The New Global Warming Thread

[leejo]

This is what I mean when I accuse global warming skeptics of being under informed.

Uh huh. I was referring to this snippet from an earlier post of yours:

"Climate change skeptics and their cheering section among conservative bloggers and radio shoutmeisters think so – even though most scientists say, no, the tweak is not a big deal and overall trends are in the direction of toastier days around the globe."

While it may be the case that people who disagree with you are ignorant or stupid or both, I doubt it.

[CingularDuality]

Please, folks, let's try to keep this discussion civil. Some comments have been made that could have easily been taken the wrong way and I'm glad that they were not. I don't want to shut this thread down.

I came to the realization that it is impossible to determine humankind's role in climate change because we have always been having some kind of impact on the climate. ...it is difficult to say precisely how much more of it we have contributed, and even more difficult - if not impossible - to determine what the true effects are versus a naturally occuring cycle.

Are you talking about my post? My opinion hasn't changed, only my outlook on convincing others.

Hmmm, it sure seems like it has changed. I could've sworn that you were taken by the IPCC and their findings, and that you thought that human-caused global warming was a given.

Anyway, you have summed up my opinion on the subject. I agree that we should all try to live "greener". I just disagree with this silly media frenzy over Global Warming, and I disagree with the government mandating that we change our lives so that we don't create a hell on earth.

GlobalWarmin, you need to slow down, take a deep breath and think for a bit before you post, IMO. You keep saying the same things over and over without providing any new information or arguments. You worship livescience.org when a more rounded collection of information sources would serve you much better. Why don't you try answering the questions/arguments that people present to you?

[GlobalWarmin]

You hit the nail on the head with that one! We were being told that we were destroying the environment and warming the planet all the way back in the 1920s. And...then the planet started cooling instead. So then we weren't causing global warming anymore.

For awhile we were causing global cooling instead, and we were all gonna starve in the next ice age within a few decades due to massive crop failure. And then...we weren't anymore.

So now we're back to destroying the planet through warming. There's always some people (witness Mosely) who will believe we are destroying the planet no matter what we do. Its a VERY old story. But just because the story is old doesn't mean it's true.

This is a pretty old Neo-Con argument I've heard a 100 times. Of course it's silly to even talk about what climate scientists had to say in the 1920s! What possible relevance does that have to the computer models used to predict climate changes today?

This up and down trend in the temperatures doesn't change the outlook for the future in the 1920s or now:

Global warming will step up after 2009: scientists
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?ali...ming-will-step

Lastly, people destroy the places they live in. This is so very true, and is the story of human history... Why do you think we spread all over the planet? Because where we were in the first place had all the resources we wanted? You are seeming grossly under informed about history and science now.

[leejo]

Global warming will step up after 2009: scientists
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?ali...ming-will-step

If you read the article, it looks like 4 scientists are saying this. Leaving something greater than 4 with ambiguous opinions.

With regard to the neo-con dismissal, you seem to habitually dismiss sites that disagree with you as invalid, people who disagree with you as ignorant or members of some group unworthy of serious consideration. You can use this pattern to justify pretty much any action or thought, but it's lazy and dangerous. I encourage you to work on that.

[GlobalWarmin]

GlobalWarmin, you need to slow down, take a deep breath and think for a bit before you post, IMO. You keep saying the same things over and over without providing any new information or arguments. You worship livescience.org when a more rounded collection of information sources would serve you much better. Why don't you try answering the questions/arguments that people present to you?

How many different, incredibly reputable sources do I need to show? So far I've shown evidence from PBS, Earth and Sky, livescience, Associated Press, IPCC, Scientific American, and the AAAS that the vast majority of the scientific community gives no real credibility to the idea that global warming is not real.

I've done my best to answer everyones' questions, short of repeating myself, but I feel my own have been completely looked over. I've asked half a dozen times for someone to provide something from a major news source that can back up their claims. I believe the problem to be that any article someone can find is clearly outweighed by the dozens of stories that will be on the same page that negates what they are hoping to prove.

[GlobalWarmin]

With regard to the neo-con dismissal, you seem to habitually dismiss sites that disagree with you as invalid, people who disagree with you as ignorant or members of some group unworthy of serious consideration. You can use this pattern to justify pretty much any action or thought, but it's lazy and dangerous. I encourage you to work on that.

An anti-global warming blogger is clearly not going to be an accepted resource for accurate, non biased information. That is all I have seen except the paper by one scientist, who just so happens to believes in man-made global warming. Maybe I did miss something though. Feel free to show me this major science or news organization that I dismissed as invalid.

Edit:

I've already explained previously, and demonstrated through the History of Climate Change link I provided and others, that global warming is a political issue for the Right, with a provable record of manipulation and skepticism, so it's actually very relevant to this discussion to talk in terms of political obedience and scrutiny of suspected ideologues.

[leejo]

Never mind. You're right. I'm an ignorant neo-con. Enjoy.

[AMosely]

Hmmm, it sure seems like it has changed. I could've sworn that you were taken by the IPCC and their findings, and that you thought that human-caused global warming was a given.

I don't think I ever said it was a given. I do believe it, and I think the IPCC is a noble and truthful organization, as are the countless scientists working to understand this complex issue. I'm merely believing more and more that they are chasing a ghost. I seem to have a knack for being misunderstood, so I'll say it again - yes, I believe humans are and have been changing the Earth's climate, weather, oceans, soil and various species of plants and animals - mostly for the worse. I am only stating that I'm beginning to realize that we may never hold the solid 'proof' that skeptics require. It's unfortunate. I wish the proof were, but it just isn't. There's proof of ongoing climate change - everywhere, but aside from coincidence, we lack the fingerprints of man.

Anyway, you have summed up my opinion on the subject. I agree that we should all try to live "greener". I just disagree with this silly media frenzy over Global Warming, and I disagree with the government mandating that we change our lives so that we don't create a hell on earth.

We are pretty close to agreeing, you and I.

[leejo]

We are pretty close to agreeing, you and I.

Ditto.

[leejo]

For craps and laughs: http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.c...B-DCCB00B51A12

[USN_Squid]

I've already explained previously, and demonstrated through the History of Climate Change link I provided and others, that global warming is a political issue for the Right, with a provable record of manipulation and skepticism, so it's actually very relevant to this discussion to talk in terms of political obedience and scrutiny of suspected ideologues.

First off, please stop throwing out the "right wing blog" strawman. I posted one single blog entry and it linked to the actual study, it was not political opinion. Your constant reference to it is getting a bit grating.

I'm not particularly a big fan of wikipedia, but this page lists Scientists, yes, real, published, credible Scientists that disagree with the theory of anthropogenic global warming. (damn leejo, we're on the same train)

Also, here are some interesting quotes from livescience.com. It would seem Livesciense does talk about the skeptics, but as you said you just haven't seen it:

"Climate change is a real problem, partly caused by human activities, but its importance has been grossly exaggerated."
~Freeman Dyson, professor emeritus at Institute for Advanced Studies, Princeton University

"I'm not disputing that there has been global warming. There was a lot of global warming in the 1930s and '40s, and then there was a slight global cooling from the middle '40s to the early '70s. And there has been warming since the middle '70s, especially in the last 10 years. But this is natural, due to ocean circulation changes and other factors. It is not human induced.
~William Gray, hurricane expert and head of the Tropical Meteorology Project at Colorado State University

"To understand the misconceptions perpetuated about climate science and the climate of intimidation, one needs to grasp some of the complex underlying scientific issues. First, let's start where there is agreement. The public, press and policy makers have been repeatedly told that three claims have widespread scientific support: Global temperature has risen about a degree since the late 19th century; levels of CO2 [carbon dioxide] in the atmosphere have increased by about 30 percent over the same period; and CO2 should contribute to future warming.

"These claims are true. However, what the public fails to grasp is that the claims neither constitute support for alarm nor establish man's responsibility for the small amount of warming that has occurred. In fact, those who make the most outlandish claims of alarm are actually demonstrating skepticism of the very science they say supports them. It isn't just that the alarmists are trumpeting model results that we know must be wrong. It is that they are trumpeting catastrophes that couldn't happen even if the models were right as justifying costly policies to try to prevent global warming."
~Richard Lindzen, professor of meteorology at Massachusetts Institute of Technology

edit:
The only reason I keep posting in this thread is your absoute conviction that there can be no credible opposition to man-made global warming. The issue is not settled, yet. I personally believe the earth is warming, but I have plenty of questions as to what degree and whats causing it. As far as solutions go we just aren't there yet, in my opinion.

[GlobalWarmin]

For craps and laughs: http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.c...B-DCCB00B51A12

To put that article in context, I'd like to point out that those are all blogger pages from the Minority (GOP) part of the website. The Majority section of that website doesn't even have any blogs. Don't make the mistake in thinking that those blogger articles are supported by that committee.

Still waiting to see some evidence from non bias, no blogger, no GOP only sites that contain information from a major scientific association to support that global warming is not real. The pro-global warming "side" has more of those than they can shake a stick at.

[leejo]

Right. But the articles linked there are often from major news sources. You're putting your head in the sand if you refuse to read an article just because a blog you don't like has a link to it. Also, review the scientists listed there. Decent bona fides, etc. Aren't you in the slightest curious to see the data?

Still waiting to see some evidence from non bias, no blogger, no GOP only sites that contain information from a major scientific association to support that global warming is not real. The pro-global warming "side" has more of those than they can shake a stick at.

And I'm still waiting for a quote from the Cookie Monster. Big whoop. You aren't seeing the evidence because you refuse to look at the data. It's kinda funny. Keep up the good fight!

[GlobalWarmin]

Also, here are some interesting quotes from livescience.com. It would seem Livesciense does talk about the skeptics, but as you said you just haven't seen it:

~Freeman Dyson, professor emeritus at Institute for Advanced Studies, Princeton University

~William Gray, hurricane expert and head of the Tropical Meteorology Project at Colorado State University

"These claims are true. However, what the public fails to grasp is that the "
~Richard Lindzen, professor of meteorology at Massachusetts Institute of Technology

edit:
The only reason I keep posting in this thread is your absoute conviction that there can be no credible opposition to man-made global warming. The issue is not settled, yet. I personally believe the earth is warming, but I have plenty of questions as to what degree and whats causing it. As far as solutions go we just aren't there yet, in my opinion.

I actually linked to that same article that you are quoting from earlier, as the one example of where the voices of opposition can be seen from that particular site.

Global Warming or Just Hot Air? A Dozen Different Views
http://www.livescience.com/environme...l_warming.html

Here's a taste of what others had to say in the same article:

Jim Hansen, director of NASA'S Goddard Institute for Space Studies, in an email interview:

"The argument about whether there is global warming is over. It is now clear that, for thirty years, we have been in a strong global warming trend at a rate of about 0.2 Celsius per decade for the past 30 years, [meaning] there has been 1 degree Fahrenheit (0.56 degrees Celsius) global warming in the past 30 years. The Earth is now at its warmest level in the period of instrumental data, that is, since the late 1800s."

Naomi Oreskes, associate professor of history and director of the Program in Science Studies at the University of California, San Diego in an editorial piece in The Washington Post in 2004:

"Many people have the impression that there is significant scientific disagreement about global climate change. It's time to lay that misapprehension to rest. There is a scientific consensus on the fact that Earth's climate is heating up and human activities are part of the reason. We need to stop repeating nonsense about the uncertainty of global warming and start talking seriously about the right approach to address it.

[USN_Squid]

I actually linked to that same article that you are quoting from earlier, as the one example of where the voices of opposition can be seen from that particular site.

Global Warming or Just Hot Air? A Dozen Different Views
http://www.livescience.com/environme...l_warming.html

Here's a taste of what others had to say in the same article:

Yeah, I read the whole thing. Are going to comment on the wikipedia link?

edit:
And so you are saying that there are credible scientists that disagree right? I mean it was in Livescience and everything.