The trailer for Al Gore’s documentary on global warming is up. Check it out.
Breaking News
Oprah Quitting TV Show In 2011
Oliver Willis
Like Kryptonite To Stupid
-
-
Breaking News
- Tila Tequila Live Streaming Mental Meltdown
- 31 Die In Chinese Mine Blast In Heilongjiang Province, 82 Trapped
- Victoria Justice Stars In New Nickeloden Show “Victorious”
- CERN’s Large Hadron Collider Back Up And Running
- Megan Fox Alive For Transformers 3
- Maryna Linchuk @ 2009 Victoria’s Secret Fashion Show
- Madison Parker Works Out
- Sony Reveals Lame Attempt To Fight iTunes
- Brian Thomas: UK Man Gets Away With Killing Wife In His Sleep
- Olivia Wilde @ US Weekly Hot Hollywood 2009 Party
Live News
Why couldn’t he have just spoken like that in 2000?
A better question, Cypher, is why global warming isn’t simply conventional wisdom in this country as it is in the rest of the developed world.
z_adura,
“why global warming isn t simply conventional wisdom in this country as it is in the rest of the developed world.”
because if it were then there would be no need to debate and progressives could get there way 100%. We could just sieze scads more money from working people and implement all of AlGore’s Chicken Little solutions. Why we could return this country to a de-industrialized 19th century pastoral ‘paradise’. Enviros think they would love that .
Dugger, Lead, Follow or get the Hell out of the Way
Of course global warming doesn’t exist. And the ice melting, the seas rising and the increasingly strong storms are… what? God’s punishment for gays? For illegal immigrants? For Muslims? Help me out here.
At least Gore has a theory, the other side seems to just say “don’t worry, be happy”. I’m not sure that global warming is 100% correct yet, but at least its a plausible explination.
An Inconvenient Truth: what an ironic title. Doesn’t Al Gore know that global warming ended almost a decade ago?
Science bitches!
“I ll have a hard time taking seriously anyone who claims humans cause metorilogical imbalances.”
Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia:
Climate change detection and attribution
Statements regarding the detection and attribution of an anthropogenic effect on climate are inherently probabilistic in nature. They do not have simple “yes-or-no” answers. The Second Assessment report of the IPCC in 1996 concluded that the balance of evidence suggests a discernable human influence on global climate. A probability range for successful attribution of the detected changes to human effects will be more difficult to define.
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/research/areas.htm#detectcc
So Save, do we take East Anglia seriously or not?
“because if it were then there would be no need to debate and progressives could get there way 100%. ”
Dugger,
Is this supposed to be conservative affirmative action? It’s either true or it’s not.
“Another plausible explanation is that nature is nature, and it tends to do whatever the hell it wants when it wants to do it and we are pretty much powerless to stop it.”
Farris,
You’re probably right, the hundreds of scientists with phds in this field probably overlooked that. Good thing we have your folksy, homespun common sense to set the record straight.
Another plausible explanation is that nature is nature, and it tends to do whatever the hell it wants when it wants to do it and we are pretty much powerless to stop it. We can’t stop “global warming” anymore than we can stop an hurricane.
If you want to label acknowledging our powerlessness to effect global climate change as “don’t worry, be happy”, that’s certainly your right. But until snowstorms are made relics of the past, I’ll have a hard time taking seriously anyone who claims humans cause metorilogical imbalances.
From Save’s linked article:
“Consider the simple fact, drawn from the official temperature records of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, that for the years 1998-2005 global average temperature did not increase (there was actually a slight decrease, though not at a rate that differs significantly from zero).”
From the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia:
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/warming/
I see no trend. No trend at all.
frame,
disregard, I missed your point initially.
“I see no trend. No trend at all.”
You don’t know what you’re looking at.
So now global warming is a liberal idea?
Politicize science, much?
mjb,
Yes. Either its true or its not. The problem is do we know for sure either way?
Dugger
The question is, does East Anglia take Occam’s Razor seriously?
Which is more likely:
A) That humans, within the span of 100 years, have inexorably altered the Earth’s climate by making the temperature rise less than 1 degree.
OR
B) That the Earth, having previously experienced such climate extremes as multiple Ice Ages and Thaws without the influence of Man, considers a less than 1 degree change in temperature over 100 years to be statistically insignificant.
Dugger,
Spellcheck is a beautiful thing, as is knowing the difference between “there, they’re, and their”.
Your argument loses steam when your illiteracy shines through.
“That the Earth, having previously experienced such climate extremes as multiple Ice Ages and Thaws without the influence of Man, considers a less than 1 degree change in temperature over 100 years to be statistically insignificant.”
Farris,
Again, do you think that they didn’t factor in things like that before they came to their conclusions? Of course not. All climate models take these things into account, and they say that normal climate change is not what’s happening here. Why don’t you cons see that you are just being contrarian for the sake of being contrarian?
“The problem is do we know for sure either way?”
dugger,
99.9% of the people who study this say the overwhelming evidence points to one way. I’m fine with that. Whatever ambiguity there may be (and the fact is a lay person probably cannot understand the true scientific ambiguities on this matter, just like evolution), I’d rather err on the side of the scientists’ judgments. You know, the ones not tied to the oil industry.
trakjoe,
Would like to respond back cleverly, proving that you are wrong (in a way I think you are), but I am the worst typist in cyberspace.
Dugger
Hilarious.
In a matter of two posts Save goes from espousing the idea that “global warming ended in 1998″ to “Well, yes, global warming is occurring but there’s no proof that humans are driving it so we don’t have to do anything about it.”
One of the scientists at East Anglia, the institute cited so dishonestly by the author in the Guardian who, ironically, decries scientific chicanery, co-authored a seminal 1996 study titled “A search for human influences on the thermal structure of the atmosphere” which found that:
“The observed spatial patterns of temperature change in the free atmosphere from 1963 to 1987 are similar to those predicted by state-of-the-art climate models incorporating various combinations of changes in carbon dioxide, anthropogenic sulphate aerosol and stratospheric ozone concentrations. The degree of pattern similarity between models and observations increases through this period. It is likely that this trend is partially due to human activities, although many uncertainties remain, particularly relating to estimates of natural variability.”
So yes, there’s uncertainty but the evidence suggests — “it is likely” — that humans are indeed contributing to global warming. The idea that mankind should continue on its current path without regard to our impact on the environment whatsoever is ideologically induced self-delusion. Following JK and MJB, what on earth is wrong with developing alternative fuels and cleaner technologires not to mention recycling, public transportation and other day to day things that we can do lessen our impact on the environment? Are you worried about losing jobs or the economy? Seriously? We’re talking about generating whole new clean industries, here. Could someone on the right please point to a singlenew technology that the auto industry has NOT adopted because it might put people out of work? (And let’s not forget all those blacksmiths who were forced to re-train when the internal combustion egine was developed.)
So come on, scientists have evidence that suggests humans are contributing to global warming. Should we do nothing to lessen that impact?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attribution_of_recent_climate_change
Why we could return this country to a de-industrialized 19th century pastoral paradise . Enviros think they would love that .
As opposed to the pre-enlightenment 18th century your fellow Conservatives are pining for?
Anyhow, how does regulating and control environmentally hazardous waste product from industrial complexes equate with de-industrializing our entire country?
It’s about clean industry, not the absence of industry. Just because you can’t fathom the effort, doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be done.
I thought you righties were supposed to relish “hard work”?
MJB is right. The debate over global warming, is now over. Its generally accepted “fact” at this point, that the earth is warming, and that human activity has *contributed* to this warming. Hell, to my relative shock, I even heard a “Fox News” talking head admit as much, a few weeks ago. Those who were skeptics 10 years ago, are now jumping onto the global warming bandwagon.
Simply stating, for the sake of argument, that humans are the sole reason for this warming, is missing the point. Why not err on the side of scientists, as MJB says? There’s really nothing to lose, and in fact, a whole new industry focusing on emerging and developing environmental technologies, could spur on countless billions in economic growth.
Of course, some people are too short-sighted to see the possible benefits.
Oh, wait…they’re called conservatives (Gosh darn it, I’ve done it again!)
JK
“I don t trust enviro scientists/experts.”
Yes, please, go with your gut, Dugger, the one source of all truthy knowledge.
mjb,
Have you read the saga of Bjorn Lomberg. Sorry, I don’t trust enviro scientists/experts. Too allied with left wing politics.
Dugger
Buma,
It *is* a potential growth industry…these “left-wing” scientists that Dugger has an irrational fear of, are now trying to figure out ways to reduce the effects, or “remediate” the effects of combustion gases emitted from industry, for example.
Let’s see….if Scientist X comes up with an inexpensive method for remediating the effects of a specific type of toxic gas….Industry Y would pay dearly for that technology in order to keep them in compliance with EPA rules and regulations.
The thing about conservatives….lol…Dugger…God bless him….he’s held the same view about global warming that he probably did 10 years ago. N
There’s certainly not any “growth industry” going on in Dugger’s brain.
JK
“Too allied with left wing politics”
but apparently unconcerned about the 100% ties to oil interests among scientists who oppose the mainstream view.
I don t trust enviro scientists/experts.
Apparently dugger does not trust business or the marketplace either. Whatever happened to the can-do attitude? The reduction of waste, pollution, greenhouse gases, etc shlould be viewed a potential growth industry, not anti-business.
This is awaiting moderation up the thread:
That the Earth, having previously experienced such climate extremes as multiple Ice Ages and Thaws without the influence of Man, considers a less than 1 degree change in temperature over 100 years to be statistically insignificant.
Farris,
Again, do you think that they didn t factor in things like that before they came to their conclusions? Of course not. All climate models take these things into account, and they say that normal climate change is not what s happening here. Why don t you cons see that you are just being contrarian for the sake of being contrarian?
Really? Are you sure? What was the 100 year average temperature change before and after the last ice age? I doubt the experts could tell you, what with the thermometer not having been invented yet.
“I doubt the experts could tell you, what with the thermometer not having been invented yet.”
Because science has no way of estimating anything that can’t be experienced directly. How dumb do you have to be to be a conservative?
“This warm period, called the Eocene, was followed by a long cooling trend. Between 52 and 36 million years ago, ice caps developed in East Antarctica, reaching down to sea level in some places. Close to Antarctica, the temperature of the water near the surface dropped to between 5 and 8 degrees Celsius. Between 36 and 20 million years ago the earth experienced the first of three major cooling steps. At this time a continental-scale temperate ice sheet emerged in East Antarctica. Meanwhile, in North America, the mean annual air temperature dropped by approximately 12 degrees Celsius.”
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/ice/chill.html
Apparently, really,really dumb.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Vostok-ice-core-petit.png
This from the guy who just wrote: “I doubt the experts could tell you, what with the thermometer not having been invented yet.”
Has anyone actually looked at the trailer?!?
If I’m to follow the same logic that Libs use when they claim “Bush conflated 9/11 and Saddam by subliminaly linking them”, then isn’t Al Gore claiming that humans “caused” Katrina?
Gore has officially surpassed Quayle as “Dumbest Vice President Ever”.
You were saying?
Estimating != Measuring. I thought we learned that in 2000.
>>How dumb do you have to be to be a conservative?
[Kung Fu like flashback....music and background fades in...]
Master Donkey: Young Frameone, you look troubled. Come, sit with me for a moment.
Young Frameone: Yes, Master. I am troubled. Why do so many people not see the true path to enlightenment?
Master Donkey: It is not unlike the chicken, newly deprived of its head, yet still able to pass through the chicken coop. Some people live their entire lives as the chicken does, making their way though the chicken coop of life.
Young Frameone: I understand now, Master. Thank you.
Master Donkey (laughs): You are wise, young Frameone. One day, you will make a fine blogger. Look at my hand….if you can snatch these talking points from my hand, you will be free….
JK
Holy Christ Save are actually going to argue it makes a difference re: the tone and intent of your statment?
“I said measure not estimate! See, ha ha Science can’t be trusted! It’s all guesswork!”
Asif it mattered, but please check the caption to the ice core graphic (second link): “Graph of CO2, temperature, and dust concentration MEASURED from the Vostok, Antarctica ice core as reported by Petit et al., 1999. Higher dust levels are believed to be caused by cold, dry periods.”
Again, how dumb do you have to be to be a conservative? Really,really really dumb.
Dugger, you don’t “trust” the scientists, but what if they are right? Are YOU willing to throw the dice with the future of your children and your children’s children for the sake of $2.50 / gallon gas? Why don’t you actually take some time to actually listen to what they are saying. It is definitely too much to try to understand environmental models but at least read the abstracts.
Frame, you are on an absolute effing roll. They’ll probably just give up in a little while.
Zadura,
Do you deny enviro science has become politicized? I again urge the open mined to read the saga of Lomborg. His findings were actually not that there wasn’t global warming but that the impacts had been greatly exaggerated. I want my science to be science, not right wing religion, not left wing political orthodoxy.
Dugger
Dugger. Go to the URL below, and type in “Global Warming.”
114,000 citations. That’s a lot of science.
The burden, is now on you, to prove that every single of those 114,000 journal articles, book chapters, abstracts, etc., are “politicized,” whether they agree with your view, or not.
http://scholar.google.com/
Get to work, cupcake.
JK
Think it’s a stretch to compare Hussein with global warning because one is a national security threat and the other a natural occurence? Okay.
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,1153513,00.html
I LOVE the “what if they’re right?” argument. Cause now that you’ve established it as a respectable argument, it’s time to start bombing runs against Tehran!
What? You don’t think Iran is a threat? But what if experts are right about Iran’s objectives? Are YOU willing to throw the dice with the future of your ancestors for the sake of France’s respect?
There ARE questions, as per the Guardian article.
Dugger global warming is a fact. It’s occurring. It’s also a fact the human activity is contributing to it. The question remains do we do what we can about it or do we do nothing?
It didn’t matter if Hussein had WMD or when he might get them, the fact was, we were told, that he MIGHT get them one day, and that was too great a risk to take so we had to ACT RIGHT NOW.
In the case of global warming, there is no question that it’s occurring, that human activity is contributing to it and that it represents a real concern that is ALREADY impacting the entire planet. But what is the right wing response? To do absolutely nothing. Actually, it’s even worse as the Bush administration has worked to actively obfuscate and confuse the issue by altering scientific findings and muffling government scientists.
It simply boggles the mind what makes the conservative mind tick.
“There ARE questions, as per the Guardian article.”
Lord have mercy. The evidence that the author of GUardian article cites as proving that Global Warming isn’t happening proves no such thing. INdeed, the center whose findings the author abuses has found evidence of the exact opposite:
“The temperature of the Northern Hemisphere has increased over a larger area in the last century than at any time in the past millennium, a report published in Science reveals this week.
The study finds that the number of hot spots has increased dramatically in the Northern Hemisphere in the last century compared to the past 1200 years adding to the growing evidence of wide-scale global warming.
Tim Osborn and Keith Briffa of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia analyzed thermometer measurements of temperature from 1856 onwards to establish the spatial extent of recent warming, and compared it with evidence from as far back as AD 800 (from tree rings, ice cores and shells).
The study found evidence for periods of significant warmth (890 1170) in the Northern Hemisphere during medieval times and for clearly colder periods (1580 1850) during the so-called Little Ice Age .
Their key conclusion was that the 20th century stands out as having unusually widespread warmth, compared to all of the natural warming and cooling episodes during the past 1200 years.”
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/press/2006-02-hotspots/
The scientist who authored the Guardian piece, for whatever, totally distorted the findings of the Climatic Research Unit at East Anglia to argue that global warming STOPPED in 1998. But that is not what the CRU has found or claims. So seriously, if you want to talk about dishonesty and sciense you have apparently unwittingly dug up a classic example on the other side of the issue, a position that is totally devoid of scientific merit. Can you point to a single bit of evidence in the Guardian article that suggests global wamring isn’t happenings (keeping in mind that the whole first paragraph is an utterly dishonest interpretation of the data)?
The author of the Guardian article, Bob Carter, claims that otherwise legitimate scientists are distorting their studies to keep sucking from the trough of UN research money. But what trough is the author, Bob Carter, supping from?
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Bob_Carter
And a few hundred more
http://tinyurl.com/mtssh
>>What? You don t think Iran is a threat?
Your stupidity knows no limit.
The risks that we’re assuming by “gambling” with whether or not global warming is real or not, could be catastrophic for the entire planet. Some experts, I have heard, have said that any action we take today, may be too late to nullify any damage that might have been done by human activity, but could significantly reduce the negative impact of global warming decades from now.
What exactly is your objection to a sound, cautious approach that will (without a doubt, IMO) result in an entirely new growth industry (as MJB put it).
What would be the negative result for America if we choose to be proactive?
What *could* be the negative result for America, and the world, if we choose to do nothing?
Well, this is pointless….I think the vast majority of Americans would support a proactive view. You lost this particular argument years ago. I think those of us on the left in this blog are wasting our time, here.
JK
Here you, JK
http://www.crichton-official.com/speeches/speeches_quote04.html
Good God Almighty….there is AMPLE evidence, outside of the frigging Guardian FRIGGING Article…based on research FUNDED by agencies like the National Science Foundation (NSF), and NOAA. These are agencies that are not supposed to represent a political agenda.
You want an objective discussion…read the National Academy of Sciences report on global warming:
http://www4.nas.edu/onpi/webextra.nsf/web/climate?OpenDocument
You can cherry-pick your sources, all you want. One bad scientist, or group of scientists is NOT an indictment of the entire field of environmental science, or global climate change science.
You’re doing this backwards. Your mind was already made up, and you cherry-pick sources of information that support your flawed argument.
Of course…I’m well aware that conservatives have traditionally been fearfull of much of the scientific community if it threatens their antiquated view of the world.
I could care less what you think. If you can’t demonstrate leadership on this issue, please do us all a favor, and get out of the way.
JK
There’s NO question? According to the IPCC, “most of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations.”
But you have to know what “likely” means:
- virtually certain (greater than 99% chance that a result is true);
- very likely (90-99% chance);
- likely (66-90% chance);
- medium likelihood (33-66% chance);
- unlikely (10-33% chance);
- very unlikely (1-10% chance);
- exceptionally unlikely (less than 1% chance)
While “likely” offers a high percentage that the claim is true, there is certainly some wiggle room. I doubt you can credibly equate “likely” with “it is a fact.”
Frank, what a lazy, irresponsible critic you are. You cite two pieces of evidence: (1) Michael Crichton, a medical doctor with no environmental science background at all; and, (2) a scientific search engine in which you input “global warming” + “false.” Why don’t you try putting in “earth flat” or “God speaks to Pat Robertson.” There are just as many citations but they are equally dubious.
Global warming is a fact. Global climate change is an observable fact. It costs the U.S. about $13 per every tonne of CO2 equivalent and companies which seek to find solutions to global warming are the companies of the 21st century. What do you care, Frank, you are too lazy to do more than type puerile nonsense.
z_adura: I refer you to JK’s comment:Go to the URL below, and type in Global Warming. 114,000 citations. That s a lot of science.
The burden, is now on you, to prove that every single of those 114,000 journal articles, book chapters, abstracts, etc., are politicized, whether they agree with your view, or not.
I was just following his instruction.
As for being a lazy, irresponsible critic, where’s your evidence that “global warming is an observable fact”?
Where’s your evidence that “companies which seek to find solutions to global warming are the companies of the 21st century”?
And, finally, where’s your evidence that I don’t care?
Or are you too lazy to do more than criticize me?
BTW, Crichton was making a point about the poor science behind the drum – beating for global warming. I don’t recall you, or anyone on this thread, coming up with any evidence for global warming — you keep saying the same thing over and over again, thus eliminating (in your minds, anyway) the need for evidence.
Frank, the citations that you ‘found’ are more or less repeating what Crichton said. They are not in any way validate that global warming is false or even support that proposition. Crichton has as much environmental scientific training as George Bush, and that ain’t much.
For the record, there is little disagreement that the temperature of the earth is increasing. Some scientists dispute a human cause but do not question the observable fact that average temperatures today are warmer than 50 years ago. Just because you are too ignorant to accept this doesn’t make the case any less compelling. Go back to your little search engine and type in either “Nathan Lewis” and “Global Warming” or “Dan Kammen” and “Global Warming.” Either will give you great opportunity to see some of my favorite professors describing the impact of global warming.
As for companies poised to succeed on the new era of clean technologies, you can also type in “General Electric” and “Ecomagination” to see one small example. You might also type in “venture capital” and “clean technology” to see that the level of funding for such ventures is increasing very rapidly.
By the way, when I say that you are lazy, that is self-evident. Don’t take this to mean that I am criticizing you. I am criticizing your lack of integrity, scientific acumen, honesty and bald ignorance, but I am sure you are a wonderful father, a happy husband, a faithful Christian and a flag-waving patriot.
I am baffled that this argument can even take place in 2006. Even more baffled that anyone can be shown how overwhelming the evidence is and argue back without any shame or humility.
Yes, let’s…
As I reported in my previous comment: “likely” represents a confidence level of 66% – 90% according to the IPCC.
Your link continues:
There seems to be a lot of wiggle room when it comes to the effect of anthropogenic forces on the climate.
MJB, don’t forget, these are the same people that advocate for intelligent design. So, it should come as no surprise to everyone, that they feel perfectly comfortable telling us all that there is no such thing as global warming.
As I said, conservatives are generally skeptical, and sometimes, downright fearfull of science if it threatens their ideological framework.
How many times have we had this debate on so many other topics? Stem-cell, evolution vs. intelligent design…it doesn’t matter, conservatives routinely come down on the wrong side of science.
When you consider that “science” in its many forms, has brought us the airplane, the automobile, penicillin…..and sent us to the moon, and back, I don’t understand such resistence, but then again, I’ll never understand the mind of a woman.
JK
JWG, you are the classic case of knowing just a little bit. The IPCC is the most cautious of all organizations on the subject of global warming. This is in part because it is funded by the UN and its findings have an impact for all countries subject to Kyoto Protocols. Just as you can’t criticize the UN for a lack of boldness on international trade and matters of war, you cannot cite them as evidence of current thinking on global warming.
Nonetheless, taken even your cramped view of the world, isn’t there some part of you that shudders when you think that there is a greater than 50% chance that we are going to incinerate our planet by 2050 if we don’t learn to change our behavior? Given this, why do you even enter into this debate?
Hmmm.
Do you read that, Frameone?
Please do not cite the IPCC anymore, nor any group such as the National Academy of Sciences that quotes the IPCC. Then I will not have to provide their quotes on the subject and be chastised by environmental gurus like z_adura.
Well, actually, I will provide one more quote, since the IPCC thinks more highly of themselves than does z_adura:
I thought this was interesting:
Americans Still Cool On Warming
Frank,
A majority of Americans believe that Adam and Eve were real. A majority of Fox News watchers believed that Saddam had helped plan 9/11. A majority of Americans voted for GWB. So what.
z_adura: And I am sure that you’re just another one of many arrogant, condescending, patronizing lefties. You have been assimilated, resistance is futile.
“While likely offers a high percentage that the claim is true, there is certainly some wiggle room.”
JWG –
You magnificently stupid bastard. When study after study shows that human activity has been a likely factor in 20th Century warming trends you read that as evidence that the jury is still out on the question. It’s like when idiot IDers suggest that evolution hasn’t been proven because it’s only a “theory.” Why in the world does anyone take you morons seriously?
As I said, I thought it was interesting. Apparently, you didn’t.
That’s one of the differences between you and me: I have an interest in facts, and you’re just trying to prove a point.
Not atypical for a liberal — “All life is a trial, and I am Perry Mason!”
This really is like arguing with children about their bedtimes. They are tired and their arguments make no sense but they continue their torrid tantrums.
Frank, JWG, you are lazy and irresponsible and ignorant. It is a shame because if you spent one-fifth the energy on self-education that you do on self-indulgence, you might actually be moved to see the scope of our global crisis.
You’re right, I’m not interested in that fact, because it only depresses me that so many people can ignore more relevant facts.
z_adura: Do you speak like this to everyone, or only when hiding behind a keyboard?
The jury is still out on global warming, all the insults, arrogance, and condescension notwithstanding.
Let’s go back to the “evidence” presented by JK (Apr 11 2006 8:56 pm)
A supposedly “objective discussion”.
Real scientists don’t roll over for ideology.
Real scientists aren’t dogmatic.
Real scientists don’t find it necessary to personally attack their critics.
Of course, there’s more:
Frank, I speak however I choose. When confronted by ignorance I respond appropriately. Should you choose to take this away from a keyboard, choose your weapon.
Frameone asserts:
And z_adura asserts:
And if you spent any time actually using facts to dispute the facts from the IPCC that I presented, then you wouldn’t have to resort to ad hominem attacks.
In reality, one of my master’s degrees is in geology with a focus on meteorology. I have been a science and technology teacher for the past 12 years. I am very well versed in all the reports from the National Academy of Sciences and the IPCC. I find it hilarious that you want to believe that I spend no energy on “self-education.” How many of the IPCC reports have you read and understood?
Please point to anything I have stated that claims global warming is not occuring. I have not even claimed that there are no anthropogenic forces at work on our climate. What I DO claim is that you both misrepresent what the actual scientific consesus is. The attribution of climate change to anthropogenic causes is not “certain” or even “very likely.” To call it a “fact” is a misrepresentation of what is currently understood.
z_adura goes even further by claiming temperature increases will incinerate the planet in less than 50 years. (Additionally, z_adura insults frameone, by proxy through me, as someone who is a classic case of knowing just a little bit by saying the IPCC and the National Academy of Sciences are poor sources for climate change.) But I’m lazy, irresponsible, and ignorant? Thanks for the laugh.
JWG, let’s just put the facts on the table, OK?
First, IPCC is NGO that collects and evaluates all available information on climate change. They are therefore somewhat more conservative than front-line environmental scientists because they have to balance their position against a high standard of criticism. That doesn’t mean that it is not a credit-worthy group of scientists, but it does mean that they are somewhat behind the curve on the latest findings. Had you read what I said, this would be transparent to you. Furthermore, if you knew any of the scientists who put IPCC TAR together, they would concur with what I’ve just said.
Second, what the fuck is your point if you are not trying to cast doubt on the anthropogenic origin of greenhouse gases? You want to get into an argument about semantics? This isn’t like a dice roll where 4 or above means it is anthropogenic, 3 or below, it’s some other cause. There is a mounting body of evidence. In science, there is no certainty – ever – as you surely must know. It is part of the game. If your only goal is to try to get every “fact” redacted from the blog record and replaced by “likely cause,” fine. What a trivial and pointless exercise.
Third, I did use the extreme language “incinerated” to make a rhetorical point, but it is not entirely outside the realm of possibility that we could cook ourselves on this planet within two generations. If you look at Hoffert’s Nature paper (1998), you find that our current population trends, world GDP growth and energy consumption indicate as much as a 7 C increase in global temperatures. That isn’t incinerated, but it is pretty well done…
Finally, I have read extensively on the subject. I did my research at CalTech and UC Berkeley in Material Science and ChemE. I used to work for DOE. If you were a concerned scientist as well, you’d be well served to stop aligning yourself with Frank and the rest of the somnambulists who claim there’s not enough information.
Anyone interested in both sides of the issue?
http://www.factcheck.org/article382.html
Are YOU willing to throw the dice with the future of your ancestors for the sake of France s respect?
.. the future of your ancestors? Wha…?
::crickets::
“The attribution of climate change to anthropogenic causes is not certain or even very likely.
Yes, it’s only “most likely” so we don’t have to do anything.
From the IPCC:
“It is therefore unlikely (bordering on very unlikely) that natural internal variability alone can explain the changes in global climate over the 20th century (e.g., Figure 12.1) … The additional warming in the second half-century is most likely to be due to a substantial warming due to increases in greenhouse gases, partially offset by cooling due to aerosols, and perhaps by cooling due to natural factors towards the end of the period.”
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/467.htm
Sorry, frameone, haven’t you heard? The IPCC can no longer be used as a source to demonstrate scientific consensus.
However, in the interests of accuracy, I’ll point out three things:
1) In context, I’m not sure why you began you quote with the conclusions about internal variability and skip the other possible sources for warming in the models that the IPCC explains are not dominent reasons.
2) “Most likely” is still “likely” in terms of statistical certainty. The “most” merely gives it the value of comparison against all the reasons listed in the conclusion.
3) Where did I argue “do nothing”? I argued that the science is not as certain as commenters were claiming. I am correct. Anthropogenic causes are not considered “fact” based on our current understanding.