The scientists are just doing their work. Those in the climate field virtually all agree: our use of fossil fuels plus deforestation causes global warming, which affects the climate in disasterous ways. And it will get worse. That is the consensus about the facts of climate change. There is no lie or cover-up. Scientists usually just report the facts.

The alternatives are practical, and the cost is falling below fossil fuels. There is no excuse for not supporting government action to help in this transition, or for denials that discourage people from purchasing alternative energy. Some Republicans even get it. Right-wingers only want two things: conformity to an ideology that opposes government action, or fear of inconvenience on the part of a few wealthy CEOs.

Every moment wasted on denial, causes needless suffering and death for humans and other species, for many years to come.

Originally Posted by JDG 66

-If the evidence is so obvious, why do alarmist feel the need to cover up about themselves and lie about their opponents? They obvioulsy don't have confidence in their own "evidence" or "analsyis."

The evidence is overwhelming. That you are unwilling to examine it or fail to understand it is not the fault of the evidence. The melting of the Arctic ice cap is pretty damning by itself. Your counter to that is the Medieval Warm Period, where evidence is anecdotal, not objective.

But carry on, regardless.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

The evidence is overwhelming...

-The evidence for WHAT is overwhelming?

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

...Your counter to that is the Medieval Warm Period, where evidence is anecdotal, not objective...

-Anecdotal evidence is just as objective as any other. It's based on the exact same evidence that you think is so decisive for other circumstances.

Originally Posted by JDG 66

-The evidence for WHAT is overwhelming? -Anecdotal evidence is just as objective as any other. It's based on the exact same evidence that you think is so decisive for other circumstances.

Where do you stand on Biblical evidence? (Just curious.)

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

The scientists are just doing their work. Those in the climate field virtually all agree: our use of fossil fuels plus deforestation causes global warming...

-Hmm...

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB100014...78462813553136

...the assertion that 97% of scientists believe that climate change is a man-made, urgent problem is a fiction. The so-called consensus comes from a handful of surveys and abstract-counting exercises that have been contradicted by more reliable research.

...Another widely cited source for the consensus view is a 2009 article in "Eos, Transactions American Geophysical Union"... It reported the results of a two-question online survey of selected [my bolding] scientists. Mr. Doran and Ms. Zimmerman claimed "97 percent of climate scientists agree" that global temperatures have risen and that humans are a significant contributing factor.

The survey's questions don't reveal much of interest. Most scientists who are skeptical of catastrophic global warming nevertheless would answer "yes" to both questions. The survey was silent on whether the human impact is large enough to constitute a problem. Nor did it include solar scientists, space scientists, cosmologists, physicists, meteorologists or astronomers, who are the scientists most likely to be aware of natural causes of climate change. The "97 percent" figure in the Zimmerman/Doran survey represents the views of only 79 respondents who listed climate science as an area of expertise and said they published more than half of their recent peer-reviewed papers on climate change. Seventy-nine scientists—of the 3,146 who responded to the survey—does not a consensus make.

...one problem is that those who self-identify as "climate scientists" tend to be kooks.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

...affects the climate in disasterous ways. And it will get worse... Every moment wasted on denial, causes needless suffering and death for humans and other species, for many years to come.

1) What are those "disasterous ways", Eric? Any chance this involves Miami going underwater? [I'm still disappointed in Jenny for that one]

2) What would be the benefits of global warming, Eric? None? If so, what is the perfect temperature to which we should aspire?

Also, I'd like each of you alarmists to answer this question:

Originally Posted by JDG 66

... What do any of you think the actual worst case scenario really is?

...anyway...

Originally Posted by TnT

Where do you stand on Biblical evidence? (Just curious.)

1) Oh, I bet you're more than just curious!
2) I don't. I'm an agnostic.

Originally Posted by JDG 66

... 1) Oh, I bet you're more than just curious!

No, curious probably does the job. It interests me where people get their belief systems. Most of the righties that I run into in person are pretty closely attuned to their Bible as a foundation for their individual belief systems.

Originally Posted by JDG 66

2) I don't. I'm an agnostic.

Cool. At least you don't have an imaginary friend. Or ... at least you're not sure whether or not you have an imaginary friend, I guess.

Originally Posted by JDG 66

-If the evidence is so obvious, why do alarmist feel the need to cover up about themselves and lie about their opponents? They obvioulsy don't have confidence in their own "evidence" or "analsyis."

Please use Spell-check.

It's not personal. The evidence is convincing.

Liars usually have a reason to lie -- such as making money off a lie (think of those who tried to tell us that cancerweed use was innocuous), standing for an indefensible cause that they can't break from, hiding their misconduct, or protecting themselves (for the while, and it usually fails) from legal consequences of their past deeds.

The FBI has a way of breaking down criminal defendants that even the Gestapo and KGB would have found enviable. The FBI isn't in the business of beating abject confessions out of people as did the Gestapo and KGB. Because innocent and guilty people say much the same about whether they committed a crime or not, the FBI lets the suspect talk. The innocent person usually runs out of things to talk about. The crook usually tells self-serving lies that evidence eventually contradicts. Never was at the scene of the crime, but his fingerprints were on the window blinds as he went to see whether the siren was that of a police car? Gotcha! Made falsified entries to conceal an embezzlement? Gotcha! Made shady transactions or telephone calls to a hit man that you say you never had anything to do with who murdered your Dear Departed? Gotcha! (J Edgar Hoover loved to hire accountants as Special Agents. For many crimes, following the money solves the crime).

Some of us know how the money flows. So if you are a mouthpiece for the Koch syndicate because you are paid to deny global warming and its connection to fossil-fuel use.... Gotcha!

Originally Posted by JDG 66

-Duh.

Have you found a human fossil fuel burning chart that goes back that far? I'll give you a brownie point if you manage the trick. The charts I found go back to around the Civil War. They show near zero fossil fuel burning, and less burning earlier. The line showing fossil fuel use is right on top of the horizontal zero axis.

Originally Posted by JDG 66

...it shows that warming and fossil fuel use doesn't exactly coincide to the extent that he would like to think.

There are a lot of things other than human released CO₂ that effect climate. I suppose I should call the roll again.

There are other human released greenhouse gasses. Their effects are similar to but less than CO₂, so they aren't much worth reviewing. Those that disregard CO₂ will equally disregard the others.

There are aerosols... soot... also caused by the burning of fossil fuels. Think thick black smoke, Pittsburgh at the height of their steel making days, or London during Victoria's time. Soot causes global dimming. Less light gets to the surface, more bounced into space. They generate a cooling effect. There is a large and not much talked about 'hiatus' in around the 1950s, about the time fossil fuel use was going really crazy. I suspect aerosols had a lot to do with this pause, and the non-scrubbing factories of China, India and other developing Asian countries might well have something to do with the current hiatus. When the West realized the cost of requiring scrubbers on stacks was much less than the health care costs to the people breathing the air, laws were passed and the temperatures started to go up again. I would not be surprised if the Asian powers repeat this pattern.

This is an area that should be talked about much more, I think.

There are the solar cycles. The sun goes from hot to cold and back roughly every eleven years. Neither the duration or the amplitude are entirely predictable, but you can easily see the solar cycles in the temperature records. One should not start or end "trend" arguments near the peak or troughs of solar cycle, any more than...

El Nino and La Nina are the extremes of the El Niño Southern Oscillation. The are similar to the solar cycles in creating warm and cool periods. They are far less predictable. Again, one should not start or end "trend" measurements on a peak of ENSO. ENSO is also not the only such oscillation, just the best known to the public.

Volcanoes are even less predictable. Some release a lot of soot, and create cooling effect much the same as a dirty smoke stack. Some release a lot of CO2, contributing to the greenhouse effect. Some do both. These will cause the odd year or three.

Then there are the Milankovitch cycles. The Earth's orbit is not as clean and steady as one might think. Like a child's top that is slowly slowing, there are changes in orbits and wobbles, all quite predictable if one knows the right math. These cause the Ice Ages to come and go. We are about ready for an Ice Age. One can see a slow downward trend in temperatures in the record that ends at about the US Civil War. They are part of the big picture, but a very slow influence.

There is the placement of continents. Polar ice caps only form if a pole has a land mass on top of it or is surrounded by land masses. We are currently in an unusual configuration where both poles can freeze, and thus we are in an unusually cool time frame. Of course, when you compare the time frame it takes for continents to shift against the century or so of global warming trend, there is essentially no changing influence due to continental drift.

There are plants. Ever since the invention of photosynthesis, plants have been converting atmospheric CO₂ to oil, gas, coal and similar deposits. There has been a steady downturn in temperature since photosynthesis began. This trend has been disrupted recently...

There are triggering points. Melt a polar ice cap, the surface of the Earth gets warmer, more heat gets retained, the world gets warmer. Melt the tundras, methane gas gets released, a greenhouse gas, the world gets warmer. There are modules of frozen methane on the bottom of the ocean that have melted before and could melt again. One can find these in the historical record. Cause and effect, seemingly. This happens, temperature change follows. Of course, if one doesn't believe in CO₂, one doesn't believe in anything.

This ought to suffice. Thing is, there are many and varied known causes of climate shift.

There seems to be a common denialist thought pattern, that if they don't understand what is happening, it follows that no one understands. I quite believe most denialists cannot comprehend how all these factors play together. Heck, I can't say I fully understand either. The pros need quite complex computer models to calculate how one factor might weigh against the next, to find the weighing factors necessary for the model to match reality. Of course, most denialists don't trust computer models they don't understand, and they don't understand any of them.

I reject the argument from ignorance. Declaring "Duh! I don't understand." does not imply that others haven't done their homework.

Yes, there are forces in play other than humans releasing CO₂. People have identified and studied these forces at great length. Which force other than CO₂ has been in play since the Civil War? Which force was in play during the Medieval Warm Period? Is there any evidence that the force in play then is in play now?

Simply confessing one's own ignorance does not make one an authority sufficient to dismiss a field of science.

Originally Posted by JDG 66

-A common claim of Medieval Warming Period deniers. It occurred in Greenland, Europe, Central Asia, China, and Japan. That's pretty global. Incidentally, it was a world-wide period of prosperity...

Oh, yes. It was absolutely and positively global if one ignores all the evidence that it was not global.

Classic denialist thinking.

Originally Posted by JDG 66

1) None of you addressed the article's point that it was Tom Karl (the homo global warming alarmist) who cherry picked data (e.g., temperature records);

2) More amusingly, you seem to have missed that it was Karl, the HGW guy, that picked the 1998 baseline, not the debunkers. So, if you were being intellectually honest, your outrage regarding the "cherry picked" year should be with the Tom Karl.

So, tell me, if the year 1998 is so irrelevant, why is that the HGW alarmist cherry picked data to make it go away?

I was and remain ready to dismiss and ignore any argument based on trends that start or end on unusual years. 1998 is one such year. Other strong ENSO years would count. Peaks and troughs of the solar cycle, years of volcanic eruptions, and similar anomalous years ought to be considered dubious as trend start / stop markers. I will cheerfully dismiss the works of Karl and JDG based on short term trends delimited by unusual years. Will you?

I requested that you select a long term trend start. The theory is that large scale burning of fossil fuel is causing warming. The question would be when did the burning of fossil fuel become a significant factor in climate. The US Civil War would be the earliest point where the burning curve just starts off zero. By 1950 humans were no doubt about it burning like crazy. I'd be quite willing to look at the long term trend from anywhere in that range to... now. (Well... actually right now we're near the solar hot peak and the ENSO is leaning a little to the hot side. This isn't the most neutral moment to end a trend.) The shorter term the trend, the more noise one is introducing to the signal, the more the solar cycles, volcanoes, ENSO and other factors allow cherry pickers to introduce biases that support their political beliefs.

So, when do you think serious burning of fossil fuels might have been said to start?

Originally Posted by JDG 66

What do any of you think the actual worst case scenario really is?

Absolute worst case? The Permian–Triassic extinction event. Quite possible it won't be that bad. I don't think I'll live long enough to find out.

JDG probably would suggest even more pollution by soot to offset the effects of enhanced burning of fossil fuels as the energy cartel wishes.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

JDG probably would suggest even more pollution by soot to offset the effects of enhanced burning of fossil fuels as the energy cartel wishes.

There have been some serious (at least they seemed serious) suggestions that this be done. There are types of particles that are less harmful to the lungs than the sulfates typically released by non-scrubbed smoke stacks. There are preliminary plans for factories which do nothing but release safe soot. No funding or work being done, of course.

I heard another suggestion of dimming by orbiting a large number of mirrors. Again, keep the light from getting to the ground.

There are problems in the area of agriculture if this sort of thing is done. Too much dimming, less sunlight, means not as much photosynthesis will be taking place. The effects on farmers and Mother Nature would have to be considered.

But I doubt JDG will be a deliberate dimming advocate. He is still denying the CO₂. Advocating deliberate dimming is only for those who recognize the warming problem as real.

I think JDG is simply pro-polluter; I think he believes that energy use is the creation of wealth instead of its destruction.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

I think JDG is simply pro-polluter; I think he believes that energy use is the creation of wealth instead of its destruction.

If that's his angle, he isn't entirely wrong. The problem, of course, is that the resulting creation of wealth is resulting in other kinds of destruction, and we'll eventually reach a point where the scales will tip the other way.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

I think JDG is simply pro-polluter; I think he believes that energy use is the creation of wealth instead of its destruction.

But since when is JDG a Canadian or a Russian?

If he was, he would "patriotically" support global warming because his country would be outrightly battening off the warming itself - in the form of the new arable farmland it's opening up, and the "warm-weather" ports - Churchill, Manitoba, even Ostrov Dikson, Russia - it's opening up.

Which is why, unless both countries, and China, India and Brazil - decide to drop an economic suicide bomb on themselves, anything the U.S. and Western Europe do is tantamount to turning on the air conditioner on a 100-degree day while thoughtfully leaving all the windows wide open.

Originally Posted by TnT

No, curious probably does the job. It interests me where people get their belief systems. Most of the righties that I run into in person are pretty closely attuned to their Bible as a foundation for their individual belief systems.

But I guess you are in Wyoming? Here in Northern CA I run into more folks who are hooked on libertarian economics instead of the Bible as their basic belief system, even tho Bible thumpers are here too.

Originally Posted by JDG 66

-Hmm...

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB100014...78462813553136

...the assertion that 97% of scientists believe that climate change is a man-made, urgent problem is a fiction. The so-called consensus comes from a handful of surveys and abstract-counting exercises that have been contradicted by more reliable research.

...one problem is that those who self-identify as "climate scientists" tend to be kooks.

The number of climate scientists who agree that the climate crisis exists and is human-caused, are in the tens of thousands, while those in the actual climate field who deny this is in the single digits. It is the "skeptical" scientists and ideologues who are not in the field who are the "kooks," and are usually paid for by the "Kochs." The Kook Brothers and their ilk are very much behind all the denials.

1) What are those "disasterous ways", Eric? Any chance this involves Miami going underwater? [I'm still disappointed in Jenny for that one]

2) What would be the benefits of global warming, Eric? None? If so, what is the perfect temperature to which we should aspire?

You know. I'm not sure just how fast the disaster is slated to occur; we may be able to avoid Miami going under water if we act soon. Otherwise, the current flooding in places like Miami and Bangladesh and the island nations will only increase. We know many more droughts will cause water crises, and many crops will fail. Severe storms will claim many more lives, and many species we have no right to kill off will perish and diminish bio-diversity and eco-systems. At the least, allowing global warming to continue may work to the benefit of a few CEOs, but virtually no-one else. It will be far more expensive not to transition away from fossil fuels, than to save a few bucks for the fossil fool barons in order to preserve libertarian economics ideology. And that's the choice. There's no reason not to convert, and every reason to do so. Why not be prudent rather than fossil-foolish?

You've heard of 350.org. Climate activists usually aspire to lower CO2 levels. If areas of Canada and Russia open up to a warmer climate, that still may not make those tundra lands arable. The worst case scenario will happen if methane starts to melt off soon and fast up in those lands. That could melt the icecaps and flood Miami a lot sooner, cause currents in the ocean to stall, and deserts to claim many nations.

2) I don't. I'm an agnostic.

And yet you are a social conservative. Why?

Originally Posted by Bronco80

If that's his angle, he isn't entirely wrong. The problem, of course, is that the resulting creation of wealth is resulting in other kinds of destruction, and we'll eventually reach a point where the scales will tip the other way.

This sort of thing is part of the problem. A lot of the people pushing denialism are concerned about their own wealth over their own life times. What happens later to other people isn't their concern. Words like 'sustainable' don't seem relevant.

The notion that the well developed nations who lived well creating the problem should not take action until the undeveloped nations act first is another wonderful example of any excuse for selfishness.

You might enjoy these thousand points of darkness:

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer...e-science.html

Originally Posted by JDG 66

-Anecdotal evidence is just as objective as any other. It's based on the exact same evidence that you think is so decisive for other circumstances.

If there are 5,000 stories, and you tell one of them, is that in any way significant? That's the issue with anecdotes. They are valid within themselves, but have no bearing beyond that. The plural of anecdote is not data.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

If there are 5,000 stories, and you tell one of them, is that in any way significant? That's the issue with anecdotes. They are valid within themselves, but have no bearing beyond that. The plural of anecdote is not data.

I've definitely seen this in the gun control debate. There are lots and lots of stories going both ways, all quite capable of absolutely convincing those who are already absolutely convinced.

This reflects a values defense mechanism. One remembers vividly anecdotes that reinforce what one already believes while finding ways of discrediting or ignoring what one doesn't want to hear. This seems to be basic human nature.

Originally Posted by B Butler

I've definitely seen this in the gun control debate. There are lots and lots of stories going both ways, all quite capable of absolutely convincing those who are already absolutely convinced.

This reflects a values defense mechanism. One remembers vividly anecdotes that reinforce what one already believes while finding ways of discrediting or ignoring what one doesn't want to hear. This seems to be basic human nature.

The one difference with gun control: the NRA has convinced the government that looking at the evidence should not be allowed. In fact, even collecting it is forbidden in many places.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

The one difference with gun control: the NRA has convinced the government that looking at the evidence should not be allowed. In fact, even collecting it is forbidden in many places.

At one point there was a rabid liberal in charge of the Center for Disease Control. He decided that firearms were a form of disease, and started using government money to push blatantly skewed propaganda in a field where he had no expertise. This was quashed. The FBI continues to gather information on crime and violent crime. It was in large part a turf fight, with one federal agency stepping into another's sphere to blatantly push a political agenda. I kind of approve what was done. The FBI's crime data base is far less politicized than most covering the field, derived from police reports for the most part. Most such supposed studies in the gun crime field are financed and spun by rabid partisans... from both sides.

This is not what you hear from the gun control advocates, though. They will spin their propaganda as blatantly as anyone and they lost a prime propaganda platform.

But... let's not go too far in that direction on this thread. I told a "both ways" story and you came back spinning. If you want to open up a gun control thread, fine.

Though I will note the two issues attract similar degrees of vitriol, lies, spin and values lock.

Originally Posted by B Butler

But... let's not go too far in that direction on this thread. I told a "both ways" story and you came back spinning. If you want to open up a gun control thread, fine.

Nobody needs to start a gun control thread. We already have a couple.

Originally Posted by The Wonkette

Nobody needs to start a gun control thread. We already have a couple.

We have? Oh, yes. So glad you reminded me. I had forgotten.

Originally Posted by B Butler

This sort of thing is part of the problem. A lot of the people pushing denialism are concerned about their own wealth over their own life times. What happens later to other people isn't their concern. Words like 'sustainable' don't seem relevant.

The notion that the well developed nations who lived well creating the problem should not take action until the undeveloped nations act first is another wonderful example of any excuse for selfishness.

No doubt. That's more of what I was getting at.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

But I guess you are in Wyoming?

No. New Mexico. I was, however, born in Laramie, WY. That's what gives me my wit.