I don't care for the guy but he was pivotal in elevating the debate on such a serious matter. Without him I wouldn't have told everyone I know that global-warming was a hoax. Besides, he can propose legislation all he wants but he can't make it legal without votes (of course, most votes are bought by oil companies, which is why we haven't done ★■◆● in regard to climate change).

I think that displacement of our living locations will only the be beginning of it - I'd expect large-scale extinctions, etc. [BUT] I don't like the idea of artificially shifting wealth in the name of ecology.

This... is beyond my comprehension. So in the face of mass extinction you are more interested in saving money? Good god, we really are doomed. Ask yourself which is worse, financial collapse or ecological?

International organizations who come together to debate this problem and propose policy do not just focus on carbon. They are well aware of all the other aerosols and components of climate change, and new components are added all the time. The models are getting better by the day and keep spitting out the same result: when all natural warming factors are considered the left over warming correlates directly with human activity. At this point, any "redistribution of wealth" is going to pretty much be toward disaster funds. It's clear nothing is going to be done about the climate because, you know, "skepticism" about well established facts.

[callmeslick]

note, also, Woody, that the article you cited at no time denied that the warming was occurring. They merely questioned the WHY of such occurrance, and expressed doubt within their model that CO2 and methane were the actual culprits.

And is CO2 is the big monster the warmers all default to. Point here is you'll never see my linked report being in media print as it goes against the holy Grail of man made warming.

it was very heavily reported in 2009. This is 2014, in case you don't own a calender.

[sigma]

The truth is that the U.S. only demonstrate concern for the environment, but actually the U.S. is not willing to reduce energy consumption in their country. The U.S. knows that the only source of energy in the future can only be solar energy, but stubbornly and stupidly continues expansion in the East to be able to meet their energy needs through non-renewable natural resources in other countries. With Saudi Arabia United States have been able to find a common language, with Russia not yet. After all, clearly shows that the U.S. today is sitting on oil needle Saudi Arabia. U.S. already understand that access to Russian energy will be very problematic, given the U.S. policy towards Russia for decades.
Actually, I'm delighted with the vision and our, and your politicians Russia lives off oil , the U.S. is trying to get access to Russian oil Instead together to use our mutual scientific potential and mutual efforts to develop methods of industrial use of solar energy for energy supply around the world in the future. Noooo, the U.S. would be better to prohibit NASA cooperate with Roscosmos because of petty political ambitions .

[woodchip]

note, also, Woody, that the article you cited at no time denied that the warming was occurring. They merely questioned the WHY of such occurrance, and expressed doubt within their model that CO2 and methane were the actual culprits.

And is CO2 is the big monster the warmers all default to. Point here is you'll never see my linked report being in media print as it goes against the holy Grail of man made warming.

it was very heavily reported in 2009. This is 2014, in case you don't own a calender.

Heavily? care to show some links that present that?

[Tunnelcat]

The truth is that the U.S. only demonstrate concern for the environment, but actually the U.S. is not willing to reduce energy consumption in their country. The U.S. knows that the only source of energy in the future can only be solar energy, but stubbornly and stupidly continues expansion in the East to be able to meet their energy needs through non-renewable natural resources in other countries. With Saudi Arabia United States have been able to find a common language, with Russia not yet. After all, clearly shows that the U.S. today is sitting on oil needle Saudi Arabia. U.S. already understand that access to Russian energy will be very problematic, given the U.S. policy towards Russia for decades.
Actually, I'm delighted with the vision and our, and your politicians Russia lives off oil , the U.S. is trying to get access to Russian oil Instead together to use our mutual scientific potential and mutual efforts to develop methods of industrial use of solar energy for energy supply around the world in the future. Noooo, the U.S. would be better to prohibit NASA cooperate with Roscosmos because of petty political ambitions .

Yep. Plus, we get to now spoil the Russian arctic lands drilling for that oil, since our country won't let our oil companies spoil our own pristine arctic lands. Americans are short sited and greedy, always living for the present, not the future. That's why there are so many vociferous arguments against climate change. They don't want change that effects them right now and they don't care about the future. A lot of people don't want us to stop using oil because they like it too much and it's convenient, it makes a few people lots of money, it's already a staple we're using with a ready and convenient infrastructure. So like lazy addicts, we tend to ignore the obvious consequences, like the constant air, land and water pollution and the less obvious, like wild weather extremes, ocean levels rising and flooding our coastal cities and yes, perhaps permanent climate change that could spell the end of humanity. Birdbrains.

http://peakoil.com/production/to-tap-ar ... xxon-mobil