Let's try this again. I watched a film, The Great Global Warming Swindle, which asserts, that while there is a correlation between CO2 in the atmosphere and global warming, the CO2 does not cause the global warming. If anything, the film asserts, the global warming might result in increasing levels of CO2, as it is the global warming that occurs first, followed by increases in CO2. The film also advances the notion that the sun might be the culprit.
But rather than address that question, here is what we got instead:
Michael Gibson came closest to addressing the question. Congratulations Michael! But rather than address the films basic assertion, he got into the minutiae, getting sidetracked by some minor point about a chart used in the film. He uses the authors alleged and minor error as the reason to dismiss the entire theory.
Another contributor enlightened us with a stirring albeit irrelevant quote from John F. Kennedy who was no doubt talking about something other than global warming.
Another anonymous genius similarly sidestepped the question but gladly offered a lengthy dissertation on population and energy consumption.
Yet another offered a still longer post, copied from who knows where, that addressed the dangers of global warming.
Another poster avoided the question but assured us that scientists worldwide accept the global warming facts, except those that don't of course who are obviously paid by coal producers and who think the earth is flat.
What we are seeing on this blog is a microcosm of the problem. Rather than debate the issue, global warming alarmist instead prefer to monopolize the discussion, change the subject, declare that the debate is already over and that they won, or insult the infidels. Anything and everything other than actual debate.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
32 comments:
Amen.
Welcome to my world.
Debate means that there is something to debate.
This is scientifically NOT a debatable/ideological question, but a scientific reality.
Therein lies your problem - you want to debate whether a scietific fact is an opinion...
Who believes the ideological spin on this blog byt Dooley, Denis, and the other 'righties' that are so ideological in view that the truth can't break thru the fog?
Even Jesus Christ can't reach thier phones...
anonymous... GET OFF MY SIDE!
"This is scientifically NOT a debatable/ideological question, but a scientific reality."
THIS IS NOT TRUE!!!!
Here is one peer-reviewed paper that calls into question the accuracy of the computer models used by a lot of global warming advocates. Since all we have to go on is some recent data and computer models, this is important. Among other things, the model does not take into account the effects of water vapor and clouds.
http://www.uah.edu/News/pdf/climatemodel.pdf
Recent studies have also shown the hype about polar ice caps to be overblown and call into question the accuracy of temperature readings. It seems that satellite temperature readings show no temperature changes over the past 20 years. There are also concerns about the accuracy of the surface temperature readings due to inconsistency in equipment, placement, and other factors. Google it, you'll find it.
The point is that there are scientists who question the conclusions of some whose research is funded by people who support those conclusions and is based on possibly inaccurate data and flawed computer models. Those scientists get no play in the media, however.
The jury is still out on whether or not global warming is occuring. If it is, the cause may be natural or man made - we do not know for sure. Some of us do not think we should make major policy decisions in light of this.
Why is it that, in this instance, the skeptics are short sighted and ignorant? Could it be because the people they oppose are liberal?
jesus christ...
Real Debate said...
Welcome to my world.
===============================
Fred, you make me laugh. You right wing bloggers are the 'ANTAGONISTS', not some sad protagonists.
It must be an interesting world you live in where you antagonize people, and act put upon when those that you antagonize push back.
Go figure...
THIS IS NOT TRUE!!!!
Here is one peer-reviewed paper
Here is one peer-reviewed paper
Here is one peer-reviewed paper
Here is one peer-reviewed paper...
My point made...
There are a large number of experts whe belive that Global Warming is not happening others who belive it is but not man made.
Few of the above are getting grants to run the streets shouting "The Sky is falling!"
A large number of the "experts" who belive in Global Warming are reciving grant money to further research. Why do I think if the grants dried up so would these experts.
Mind you I fully belive that we need to do more to reduce the amount of engery we use and provide more of the power we do use from Coal, Nuke, Wind, and Solar. To inport as much oil as we do is a disgrace
That being said the Global Warming as an excuse for anything is just silly.
anon - it is more than just one paper. That was one example, not the only one. Here is a link about 60 scientists:
http://epw.senate.gov/pressitem.cfm?party=rep&id=264777
There is plenty of dissent.
Here is something else you may tend to trust - it is from NPR.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1893089
Dr. David Evans (a mathematician who did carbon accounting for the Australian government) at the Bali, Indonesia conference last week:
"We now have quite a lot of evidence that carbon emissions definitely don't cause global warming"
Those that still persist in the belief that global warming is caused by carbon emissions are nothing more than acolytes of an environmentalist death cult.
Anonymous said...
anon - it is more than just one paper. That was one example, not the only one. Here is a link about 60 scientists.
=====================
And just how many climatologists, geologists, etc, are there in the world?
Why David Evans is wrong (along with all the other sceptics)
http://julesandjames.blogspot.com/2007/05/why-david-evans-is-wrong-along-with-all.html
Wednesday, May 02, 2007
David Evans has a post up on Backseat driving, explaining why he has taken Brian on with a series of bets about global warming.
Usually, I don't bother addressing the sceptic stuff that can be found on a thousand blogs: people who want the facts can come looking for them, and I've got limited patience for wrestling with pigs (you both get mucky, but the pig enjoys it). However, David is a bit of a special case as he's actually been prepared to put a significant amount of his money where his mouth is. It turns out that his post is a fairly standard laundry list of excuses as to why he thinks climate science is a bit ropey. I could have some sympathy with some of his points, but there is one gaping hole in his analysis.
He starts off by acknowledging:
1. Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas. Proved in a laboratory a century ago.
and then continues with a string of tenuous arguments as to how it is possible that other factors could be behind most of the recent warming of the Earth.
At no point does he actually produce any evidence for his implied belief that CO2 has a negligible effect.
This, to me, is the crux of the matter. With no feedbacks at all, the sensitivity to doubled CO2 is about 1C, based on the well-understood radiative physics. It is also obvious that a warmer atmosphere has the potential to hold more water vapour (itself a GHG of course), and although the magnitude of this effect isn't known with certainty, the most plausible first-order estimate (supported by models and data) would be that relative humidity will stay roughly constant. This gives another 1C, making 2C in total. [The numbers here are intended as ballpark estimates, please let's have no quibbles about the precision.] Clouds may have a significant effect to enhance or offset warming. We know the climate has varied plenty in the past (indeed this is generally one of the septics' favourite talking points), so it seems implausible that they are a very strong stabilising force. Almost all models, using a wide range of physical parameterisations, suggest a significant positive amplification, giving the typical range of 2-4.5C for sensitivity. All analyses of observational evidence also point towards a value of close to 3C (exactly how close is still subject to some debate).
So we are left with the question: why on Earth would anyone believe that CO2 has almost no effect?
The claim that a world without anthropogenic forcing could possibly have warmed this much, whether true or not, is almost entirely irrelevant to the question of what we expect the anthropogenic effect to be. It's true that in the event of stronger natural variability, that might suggest a slightly larger possibility that a future downturn in the natural component could exceed the anthropogenically-forced response in the short term. But as I mentioned above, more variability also implies smaller stabilising feedbacks, so we'd also expect to see a larger sensitivity to CO2 in this case. Are we really supposed to believe that the planet is highly sensitive to some speculative and unquantified mechanism such as cosmic rays, and simultaneously insensitive to an effect that's been reasonably well understood for over 100 years? Why?
Detection and attribution has a lot to answer for in respect of this confusion. D&A essentially addresses the question "could an unforced planet have warmed as much as the observations"? However, this (frequentist) question has only tangential relevance to a (Bayesian) estimate of future warming. IMO, the arguments over whether or not we have "detected" AGW, and at what level of confidence, entirely misses the point. Imagine that someone points a gun in roughly your direction, and pulls the trigger. According to D&A, nothing interesting is going on until the bullet hits you, but at that point it's too late. An intelligent Bayesian would believe that there was a significant probability of serious harm before the bullet arrived - hopefully even before the trigger was pulled. Now, I'm not saying that climate change is going to suddenly kill us all, but just giving an analogy to explain the manner in which D&A fundamentally answers the wrong question. (As a secondary point, I believe it is the attempt to pretend that D&A methods can answer the interesting and useful questions that has lead to the uniform prior nonsense, but that isn't really my point here.)
So, until David and the rest can come up with some plausible arguments as to why CO2 actually has no effect, backed up by a sensible climate model which supports this claim, I'll continue to believe that it does in fact have a significant effect which will (with high probability) lead to continued warming. That is, as he more or less admitted at the start, solid science that is more than 100 years old.
Lord Christopher Monckton, a UK climate researcher at the Bali, Indonesia conference last week:
"Climate change is a non-problem. The right answer to a non problem is to have the courage to do nothing,"
"The UN conference is a complete waste of our time and your money and we should no longer pay the slightest attention to the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change,)"
It would seem that Dr Evans is not alone. The math, the real math, not the Al Gore wave-your-hands-jeti-mind-trick kind, is chipping away at the "cult of carbon warming".
New peer-reviewed study by a team of scientists appearing in the December 2007 issue of the International Journal of Climatology of the Royal Meteorological Society:
"Warming is naturally caused and shows no human influence."
December 2007, now that's fresh data. It's time for the cultists to open their minds and find some other way to get their hands on my money. That's what it's all about, right?
I do not want to debate science. It should be an objective analysis of reality. No emotion, creed, oath or belief should muddle its conclusions.
But what IS debatable is the application of scientific findings and the mandatory steps government will receive to protect us from this en vogue peril.
Is there anthropogenic global warming? Perhaps.
Am I more concerned about what politicians will coerce their voting vassals to do? Indubitably Yes!
Will they take away your car? Force you to insulate? Ban the incandescent bulb? What steps will the state take to ensure that I am a loyal green? What new environmental tax can they contrive to justify the seizing of my quantified labor?
Questions of the authority, not “How will bovine vapors affect me?” are the ones to debate.
These are exceedingly visible dangers, and unlike the conjectures of flawed machines, need no time to show their veracity. only fear.
To be fair, I criticized that chart because that is the issue that you covered in the last post, not anything about the sun.
Sam, I think that the correct way to go about remedying the problem is not to make more restrictions, but rather to provide alternatives. Instead of taking away cars, support commuter rails and more efficient public transportation.
I miss trolleys Sam. How about you?
You really have nothing of substance to add on the CO2/global warming question do you Michael. That is not an insult by the way. I have nothing of substance to add either on the issue. All I could do is ask a question based on the films assertions. But what I find interesting is the knee jerk reaction to reject the assertions in The Global Warming Swindle while wholeheartedly accepting Al Gore's argument. You would be wise to explore the reasons why you react in such a biased manner.
SmallGovSam, I don't want to debate the science either. It is obvious that none of the contributors here is really equipped to add to the scientific debate on the subject, including yours truly. Yet so many have accepted the doomsday views with all the fervor of an Islamofascist strapped with explosives.
I feel more comfortable exploring the political "solutions" realm of the discussion. But the Greeny movement and aligned groups want to skip the science and get on with the socialism, so someone has to bring up the science before its too late. Thanks for your thoughts.
Denis Navratil said...
... I have nothing of substance to add either on the issue.
=====================
Not true...you are trying to obfuscate the truth of the scientific facts that science has made abundantly clear.
Red Herrings - all this obfuscation...
Here is an example of hundreds of doubter within the scientific community.
http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/news_press_release,176495.shtml
Here is the only fact I am sure of.
This is science is NOT settled. Advocates are pushing a rhetoric forward that it is, but it is not.
Again I ask you to look into Dr Christopher Landsea. He was hired to determine if there was a link between global warming and hurricanes.
The problem, the people who hired him ran out and held a news conference proclaiming there was a link before any science was done.
Why?
Funding folks, it is what scientists are always about. They need someone to pay for their research. And the best way to make that happen is to scare people. (Can you say Y2K bug?)
Add this little dittie today.
Magma melting the ice in Greenland.
http://stillunreal.blogspot.com/2007/12/hey.html
There are stories like this every day questioning the great consensus.
The problem is the advocates are never willing to give them any conisderation.
Global warming is more a blind religion than anything else.
I would agree that, for the true believers, it's a cult. For the left in general, it's just a means to separate the productive from the fruits of their labor.
My almost 50 years of anecdotal (and I realize insignificant in any scientific sense)climate experience leads me to believe ... those winters in the mid/late 70's indicated global cooling, those Indian springs in the early/mid-80's indicated global warming ... and thus I'm clueless - warming, cooling, man made, natural causes? Common sense tells me two things: 1) consider with due diligence something that could be catastrophic while avoiding "the sky is falling" call, and 2) don't get so caught up in our regular political feud that we ignore other imprtnat related factors. We need to move to alternative energies (yesterday) to free our foreign policy from the leverage petro states hold over us. We need to develop those alternative energy technologies here first - which will create jobs and improve our economy.
Anonymous Nemo said...
I would agree that, for the true believers, it's a cult. For the left in general, it's just a means to separate the productive from the fruits of their labor.
==============
Finally, you admit that the 'right' is a cult!!!
The right wants to benefit the few from the capitalistic adventure, and make the rest into poor wage-slaves!
I criticized that part of the film because it showed an 800 year lag where Temperature rise comes, and then CO2 comes. The only problem was that the people in the film were talking about it like it was always happening, but the graph they showed only showed a very small time frame. I wouldn't have questioned if I had seen a graph that showed data like that throughout a longer time span, and especially in the last 150 years, but it showed a relatively short period of time 250,000 years ago.
cfsta, good points. I would only add that I don't care so much where the alternatives come from. If I am not mistaken, we presently slap a tax on imported sugar from Brazil, to protect our inefficient ethenol producers. Sugar from Brazil could be imported and this could help make the alternative energy industry more competitive. I think we should take the lead and allow for free trade, especially with something so important as alternative energy materials.
"I do not want to debate science. It should be an objective analysis of reality. No emotion, creed, oath or belief should muddle its conclusions."
The problem with this issue is that this statement does not apply. It does not matter how many counter-arguments or studies are brought up, those must be wrong because the religion of the SP left has embraced global warming.
Anon said:
"The right wants to benefit the few from the capitalistic adventure, and make the rest into poor wage-slaves!"
I'm not sure that responding to the unhinged can change minds, but here it goes...
I want every citizen in the country to reach his or her's maximum potential. Historically, the capitalistic framework is the best at achieving this goal. If this labels me as the "right" so be it. This is not a cult. A cult would be identified by a central figure using his fame (Al Gore) to promote a destructive religion (global warming) that would in turn deify him.
Post a Comment