^You're constantly citing statistics and scientists that favor your point, but you attack the validity of the pro-AGW camp's studies.

There's nothing that separates your data from theirs; nothing that makes you more qualified to say anything about global warming than anyone else on here. That's why "consensus" is the only thing someone in this forum can "invoke" without making an ass of themselves.

Personally, I'm starting to believe there isn't a consensus, but only because some nations are changing their position on global warming. This could be a result of scientific evidence, or the maybe result of the economic depression. Either way, I'm a layman and politics or no, I'm going to adhere to consensus.

[Edited on June 28, 2009 at 9:13 AM. Reason : .]

6/28/2009 9:07:58 AM

Then you must turn away from Global Warming, because the consensus is changing:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124597505076157449.html

Quote :

"As the U.S. House of Representatives prepares to pass a climate-change bill, the Australian Parliament is preparing to kill its own country's carbon-emissions scheme. Why? A growing number of Australian politicians, scientists and citizens once again doubt the science of human-caused global warming. Among the many reasons President Barack Obama and the Democratic majority are so intent on quickly jamming a cap-and-trade system through Congress is because the global warming tide is again shifting. It turns out Al Gore and the United Nations (with an assist from the media), did a little too vociferous a job smearing anyone who disagreed with them as "deniers." The backlash has brought the scientific debate roaring back to life in Australia, Europe, Japan and even, if less reported, the U.S."

6/28/2009 9:46:36 AM

aaronburro,

Lumex has it. There are plenty of books, articles, and websites detailing the scientific evidence that supports climate change. In fact, you constantly try and refute that evidence by posting your own statistics as if you have any clue about what they mean.

So again it basically comes down to YOU thinking you know more about climate science than 96% of climate scientists without a single bit of training in the subject.

How can someone be this arrogant????



PS* LoneSnark, if it does turn out that climate scientists are wrong about climage change I will be very very happy. As it stands now, I don't think the world has the political will to address the problem even if it is real. So if it turns out they are right, we are fucked. But it will take more to convince me that they are wrong than a single fucking WSJ OPINION PIECE that mentions an unknown group of "scientists". For fucks sake. "Then you must turn away from Global Warming, because the consensus is changing:" Did you really just say that, based on a single FUCKING EDITORIAL with zero details???

[Edited on June 28, 2009 at 11:35 AM. Reason : there are mad people in this world. ]

6/28/2009 11:27:30 AM

Quote :

"You're constantly citing statistics and scientists that favor your point, but you attack the validity of the pro-AGW camp's studies."

Well, when it has been thoroughly proven that the pro-AGW camp's studies are fraudulent, what else should I do? take them at face value? would you do the same with Intelligent Design?

Quote :

"That's why "consensus" is the only thing someone in this forum can "invoke" without making an ass of themselves. "

Which, again, is an appeal to authority which proves the lack of evidence.

Quote :

"Either way, I'm a layman and politics or no, I'm going to adhere to consensus."

So you admit to being a complete and total idiot. A lemming and nothing more.

Quote :

"So again it basically comes down to YOU thinking you know more about climate science than 96% of climate scientists without a single bit of training in the subject."

Do you like not addressing the points that other people make and just continuing to say the exact same thing?

6/28/2009 3:56:22 PM

Haha. You're a lemming if you accept that there are some people that know more than you in a particular subject area? Gosh. I hope you take that attitude with you to the doctor's office. "Listen, I've never seen a germ in my life. How do I know you're not lying to me???" Oh, but I'm sure that's different. There isn't a collective liberal delusions in medicine. (or are there )

Look, I am all for being skeptical. And I try to understand the science behind climate change as best as I can. But I realize that there is no way I can catch up to PhDs in the area in terms of understanding. Not even with google! So why pretend i can?

Quote :

"Well, when it has been thoroughly proven that the pro-AGW camp's studies are fraudulent, what else should I do? "

And you know this because????? You found some people that disagree w/consensus and you value their opinion more because????

[Edited on June 28, 2009 at 5:32 PM. Reason : ``]

6/28/2009 5:31:28 PM

Quote :

"Gosh. I hope you take that attitude with you to the doctor's office. "Listen, I've never seen a germ in my life. How do I know you're not lying to me???" Oh, but I'm sure that's different. There isn't a collective liberal delusions in medicine."

No, there isn't strong evidence to the contrary in the case of what the doctor is saying like there is with global fearmongering.

Quote :

"And you know this because????? You found some people that disagree w/consensus and you value their opinion more because???? "

Umm, because the hockey stick was proven to be fraudulent? It spits out a hockey stick 97% of the time, no matter what input you give it, even if it is the Dallas phonebook? Or is Global Warming so fucking true that even the phonebook proves it? Almost all of the evidence consists of "reconstructions," and all of these reconstructions use the same flawed methodology. Moreover, as I've mentioned before, the "scientists" then use heavily biased data in these reconstructions. And then there's the nasty fact that the infamous Greenhouse Signature doesn't exist as it is supposed to. Or maybe it's the fact that the antarctic is gaining more ice than it is losing. And, it's not just "some people." It's heavily credentialed scientists with valid points about the flawed science in question. Lindzen, Soon, and many others have shown more plausible explanations, and ones that are, frankly, simpler. Finally, as has been stated before, the vaunted computer models FAIL to reproduce what is happening today, and they've failed to do so for the past ten years. If predictability is a hallmark of science, then we should throw these faulty projections out the window, along with their fantastically fraudulent creators.

6/28/2009 9:41:43 PM

Again you fail to grip the substance of my argument. You talk about this "evidence" as if you actually understand what the fuck is going on. In fact, you have zero training in the subject. You would not know a climate model from a hole in the ground. And everything you say is actually what you've read other people say.

So why do you believe those people over the majority of climate scientists?

I have no fucking clue.

My guess is that its politics. In any case, it only makes me that much more pessimistic about the prospects for actually addressing climate change. Rush Limbaugh thinks he knows climate science as well as you do. And too many people listen to him for any serious legislation to make its way through.

[Edited on June 28, 2009 at 10:40 PM. Reason : ``]

6/28/2009 10:29:26 PM

answer your own question, then. Why do you take the word of discredited and fraudulent studies over the anti-AGWers? It's probably politics as well.

I don't understand the model any more than you do. But, I can see that the models do NOT predict what we have experienced for the past 10 years. That is enough for me to call the models bogus.

Moreover, when I see blatant intimidation in what is supposed to be a scholarly field, such as shown at the EPA and universities across the world, I am more inclined to believe that something is amiss

Finally, I see, time and again, "scientists" questioning the actual observations themselves when the model doesn't give them what they want or expect. That, frankly, makes me discount anything that "scientist" would ever have to say about the subject.

6/28/2009 10:41:25 PM

Like I said, I believe in anthropogenic climate change because that's the consensus among climate scientists. That's why I also believe in germs. I have never seen one. But the majority of doctors seem to think they exist. So I go along with them.

You, on the other hand, admit that you don't know climate science. Yet, you insist you are smart enough to buck the majority in spite of that small limitation. Lord only knows why. Its an interesting question, but you apparently won't help me answer it.

Oh well.

6/28/2009 10:48:17 PM

so then, you are a lemming. If the consensus of scientists said that the sky was green, you would believe them, right?

Quote :

"Yet, you insist you are smart enough to buck the majority in spite of that small limitation."

No, I insist that others have proven the fraud, no matter how "small" their numbers may be, even when exaggerated by those with an agenda to do so. I also, like a fairly decent person, reject predictions that don't come true, time and again.

But hey, if you saw a guy that says he could guess your weight, and he kept getting it wrong, would you continue to believe in him even if thousands of other people did believe in him?

6/28/2009 10:54:15 PM

But I am saying that without the proper training, you really are not in a position to guess which argument is the best.

If the evidence is so strong against global warming that you can see it without any training why can't everyone, especially the majority of climate scientists?

Are 96% climate scientists suffering from some liberal delusion????

Maybe. But it seems like a much simpler explanation to me that you simply don't have enough training to sort good climate science from bad climate science.

But hey, I'm a lemming. I foolishly think that I can't possibly know everything and value the input of people who know more than me on certain topics. Guess I'll mozey along. Peace be with you, partner.

[Edited on June 28, 2009 at 11:25 PM. Reason : ``]

6/28/2009 11:24:57 PM

Socks, you disappoint me with your views

Please, enlighten us and tell us what evidence there is that CO2 is causing the earth's temperature to increase? (and computer climate models don't count for anything).

6/29/2009 10:34:34 AM

I think Socks point is - please show us your evidence as to why your opinion on this topic is worth a damn?

6/29/2009 10:57:34 AM

I'm not of the opinion to restrict his lifestyle b/c of my beliefs, so maybe he should ante up first?

6/29/2009 11:01:57 AM

I am not a climate scientists and I do not pretend to be one. So I am not sure what I personally can say. However, a group of working climate scientists* have put together a helpful set of links of where you can find this information, if you are actually interested in reading about it.
http://www.realclimate.org/wiki/index.php?title=RC_Wiki

This website provides specific groups of links to address particular mistakes commonly made by climate skeptics. For example, they present almost a dozen links debunking aaronburro's claim that the "hockey stick is broken":
http://www.realclimate.org/wiki/index.php?title=The_hockey_stick_is_broken

However, if you are looking for a more concise set of info (and I'm not sure exactly what you want), they recommend this most helpful website: "How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic".
http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2008/07/how_to_talk_to_a_sceptic.php

This site presents, in a simple q&a format, arguments against typical climate skeptic talking points.
This is probably the best place for you to start because I am not sure what you want as "proof" that GHG are causing the recent surge in global warming, so rather than throw a bunch of facts at you and have you try and dismiss them, I would like for you to explain to me why you know more the climate scientists and how someone without any training in the field can be better at their jobs. Here is the Science Blog's answer to your question (links provided to evidence/further discussion on webpage)

Quote :

"Objection: Correlation is not proof of causation. There is simply no proof that CO2 is the cause of the current warming. Answer: There is no "proof" in science, that is a property of mathematics. In science, one must look at the balance of evidence and formulate theories that can explain this evidence. Where possible scientists make predictions and design experiments to confirm, modify or contradict their theories and must modify these theories as new information comes in. In the case of the theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming, what we do have is a theory (first conceived over 100 years ago) that is based on well established laws of physics, it is consistent with mountains of observation and data, both contemporary and historical, and it is supported by very sophisticated and refined Global Climate Models that can successfully reproduce the climate's behaviour over the last century. Given the lack of any extra planet Earths and a few really large time machines, it is simply impossible to do any better than this."

http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2006/05/there-is-no-evidence.php

* And when I say "working climate scientists" I mean they are actually conducting climate research in places like NASA, the University of Chicago, Penn State, and many other universities/research groups around the world (almost a dozen climate scientists are part of the group).
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?cat=10

[Edited on June 29, 2009 at 11:37 AM. Reason : ``]

6/29/2009 11:20:37 AM

realclimate.org is a horrible website that made up its mind long ago. And that other fella is almost as bad. I've read some entries by him before. Unfortunately, since I do not have time to rebuff what he posted about "how to talk to a skeptic" I can point you in the direction of http://www.icecap.org and read:

Quote :

"FAQs and Myths Weather extremes such as droughts, floods, hurricane, tornadoes, and heat waves have become more common. In his recent movie, former Vice President Al Gore, said: “If you look at the ten hottest years ever measured, they all occurred in the last fourteen years, and the hottest of all was 2005.” Climate has been stable for a long time but now is getting increasingly extreme. CO2 is a pollutant. CO2 is the most important greenhouse gas. The greenhouse effect is a bad thing. Modeling the earth’s climate is nearly an exact science. Summers will be extremely hot and dry. The sun is a constant source of energy. Glaciers all over the world are letting because of global warming. Gore claims that sea level rise could drown the Pacific islands, Florida, major cities the world over, and the 9/11 Memorial in New York City. It’s getting hot in here; In 2003 the hottest European summer on record caused more than 20,000 deaths. Extreme heat waves also caused more than 1500 deaths in India. Gore lists ways the United States could reduce emissions of greenhouse gases back to the levels of 1970. The number of category 4 and 5 storms has greatly increased over the past 35 years, along with ocean temperature. Warmer water in the oceans pumps more energy into tropical storms, making them more intense and potentially more destructive. Warmer temperatures could also increase the probability of drought. Greater evaporation, particularly during summer and fall, could exacerbate drought conditions and increase the risk of wildfires. More frequent and more intensive heat waves could result in more heat-related deaths. These conditions could also aggravate local air quality problems, already afflicting more than 80 million Americans. Global warming is expected to increase the potential geographic range and virulence of tropical diseases as well. Is global warming really impacting polar bears? Conclusions Global Warming Quiz #1 Global Warming Quiz #2 "

http://icecap.us/index.php/go/faqs-and-myths

And in case you're wondering, its a site run mainly by climate scientists.

Quote :

"ICECAP, International Climate and Environmental Change Assessment Project, is the portal to all things climate for elected officials and staffers, journalists, scientists, educators and the public. It provides access to a new and growing global society of respected scientists and journalists that are not deniers that our climate is dynamic (the only constant in nature is change) and that man plays a role in climate change through urbanization, land use changes and the introduction of greenhouse gases and aerosols, but who also believe that natural cycles such as those in the sun and oceans are also important contributors to the global changes in our climate and weather. We worry the sole focus on greenhouse gases and the unwise reliance on imperfect climate models while ignoring real data may leave civilization unprepared for a sudden climate shift that history tells us will occur again, very possibly soon. "

Also, ask yourself which side is the true and honest side. For instance, Congressional democrats refusing to hear from a "denier" after they allowed testimony from Al Gore. Or just this week a polar bear expert being barred from a conference in Copenhagen b/c his views are 'are extremely unhelpful’. Let's not forget that cheerleaders like Hansen and Gore refuse to participate in public debates in a neutral location. Or the EPA, not allowing testimony that goes against them in regards to CO2.

If they're all so wrong, why don't they let them expose themselves for all to laugh at and discredit?

[Edited on June 29, 2009 at 2:26 PM. Reason : Who's really being honest?]

[Edited on June 29, 2009 at 2:27 PM. Reason : is]

6/29/2009 2:12:50 PM

^ uggg. I was only responding to your request for someone discussing evidence in favor of CO2 and CC. I am not looking to debate the nuances of climate science because I am not qualified (as an ME major I wouldn't think you were either).

Grant me the fact that we are both boneheads when it comes to climate science. How are we, two boneheads having to make a decision whether we support climate change policies, supposed to proceed?

We could take a head count of climate scientists and see what the majority thinks. If the evidence really isn't clear we would expect 50/50 breakdown between those who think Climate Change is real and those who don't. The closer the number gets to 100%, the better we can tell where the evidence leans.

We could also see whether important scientific institutions are staking their reputations on this stuff. If they are, that is also a good indication that the evidence is clear in one direction or the other.

Do you see what I'm getting at? These are imperfect rules of thumb for layman decision making. Please help me understand why you reject them.

6/29/2009 3:31:57 PM

I look at the basic arguments and disagree with them, since the evidence to me is clear enough.

(and don't forget I'm not disputing that the earth's temperature rose up through the end of the 20th century)

6/29/2009 3:36:23 PM

You reject that humans can have a significant and drastic impact on the environment?

6/29/2009 3:39:54 PM

Quote :

"I look at the basic arguments and disagree with them, since the evidence to me is clear enough. "

How do you tell good evidence from bad evidence if you don't understand the subject?

If you want to claim that you understand the subject, please also explain why so many of the people that do climate research for a living are so dumb that they can't see what an untrained novice sees.

[Edited on June 29, 2009 at 3:57 PM. Reason : ``]

6/29/2009 3:56:26 PM

Quote :

"How do you tell good evidence from bad evidence if you don't understand the subject? If you want to claim that you understand the subject, please also explain why so many of the people that do climate research for a living are so dumb that they can't see what an untrained novice sees."

ding ding ding!

6/29/2009 4:11:59 PM

^^I do not. But through CO2 emissions? For the most part no.

Tthere are the obvious ones, like how increased CO2 emissions = increased temperatures. And yet, the last 8 years the (global average) temperature hasn't risen at all, and has even dropped the last few years. Other things are pretty bothersome, such as rough 85% of the USA's surface measuring stations being in locations unfit to measure temperature (near AC units, near pavement, etc). You don't have to be an expert in the field to realize something is wrong here.

[Edited on June 29, 2009 at 4:17 PM. Reason : no sorry, no ding ding ding.]

6/29/2009 4:16:34 PM

^ Are you sure this evidence is so convincing?

First, I think a general rule we all learned in statistics is that you shouldn't try to draw trends from a handful of datapoints. Just because we have had a couple of cooler winters, doesn't mean that we should suddenly ignore previous data. Besides, I'm pretty sure that climate scientists have the same data you do. Why aren't they convinced? (here is actually note attacking the typical talking point that the temp has not been rising in recent years: http://www.grist.org/article/global-warming-stopped-in-1998/ )

Second, here is Gavin Schmidt of NASA going into long detail about how the urban heat island effects station data, how it has been documented, what it actually means, and why he thinks the evidence still supports the climate change argument.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/07/no-man-is-an-urban-heat-island/

This is an analysis that is shared by the vast majority of climate scientists.

So once again, you are trying to argue climate science with climate scientists. Since you are not trained in the subject yourself, that sounds like an uphill battle. What makes you think you can win? Are you smarter than the average climate scientist? Better informed? Please explain.

[Edited on June 29, 2009 at 4:43 PM. Reason : ``]

6/29/2009 4:42:11 PM

NASA's "adjustment" for urban heat effects have already been discussed and are woefully inaccurate (compared to satellite data).

6/29/2009 4:47:06 PM

f'ing NASA and their shoddy science

6/29/2009 4:53:55 PM

Quote :

"How much UHI contamination remains in the global mean temperatures has been tested in papers such as Parker (2005, 2006) which found there was no effective difference in global trends if one segregates the data between windy and calm days. This makes sense because UHI effects are stronger on calm days (where there is less mixing with the wider environment), and so if an increasing UHI effect was changing the trend, one would expect stronger trends on calm days and that is not seen. Another convincing argument is that the regional trends seen simply do not resemble patterns of urbanisation, with the largest trends in the sparsely populated higher latitudes."

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/07/no-man-is-an-urban-heat-island/

Actually GS of NASA is arguing that urban heat effects have been tested and they are found to not be driving the upward trend in observed temperatures.

What makes you think he, and the majority of climate scientists are wrong about this?

6/29/2009 4:53:55 PM

excuse me, I meant to say NOAA above, in regards to surface temperature adjustments.

And yes, I don't believe the talking heads at NASA since plenty of scientists there have been quoted ad nauseum in these threads already dissenting against AGW.



Funny how all the "adjustments" in the later years increased the temperature.



Form of individual corrections applied by NOAA. The black line is the adjustment for time of observation. The red line is for a change in maximum/minimum thermometers used. The yellow line is for changes in station siting. The pale blue line is for filling in missing data from individual station records. The purple line is for UHI effects (this correction is now removed).

Oh look, more adjustments.

6/29/2009 4:59:26 PM

^ This is a totally different question than whether you think NOAA's adjustment process is sound. The question is whether the UHI is driving the upward trend in temperatures. According to Gavin, if the UHI was driving the upward trend in temperatures, we would expect to see a stronger upward trend on calm days than windy days. Why? Because wind mitigates the UHI effect. Yet when we seggregate the data and do this analysis, we do not find a difference in trends.

To a layman, like myself, this sounds like a convincing evidence against your complaint.

Why are you not convinced by his argument? If you admit that you do not understand climate science, why do you insist that you know more than a climate scientist at NASA?

[Edited on June 29, 2009 at 5:18 PM. Reason : ``]

6/29/2009 5:08:06 PM

I really don't know what you want me to tell you. In TSB we've been arguing this for years and over 80+ pages of threads. In these threads we've both put forth evidence of our beliefs and I don't have the time to requote it, again. I think AGW is hogwash, and you're sold on it. We both think we're doomed, you b/c of global warming and me b/c of overreaching gov't control and taxing.

6/30/2009 8:48:02 AM

^
You seem to keep thinking that I am talking about evidence. I am talking about opinion formation.

Neither you nor I are not in a position to be offering and evaluating evidence on climate change. You have even admitted this fact by acknowledging you don't understand climate science. Yet, in the very next post you start posting graphs in effort to prove that NOAA is measuring their data incorrectly and arguing against a climate scientist at NASA.

See the conflict between your positions? One moment you admit you're a humble novice. The next you're smarter than a team of scientists that do this for a living?

I'm not asking you to present any evidence at all. I am asking you to see the logical conclusion of your own assumptions. If you admit that you don't know anything about climate science, then you must also admit that you are not in a position to sort good climate science from bad climate science. And if you can't distinguish between good and bad science, you are not in a position to argue that 96% of climate scientists are wrong.

This is not, repeat IS NOT, about what you (or I) think of the evidence for climate change. This a question about how you can honestly form opinions that run counter to the scientific majority if you admit to not understanding the science. Simple as that.

[Edited on June 30, 2009 at 9:21 AM. Reason : ``]

6/30/2009 9:15:07 AM

Just as a personal aside, I don't think aaronburro calling people lemmings for admiting humility in scientific matters is fair or accurate.

Back in the 1500s, Nicolaus Copernicus was in a very small minority of people who thought the earth revolved around the sun. Do I think he should have kept his mouth shut and followed the majority? Absolutely not. Copernicus was a working astronomer who had thought and wrote about these issues for years. He had every right to challenge the scientific/religious establishment of the time with his theory and evidence.

On the other hand, I don't think your average field hand in the 1500s knew jack squat about heliocentric cosmology. As a result, they probably should have kept their damn opinions to themselves.

No matter what they told you in school, everyone's opinion shouldn't be valued the same in ever instance. We simply don't have enough time in the day to fully evaluate and dismiss every crackpot idea made up by every moonbat on the street.

6/30/2009 9:35:10 AM

^^what? No. I agree with the opinions of other scientists.

^so tell me then, why Congress gets "expert" testimony from Al Gore? He's no scientist (instead a huge hypocrit) and every point made in his movie has been proven false!

[Edited on June 30, 2009 at 11:58 AM. Reason : k]

6/30/2009 11:56:06 AM

^ Yes, a small minority of climate scientists. So what decision making process led you to believe that this minority was right and the majority was wrong?

Again, claiming that you "looked at the evidence" and decided is not a good answer.

6/30/2009 1:00:29 PM

No, it actually can be. When the evidence is all laid out, you and I are smart enough to make some sort of decision. On top of it all, climate science is still fairly new and it is too unproven to have our gov'ts overreacting with far reaching regulation in the name of the environment. I don't have to be a genius or a specialist in the field to know that nobody completely understands the interaction of the sun's rays, cloud formation, water vapor, the carbon cycle, etc. Most climate scientists even admit that.

Additionally, its all too easy to see the bias against skeptics and the refusal for them to be heard. If what they have to say is crap, why attempt to silence their cry?

Again, the rally cry for AGW was basically set off by Al Gore's movie. You have no problem with everything in his "documentary" being proven false?

[Edited on June 30, 2009 at 1:10 PM. Reason : k]

6/30/2009 1:08:10 PM

Socks, you can just read the bolded part if you like. Stuff like this makes me go against the "consensus" even more.

Quote :

"Global Warming Is a Fraud by David Deming As the years pass and data accumulate, it is becoming evident that global warming is a fraud. Climate change is natural and ongoing, but the Earth has not warmed significantly over the last thirty years. Nor has there been a single negative effect of any type that can be unambiguously attributed to global warming. As I write, satellite data show that the mean global temperature is the same that it was in 1979. The extent of global sea ice is also unchanged from 1979. Since the end of the last Ice Age, sea level has risen more than a hundred meters. But for the last three years, there has been no rise in sea level. If the polar ice sheets are melting, why isn't sea level rising? Global warming is supposed to increase the severity and frequency of tropical storms. But hurricane and typhoon activity is at a record low. Every year in the US, more than forty thousand people are killed in traffic accidents. But not one single person has ever been killed by global warming. The number of species that have gone extinct from global warming is exactly zero. Both the Antarctic and Greenland Ice Sheets are stable. The polar bear population is increasing. There has been no increase in infectious disease that can be attributed to climate change. We are not currently experiencing more floods, droughts, or forest fires. In short, there is no evidence of any type to support the idea that we are entering an era when significant climate change is occurring and will cause the deterioration of either the natural environment or the human standard of living. Why do people think the planet is warming? One reason is that the temperature data from weather stations appear to be hopelessly contaminated by urban heat effects. A survey of the 1221 temperature stations in the US by meteorologist Anthony Watts and his colleagues is now more than 80 percent complete. The magnitude of putative global warming over the last 150 years is about 0.7 °C. But only 9 percent of meteorological stations in the US are likely to have temperature errors lower than 1 °C. More than two-thirds of temperature sensors used to estimate global warming are located near artificial heating sources such as air conditioning vents, asphalt paving, or buildings. These sources are likely to introduce artifacts greater than 2 °C into the temperature record. Another cause of global warming hysteria is the infiltration of science by ideological zealots who place politics above truth. Earlier this month, the Obama administration issued a report that concluded global warming would have a number of deleterious effects on the US. In 1995, one of the lead authors of this report told me that we had to alter the historical temperature record by "getting rid" of the Medieval Warm Period. The Obama report refers to – six times – the work of a climate scientist named Stephen H. Schneider. In 1989, Schneider told Discover magazine that "we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have." Schneider concluded "each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest." Schneider's position is not unusual. In 2007, Mike Hulme, the founding director of the Tyndall Center for Climate Change Research in Britain, told the Guardian newspaper that "scientists and politicians must trade truth for influence." While releasing a politicized report that prostitutes science to politics, the Obama administration simultaneously suppressed an internal EPA report that concluded there were "glaring inconsistencies" between the scientific data and the hypothesis that carbon dioxide emissions were changing the climate. If we had an appreciation for history, we would not be fooled so easily. It has all happened before, albeit on a smaller scale in an age where people had more common sense. On May 19, 1912, the Washington Post posed these questions: "Is the climate of the world changing? Is it becoming warmer in the polar regions?" On November 2, 1922, the Associated Press reported that "the Arctic Ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer and in some places the seals are finding the waters too hot." On February 25, 1923, the New York Times concluded that "the Arctic appears to be warming up." On December 21, 1930, the Times noted that "Alpine glaciers are in full retreat." A few months later the New York Times concluded that there was "a radical change in climatic conditions and hitherto unheard of warmth" in Greenland. About the only thing that has changed at the Times since 1930 is that no one working there today is literate enough to use the word "hitherto." After the warm weather of the 1930s gave way to a cooling trend beginning in 1940, the media began speculating on the imminent arrival of a new Ice Age. We have now come full circle, mired in a hopeless cycle of reincarnated ignorance. H. L. Mencken understood this process when he explained "the whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed by an endless series of hobgoblins, most of them imaginary." June 29, 2009 David Deming is a geophysicist and associate professor of Arts and Sciences at the University of Oklahoma."

6/30/2009 1:23:41 PM

^ So you can read editorials by scientists and determine whether the evidence they present for or against climate change makes sense?

See, this keeps going back to you saying that 1) you don't understand climate science and 2) you understand climate science so well that you can sort good science from bad science. These are contradictory positions.

If you are going to admit that you don't understand climate science, you are going to have to find a better way of forming your opinion on the issue than picking the editorials that make the most sense you.

6/30/2009 1:48:00 PM

You're starting to bother me here, b/c you're not listening to me. I stated very clearly, regarding the BOLDED PARTS. That is why I posted that editorial. Those are truths, and everyone that believes in honestly should have a problem with that.

6/30/2009 2:08:40 PM

^
Well the bolded portion makes two arguments: 1) there are ideologues that believe in agw (or at least people that David Demming is portraying as ideologues with sentence fragments spread over a 20 year period) 2) alarmists have made similar doomsday predictions before.

I will address each of these points:

1) No one likes ideologues. But that isn't really an argument against agw, because you can find ideologues among climate change skeptics. Is the implication from Demming that all 96% of climate scientists that believe in AGW are delusional ideologues? If so, do you agree with him? If so, how?

2) Despite the authors claims, there really are no historical precedents for the level of alarm over AGW. He mentions a lot of news papers and magazines running sensational headlines and articles, but what's new? You did not see the scientific consensus behind any of the "scares" he mentions. So the comparison he is making is misleading or maybe just plain dishonest. The folks at RealClimate and the guy at Science Blog put it concisely.

Quote :

"It is true that there were some predictions of an "imminent ice age" in the 1970's but a very cursory comparison of then and now reveals a huge difference. Today, you have a widespread scientific consensus supported by national academies and all the major scientific institutions solidly behind the warning that the temperature is rising, anthropogenic CO2 is the primary cause and the warming will worsen unless we reduce emissions. On the other hand, in the 1970's, there was a book in the popular press, a few articles in popular magazines, and a small amount of scientific speculation based on the recently discovered glacial cycles and the recent slight cooling trend from air pollution blocking the sunlight. There were no daily headlines. There was no avalanche of scientific articles. There were no United Nations treaties or commissions. No G8 summits on the dangers and possible solutions. No institutional pronouncements."

http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2006/02/they-predicted-cooling-in-1970s.php

Now I can't look into the heart of every climate scientist around the world to determine if they are delusional ideologues. But I can see major scientific institutions risking their credibility by coming out in favor of AGW. I can see the wave of scientific opinion moving in favor of AGW, as measured in a variety of polls and counts of research papers. I can also see that this did not happen in the 1910s or the 1970s.

All of that convinces me, as a bonehead in climate science, that alarm over climate change is different that the "alarm" over an ice age in the 1970s.

I am still at a loss of how you arrived at your decision to oppose the scientific majority. You've posted a lot of graphs and a lot of op-eds. But everything you say indicates that you think you understand climate science well enough to sort the good science from the bad, despite your own claims to the contrary. You can't have it both ways.

[Edited on June 30, 2009 at 3:19 PM. Reason : ``]

6/30/2009 3:12:57 PM

I believed in global warming through 2006. Then I actually looked into it more deeply, the science and the politics. And it made me feel like a sucker.

Realclimate.org is a joke.

6/30/2009 3:18:26 PM

I believed in global warming through 2006. Then I actually looked into it more deeply, the science and the politics. And it made me feel like a sucker.

Realclimate.org is a joke.

6/30/2009 3:18:26 PM

Quote :

"I believed in global warming through 2006. Then I actually looked into it more deeply, the science and the politics."

It looks like you changed your answer to this question.

Quote :

"Q:Socks``If you want to claim that you understand the subject, please also explain why so many of the people that do climate research for a living are so dumb that they can't see what an untrained novice sees. A:TKE-Teg I do not. "

So please tell me again. After looking "deeply" in the science of climate change, please explain why you now understand (with no training) what 96% climate scientists do not?

What makes you so smart and them so dumb? They have the same data as you do. What are they missing?

PS* realclimate.org is a joke told by climate scientists at NASA and universities around the globe. But for some reason, you're the only one laughing at them.

[Edited on June 30, 2009 at 3:25 PM. Reason : ``]

6/30/2009 3:23:56 PM

that website is so heavily biased it makes the heartland institution look like something James Hansen started up.

I'm sorry but I think for myself, you should try that. Do you think Obama's economic stimulus plan is a good idea? I mean you're not an economist and he says its a good idea, so you must.

6/30/2009 3:29:57 PM

"heavily biased" because it's not "fair and balanced"?

guess what - science doesn't need to be fair and balanced. It's either right or wrong. Is http://pandasthumb.org/ "biased" because it only discusses actual science and doesn't give equal time to religious or political ideologies?

6/30/2009 3:38:11 PM

The current consensus is that CO2 levels are rising faster than we anticipated and that global temperatures are increasing slower than we anticipated. As such, AGW itself is not disproven, but the doomer predictions that a one degree increase from CO2 will result in a eight degree increase from positive feedbacks have been discredited.

And to answer your question: the reason so many knowledgeable scientists can believe the doomer predictions and yet be wrong is because this is an issue that cannot be proven or disproven. We will not know until the calendar reigns in 2100 what the temperature will be or would have been. All we can do is guess based upon the historical record, which does not seem to show an atmosphere dominated by possitive feedbacks. As such, that just leaves us with the IPCC predicting warming will be about 1.2C per doubling of Co2 concentrations.

6/30/2009 4:07:33 PM

Quote :

"If you want to claim that you understand the subject, please also explain why so many of the people that do climate research for a living are so dumb that they can't see what an untrained novice sees."

Well, when there is blatant intimidation towards anyone who disagrees, I can't really put much stock in a "consensus."

Quote :

"First, I think a general rule we all learned in statistics is that you shouldn't try to draw trends from a handful of datapoints."

Really? 8 Years in the context of 38 (where all of the proclaimed warming is) is a "handful of points?" Or what about using 30 years to make a proclamation about a climate system that is thousands of years old?

Quote :

"This is an analysis that is shared by the vast majority of climate scientists. "

Consensus means jack.

Quote :

"Actually GS of NASA is arguing that urban heat effects have been tested and they are found to not be driving the upward trend in observed temperatures. What makes you think he, and the majority of climate scientists are wrong about this?"

I'd like to know why we have a convenient about face on this issue, myself... Especially when the about face seems to help the argument of AGW. Seems a bit dishonest, to me.

Quote :

"The question is whether the UHI is driving the upward trend in temperatures."

Given that studies show almost no increase in temperatures in areas with a steady population amount below where UHI takes affect, I'd say it is.

Quote :

"You seem to keep thinking that I am talking about evidence. I am talking about opinion formation. "

Science is run by evidence. Not opinion. Or at least it should be. That is your fucking problem. That is why you are a god damned lemming. You don't understand the least bit about science.

Quote :

"Yet, in the very next post you start posting graphs in effort to prove that NOAA is measuring their data incorrectly and arguing against a climate scientist at NASA."

And we have blatant evidence that NASA is fraudulently manipulating the numbers. Why in the fuck should I trust a guy who is a FRAUD? Put that in your opinion formulating process, dickhead.

Quote :

"But I can see major scientific institutions risking their credibility by coming out in favor of AGW."

No, you see major scientific institutions wishing to continue their funding.

6/30/2009 4:15:02 PM

Quote :

"I'm sorry but I think for myself, you should try that. "

Quote :

"Consensus means jack."

haha this was the type of answer I've been waiting for.

It's pretty clear you guys think you are bright enough to dive head first into a subject you have never formally studied and out-smart researchers at leading institutions and universities that have been doing this for decades. "So what if the vast majority of climate scientists say I'm wrong? I'm smart enough to sort good science from bad science because I was an engineer major at NCSU!!!"

Besides. That snobby majority that disagreed with you is probably either a bunch of delusional ideologues (TKE's argument) or disingenuous money grubbers looking for more research funding (aaronburro). That's incredible. You're both smart enough to earn climatology PhD's on the weekend AND read people's minds.

How can I argue with that kind of arrogance genius?



This is just one more reminder of why I distrust democracy (even the representative kind). We got rubes elected by rubes and we expect them to make good policy? We're all fucking doomed. lol!

[Edited on June 30, 2009 at 5:05 PM. Reason : ``]

6/30/2009 4:57:52 PM

there's also the issue of the temperature not rising for the last 8 years, despite continued CO2 emissions....yeah that's a good one.

6/30/2009 6:49:01 PM

^Socks just dismantled the entire foundation of you and burro's position, and you don't even know it.

6/30/2009 7:36:43 PM

Quote :

"Actually GS of NASA is arguing that urban heat effects have been tested and they are found to not be driving the upward trend in observed temperatures. What makes you think he, and the majority of climate scientists are wrong about this?"

I seriously doubt any credible scientists have claimed it had not. Yes, it would be hard to suggest all the measured warming was due to changes in land use, but most certaintly some of it was. Anyone with a thermometer and a car can demonstrate the effect humans have on a local scale. And the globe is merely an accumulation of lots of locals. As such, some of the historical warming is most certainly due to changes in land use, but how much would be the question I think you meant to ask.

6/30/2009 7:36:46 PM

Socks pointed out the following:

Quote :

"The question is whether the UHI is driving the upward trend in temperatures. According to Gavin, if the UHI was driving the upward trend in temperatures, we would expect to see a stronger upward trend on calm days than windy days. Why? Because wind mitigates the UHI effect. Yet when we seggregate the data and do this analysis, we do not find a difference in trends."

Which means what? They compared the temperature from urban sensors on windy days and calm days and found them similar? Or do they mean windy on a global scale? Which would be absurd, sure, but it also ignores the argument I made. Changes in land use have occured more places than just downtown Houston. Land use has been changing on a global scale, as South America and North America made changes from forrest to farmland, farmland to suburban, and suburban to urban. On a global scale, it is obvious that some of the real (satellite) measured warming was due to these changing patterns of global land use. We have paved over 1% of the planet, certainly that should have a measurable impact.

As for the ground station measurements, I completely discount them. We have satellite measurements which should produce better results in every way, so I will go with the better system of measurement until someone convinces me otherwise. And the satellites say the planet is warming, not much, but roughly as much as we would expect given everything we know.

6/30/2009 8:14:54 PM