The Most Extra New Super Global Warming Thread

[Kerostasis]

Originally Posted by bkelly

Now are any of the choices above incomptatible with the "concensus on global warming", that manmade CO2 emissions are causing the planet to warm?

bkelly

I'll leave that question to your own imagination, but note that many of those options are incompatible with your own personal consensus on Global Warming asserted on the last page of this thread -- that Human Activities are the prime cause of a climate shift that will have disastrous consequences for humanity and should be prevented at all costs, and that no scientists ever disagree with that position. Pay specific attention to questions 5 and 6, which pretty strongly refute that assertion.

Edit: If you would like to disclaim responsibility for that assertion, thats fine I wont complain, as long as we both agree the assertion is groundless.

[bkelly]

Originally Posted by Kerostasis

...that Human Activities are the prime cause of a climate shift that will have disastrous consequences for humanity and should be prevented at all costs, and that no scientists ever disagree with that position. *snip*

Edit: If you would like to disclaim responsibility for that assertion, thats fine I wont complain, as long as we both agree the assertion is groundless.

I agree that it is groundless to tie the statement to all scientists. IMO, "prime cause" is relative to your perspective and "disastrous consequences" and "prevented at all costs" are value judgments which will differ from person to person.

However I do think the individual claims of the statement have merit.

bkelly

[GlobalWarmin]

Originally Posted by Kerostasis

Pay specific attention to questions 5 and 6, which pretty strongly refute that assertion.

Question 5 and 6 do what now? They "strongly refute" imaginary assertions? Or are they important because Milloy said they were, without explaining why, and you are mearly repeating that?

Milloy:

The responses to the last two questions, however, raise questions about the consensus’ credibility.

Less than 50% of the respondents said that an increase in global temperature of 1-degree Celsius -- twice the level of warming occurring during the 20th century -- is flatly undesirable. Half of the respondents said that such a temperature increase is desirable, desirable for some but undesirable for others, or too difficult to assess.

Only 14% said that the ideal climate was cooler than the present climate. Sixty-one percent said that there is no such thing as an ideal climate.

But if there’s no agreement on whether a target climate even exists, what precisely is the point of taking action on global warming?

Paying close attention now to analyze his argument about question 5 and 6:

The responses to the last two questions, however, raise questions about the consensus’ credibility.

First, he doesn't deny the consensus. But, his first premise to deny the consensus anyways is: There is a consensus, but it might not be entirely credible, based on the results of one survey that I created and interpreted.

Less than 50% of the respondents said that an increase in global temperature of 1-degree Celsius -- twice the level of warming occurring during the 20th century -- is flatly undesirable. Half of the respondents said that such a temperature increase is desirable, desirable for some but undesirable for others, or too difficult to assess.

Of course, what he doesn't mention is the actual responses to the question (thank you BKelly):

Question #5. The climatic impacts of a mean global temperature that is 1-degree Celsius warmer than today are:

[ ] Undesirable. 48%
[ ] Desirable. 4%
[ ] Desirable for some and undesirable for others. 39%
[ ] Too difficult to assess. 7%
[ ] No opinion. 2%

According the results of his own survey, only 4% of the respondents said a 1-degree increase is desirable, while 87% responded that it would be undesirable or only undesirable for some. And he is only asking about a 1-degree increase! What about a 2-degree increase, or more? These results certainly don't fit into another premise for his argument that there is no consensus about the dangers or reality of global warming, so I can't even add it as a premise because it would make his argument false according to his own work.

Only 14% said that the ideal climate was cooler than the present climate. Sixty-one percent said that there is no such thing as an ideal climate.

Okay, this can work into his argument. His next premise against global warming consensus, according to the survey he created, distributed, and interpreted is then: The majority of respondents agree there is no such thing as an ideal climate.

But if there’s no agreement on whether a target climate even exists, what precisely is the point of taking action on global warming?

His conclusion (or rather, the question that he asks, because that way he isn't accountable for saying there is no point to take action, only asking the question*cough*Fox News*cough*) is then: There is no reason to take action on global warming.

That gives us:

Premise 1) There is an apparent consensus about the reality and dangers of global warming, but it might not be entirely credible, based on the results of one survey that I created and interpreted.

Premise 2) The majority of respondents agree there is no such thing as an ideal climate.

Conclusion) There is no reason to take action on global warming.

Not exactly an argument that can "strongly refute" anything. It's an argument though--spun from the results of his own survey. Premise 2 doesn't even have anything to do with Premise 1 or the conclusion!

So, maybe I missed something, but I would love to hear how questions five and six are important to you, because I've paid close attention to them, and they don't add up to what Milloy says they do in his article.

[AMosely]

I'm astounded at how this debate keeps on churning. If you ask me, neither the doomsdayers or the deniers have documented evidence other than opinions and guesswork. You'll find no truth from either. If one approaches it in terms of common sense and planetary and human health though, I think there is an obvious and undeniable conclusion - accept that change must come, and for many reasons.

Green initiatives, no matter how fashionable or trendy, represent positive change. Finding cleaner and sustainable sources of energy solves many problems (emissions, health, economy) while creating none. The acceptance of a mindset of conservation, re-use and forethought when it comes to resource consumption should be universally adopted into every human brain. You'll soon see a better Earth for every living thing.

I'm skeptical that this will ever happen though, just as I am skeptical that we'll ever see a world in which basic fairness and human rights are universally applied. But, one can always hope.

[GlobalWarmin]

AMosely,

I really agree with what you've said.

However, the important point I'm trying to make people here realize is there aren't doomsdayers in one corner and deniers in the other: The doomsdayers are fiction, and the invention of the deniers. If an engineer determines a structure is unsafe and potentially going to collapse, the engineer is not being a doomsdayer, the engineer is doing his/her job--that is all. The same goes for scientists who study the climate. These same people who deny science have made so much noise about lying, Communist, apocalyptic scientists that the reality of the scientific evidence that supports the IPCC's assessments has become cloudy and unimportant in their "debate" against science. It's the classic case of shooting the messenger.

The two sides in this--and other related issues--are science in corner and GOP politics in the other, and I think the evidence for that is all over these pages about global warming.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience/...ulddryupby2021

[GhostintheShell]

I agree as well. BTW Global, I so dislike the manner in which you respond to anything I post that you just accomplished the amazing feat to be the only person on TG in my ignore list. IMO, you really have nothing intelligent to add to this conversation and I can really do without you or your foolishness at this point.

All you guys asked for was one person that didn't fully support the theory of man made global warming. I think I more than covered that with an inside look at how the "consensus" surveys really work (51%). If you still think that out of even 100 scientists you could have a "perfect" consensus I don't know what else there could be to say except that you are delusional. When I've got even a half dozen of my (scientist) colleagues together they can't agree on where we should go for lunch talk about a topic as broad as MMGW.

[GlobalWarmin]

Originally Posted by GhostintheShell

BTW Global, I so dislike the manner in which you respond to anything I post that you just accomplished the amazing feat to be the only person on TG in my ignore list. IMO, you really have nothing intelligent to add to this conversation and I can really do without you or your foolishness at this point.

Ha! The guy who flamed me for no reason a few days ago just because he wanted to argue about something...

Well thank you good sir for sharing this treasure trove of valuable links with the rest of us, the uneducated masses that otherwise would not have access to your plethora of top secret climate change "editorials". Now I can finally put to rest my ongoing internal conflict on the topic of global warming.

...has ignored me for being foolish and unintelligent.

[CingularDuality]

Originally Posted by GlobalWarmin

However, the important point I'm trying to make people here realize is there aren't doomsdayers in one corner and deniers in the other: The doomsdayers are fiction, and the invention of the deniers.

LOL!
Well, you're tenacious, if nothing else...

[GlobalWarmin]

Global Warming: Sea Level Rise Could Be Twice As High As Current Projections, Greenland Ice Sheet Study Suggests

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0211172517.htm

[AMosely]

The doomsdayers are most certainly out there. Start by looking at some major media outlets, like the National Geographic channel (see below). I think that there is some undeniable logic to the alarmism in that it gets attention, and therefore may get more people to act, which is a a net good thing (promtotes conservation, economy, and personal and environmental health). It doesn't change the fact that it is alarmism, though. I'm slightly more concerned about the deniers - what is their underlying motivator? If it is only to call out the hype, they really aren't doing anyone any favors - human pollution and environmental devasatation are as worse as they've ever been around the world. Promoting a message of anti-environmentalism is not only unhelpful, it's potentially damaging. If the deniers are merely acting on politics (shoot down the enemy), they're being fools all the more. This issue should transcend politics, not be spun by it.

The New York Times published an interesting review of two recent documentaries (PBS/Nature vs. National Geographic Channel) that deal with environmental change and its human causes and impacts. I thought it (the article) was pretty telling - one is quiet and fascinatingly confusing, while the other is alarmist bordering on propaganda. I'm sure you can guess which is which.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/09/ar...degrees&st=nyt

[GlobalWarmin]

Originally Posted by AMosely

The doomsdayers are most certainly out there....

I see what your point is, but, even so, I don't see what is unnecessary (i.e. fear mongering or alarmist) about informing the confused and uneducated public about such a serious matter. There is no bigger challenge facing humanity right now than the changing climate (again). But, yeah, PBS has a much less entertainment and marketing oriented approach than the cable network channels.

The most recent global warming show on the NGC, Six Degrees Could Change the World, for example, could be considered frightening; however, to say it is alarmist I think is false. The show didn't say scientists know the Earth is going to warm six-degrees, just that scientists know it could happen. If the show was full of complete falsehoods (based on current research), then there is a case for it being alarmist or fear mongering. To really be alarmist it would have to be unwarranted or unnecessary information, and not just capable of creating fear or alarm. Of course, everything on TV that is educational is still "edu-tainment", meaning it's not going to be as heavy on content and more directed towards getting people to watch for 30 minutes or an hour. But, aside from the approach that a TV show will take to present scientific information, the core concept of the program is still supposed to be factual and important, which is the case with National Geographic.

And, I'm not just arguing semantics here: It's the danger of falling into the political trap of believing that scientists are trying to scare the public to fulfill a covert agenda with unimportant or false information. Global warming is a big friggin' deal, and determining what we are facing in the very near future, so that we can adapt accordingly, is maybe the most necessary thing humans need to do right now as a species.

As an afterthought, I wondered how the scientific community feels about the labels of alarmist or fear mongering, even when considering dramatic programs and books like "Six Degrees". I'll see if I can find anything interesting. I'll eat my words if I can determine respected scientists agree with such labels

[bkelly]

Originally Posted by GhostintheShell

All you guys asked for was one person that didn't fully support the theory of man made global warming.

"Fully support" is misleading. I am asking for the name of one person from specific organizations who does not agree with the theory of anthropogenic global warming.

Originally Posted by GhostintheShell

I think I more than covered that with an inside look at how the "consensus" surveys really work (51%).

Then you're totally missing the point of all this. Pointing out that 49% of these scientists could be in this minority doesn't support your position because your original statement professed to know what they actually believe. Let's go back to it.

Originally Posted by GhostintheShell

Most major scientific communities do in fact agree with what you say but what you fail to mention is that while the "organization" itself supports the theory many many scientists within these organizations do not.

Your argument is that the global warming consensus doesn't really exist because "many many scientists" don't believe in man-made global warming but are hidden by the majority who do.

Not only do I claim that your assertion that many many of these scientists do not believe in man-made global warming is false, but that your statement is nothing but an argument from personal incredulity. You don't believe in global warming and so you assume these dissenting scientists must exist and now you're presenting that assumption as fact.

My challenge to you to provide a single name is not only to illustrate that the global warming consensus is solid but to show that you are arguing from a position of ignorance. As I said in my first post to you, "you haven't done your homework."

I'm still waiting to be shown wrong.

Originally Posted by GhostintheShell

If you still think that out of even 100 scientists you could have a "perfect" consensus...

Did you consider question #3 in your Global Warming's Senseless Consensus survey? If someone does not believe the theory of man-made global warming, they are going to choose the third option, that limiting CO2 emissions would have no impact on global climate. None did.

So the survey reflects 54 responses. 49 people believe that anthropogenic global warming is happening to some degree while the other five abstained. Seems to me your data show we're already half-way to a "perfect" consensus already.

Originally Posted by GhostintheShell

...I don't know what else there could be to say except that you are delusional.

You could say something like, "I can't name a scientist in these organizations who believes that the theory man-made global warming is false and I have nothing to show that such a person exists. However I do still believe such people exist."

Naw, I suspect you'll stick with the delusional comment.

bkelly

[CingularDuality]

Originally Posted by bkelly

Did you consider question #3 in your Global Warming's Senseless Consensus survey? If someone does not believe the theory of man-made global warming, they are going to choose the third option, that limiting CO2 emissions would have no impact on global climate. None did.

I wanted to stay out of this, because the ridiculousness is getting, well, ridiculous, but I can't let this go without pointing out how ridiculous you are sounding.

Look, we all know that driving a big ass SUV that spews CO2 is contributing in a miniscule amount to global warming. We all know that. The question is whether or not it's significant in big picture. If I pee in a cup and give it to you to drink, you're gonna punch me in the nose. But do you care if I pee in the lake that is your drinking water reservoir? No, because it's a huge environment that isn't significantly affected by that amount of contaminant, and there are other, naturally occurring events, that have a bigger impact on water quality. Same thing with the emissions from an SUV and the huge environment that is our atmosphere. Yes, that SUV and the coal plant and the clear cutting in Brazil and all the other non-green actions that our species is taking definitely is contributing to global warming, and we should definitely change our behaviors to reduce our impact in that manner. But, really, is it significant in the big picture? Making the leap of logic to arrogantly state that global warming is CAUSED by man is ridiculous.

[bkelly]

CingularDuality, I'm confused as to why I sound ridiculous. Your summary really throws me off.

Originally Posted by CingularDuality

Yes, that SUV and the coal plant and the clear cutting in Brazil and all the other non-green actions that our species is taking definitely is contributing to global warming, and we should definitely change our behaviors to reduce our impact in that manner.

So you're saying CO2 emissions do affect the planet's climate.

Originally Posted by CingularDuality

But, really, is it significant in the big picture?

No, wait. Now you're wondering if CO2 emissions are significant enough to affect the planet's climate.

Originally Posted by CingularDuality

Making the leap of logic to arrogantly state that global warming is CAUSED by man is ridiculous.

And now you're saying it's ridiculous to say CO2 emissions affect the planet's climate.

Could you explain?

bkelly

[Kerostasis]

For the sake of example, I'm going to create some numbers off the top of my head to clarify Cing's point. These numbers have nothing to do with reality. Fair warning.

Suppose that after refining our models to be much more accurate than they are today, we determine that global temperatures will rise 50° from 2000 to 2100. Suppose further that we determine that man's CO2 emissions account for 1° of that rise, and previously unnoticed factor X related to meteor activity will cause the other 49° of increase.

Now, it can be said that CO2 contributes to the change in temperature predicted by this model. However, it would be rediculous to state that CO2 causes the change in temperature, because the primary cause of temperature change is the meteor effect.

Does that clarify any?