Global warming still happening

[chunkymonster]

So maybe let's concentrate on having people not live in places that can't really support them instead of making the rest of our lives miserable so some people can make stupid choices. But that doesn't sit well with the "we want to regulate everything" political set so this obviously common-sense approach will never be adopted.

Like Manhattan? The entire nation of Bangladesh? How many people live along coastal areas to be affected? A billion? Easily. Let's say $25K each to displace them. Cheap right? Yep only $25 trillion.

I'm still trying to understand why it would somehow be the government's and tax payer's responsibility to relocate people when/if a certain area floods.

 

[stillblue]

I'm still trying to understand why it would somehow be the government's and tax payer's responsibility to relocate people when/if a certain area floods.

Let's say we follow your plan, have you ever watched the Mad Max series? There you go.

 

[MU_Engineer]

I'm still trying to understand why it would somehow be the government's and tax payer's responsibility to relocate people when/if a certain area floods.

Because everything bad that happens anywhere somehow always has to result in the government getting involved and people who work having further taxes and regulations placed on them. Nothing bad can just happen and the locals pick up the pieces because that would result in people realizing they can exist without a massive Big Brother government. The statists can never "let a crisis go to waste."

 

[johnsonma]

Its funny how the political motivations for not believing in climate change show up eventually.

Chunky, one post about an article that shows one beneficial effect of CO2 and does not refute all the studies showing the negative effects..

You would both rather see the world burn than believe in something a democrat believes in. That's the simple truth. Its easy to see once you look at the rest of the developed nations. For the most part they understand that man made climate change is a reality. Why is that? Because they don't have a political force using its influence to spread propaganda and lies about it.

 

[gropouce]

Maybe it's because of anti-guns, or something.

Jeez, i never though i could read so much bullshits in ONE thread...

 

[chunkymonster]

I'm still trying to understand why it would somehow be the government's and tax payer's responsibility to relocate people when/if a certain area floods.

Let's say we follow your plan, have you ever watched the Mad Max series? There you go.

That's just ridiculous...

 

[chunkymonster]

Its funny how the political motivations for not believing in climate change show up eventually.

I don't care what the reason, it's detestable when any cause is used to further a legislative or political agenda. Politics has devolved from local citizen involvement to federal oversight and has removed the power from the individual citizen and consolidated into the few. As a result, any cause or tragedy that is used to further a legislative or political agenda deserves scrutiny. I would hope, that as a sovereign individual who exercises free will, you would support such sentiments. If not, you are a sheep who deserves to be lead.

Chunky, one post about an article that shows one beneficial effect of CO2 and does not refute all the studies showing the negative effects..

No arguments there. However, what it does show is that CO2 may not be the definitive cause of AGW and/or climate change that you claim it is, and at the very least, the effects of CO2 are not yet fully understood and further study is necessary.

You would both rather see the world burn than believe in something a democrat believes in. That's the simple truth.

Are you fvcking kidding me?! That statement wins 1st place for "Most Completely Asinine Comment" in this thread! It stinks of desperation. This thread deserves to be locked because of it.

Its easy to see once you look at the rest of the developed nations. For the most part they understand that man made climate change is a reality. Why is that? Because they don't have a political force using its influence to spread propaganda and lies about it.

You sound half-cocked and say that like America has done nothing to stem carbon emissions, because why, not signing in the Kyoto Agreement?! Never mind the EPA's 2013 uniform carbon emissions initiatives, never mind increased CAFE standards, never mind the countless other initiatives to study, mitigate, and prevent climate change! On top of it, you castigate MU and myself for bringing politics into the discussion but then blame politics for spreading anti-AGW propaganda! Hahaha!

 

[MU_Engineer]

Its funny how the political motivations for not believing in climate change show up eventually.

Global warming is a highly political topic, including amongst the believers. The global warming believers want to use the government to force their beliefs upon other people and also to obtain a large amount of funding from that same government to further their careers and status. Tell me how that is not political.

You would both rather see the world burn than believe in something a democrat believes in. That's the simple truth.

We have a legitimate disagreement with their beliefs, since those beliefs are based on an unproven hypothesis with a fairly poor track record. Their "atonements for our sins" contained in their beliefs contain a much more understood and quantifiable negative impact on our standard of living and freedoms.

Its easy to see once you look at the rest of the developed nations. For the most part they understand that man made climate change is a reality. Why is that?

They are socialist countries where the government has more control over the media than in the United States. Remember most of Europe doesn't have any right to free speech such as the U.S. does. The government can easily censor things that go against its self-interest.

Because they don't have a political force using its influence to spread propaganda and lies about it.

Actually they do, it's called the government. The E.U. government is advancing the role and scope of itself over the private citizen in the process. This is not without many centuries of prior art in Europe where they are used to being dominated by kings and dictators. (There is also significant pushback as the recent E.U. elections have shown. Yes, I pay attention to global news. Quite a few Americans do despite the Eurotrash stereotypes to the contrary.) The U.S. is an anomaly as the U.S. was founded by people trying to escape that and as a result up until fairly recently being much more free than Old Europe.

Maybe it's because of anti-guns, or something.

Guns weren't even brought up until you posted that off-topic post. Hey, why not bring racism, "the war on women," and homophobia into the mix too? I bet you can find some crackpot statist academic that will blame global warming on the Koch brothers, a lack of the taxpayers paying for birth control, and bible thumpers not wanting homosexuals to be married. Let's take their comments as fact because an expert said it, because you know so-called expert opinion is the absolute highest quality evidence out there!

Jeez, i never though i could read so much bullshits in ONE thread...

FYI, there is no plural to "bullshit." It is a word like "deer" or "sheep" with an identical singular and plural form.

And yes, I am amazed at how much blind dogmatic belief in something exists just because a few people who have the trappings of authority said it. You are in great company- the Church had a consensus that the Sun revolved around a flat Earth in the Middle Ages. You are simply a new version of the Middle Ages Church in unquestioningly dogmatically believing that what's essentially an opinion is absolute incontrovertible fact and people who have doubts are heretics to be burned at the stake. I stand with the skeptics who demand a much higher burden of proof to actually demonstrate there is merit to the theory rather than believe it entirely at the mere mention of the hypothesis. The skeptics don't exactly have a bad track record in these kinds of things, you know, unless you are actually still worried about falling off of the edge of the world.

 

[johnsonma]

@Chunky

The reason you think that climate change is the result of a political agenda is because of malicious propaganda being spread around. They are using your hate of the left to obscure something that should be all too clear. This is easily identified when you look at countries that are not influenced in this way and see how they view climate change. We are the only developed country that has a significant portion of its population that would rather stick their heads in the sand than accept scientific certainty.

It seems that i hit the nail on the head with the way you reacted to that world burning comment. Maybe it was a little over dramatic but I wanted to make a point. Why else would you ignore all the evidence? No rational mind would dismiss this amount of evidence without an emotional trigger.

You brought up politics so we can talk politics. Besides, the two topics are intertwined, there is no doubt about that. Climate change has been politicized, the only people who don't believe it are the far right. Why is that?

America has done a lot of good, especially with things like clean coal plants. We could do a lot more, green energy cannot replace everything entirely but we could be doing a lot more. Luckily, states have taken it into their own hands and almost half of them have passed green energy requirements. We need these advancements to show the rest of the world we are serious, then we can negotiate without seeming hypocritical. Some of the problems are that developing countries don't have clean coal. Helping them get there would be good, its expensive to develop it from scratch. How can we expect the rest of the world to make the push towards a better climate when we have only done a small amount of what we are capable of?

 

[johnsonma]

And yes, I am amazed at how much blind dogmatic belief in something exists just because a few people who have the trappings of authority said it. You are in great company- the Church had a consensus that the Sun revolved around a flat Earth in the Middle Ages. You are simply a new version of the Middle Ages Church in unquestioningly dogmatically believing that what's essentially an opinion is absolute incontrovertible fact and people who have doubts are heretics to be burned at the stake. I stand with the skeptics who demand a much higher burden of proof to actually demonstrate there is merit to the theory rather than believe it entirely at the mere mention of the hypothesis. The skeptics don't exactly have a bad track record in these kinds of things, you know, unless you are actually still worried about falling off of the edge of the world.

It takes blind dogmatic faith to believe in something without any evidence to back it up. You believe there is no man made climate change and yet you have literally NO evidence or facts to back that up. The burden of proof is much higher without experimental results but I believe that we have crossed the threshold. Who really has blind faith? The church did not have a ridiculous amount of observational evidence and state of the art models to back up their claim. Skeptics need evidence, otherwise they are wasting our time.

By the way, whats the difference between a government having control over the media and what we have now? Fox is basically in the pocket of the right, MSNBC is the left and the rest have their own agendas as well. Fox it the only one that pushes anti-climate change nonsense, its clear why this is the case is it not?

 

[gropouce]

FYI, there is no plural to "bullshit." It is a word like "deer" or "sheep" with an identical singular and plural form.

Oh ! Thanks a lot !
didn't know that. i appreciate. (really)

 

[gropouce]

Guns weren't even brought up until you posted that off-topic post. Hey, why not bring racism, "the war on women," and homophobia into the mix too? I bet you can find some crackpot statist academic that will blame global warming on the Koch brothers, a lack of the taxpayers paying for birth control, and bible thumpers not wanting homosexuals to be married. Let's take their comments as fact because an expert said it, because you know so-called expert opinion is the absolute highest quality evidence out there!

Well, i wasn't speaking seriously when i talked about anti-guns... you know that, right ? ^^

Comment pouvez-vous penser que le gouvernement a soudainement décidé de faire croire aux gens que la pollution est dangereuse pour la planète et qu'il faut du fric pour arrêter ça dans le seul but de ramasser plus de pognon ?
Ne parait-il pas plus sensé de croire que c'est une chose acquise depuis longtemps (la pollution pollue) mais que les grands groupes industriels font pression sur les gouvernements pour ne pas subir de pertes financières qui incomberaient à une politique plus écologique ?

And yes, I am amazed at how much blind dogmatic belief in something exists just because a few people who have the trappings of authority said it. You are in great company- the Church had a consensus that the Sun revolved around a flat Earth in the Middle Ages. You are simply a new version of the Middle Ages Church in unquestioningly dogmatically believing that what's essentially an opinion is absolute incontrovertible fact and people who have doubts are heretics to be burned at the stake. I stand with the skeptics who demand a much higher burden of proof to actually demonstrate there is merit to the theory rather than believe it entirely at the mere mention of the hypothesis. The skeptics don't exactly have a bad track record in these kinds of things, you know, unless you are actually still worried about falling off of the edge of the world.

Be sure i won't kill anyone that says i'm wrong. As i'm not going to send people through the world to force people to think like me.
Your opinion doesn't deserve less respect when i disagree.

 

[chunkymonster]

@Chunky

The reason you think that climate change is the result of a political agenda is because of malicious propaganda being spread around. They are using your hate of the left to obscure something that should be all too clear. This is easily identified when you look at countries that are not influenced in this way and see how they view climate change. We are the only developed country that has a significant portion of its population that would rather stick their heads in the sand than accept scientific certainty.

There is plenty of propaganda from both sides of the AGW debate; neither is innocent of spreading FUD and hyperbole about the matter. Implying my "hate" of the left shaping my perception of the AGW debate is an easy way for you categorize why I do not wholly believe in AGW like you do. From what I have read, I have no doubt that man has an impact on the climate, but what I am skeptical of is the the what degree. Extreme AGW supporters say we are causing our own eventual genocide. Extreme AGW deniers claims man has no impact in the climate is experiencing natural cycles. My opinion on climate change is still being formed, let alone assess and lay blame on what causes it.

It seems that i hit the nail on the head with the way you reacted to that world burning comment. Maybe it was a little over dramatic but I wanted to make a point. Why else would you ignore all the evidence? No rational mind would dismiss this amount of evidence without an emotional trigger.

I reacted to the "world burning" comment solely because it was a truly egregious and ignorant statement. You can rationalize it by stating you were making a point, but to be so presumptuous that I would want to see the world burn is just fvcking fvcked up.

You brought up politics so we can talk politics. Besides, the two topics are intertwined, there is no doubt about that. Climate change has been politicized, the only people who don't believe it are the far right. Why is that?

I do not know who the "far right" is let alone speak for them. I do not think that AGW is a "left/right" issue. And, I'm sure if you look, you will find that there are all manner of people across the political spectrum who have doubts about AGW.

America has done a lot of good, especially with things like clean coal plants. We could do a lot more, green energy cannot replace everything entirely but we could be doing a lot more. Luckily, states have taken it into their own hands and almost half of them have passed green energy requirements. We need these advancements to show the rest of the world we are serious, then we can negotiate without seeming hypocritical. Some of the problems are that developing countries don't have clean coal. Helping them get there would be good, its expensive to develop it from scratch. How can we expect the rest of the world to make the push towards a better climate when we have only done a small amount of what we are capable of?

Agreed. The fact is though, any major impact will take decades to implement. But it is the small steps towards that larger goal that will set the example.

 

[chunkymonster]

A well written and researched article questioning the consensus that 97% of climate scientists agree” that human activities are causing dangerous climate change.

Research & Commentary: The Myth of a Global Warming Consensus

This article was also published in the May 26th edition of the Wall Street Journal.

 

[johnsonma]

http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/article

The misinformation campaign is troubling to say the least. By the way the site you linked has a teaparty toolbag link. That pretty much sums that site up.

The papers that express an opinion on AGW are overwhelming in support of it. Forget the 97% number and just think about that. The papers that expressly consider the AGW subject are incredibly slanted towards the confirmation of that idea. Its damn near impossible to find any study that disagrees with AGW when it is considered. Why is that?

 

[MU_Engineer]

http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/article

The papers that express an opinion on AGW are overwhelming in support of it.

Less than a third of the papers analyzed in the study you posted even mentioned any support for CO2 global warming. The vast majority of papers took no position. In fact, the authors of the study noted that there is a significant increase in the percentage of papers taking no position and a decrease in the number of papers taking a position on CO2 global warming:

The time series of each level of endorsement of the consensus on AGW was analyzed in terms of the number of abstracts (figure 1(a)) and the percentage of abstracts (figure 1(b)). Over time, the no position percentage has increased (simple linear regression trend 0.87% ± 0.28% yr−1, 95% CI, R2 = 0.66,p < 0.001) and the percentage of papers taking a position on AGW has equally decreased.

Forget the 97% number and just think about that. The papers that expressly consider the AGW subject are incredibly slanted towards the confirmation of that idea.

But then why do the vast majority of papers about climate change published in peer-reviewed climate journals not take a position on CO2 global warming, and why did the ratio of papers endorsing CO2 global warming decrease over time? The "no position" papers outnumber the endorsers by 2:1 so it really is a "less than a third" consensus rather than the widely touted "97% consensus." That study strongly suggests the actual scientists aren't nearly as certain about CO2 global warming as the politicians and special interest groups are. I agree with the over two-thirds majority here in saying we don't know, there are too many known and unknown confounders and it will take a lot more time for observation to discover what really is going on.

Its damn near impossible to find any study that disagrees with AGW when it is considered. Why is that?

Because academia is intellectually very closed-minded. There is ONE correct opinion to have on an issue and if you espoue another opinion, you will be silenced. Just look at the commencement speaker brouhahas lately. The faculty members at several institutions pushed to disinvite speakers they didn't agree with. I don't know what that is except for closed-minded. That reminds me very strongly of the Middle Ages Church killing heretics and burning/banning books which contained "dangerous ideas" that went against Church doctrine.

 

[chunkymonster]

http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/article

The misinformation campaign is troubling to say the least. By the way the site you linked has a teaparty toolbag link. That pretty much sums that site up.

The papers that express an opinion on AGW are overwhelming in support of it. Forget the 97% number and just think about that. The papers that expressly consider the AGW subject are incredibly slanted towards the confirmation of that idea.

What is a "teaparty toolbag" and what does that have to do with the information presented in the article?

I think it's funny that you say "The papers that express an opinion on AGW are overwhelming in support of it." But then fail to mention that only one-third of the almost 12,000 papers actually have an opinion on AGW.

Its damn near impossible to find any study that disagrees with AGW when it is considered. Why is that?

Apparently it is not impossible at all! Especially when 66% of the papers written on the topic of AGW were reviewed and determined to have no opinion at all; which, according to your link means that "the cause of global warming is not yet determined".

So ultimately, you have provided a link to a study that proves the statement, "97% of scientists support AGW" as being a false narrative (is that why you brought up the point about the "misinformation campaign"?), that proves a majority of scientists do not know what is causing global warming let alone blame CO2, and also expresses a political motivation to sway public opinion to believing AGW is a reality in order to change policy.

Wow johnsonma! I never thought that you and I would be on the same page with anything; especially this topic!

 

[johnsonma]

You guys are digging so deep for any kind of information to support your claims that its actually degrading your argument.

An 'Uncertain' abstract explicitly states that the cause of global warming is not yet determined (e.g., '...the extent of human-induced global warming is inconclusive...') while a 'No Position' abstract makes no statement on AGW.

@MU It is naive to think that there are not plenty of people and companies that stand to gain something by denying climate change. These same people could fund their own studies to provide evidence against AGW. Why don't they? Maybe its because that would be impossible?

A study does not need to present a position on AGW. Its not that hard to understand. Not all papers set out to prove AGW, they are just studying the climate.

Among abstracts that expressed a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the scientific consensus. Among scientists who expressed a position on AGW in their abstract, 98.4% endorsed the consensus.

 

[MU_Engineer]

You guys are digging so deep for any kind of information to support your claims that its actually degrading your argument.

I seem to think the information I am finding and that you are finding for me is working very well to support my argument. I think your argument is getting shot full of holes though.

MU It is naive to think that there are not plenty of people and companies that stand to gain something by denying climate change.

And there are plenty that have gained and stand to gain further from pushing CO2 global warming as well. I posit the peopel pushing CO2 global warming stand to gain much more as they have the full weight of the U.S. government (which is larger than any single sector of the economy) beind them pushing legislation and regulations in their financial favor. All the companies who are skeptical of CO2 global warming stand to gain actually amounts to zero additional dollars. They just won't get fined, regulated, or forced out of business.

These same people could fund their own studies to provide evidence against AGW. Why don't they? Maybe its because that would be impossible?

It wouldn't get published in academic journals and thus wouldn't be seen as "valid" research. Industry funding research which could be significantly beneficial to it is an enormous conflict of interest that would absolutely result in such research never being published in an academic journal. However the government funding research which is significantly beneficial to it is simply listed as "no financial conflicts of interest are identified" by the study authors and there are no barriers to being published.

A study does not need to present a position on AGW. Its not that hard to understand. Not all papers set out to prove AGW, they are just studying the climate.

But if all significant climate changes are supposedly due to CO2, don't you think that would be a big omission in the paper to not mention? The introduction of scientific papers essentially has to include information like that. It would be like having a medical research paper on lung cancer and not mentioning smoking anywhere in the text. It really doesn't happen.

Among abstracts that expressed a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the scientific consensus. Among scientists who expressed a position on AGW in their abstract, 98.4% endorsed the consensus.

[/quote]

Yes, but again, that's only less than 1/3 of the total number of scientists in the papers surveyed. The actual majority take no position on the matter. The headline for the actual "consensus" would read "2/3 of climate scientists take no position on CO2 causing global warming." That's a whoooole lot different than "97.1% of climate scientists believe CO2 causes global warming."

I think this book should be the next one on your reading list.

 

[chunkymonster]

You guys are digging so deep for any kind of information to support your claims that its actually degrading your argument.

Uh..NO! That data is quite apparent and supports our arguments rather well.

It seems to me that you are having a hard time accepting a rational and logical evaluation about AGW and CO2 being the cause of global warming.

A study does not need to present a position on AGW. Its not that hard to understand. Not all papers set out to prove AGW, they are just studying the climate.

So, if the paper was written specifically about climate change and concluded that the cause of global warming could not be determined, how in the heck does that support or prove AGW? Effectively what you are saying is that silence is consensus. And, since when was that ever accepted scientific method?!

 

[stillblue]

So, if the paper was written specifically about climate change and concluded that the cause of global warming could not be determined, how in the heck does that support or prove AGW? Effectively what you are saying is that silence is consensus. And, since when was that ever accepted scientific method?!

I do a study on tornadoes in Iowa and I conclude that there is a statistical anomaly indicating that there are far more tornadoes because of an abnormal shift in this that and the other thing, all climate factors. My study is on is there climate change not why is there climate change. the study is relevant in that in is further of the existance of climate change.

As to that bizarre article linked above. These don't specifically state co2 and man are responsible so count them out even though they may document the changes and these are out because they've published before and are clearly biased. WTF??? Because they've written before they don't count anymore? Tell you what, try and go to your voters registrar and tell then as a new voter you should get to pick because those that voted last time are clearly biased. How do you reckin tha't go over?

 

[johnsonma]

It wouldn't get published in academic journals and thus wouldn't be seen as "valid" research. Industry funding research which could be significantly beneficial to it is an enormous conflict of interest that would absolutely result in such research never being published in an academic journal. However the government funding research which is significantly beneficial to it is simply listed as "no financial conflicts of interest are identified" by the study authors and there are no barriers to being published.

I'm waving the bullshit flag on this. You really think that the oil corporations of America couldn't pull some studies against climate change? All you can say is that its a government conspiracy to push climate change to make money. I will rely on the facts and the studies that prove the climate change is happening. The reason you have to say stuff like the government is behind it is because you literally have NO evidence or scientific inquiry to support your claim. I'm sorry but if you can't bring any evidence to the table then the debate is over.

Yes, but again, that's only less than 1/3 of the total number of scientists in the papers surveyed. The actual majority take no position on the matter. The headline for the actual "consensus" would read "2/3 of climate scientists take no position on CO2 causing global warming." That's a whoooole lot different than "97.1% of climate scientists believe CO2 causes global warming."

More like this - Of the scientists whose studies present a position on CO2 caused global warming over 97.1% agree with the consensus.

 

[musical marv]

There is no global warming in Australia ... the topic has been banned by govt who have sacked all environmentalists, defunded the CSIRO and even replaced the Science Minister with a "Minister for Silly Walks".

I knew Monty Python was onto something.

I guess the Government is not to bright about the effects of Global Warming in the world today.

 

[johnsonma]

http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-contrarians-accidentally-confirm-97-percent-consensus.html

 

[musical marv]

For your consideration.

How Earth´s Orbital Shift Shaped the Sahara

Tropical climate in the Antarctic: Palm trees once thrived on today’s icy coasts 52 million years ago

Also, please stop using climate change and AGW interchangeably. They are two completely different concepts.

How were humans adapting 52 million years ago?

You are joking right???