Global Warming/Climate Change Super Thread

[George Wallace]

You can't be serious. The last two summers saw record drought in Texas and Kansas. Just because some areas had bumper crops does not mean there is  not a problem. You clearly don't understand how climate change, or even the climate works. Changes will mean life has to adapt, and that is not an easy thing. Some areas will see more rain, and some will see less. Kansas and Texas have seen far less. I could post a thousand stories about the drought in the Mid West for every one that you could find about a bumper crop.

From that Commie-climate-change-cheering rag, The Wall Street Journal:

http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20130905-708229.html


George we covered the ice issue a dozen posts ago. Yes there is more ice this year as we had a cooler summer. But the overall trend is clearly negative. I posted several graphs illustrating that fact. And to you AND Haletown, I also posted a link that rebuts ALL of your above arguments. Here it is again:

http://grist.org/series/skeptics/

As you can see, pretty much every argument commonly made by climate change skeptics is thoroughly debunked with impeccable sources. All of the examples you both have just posted are either a) anecdotal, or b) data that does not go far back enough to illustrate the overall trend
c) or the data is just plain skewed out of all context

Several points:

1. that paper is examining medical science, not climate science (there is a difference)

and it has been debunked itself. See below from the Wiki on the author (yes the original paper by Goodman and Greenland is cited):

"Statisticians Goodman and Greenland agreed that "many medical research findings are less definitive than readers suspect" but found major flaws in Ioannidis's methods, noting that Ioannidis (who did not collaborate with any statisticians on the article) appeared to have confused alpha level with p value and also built the assumption that most findings are likely to be false into his reasoning, thereby making his logic circular. Therefore Goodman and Greenland rejected Ioannidis' claim as unsupportable by the methods used."

2. Climate science is multidisciplinary. We are seeing data from geologists, biologists, atmospheric specialists, etc all lining up, and often independently from one another. I'll repeat.  These teams are NOT competing for the same breakthrough, which Corollary 6 is clearly referring to.

:

All I can say, is like Chicken Little, you are running off in a panic over something that is absolutely natural.  So there is a drought in Texas and there are bumper crops somewhere else.  This is not indicative of anything other than the peculiarities of Mother Nature.  Stop trying to analyse it as indicating a Catastrophic Event.  If you were around in 1932, you would be doing much more of the same as you are doing now, if not much worse.  The Dust Bowls of the Dirty Thirties came and went and the World did not come to an end.  Get off you friggin high horse and Chive on....Put the tinfoil away and try to show some semblance of normalcy.

 

[Kilo_302]

Some people think if the New York Times or CHC says there wee record droughts across the USA recently then it must be true.

Other people realize journalists are for the most part clueless, challenged by numbers and prefer to re-print Greenpeace Fund Raising propaganda and pass it off as news.

Other people, who know what the PMDI is, actually go and check the data. 

So just so we are clear, you are saying that there hasn't been a record breaking drought in the Midwest US?

:

All I can say, is like Chicken Little, you are running off in a panic over something that is absolutely natural.  So there is a drought in Texas and there are bumper crops somewhere else.  This is not indicative of anything other than the peculiarities of Mother Nature.  Stop trying to analyse it as indicating a Catastrophic Event.  If you were around in 1932, you would be doing much more of the same as you are doing now, if not much worse.  The Dust Bowls of the Dirty Thirties came and went and the World did not come to an end.  Get off you friggin high horse and Chive on....Put the tinfoil away and try to show some semblance of normalcy.

George, (none of what you said is actually an argument), but SCIENCE is saying this could be a catastrophic event. And I am quite confident most scientists have taken the drought from the 1930s into account. I'm not the one wearing tinfoil here. People who think climate change is the product of a socialist conspiracy, a "green" conspiracy or whatever else ARE crazy. Now you just seem to think it's not a big deal, that's not crazy, but its wishful thinking or blissful ignorance.

I fail to see how I am on a "high horse." Is that because I have the temerity to debate and use real sources?

And as far as "normalcy" goes, I would argue "normal" is being to able look at information, look at its sources, look at who benefits from what, and make an informed decision. This thread is titled "The Global Warming Super Thread" is it not a normal thing to debate global warming here?

 

[Dissident]

. People who think climate change is the product of a socialist conspiracy, a "green" conspiracy or whatever else ARE crazy. Now you just seem to think it's not a big deal, that's not crazy, but its wishful thinking or blissful ignorance.

It was pointed out earlier in this thread that scientist are not immune to the lure of easy money (and social status) and have a vested interest in the Global Warming Theory. It is not a conspiracy, it is just a normal reaction to an incentive. (On a tangent, if you have not done so you can read "Freakonomics" on how incentives can have interesting effects on behaviors)

In five or ten years from now I want you to remember this thread, when AGW has come and passed and the enviro-alarmist discover the next great pending cataclysm.

 

[jpjohnsn]

It was pointed out earlier in this thread that scientist are not immune to the lure of easy money (and social status) and have a vested interest in the Global Warming Theory. It is not a conspiracy, it is just a normal reaction to an incentive. (On a tangent, if you have not done so you can read "Freakonomics" on how incentives can have interesting effects on behaviors)

In five or ten years from now I want you to remember this thread, when AGW has come and passed and the enviro-alarmist discover the next great pending cataclysm.

Invoking circumstantial ad hominem arguments questioning the motives of the scientists is a dead end.  The "easy money" you speak of isn't there in any kind of quantity enough to motivate all of the thousands of researchers within the hundreds of teams - more than a few of whom work for agencies within governments who are hostile to their findings - to make it worth their while.

If you are going to appeal to motive -  what about the minority of scientists who are in the employ of industries who dispute the notion of AGW or, indeed, the industries themselves who have a vested interested in protecting their profit margin?  You don't have to pay off huge groups of people, you only have to pay off (or, at least encourage a few alternate theories) to a few to sow confusion.

See how easy it is?  It's a double-edged sword since one can claim and counter-claim in ever-desceasing circles.  That's why it's considered a fallacy.

 

[Dissident]

That's a fair enough point, but you yourself are using a strawman's argument.

He declared that we claimed some sort of conspiracy, others pointed out (and I agree) that no Conspiracy needs to exist as the simple answer lies in the Global Warming scientific community responding, naturally, to the draw of research money and other fringe incentive.

I, for one, was not defending research or people on either side of the debate.

 

[Kilo_302]

That's a fair enough point, but you yourself are using a strawman's argument.

He declared that we claimed some sort of conspiracy, others pointed out (and I agree) that no Conspiracy needs to exist as the simple answer lies in the Global Warming scientific community responding, naturally, to the draw of research money and other fringe incentive.

I, for one, was not defending research or people on either side of the debate.

NinerSix, I wasn't saying ALL "deniers" believe in a conspiracy theory. Many claim a conspiracy, others claim that the data is simply wrong (probably the weakest argument, because those who use it are rarely trained in science at all) and others claim that it's the draw of money or prestige. That argument is also false for the following reasons:

1. The biggest career boost to a scientist(s) is to publish findings that disprove a currently accepted theory. If the overwhelming majority of scientists believe climate change is a threat, and is man made, and there was data out there that showed otherwise, it would be published and it would be the most important paper of the decade.  Just look at all the of big "discoveries" of the past century. Each one turned previous theories on their heads, and the teams involved were celebrated, received more funding and went down in history. So if 97% of scientists believe one thing, you'd better believe that someone, somewhere by now would have published a peer reviewed paper claiming the opposite if it were possible. The prestige would be enormous.


2. To jpjohnsn's point, follow the money. The "lure" of research money versus the money made available by the petroleum industry and other interests is not enough to sway literally thousands of institutions and research teams. Furthermore, for the data to be that skewed or incorrect across different nations, different disicplines, and different timelines you WOULD need some sort of conspiracy to achieve that level of consensus. It does not, nor can it, add up.

 

[Haletown]

This should be a good read.  Her first book exposed the IPCC, pitched as a policy neutral scientific body, as being, in reality, heavily infiltrated by non scientist environmental activists.  Highly recommend book.

http://judithcurry.com/2013/09/09/laframboises-new-book-on-the-ipcc/

Ths new book is obviously timed to hit the bookstores at the same time as the IPCC Fifth Report. 


There is just so much corruption, distortion and fear mongering in the environmental industry, but after a long period of creating environmental hysteria, the message eventually wears thin on the public as they realize that no one has actually seen a piece of falling sky. 

Global Warming as a political weapon is in decline and will never recover.  The multi $billion international environmental industry went all in on what they thought was the killer app, but now they have a significant branding problem as their credibility is on the line.

It will only get worse as people realize the staggering amount of public money that has been diverted from health, education, roads and infrastructure  and spent on useless projects that pay homage to Gaia but produce no value for society.

The Green fad has peaked and wil never recover.  They will fight a hard rear guard action to preserve their lip lock on the public teat, but as debts in Western nations increase and  decisions need to be made about closing hospitals or removing subsidies for wind farms, citizens will decide what is best for them and it won't be to make wind turbine owners rich.


Such a wonderful grift, gotta give the enviros full credit for a great campaign.

 

[Kilo_302]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/10/AR2007101002157.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

An article by Judith Curry. The final paragraph: 

Lomborg seems to have missed it, but a sensible debate has begun on how to best respond to global warming -- in national and local governments, universities and the private sector -- in the U.S. and around the world. There is no easy solution to this problem; the challenge is how best to develop options that are feasible, efficient, viable and scalable. Lomborg is correct to be concerned about the possibility of bad policy choices. But I have yet to see any option that is worse than ignoring the risk of global warming and doing nothing.

 

[Haletown]

So you start off thinking you are saving the world from global warming and nothing could go wrong with being a do-gooder.

Oooopsie!

"Getting rid of biofuel programs would cut Europe’s food costs in half by 2020, and lower global food prices by 15 percent. That’s according to a new report, commissioned by the EU’s own Joint Research Center (JRC), released ahead of a critical European Parliament vote on Wednesday to cap biofuels’ contributions to the EU’s 2020 green targets."

http://www.euractiv.com/energy/eu-report-brussels-biofuels-poli-news-530293

 

[Haletown]

Waaaaaaaay back in 2007, Judith Curry was still a Warmista.

She has since admitted she was wrong and has come around to being very skeptical of the whole IPCC shmozzle and most of her fellow Climatologists.

She now agrees with even denier Republicans.  No Christmas cards for her from Mann or Hansen, that's for sure.

http://judithcurry.com/2013/09/05/u-s-republicans-critical-thinking-on-climate-change/#more-12844


Because it is difficult staying current.

 

[Haletown]

Australia comes to its senses and the new PM is not waiting around.

http://joannenova.com.au/2013/09/coalition-starts-axing-australias-carbon-bureaucrat-machinery/

"[The Australian]  PUBLIC servants are drawing up plans to collapse 33 climate change schemes run by seven departments and eight agencies into just three bodies run by two departments under a substantial rewrite of the administration of carbon abatement schemes under the Coalition."


Take note Mr. Harper.  Now if we could just Ontario to come to its senses.

 

[Kilo_302]

You are cherry picking sources. These views are NOT representative of the vast majority of scientists. Or anyone for that matter. And you are not addressing specific arguments. If it's a question of finding and posting skeptical articles this could go on forever. Address the data, address the actual discussion.

 

[Haletown]

The AGW theory states there is a direct linear relationship between increasing CO2 and increasing temperature.

The famous consensus of scientists says this  is true.  And a consensus cannot be wrong.

Ever.

 

[ModlrMike]

Consensus only means general agreement. One can just as easily be wrong as right.

If everyone's thinking the same thing, someone isn't thinking.
        - George S Patton

 

[Haletown]

Consensus only means general agreement. One can just as easily be wrong as right.

If everyone's thinking the same thing, someone isn't thinking.
        - George S Patton

Exactly  :nod:

 

[George Wallace]

You are cherry picking sources. These views are NOT representative of the vast majority of scientists. Or anyone for that matter. And you are not addressing specific arguments. If it's a question of finding and posting skeptical articles this could go on forever. Address the data, address the actual discussion.

Pot calling Kettle on picking sources.....LOL!

 

[Haletown]

CimateProgress is a very fair and unbiased (sarc/off) source of climate change information.

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2011/01/13/207334/science-kiehl-ncar-paleoclimate-lessons-from-earths-hot-past/

They claim we are well on the way to more than doubling CO2 by the end of this century, which would result in a minimum 6 degree C increase in the global temperature. 

Thus speaketh the Consensus.

Meanwhile, in the real world of data, in this case satellite data, the temperature has gone up by .16 degrees C since 1979.

That is POINT 16 of a degree in the last 34 years. 

Thank goodness for all those scientists that are part of the consensus, scientists with no dog in the fight, scientists that get funded based on the perceived importance of their research, scientists who only care about telling  us what is actually happening as opposed to what their ever so precious computer models predict will happen.

 

[Haletown]

Many people, Lizzie May being most notable,  regularly refer to "CO2 pollution".

She will be shocked, shocked! I tell you to find out the Government of Ontario encourgaes farmers in that province to poison our food supply with massive quantities of CO2 pollution.


http://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/crops/facts/00-077.htm



What is the world coming to when our governments poison our food.

I wonder if the consensus knows about this?

 

[jpjohnsn]

Many people, Lizzie May being most notable,  regularly refer to "CO2 pollution".

She will be shocked, shocked! I tell you to find out the Government of Ontario encourgaes farmers in that province to poison our food supply with massive quantities of CO2 pollution.


http://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/crops/facts/00-077.htm



What is the world coming to when our governments poison our food.

I wonder if the consensus knows about this?

Continuum fallacies are not valid arguments.  Using the word pollution is imprecise but not completely incorrect within their argument as to the effect of excess CO2 in the environment. 

 

[armyvern]

You are cherry picking sources. These views are NOT representative of the vast majority of scientists. Or anyone for that matter. And you are not addressing specific arguments. If it's a question of finding and posting skeptical articles this could go on forever. Address the data, address the actual discussion.

Wait a minute!! YOU are the one who sourced her work; he just pointed out to you that she has since stated she erred with her opinion.

This -  :facepalm: - is the only facepalm icon on the site, but your gaff above is definitively worth a double facepalm and -300.