On December 13 2011 11:23 Mordanis wrote: I don't actually agree that the general public's opinion on any given issue has a great effect on politicians' decisions. The "99%" is not actually anything around a majority ( at least in America), but they get a lot of attention because they make a lot of uproar. I don't think that making people change their mind about climate change will actually influence policy. I think you need to get a lot of vigorous supporters to make a big stink during election time. If you try to make some people change their mind without saying anything to anyone it will change nothing. I think that if you want change you should try to get in personal contact with some politician at whatever level you can. A good conversation is much more effective than anonymous, silent, change in opinion.
PS I am friends with someone who works in politics, so I'm probably more familiar with this than most people, but if you have actually worked in the politics of this subject, I could totally be wrong. This is all just my educated opinion.
Whilst this is a somewhat cynical view of how democracy works it is no less relevant. The point however if that incorrectly held views on this subject harms any attempt at change. Politicians, as you know, are generally really conservative. It is much easier to slide by controversial issues than it is to take a stance. All the better to avoid confrontation. Thus a debate (no matter how small) allows politicians to buy time without acting. Of course one-on-one time is best, but that doesn't mean explaining the science to a public audience is detrimental. One does not preclude the other.
I totally agree, except that politicians are normally fairly liberal, (and most countries are actually republics . On either side of the aisle, both parties want to be re-elected, which is more likely if they spend money.
I think that everyone who is passionate about an issue should try to convince others that their passion is good/correct (think about anyone who came to TL to say that SC is not at all an eSport), but I'm not sure what impact it will have. For your sake I hope you succeed and for people who disagree I hope they succeed. I'm simply not well informed enough on the subject to decide in any way. Both sides have "scientists" on their side, and I'd need to spend a lot of time looking through how various papers were funded to have any really confidence in my own opinion. The whole issue is simply too mired in politics. Perhaps you could find a way to make this less divided by politics, but I think a surprising majority of people actually don't look past what their parties believe (I just want to make it clear that I am neither a proponent or opponent of any policy regarding climate change). This is a problem endemic in the current system (at least in America), but I do wish you good luck in this.
Well I have managed to convince both my housemates to change their views on this so that it two more votes going towards actions
I don't think there is a need for every person to be up to date on the latest data. Some people are interested and then, yes, sources of data are useful. Most however have only a passing interest and it is in this case that it is very important to have people around who can explain the science behind the news. Unfortunately this is a complicated topic and so is not easy to explain in a simple manner. This allows simple catch phrases to muddy the discussion and make it harder to move things forward. Every question has a right to be answered and should be answered; however this does mean a lot of repitition and slow progress in moving the debate.
I would really recommend the ScepticalScience, Global Warming & Climate Change Myths article. It goes through the most commonly used arguments by climate sceptics and provides well reasoned, data driven responses. It is also fairly simple to read.
I'm actually really interested in what policy you advocate. Again, I lead toward thinking that climate change is existing and is likely caused by humans, but I don't want to intellectually commit. Anyways, what do you think is a good policy change that would curtain any change but also make any sense from an economic point of view. Obviously it would not help anyone to go back to hunting and gathering
Holy shit that is a hard question...
Ok, this is my opinion so please people don't tear me a new one. To me if you believe that something needs to be done, than it is reasonable to believe it should happen soon. Delaying increases the costs associated with action. In addition, the costs should be as minimal as possible and should allow as much flexibility for change as possible. Hence I am in favour of market orientated systems. Yes there are opportunities for corruption and for perverse outcomes. I am fully aware of the limitations of carbon markets.
The problem is that for developed countries, it is much more costly to take direct action. Shutting down dirty power stations is very expensive, due to compensation and to having to find alternative sources of power. At least with a carbon market companies have some control over the expenses they will incur in changing to more efficient methods.
This area is hugely complicated, subjective and is possibly off topic. Probably not the right place to discuss these things.
Edit: PM me if you want further details.
It would be very costly and would hurt many an area and person if we just switched to alternative energy. Like were I live now in Beaumont this area is so dependent on oil that if it stopped this area would collapse and most people in this area would lose their jobs (refinery workers/contractors etc) several thousands of people would be out the job. Though I do agree there needs to be change to protect the environment it needs to come off slowly and not dramatically. (I have no idea if what I have said has made any sense and my grammar usage is probably not a+ either.)
But oil is running out anyway. Like I said this problem is really complicated and there are no easy solutions. At least with a carbon market, oil companies can control how much they pay for credits and can plan for the long term. If the government was to close the refinery directly, the company could demand huge amounts of compensation. The process of which site are closed becomes a political hot potato and subject to potential corruption. It is just messy. Of course this is all predicated on action being taken.
On December 13 2011 09:56 Suisen wrote: Climate change deniers are not deniers because of scientific understanding or arguments. They don't hold their position because they think the evidence dictates to them that that is the position to take. Therefore, it is not possible to change their mind with scientific arguments or proper evidence. In that respect they are alike to creationists. It won't matter what you say
Difference between creationists and cc deniers is that you can't attack their ideology because they just think nothing happens. If you argue a creationist what you do is attack their view of creationism where it is most silly.
Best thing you can do is call them idiots and leave them. Even if they are members of US congress.
Some are, that's true. But, those deniers I associate with are skeptical because the establishment's evidence is not falsifiable or analyzed correctly. The establishment denies how minimal an affect CO2 has as a greenhouse gas, not to mention the fact that atmoshpheric samples dating back thousands of years show a distinct correlation between the sun's activity and earth temperature variance.
The first phase of skepticism is often thorugh recognizing the beneficiaries (research funding for a small climatology field, politicians, the new green industry, etc.) and the second phase is putting the evidence in the right context.
Alright, I think we need to deal with this completely because if true then there really is a problem.
But, those deniers I associate with are skeptical because the establishment's evidence is not falsifiable or analyzed correctly
It is impossible to falsify the evidence because you cannot setup an experiment that would falsify the data. How do you prove that C02 is responsible for the warming? The only way to 100% prove it would be to create two identical worlds with varying concentrations of C02. Of course this is not possible so any evidence is going to be less than 100% certain. How do you prove the link? At some point who have to accept that the evidence is sufficient.
The establishment denies how minimal an affect CO2 has as a greenhouse gas
not to mention the fact that atmoshpheric samples dating back thousands of years show a distinct correlation between the sun's activity and earth temperature variance.
I know I keep quoting SkepticalScience, but that is because they specifically deal with these arguments. There is a very useful link on their site entitled Global Warming & Climate Change Myths which goes through these arguments in detail.
Finally
The first phase of skepticism is often thorugh recognizing the beneficiaries (research funding for a small climatology field, politicians, the new green industry, etc.) and the second phase is putting the evidence in the right context.
This is true for everyone in this debate. Everybody has an interest and you are correct that people stand to gain and lose if we take action. The question is, who gains more and who loses more. Then you look at the data and arguments put forward and make a decision. Focusing on funding for one side of the debate is disingenious and misleading. Who is funding the skeptics?
We shouldn't debate semantics or rhetoric, but I should point out there is not 100% proven in science. There is falsifiability and intellectual honesty. There is bias in every popular and academic article written on climate change. Any theory, whether in climate science, physics, or history, is never settled but merely historically contextual.
So the point is moot then. Saying the data cannot be falsified does not mean the data is false or the theory is incorrect. It is just that is cannot be proven. Moot.
The evidence is heretofore, as I understand it from the sources mentioned:
From 1940 to 1975, when industrialization had a boom period there was a cooling period that coincided with a public scare.
As has been explained above there is a lag between C02 and temps. More importantly picking an choosing time scales to prove cooling or warming in a dynamic system such as the climate is nonsense. The long term data shows significant warming. Yes, the climate is variable, hence why you look at long term trends. http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-temperature-correlation.htm
Troposphere temps should rise to a greater effect from greenhouse gasses, when in fact its temp over the last hundred years has risen less than near the surface (beneath the clouds.)
Can you explain your point here a little more. Are you saying that the models are wrong, or that clouds are too blame? I am not quite following your point. Sorry. Maybe this helps http://www.skepticalscience.com/tropospheric-hot-spot.htm
If you look at the history of warming periods they actually coincided with human and wildlife prosperity.
Humans are of the smallest contributors to CO2, 6.5 megatons. Oceans produce the most and plants and animals produce 150 megatons. How much the ocean emits OR ABSORBS depends on temp. There is about a 100 year lag for the oceans' CO2 cycle to take effect.
The last time the earth's climate wasn't variable was about 4 billion years ago. Over that context, the Earth has remained relatively stable but varied enough that living things have adapted. Consider the Medievil Warm Period and the Little Ice Age.
Please explain this a little further. I am not sure what point you are trying to make.
The IPCC gained significant support from Margaret Thatcher in the wake of the miner's strike, a distinctively political move.
Relevance? So it is political, so is economics but you don't see people complaining about their use of models. Or better yet, the political influence of economics. This is not about politics, it is about science.
EPICA and Vostok ice core data; Patrick Moore, former member of Greenpeace but now a critic of the organisation; Richard Lindzen, professor of meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology; Patrick Michaels, Research Professor of Environmental Sciences at the University of Virginia; Nigel Calder, editor of New Scientist from 1962 to 1966; John Christy, professor and director of the Earth System Science Center at University of Alabama; Paul Reiter of the Pasteur Institute; former British Chancellor of the Exchequer Nigel Lawson; Piers Corbyn, a British weather forecaster; Bob Carter, adjunct research professor in the Marine Geophysical Laboratory for James Cook University at Queensland
Finally, I know my rebuttals have come from SkepticalScience. Again it is because these arguments have been explained much better by actual scientists, than by myself. Hence I defer to them.
1. I don't think you understand what falsifiability means. I'm saying there is no "proven" in scientific theory and for climate alarmists to say "it's been proven" negate the underlying principle of sound science, which is falsifiability. What comes from organizations like the IPCC, which is not an academic institution or standardizing body, is not falsifiable because it does not answer to the academic community but it answers to the politicos.
2. You sight "picking and choosing" and "long term data" but I gave specific time periods that indicate natural warming and cooling. What I get from the academic community is that we don't know the actual average temperature change regarding human CO2 emissions, but what we do know is that human CO2's effect globally on temp is negligible.
3. Yes. Clouds have an effect relative to the troposphere because water vapor is a more significant greenhouse gas than CO2. If greenhouse gases (including CO2) were warming, then the troposphere during the hockey stick rise would have a greater warming than below, but, however, the weather balloon data says the troposphere has had a much smaller warming effect than below it. So yes, the IPCC data is skewed because it uses computer models instead.
4. We have a local effect, as the OP mentioned was called the Urban Island heat island (which can be a cooling effect as well.) But, to the theory humans produce CO2 that causes catastrophic GLOBAL warming is false.
5. The relevance of Thatcher to the IPCC is that she was a proponent of nuclear power and the dwindling of the coal industry because she wanted to (and this is pretty common knowledge in the UK) reduce the power of the workers and the unions. What better way to minimize the PR and power of the miners than say they are contributing to global disaster.
I think you should use a better variety of sources than just skepticalscience.com.
On December 13 2011 09:56 Suisen wrote: Climate change deniers are not deniers because of scientific understanding or arguments. They don't hold their position because they think the evidence dictates to them that that is the position to take. Therefore, it is not possible to change their mind with scientific arguments or proper evidence. In that respect they are alike to creationists. It won't matter what you say
Difference between creationists and cc deniers is that you can't attack their ideology because they just think nothing happens. If you argue a creationist what you do is attack their view of creationism where it is most silly.
Best thing you can do is call them idiots and leave them. Even if they are members of US congress.
Some are, that's true. But, those deniers I associate with are skeptical because the establishment's evidence is not falsifiable or analyzed correctly. The establishment denies how minimal an affect CO2 has as a greenhouse gas, not to mention the fact that atmoshpheric samples dating back thousands of years show a distinct correlation between the sun's activity and earth temperature variance.
The first phase of skepticism is often thorugh recognizing the beneficiaries (research funding for a small climatology field, politicians, the new green industry, etc.) and the second phase is putting the evidence in the right context.
Alright, I think we need to deal with this completely because if true then there really is a problem.
But, those deniers I associate with are skeptical because the establishment's evidence is not falsifiable or analyzed correctly
It is impossible to falsify the evidence because you cannot setup an experiment that would falsify the data. How do you prove that C02 is responsible for the warming? The only way to 100% prove it would be to create two identical worlds with varying concentrations of C02. Of course this is not possible so any evidence is going to be less than 100% certain. How do you prove the link? At some point who have to accept that the evidence is sufficient.
The establishment denies how minimal an affect CO2 has as a greenhouse gas
not to mention the fact that atmoshpheric samples dating back thousands of years show a distinct correlation between the sun's activity and earth temperature variance.
I know I keep quoting SkepticalScience, but that is because they specifically deal with these arguments. There is a very useful link on their site entitled Global Warming & Climate Change Myths which goes through these arguments in detail.
Finally
The first phase of skepticism is often thorugh recognizing the beneficiaries (research funding for a small climatology field, politicians, the new green industry, etc.) and the second phase is putting the evidence in the right context.
This is true for everyone in this debate. Everybody has an interest and you are correct that people stand to gain and lose if we take action. The question is, who gains more and who loses more. Then you look at the data and arguments put forward and make a decision. Focusing on funding for one side of the debate is disingenious and misleading. Who is funding the skeptics?
We shouldn't debate semantics or rhetoric, but I should point out there is not 100% proven in science. There is falsifiability and intellectual honesty. There is bias in every popular and academic article written on climate change. Any theory, whether in climate science, physics, or history, is never settled but merely historically contextual.
So the point is moot then. Saying the data cannot be falsified does not mean the data is false or the theory is incorrect. It is just that is cannot be proven. Moot.
The evidence is heretofore, as I understand it from the sources mentioned:
From 1940 to 1975, when industrialization had a boom period there was a cooling period that coincided with a public scare.
As has been explained above there is a lag between C02 and temps. More importantly picking an choosing time scales to prove cooling or warming in a dynamic system such as the climate is nonsense. The long term data shows significant warming. Yes, the climate is variable, hence why you look at long term trends. http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-temperature-correlation.htm
Troposphere temps should rise to a greater effect from greenhouse gasses, when in fact its temp over the last hundred years has risen less than near the surface (beneath the clouds.)
Can you explain your point here a little more. Are you saying that the models are wrong, or that clouds are too blame? I am not quite following your point. Sorry. Maybe this helps http://www.skepticalscience.com/tropospheric-hot-spot.htm
If you look at the history of warming periods they actually coincided with human and wildlife prosperity.
Humans are of the smallest contributors to CO2, 6.5 megatons. Oceans produce the most and plants and animals produce 150 megatons. How much the ocean emits OR ABSORBS depends on temp. There is about a 100 year lag for the oceans' CO2 cycle to take effect.
The last time the earth's climate wasn't variable was about 4 billion years ago. Over that context, the Earth has remained relatively stable but varied enough that living things have adapted. Consider the Medievil Warm Period and the Little Ice Age.
Please explain this a little further. I am not sure what point you are trying to make.
The IPCC gained significant support from Margaret Thatcher in the wake of the miner's strike, a distinctively political move.
Relevance? So it is political, so is economics but you don't see people complaining about their use of models. Or better yet, the political influence of economics. This is not about politics, it is about science.
EPICA and Vostok ice core data; Patrick Moore, former member of Greenpeace but now a critic of the organisation; Richard Lindzen, professor of meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology; Patrick Michaels, Research Professor of Environmental Sciences at the University of Virginia; Nigel Calder, editor of New Scientist from 1962 to 1966; John Christy, professor and director of the Earth System Science Center at University of Alabama; Paul Reiter of the Pasteur Institute; former British Chancellor of the Exchequer Nigel Lawson; Piers Corbyn, a British weather forecaster; Bob Carter, adjunct research professor in the Marine Geophysical Laboratory for James Cook University at Queensland
Finally, I know my rebuttals have come from SkepticalScience. Again it is because these arguments have been explained much better by actual scientists, than by myself. Hence I defer to them.
1. I don't think you understand what falsifiability means. I'm saying there is no "poven" in scientific theory and for climate alarmists to say "it's been proven" negate the underlying principle of sound science, which is falsifiability. What comes from organizations like the IPCC, which is not an academic institution or standardizing body, is not falsifiable because it does not answer to the academic community but it answers to the politicos.
2. You sight "picking and choosing" and "long term data" but I gave specific time periods that indicate natural warming and cooling. What I get from the academic community is that we don't know the actual average temperature change regarding human CO2 emissions, but what we do know is that human CO2's effect globally on temp is negligible.
3. Yes. Clouds have an effect relative to the troposphere because water vapor is a more significant greenhouse gas than CO2. If greenhouse gases (including CO2) were warming, then the troposphere during the hockey stick rise would have a greater warming than below, but, however, the weather balloon data says the troposphere has had a much smaller warming effect than below it. So yes, the IPCC data is skewed because it uses computer models instead.
4. We have a local effect, as the OP mentioned was called the Urban Island heat island (which can be a cooling effect as well.) But, to the theory humans produce CO2 that causes catastrophic GLOBAL warming is false.
5. The relevance of Thatcher to the IPCC is that she was a proponent of nuclear power and the dwindling of the coal industry because she wanted to (and this is pretty common knowledge in the UK) reduce the power of the workers and the unions. What better way to minimize the PR and power of the miners than say they are contributing to global disaster.
I think you should use a better variety of sources than just skepticalscience.com.
Alright. thanks for the well reasoned reply. I will wait and see what the OP comes back with. Can you link some sources (not vods please) that outline these points as well the data supporting them? Cheers.
On December 13 2011 09:56 Suisen wrote: Climate change deniers are not deniers because of scientific understanding or arguments. They don't hold their position because they think the evidence dictates to them that that is the position to take. Therefore, it is not possible to change their mind with scientific arguments or proper evidence. In that respect they are alike to creationists. It won't matter what you say
Difference between creationists and cc deniers is that you can't attack their ideology because they just think nothing happens. If you argue a creationist what you do is attack their view of creationism where it is most silly.
Best thing you can do is call them idiots and leave them. Even if they are members of US congress.
Some are, that's true. But, those deniers I associate with are skeptical because the establishment's evidence is not falsifiable or analyzed correctly. The establishment denies how minimal an affect CO2 has as a greenhouse gas, not to mention the fact that atmoshpheric samples dating back thousands of years show a distinct correlation between the sun's activity and earth temperature variance.
The first phase of skepticism is often thorugh recognizing the beneficiaries (research funding for a small climatology field, politicians, the new green industry, etc.) and the second phase is putting the evidence in the right context.
Alright, I think we need to deal with this completely because if true then there really is a problem.
But, those deniers I associate with are skeptical because the establishment's evidence is not falsifiable or analyzed correctly
It is impossible to falsify the evidence because you cannot setup an experiment that would falsify the data. How do you prove that C02 is responsible for the warming? The only way to 100% prove it would be to create two identical worlds with varying concentrations of C02. Of course this is not possible so any evidence is going to be less than 100% certain. How do you prove the link? At some point who have to accept that the evidence is sufficient.
The establishment denies how minimal an affect CO2 has as a greenhouse gas
not to mention the fact that atmoshpheric samples dating back thousands of years show a distinct correlation between the sun's activity and earth temperature variance.
I know I keep quoting SkepticalScience, but that is because they specifically deal with these arguments. There is a very useful link on their site entitled Global Warming & Climate Change Myths which goes through these arguments in detail.
Finally
The first phase of skepticism is often thorugh recognizing the beneficiaries (research funding for a small climatology field, politicians, the new green industry, etc.) and the second phase is putting the evidence in the right context.
This is true for everyone in this debate. Everybody has an interest and you are correct that people stand to gain and lose if we take action. The question is, who gains more and who loses more. Then you look at the data and arguments put forward and make a decision. Focusing on funding for one side of the debate is disingenious and misleading. Who is funding the skeptics?
We shouldn't debate semantics or rhetoric, but I should point out there is not 100% proven in science. There is falsifiability and intellectual honesty. There is bias in every popular and academic article written on climate change. Any theory, whether in climate science, physics, or history, is never settled but merely historically contextual.
So the point is moot then. Saying the data cannot be falsified does not mean the data is false or the theory is incorrect. It is just that is cannot be proven. Moot.
The evidence is heretofore, as I understand it from the sources mentioned:
From 1940 to 1975, when industrialization had a boom period there was a cooling period that coincided with a public scare.
As has been explained above there is a lag between C02 and temps. More importantly picking an choosing time scales to prove cooling or warming in a dynamic system such as the climate is nonsense. The long term data shows significant warming. Yes, the climate is variable, hence why you look at long term trends. http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-temperature-correlation.htm
Troposphere temps should rise to a greater effect from greenhouse gasses, when in fact its temp over the last hundred years has risen less than near the surface (beneath the clouds.)
Can you explain your point here a little more. Are you saying that the models are wrong, or that clouds are too blame? I am not quite following your point. Sorry. Maybe this helps http://www.skepticalscience.com/tropospheric-hot-spot.htm
If you look at the history of warming periods they actually coincided with human and wildlife prosperity.
Humans are of the smallest contributors to CO2, 6.5 megatons. Oceans produce the most and plants and animals produce 150 megatons. How much the ocean emits OR ABSORBS depends on temp. There is about a 100 year lag for the oceans' CO2 cycle to take effect.
The last time the earth's climate wasn't variable was about 4 billion years ago. Over that context, the Earth has remained relatively stable but varied enough that living things have adapted. Consider the Medievil Warm Period and the Little Ice Age.
Please explain this a little further. I am not sure what point you are trying to make.
The IPCC gained significant support from Margaret Thatcher in the wake of the miner's strike, a distinctively political move.
Relevance? So it is political, so is economics but you don't see people complaining about their use of models. Or better yet, the political influence of economics. This is not about politics, it is about science.
EPICA and Vostok ice core data; Patrick Moore, former member of Greenpeace but now a critic of the organisation; Richard Lindzen, professor of meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology; Patrick Michaels, Research Professor of Environmental Sciences at the University of Virginia; Nigel Calder, editor of New Scientist from 1962 to 1966; John Christy, professor and director of the Earth System Science Center at University of Alabama; Paul Reiter of the Pasteur Institute; former British Chancellor of the Exchequer Nigel Lawson; Piers Corbyn, a British weather forecaster; Bob Carter, adjunct research professor in the Marine Geophysical Laboratory for James Cook University at Queensland
Finally, I know my rebuttals have come from SkepticalScience. Again it is because these arguments have been explained much better by actual scientists, than by myself. Hence I defer to them.
1. I don't think you understand what falsifiability means. I'm saying there is no "poven" in scientific theory and for climate alarmists to say "it's been proven" negate the underlying principle of sound science, which is falsifiability. What comes from organizations like the IPCC, which is not an academic institution or standardizing body, is not falsifiable because it does not answer to the academic community but it answers to the politicos.
2. You sight "picking and choosing" and "long term data" but I gave specific time periods that indicate natural warming and cooling. What I get from the academic community is that we don't know the actual average temperature change regarding human CO2 emissions, but what we do know is that human CO2's effect globally on temp is negligible.
3. Yes. Clouds have an effect relative to the troposphere because water vapor is a more significant greenhouse gas than CO2. If greenhouse gases (including CO2) were warming, then the troposphere during the hockey stick rise would have a greater warming than below, but, however, the weather balloon data says the troposphere has had a much smaller warming effect than below it. So yes, the IPCC data is skewed because it uses computer models instead.
4. We have a local effect, as the OP mentioned was called the Urban Island heat island (which can be a cooling effect as well.) But, to the theory humans produce CO2 that causes catastrophic GLOBAL warming is false.
5. The relevance of Thatcher to the IPCC is that she was a proponent of nuclear power and the dwindling of the coal industry because she wanted to (and this is pretty common knowledge in the UK) reduce the power of the workers and the unions. What better way to minimize the PR and power of the miners than say they are contributing to global disaster.
I think you should use a better variety of sources than just skepticalscience.com.
Give us your sources so we can read them as well. There are many factors they've looked at, including cloud cover and cosmic rays, which have varying effects, though we don't understand them that great at this time i think.
I do think you are misstating falsifiability. The models we have are falsifiable. They make predictions which determine if they are good or bad. Just like all physical theories. There's a lot of data on warming. While the issue isn't fully understood, the body of scientific progress made in this field is incredibly large. For instance, you cite weather balloon data. I haven't seen it and would like to read some papers if you have them (i'll search on my own as well). There is also an incredible amount of data from a lot of other sources that link CO2 to a variety of feedback mechanisms. Focusing on all this political bs doesn't help any side determine the truth.
Some questions about the statistics behind climate change: 1) How do you from correlation to causation regarding human's role in climate change?
2) How do you account for changes in the output level of the sun when dealing with climate data?
3) How do you account for the assumptions used to calculate the climate hundreds (thousands) of years ago. Basically, when you go back farther than we have been keeping data, how do you account for the assumptions you use. Maybe a better question would be how far do you go back?
4) How do you explain it being warmer during the depression than it is now? This might have to do with the time periods you compare to see if an increase is significant. If that's so, what time lengths do you look at?
Thanks, the internet answers these questions poorly.
I have not read much literature but I cited some of the academia from these respected scholars.
Many of the scare models come from the IPCC, however. Therefore, it is a political issue, whether we like it or not. There has to be a consensus on good data, not the right theory.
It's true that we can not explain 80% of the climate factors at this time, but the data we have suggests the sun is the culprit.
EDIT: I think Bob Carter makes the best explanations on the subject. I suggest seeking out his material.
On December 13 2011 09:56 Suisen wrote: Climate change deniers are not deniers because of scientific understanding or arguments. They don't hold their position because they think the evidence dictates to them that that is the position to take. Therefore, it is not possible to change their mind with scientific arguments or proper evidence. In that respect they are alike to creationists. It won't matter what you say
Difference between creationists and cc deniers is that you can't attack their ideology because they just think nothing happens. If you argue a creationist what you do is attack their view of creationism where it is most silly.
Best thing you can do is call them idiots and leave them. Even if they are members of US congress.
Some are, that's true. But, those deniers I associate with are skeptical because the establishment's evidence is not falsifiable or analyzed correctly. The establishment denies how minimal an affect CO2 has as a greenhouse gas, not to mention the fact that atmoshpheric samples dating back thousands of years show a distinct correlation between the sun's activity and earth temperature variance.
The first phase of skepticism is often thorugh recognizing the beneficiaries (research funding for a small climatology field, politicians, the new green industry, etc.) and the second phase is putting the evidence in the right context.
Alright, I think we need to deal with this completely because if true then there really is a problem.
But, those deniers I associate with are skeptical because the establishment's evidence is not falsifiable or analyzed correctly
It is impossible to falsify the evidence because you cannot setup an experiment that would falsify the data. How do you prove that C02 is responsible for the warming? The only way to 100% prove it would be to create two identical worlds with varying concentrations of C02. Of course this is not possible so any evidence is going to be less than 100% certain. How do you prove the link? At some point who have to accept that the evidence is sufficient.
The establishment denies how minimal an affect CO2 has as a greenhouse gas
not to mention the fact that atmoshpheric samples dating back thousands of years show a distinct correlation between the sun's activity and earth temperature variance.
I know I keep quoting SkepticalScience, but that is because they specifically deal with these arguments. There is a very useful link on their site entitled Global Warming & Climate Change Myths which goes through these arguments in detail.
Finally
The first phase of skepticism is often thorugh recognizing the beneficiaries (research funding for a small climatology field, politicians, the new green industry, etc.) and the second phase is putting the evidence in the right context.
This is true for everyone in this debate. Everybody has an interest and you are correct that people stand to gain and lose if we take action. The question is, who gains more and who loses more. Then you look at the data and arguments put forward and make a decision. Focusing on funding for one side of the debate is disingenious and misleading. Who is funding the skeptics?
We shouldn't debate semantics or rhetoric, but I should point out there is not 100% proven in science. There is falsifiability and intellectual honesty. There is bias in every popular and academic article written on climate change. Any theory, whether in climate science, physics, or history, is never settled but merely historically contextual.
So the point is moot then. Saying the data cannot be falsified does not mean the data is false or the theory is incorrect. It is just that is cannot be proven. Moot.
The evidence is heretofore, as I understand it from the sources mentioned:
From 1940 to 1975, when industrialization had a boom period there was a cooling period that coincided with a public scare.
As has been explained above there is a lag between C02 and temps. More importantly picking an choosing time scales to prove cooling or warming in a dynamic system such as the climate is nonsense. The long term data shows significant warming. Yes, the climate is variable, hence why you look at long term trends. http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-temperature-correlation.htm
Troposphere temps should rise to a greater effect from greenhouse gasses, when in fact its temp over the last hundred years has risen less than near the surface (beneath the clouds.)
Can you explain your point here a little more. Are you saying that the models are wrong, or that clouds are too blame? I am not quite following your point. Sorry. Maybe this helps http://www.skepticalscience.com/tropospheric-hot-spot.htm
If you look at the history of warming periods they actually coincided with human and wildlife prosperity.
Humans are of the smallest contributors to CO2, 6.5 megatons. Oceans produce the most and plants and animals produce 150 megatons. How much the ocean emits OR ABSORBS depends on temp. There is about a 100 year lag for the oceans' CO2 cycle to take effect.
The last time the earth's climate wasn't variable was about 4 billion years ago. Over that context, the Earth has remained relatively stable but varied enough that living things have adapted. Consider the Medievil Warm Period and the Little Ice Age.
Please explain this a little further. I am not sure what point you are trying to make.
The IPCC gained significant support from Margaret Thatcher in the wake of the miner's strike, a distinctively political move.
Relevance? So it is political, so is economics but you don't see people complaining about their use of models. Or better yet, the political influence of economics. This is not about politics, it is about science.
EPICA and Vostok ice core data; Patrick Moore, former member of Greenpeace but now a critic of the organisation; Richard Lindzen, professor of meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology; Patrick Michaels, Research Professor of Environmental Sciences at the University of Virginia; Nigel Calder, editor of New Scientist from 1962 to 1966; John Christy, professor and director of the Earth System Science Center at University of Alabama; Paul Reiter of the Pasteur Institute; former British Chancellor of the Exchequer Nigel Lawson; Piers Corbyn, a British weather forecaster; Bob Carter, adjunct research professor in the Marine Geophysical Laboratory for James Cook University at Queensland
Finally, I know my rebuttals have come from SkepticalScience. Again it is because these arguments have been explained much better by actual scientists, than by myself. Hence I defer to them.
1. I don't think you understand what falsifiability means. I'm saying there is no "poven" in scientific theory and for climate alarmists to say "it's been proven" negate the underlying principle of sound science, which is falsifiability. What comes from organizations like the IPCC, which is not an academic institution or standardizing body, is not falsifiable because it does not answer to the academic community but it answers to the politicos.
2. You sight "picking and choosing" and "long term data" but I gave specific time periods that indicate natural warming and cooling. What I get from the academic community is that we don't know the actual average temperature change regarding human CO2 emissions, but what we do know is that human CO2's effect globally on temp is negligible.
3. Yes. Clouds have an effect relative to the troposphere because water vapor is a more significant greenhouse gas than CO2. If greenhouse gases (including CO2) were warming, then the troposphere during the hockey stick rise would have a greater warming than below, but, however, the weather balloon data says the troposphere has had a much smaller warming effect than below it. So yes, the IPCC data is skewed because it uses computer models instead.
4. We have a local effect, as the OP mentioned was called the Urban Island heat island (which can be a cooling effect as well.) But, to the theory humans produce CO2 that causes catastrophic GLOBAL warming is false.
5. The relevance of Thatcher to the IPCC is that she was a proponent of nuclear power and the dwindling of the coal industry because she wanted to (and this is pretty common knowledge in the UK) reduce the power of the workers and the unions. What better way to minimize the PR and power of the miners than say they are contributing to global disaster.
I think you should use a better variety of sources than just skepticalscience.com.
Alright. thanks for the well reasoned reply. I will wait and see what the OP comes back with. Can you link some sources (not vods please) that outline these points as well the data supporting them? Cheers.
I know you said not VODs
But this was posted on the last page and i just finished watching it; as someone with very little knowledge on the issue short of what is reported in the mainstream media i found this incredibly interesting and informative - probably slanted but i don't know. It's also not that long..
A burning question I have always had, is what could we be doing? I accept the accuracy of the scientific data collected, and from my experience dealing with scientific models, I am skeptical that things will turn out exactly as predicted, for better or worse, any chance of the predictions panning out seems worthy of substantial resources being devoted to it. The problem I see is that there isn't really any way to fix it. The solutions proposed seem tiny in comparison to the massive carbon outlets. Will the effects of any reasonable solution we have actually be enough with compounding to make a major difference? If so what are resource effective solutions that should be implemented?
Dear Dabbeljuh, Thank you so much for this thread, it's always nice to get a specialist insight on this topic, on which I've to admit I've 0 competency (like 99% of the population anyway).
I have not read much literature but I cited some of the academia from these respected scholars.
Many of the scare models come from the IPCC, however. Therefore, it is a political issue, whether we like it or not. There has to be a consensus on good data, not the right theory.
It's true that we can not explain 80% of the climate factors at this time, but the data we have suggests the sun is the culprit.
EDIT: I think Bob Carter makes the best explanations on the subject. I suggest seeking out his material.
I'll look at those links, though I will say that I prefer primary sources since they can be critiqued on their own merit in the context of the body of work. I will defer to the OP until I read those, but these authors are in the very minority. Climate scientists are fairly united towards climate change. There are many papers (and models) published that are not the IPCC. You can say they're biased, but is the NAS also biased? What about indepdent researchers like the newly released Berkeley project done by the climate change skeptic?Of course politics gets in the way and that's what we should avoid.
Why do you say we can't explain 80% of the climate factors. I don't know how one can quantify that. This paper shows a model that explains 76% of the variability in the measurements, so maybe something like this:
By searching for the papers it cites and those which cite it we can see the conversation that is currently had regarding this topic of solar activity. The sun doesn't appear to be the main culprit in this case. But I am not saying it's settled, and I will certainly check out your links as well.
With due respect, those are odd sources. Spoilering long blocks of text so this doesn't clog up the page. This is a selection of articles published on climate change from the first guy's faculty website at http://www.jcu.edu.au/ees/staff/adjunct/JCUDEV_014954.html:
CARTER, R.M. 2008 Knock, knock: where is the evidence for dangerous human-caused global warming? Economic Analysis & Policy (Journal of the Economic Society of Australia - Queensland), 32(2), 107-202. CARTER, R.M., DE FREITAS, C.R., GOKLANY, I.M., HOLLAND, D. & LINDZEN, R.S. 2007 Climate change. Climate science and the Stern Review. World Economics 8, 161-182. HOLLAND, D., CARTER, R.M., DE FREITAS, C.R., GOKLANY, I.M. & LINDZEN, R.S. 2007 Climate change. Response to Simmonds and Steffen. World Economics 8, 143-151. CARTER, R.M. 2007 The myth of dangerous human-caused climate change. Australasian Institute of Mining & Metallurgy, New Leaders Conference, Brisbane, May 2-3 2007, Conference Proceedings p. 61-74 .
I've bolded the journals where he publishes on global warming. They aren't science journals.
The second link - Global Environmental Change - is, uh, of questionable relevance. Maybe you've read it - not sure - but there's nothing that obviously suggests that it supports what you're saying. Horel, at least, doesn't seem to publish on the topic you're citing him on very often.
I'm not watching an hour long youtube production to dig for sources.
Dynamic Atmospheric Physics is, well, a textbook on atmospheric physics. Not quite sure what you're getting at, there. Yes, it's a field. Here's a paper by the guy that you were actually citing that might be of relevance: http://www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/230_TakingGr.pdf
Introduction, followed by quote from conclusion I think is relevant: Intro/summary: + Show Spoiler +
In science, there is an art to simplifying complex problems so that they can be meaningfully analyzed. If one oversimplifies, the analysis is meaningless. If one doesn’t simplify, then one often cannot proceed with the analysis. When it comes to global warming due to the greenhouse effect, it is clear that many approaches are highly oversimplified. This includes the simple ‘blanket’ picture of the greenhouse effect shown in Figure 1. We will approach the issue more seriously in order to see whether one can reach reasonably rigorous conclusions. It turns out that one can. In Section 2, we present a physically correct view of the greenhouse effect, and show how this view enables us to use modeling results and observations in order to estimate a bound on the greenhouse contribution to recent surface warming of about 1/3. This is, indeed, somewhat less than the iconic claim in the IPCC Summary for Policymakers of Working Group 1 which claimed that it was likely that most of the recent warming was due to man. The present estimate is more constrained, and thereby suggests a lower climate sensitivity than is commonly found in current models. Section 3 discusses the origin of the contradicted claim as well as its relation to claims of high climate sensitivity. It turns out that far more than the iconic claim is needed for the sensitivity required for alarm. The main point of this paper is simply to illustrate why serious and persistent doubts remain concerning the danger of anthropogenic global warming despite the frequent claims that ‘the science is settled.’
Ultimately, however, one must recognize how small the difference is between the estimation that the anthropogenic contribution to recent surface warming is on the order of 1/3, and the iconic claim that it is likely that the human contribution is more that 1/2. Alarm, we see, actually demands much more that the iconic statement itself. It requires that greenhouse warming actually be larger than what has been observed, that about half of it be cancelled by essentially unknown aerosols, and that the aerosols soon disappear. Alarm does not stem directly from the iconic claim, but rather from the uncertainty in the claim, which lumps together greenhouse gas additions and the cancelling aerosol contributions (assuming that they indeed cancel warming), and suggests that the sum is responsible for more than half of the observed surface warming. What this paper attempts to do is point the way to a simple, physically sound approach to reducing uncertainty and establishing estimates of climate sensitivity that are focused and testable. Such an approach would seem to be more comfortable for science than the current emphasis on models testing models, large ranges of persistent uncertainty, and reliance on alleged consensus. Hopefully, this paper has also clarified why significant doubt persists concerning the remarkably politicized issue of global warming alarm.
I'm not sure he's going to be on board with your youtube videos, in short.
The last book is a book from 1992. 20 year-old science in a hot field is probably not terribly valuable anymore.
On December 13 2011 09:56 Suisen wrote: Climate change deniers are not deniers because of scientific understanding or arguments. They don't hold their position because they think the evidence dictates to them that that is the position to take. Therefore, it is not possible to change their mind with scientific arguments or proper evidence. In that respect they are alike to creationists. It won't matter what you say
Difference between creationists and cc deniers is that you can't attack their ideology because they just think nothing happens. If you argue a creationist what you do is attack their view of creationism where it is most silly.
Best thing you can do is call them idiots and leave them. Even if they are members of US congress.
Some are, that's true. But, those deniers I associate with are skeptical because the establishment's evidence is not falsifiable or analyzed correctly. The establishment denies how minimal an affect CO2 has as a greenhouse gas, not to mention the fact that atmoshpheric samples dating back thousands of years show a distinct correlation between the sun's activity and earth temperature variance.
The first phase of skepticism is often thorugh recognizing the beneficiaries (research funding for a small climatology field, politicians, the new green industry, etc.) and the second phase is putting the evidence in the right context.
Alright, I think we need to deal with this completely because if true then there really is a problem.
But, those deniers I associate with are skeptical because the establishment's evidence is not falsifiable or analyzed correctly
It is impossible to falsify the evidence because you cannot setup an experiment that would falsify the data. How do you prove that C02 is responsible for the warming? The only way to 100% prove it would be to create two identical worlds with varying concentrations of C02. Of course this is not possible so any evidence is going to be less than 100% certain. How do you prove the link? At some point who have to accept that the evidence is sufficient.
The establishment denies how minimal an affect CO2 has as a greenhouse gas
not to mention the fact that atmoshpheric samples dating back thousands of years show a distinct correlation between the sun's activity and earth temperature variance.
I know I keep quoting SkepticalScience, but that is because they specifically deal with these arguments. There is a very useful link on their site entitled Global Warming & Climate Change Myths which goes through these arguments in detail.
Finally
The first phase of skepticism is often thorugh recognizing the beneficiaries (research funding for a small climatology field, politicians, the new green industry, etc.) and the second phase is putting the evidence in the right context.
This is true for everyone in this debate. Everybody has an interest and you are correct that people stand to gain and lose if we take action. The question is, who gains more and who loses more. Then you look at the data and arguments put forward and make a decision. Focusing on funding for one side of the debate is disingenious and misleading. Who is funding the skeptics?
We shouldn't debate semantics or rhetoric, but I should point out there is not 100% proven in science. There is falsifiability and intellectual honesty. There is bias in every popular and academic article written on climate change. Any theory, whether in climate science, physics, or history, is never settled but merely historically contextual.
So the point is moot then. Saying the data cannot be falsified does not mean the data is false or the theory is incorrect. It is just that is cannot be proven. Moot.
The evidence is heretofore, as I understand it from the sources mentioned:
From 1940 to 1975, when industrialization had a boom period there was a cooling period that coincided with a public scare.
As has been explained above there is a lag between C02 and temps. More importantly picking an choosing time scales to prove cooling or warming in a dynamic system such as the climate is nonsense. The long term data shows significant warming. Yes, the climate is variable, hence why you look at long term trends. http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-temperature-correlation.htm
Troposphere temps should rise to a greater effect from greenhouse gasses, when in fact its temp over the last hundred years has risen less than near the surface (beneath the clouds.)
Can you explain your point here a little more. Are you saying that the models are wrong, or that clouds are too blame? I am not quite following your point. Sorry. Maybe this helps http://www.skepticalscience.com/tropospheric-hot-spot.htm
If you look at the history of warming periods they actually coincided with human and wildlife prosperity.
Humans are of the smallest contributors to CO2, 6.5 megatons. Oceans produce the most and plants and animals produce 150 megatons. How much the ocean emits OR ABSORBS depends on temp. There is about a 100 year lag for the oceans' CO2 cycle to take effect.
The last time the earth's climate wasn't variable was about 4 billion years ago. Over that context, the Earth has remained relatively stable but varied enough that living things have adapted. Consider the Medievil Warm Period and the Little Ice Age.
Please explain this a little further. I am not sure what point you are trying to make.
The IPCC gained significant support from Margaret Thatcher in the wake of the miner's strike, a distinctively political move.
Relevance? So it is political, so is economics but you don't see people complaining about their use of models. Or better yet, the political influence of economics. This is not about politics, it is about science.
EPICA and Vostok ice core data; Patrick Moore, former member of Greenpeace but now a critic of the organisation; Richard Lindzen, professor of meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology; Patrick Michaels, Research Professor of Environmental Sciences at the University of Virginia; Nigel Calder, editor of New Scientist from 1962 to 1966; John Christy, professor and director of the Earth System Science Center at University of Alabama; Paul Reiter of the Pasteur Institute; former British Chancellor of the Exchequer Nigel Lawson; Piers Corbyn, a British weather forecaster; Bob Carter, adjunct research professor in the Marine Geophysical Laboratory for James Cook University at Queensland
Finally, I know my rebuttals have come from SkepticalScience. Again it is because these arguments have been explained much better by actual scientists, than by myself. Hence I defer to them.
1. I don't think you understand what falsifiability means. I'm saying there is no "proven" in scientific theory and for climate alarmists to say "it's been proven" negate the underlying principle of sound science, which is falsifiability. What comes from organizations like the IPCC, which is not an academic institution or standardizing body, is not falsifiable because it does not answer to the academic community but it answers to the politicos.
I've never understood why non-philosophers, especially scientists, remain so high on Popper's theory of science. Sure, falsifiability sounds like a nice, tidy explanation of why Freud is bullshit and science isn't, or of why people are afraid of string theory, but any attempt to get explicit on what falsification consists in results in more problems than revelations.
And as for the empirical claim that science actually generally advances by processes of falsification, that's been more or less completely refuted by the likes of Kuhn and Lakatos. And that's not even to bring up how deeply skeptical Popper's views are when you look closely at them (way more skeptical than what's typically taken to be healthy scientific skepticism).
Anyway, Popper was a good philosopher but he was wrong and we've progressed in our understanding of science a lot since his day. I hope one day pop science culture catches up.
Have the alarmists done more harm or good to the climate change debate? (Specifically, what should we do (if anything), and when will the changes cause huge catastrophic damage (mass death).
You got your Al Gores that say at such and such a date, world WILL end from this. You got your lazy TV analysts saying every piece of warm weather has global warming as an origin, and every hurricane has its roots traced to it.
With due respect, those are odd sources. Spoilering long blocks of text so this doesn't clog up the page. This is a selection of articles published on climate change from the first guy's faculty website at http://www.jcu.edu.au/ees/staff/adjunct/JCUDEV_014954.html:
CARTER, R.M. 2008 Knock, knock: where is the evidence for dangerous human-caused global warming? Economic Analysis & Policy (Journal of the Economic Society of Australia - Queensland), 32(2), 107-202. CARTER, R.M., DE FREITAS, C.R., GOKLANY, I.M., HOLLAND, D. & LINDZEN, R.S. 2007 Climate change. Climate science and the Stern Review. World Economics 8, 161-182. HOLLAND, D., CARTER, R.M., DE FREITAS, C.R., GOKLANY, I.M. & LINDZEN, R.S. 2007 Climate change. Response to Simmonds and Steffen. World Economics 8, 143-151. CARTER, R.M. 2007 The myth of dangerous human-caused climate change. Australasian Institute of Mining & Metallurgy, New Leaders Conference, Brisbane, May 2-3 2007, Conference Proceedings p. 61-74 .
I've bolded the journals where he publishes on global warming. They aren't science journals.
The second link - Global Environmental Change - is, uh, of questionable relevance. Maybe you've read it - not sure - but there's nothing that obviously suggests that it supports what you're saying. Horel, at least, doesn't seem to publish on the topic you're citing him on very often.
I'm not watching an hour long youtube production to dig for sources.
Dynamic Atmospheric Physics is, well, a textbook on atmospheric physics. Not quite sure what you're getting at, there. Yes, it's a field. Here's a paper by the guy that you were actually citing that might be of relevance: http://www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/230_TakingGr.pdf
Introduction, followed by quote from conclusion I think is relevant: Intro/summary: + Show Spoiler +
In science, there is an art to simplifying complex problems so that they can be meaningfully analyzed. If one oversimplifies, the analysis is meaningless. If one doesn’t simplify, then one often cannot proceed with the analysis. When it comes to global warming due to the greenhouse effect, it is clear that many approaches are highly oversimplified. This includes the simple ‘blanket’ picture of the greenhouse effect shown in Figure 1. We will approach the issue more seriously in order to see whether one can reach reasonably rigorous conclusions. It turns out that one can. In Section 2, we present a physically correct view of the greenhouse effect, and show how this view enables us to use modeling results and observations in order to estimate a bound on the greenhouse contribution to recent surface warming of about 1/3. This is, indeed, somewhat less than the iconic claim in the IPCC Summary for Policymakers of Working Group 1 which claimed that it was likely that most of the recent warming was due to man. The present estimate is more constrained, and thereby suggests a lower climate sensitivity than is commonly found in current models. Section 3 discusses the origin of the contradicted claim as well as its relation to claims of high climate sensitivity. It turns out that far more than the iconic claim is needed for the sensitivity required for alarm. The main point of this paper is simply to illustrate why serious and persistent doubts remain concerning the danger of anthropogenic global warming despite the frequent claims that ‘the science is settled.’
Ultimately, however, one must recognize how small the difference is between the estimation that the anthropogenic contribution to recent surface warming is on the order of 1/3, and the iconic claim that it is likely that the human contribution is more that 1/2. Alarm, we see, actually demands much more that the iconic statement itself. It requires that greenhouse warming actually be larger than what has been observed, that about half of it be cancelled by essentially unknown aerosols, and that the aerosols soon disappear. Alarm does not stem directly from the iconic claim, but rather from the uncertainty in the claim, which lumps together greenhouse gas additions and the cancelling aerosol contributions (assuming that they indeed cancel warming), and suggests that the sum is responsible for more than half of the observed surface warming. What this paper attempts to do is point the way to a simple, physically sound approach to reducing uncertainty and establishing estimates of climate sensitivity that are focused and testable. Such an approach would seem to be more comfortable for science than the current emphasis on models testing models, large ranges of persistent uncertainty, and reliance on alleged consensus. Hopefully, this paper has also clarified why significant doubt persists concerning the remarkably politicized issue of global warming alarm.
I'm not sure he's going to be on board with your youtube videos, in short.
The last book is a book from 1992. 20 year-old science in a hot field is probably not terribly valuable anymore.
There, I've dug sources out of pseudo-sources!
Not sure what ur gripe is but thanks for adding more articles. I explained I don't have access to academic journals, nor have I read any. I have merely become familiarized with the skeptics and the establishment. Joseph Lindzen states in "Taking Greenhouse Warming Seriously", and I quote:
The runs shown differ from those that were run for the IPCC in that the models were simplified to isolate the effects of CO2 forcing and climate feedbacks. Also the models were run until equilibrium was established rather than run in a transient mode in order to simulate the past. Thus, they isolate greenhouse warming from other things that might be going on..."
Just because an article is new doesn't make it correct, but I understand what you're saying. This isn't a course at MIT so I think publicly avaiable media suffices.
On December 13 2011 15:45 Abort Retry Fail wrote: I'm really surprised by the amount of Climate Change denialism in TL.
Are you referring to those who deny CO2 created by humans is causing catastrophic increases in global temperature or those who deny the global termperature has risen? There's a difference.
With due respect, those are odd sources. Spoilering long blocks of text so this doesn't clog up the page. This is a selection of articles published on climate change from the first guy's faculty website at http://www.jcu.edu.au/ees/staff/adjunct/JCUDEV_014954.html:
CARTER, R.M. 2008 Knock, knock: where is the evidence for dangerous human-caused global warming? Economic Analysis & Policy (Journal of the Economic Society of Australia - Queensland), 32(2), 107-202. CARTER, R.M., DE FREITAS, C.R., GOKLANY, I.M., HOLLAND, D. & LINDZEN, R.S. 2007 Climate change. Climate science and the Stern Review. World Economics 8, 161-182. HOLLAND, D., CARTER, R.M., DE FREITAS, C.R., GOKLANY, I.M. & LINDZEN, R.S. 2007 Climate change. Response to Simmonds and Steffen. World Economics 8, 143-151. CARTER, R.M. 2007 The myth of dangerous human-caused climate change. Australasian Institute of Mining & Metallurgy, New Leaders Conference, Brisbane, May 2-3 2007, Conference Proceedings p. 61-74 .
I've bolded the journals where he publishes on global warming. They aren't science journals.
The second link - Global Environmental Change - is, uh, of questionable relevance. Maybe you've read it - not sure - but there's nothing that obviously suggests that it supports what you're saying. Horel, at least, doesn't seem to publish on the topic you're citing him on very often.
I'm not watching an hour long youtube production to dig for sources.
Dynamic Atmospheric Physics is, well, a textbook on atmospheric physics. Not quite sure what you're getting at, there. Yes, it's a field. Here's a paper by the guy that you were actually citing that might be of relevance: http://www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/230_TakingGr.pdf
Introduction, followed by quote from conclusion I think is relevant: Intro/summary: + Show Spoiler +
In science, there is an art to simplifying complex problems so that they can be meaningfully analyzed. If one oversimplifies, the analysis is meaningless. If one doesn’t simplify, then one often cannot proceed with the analysis. When it comes to global warming due to the greenhouse effect, it is clear that many approaches are highly oversimplified. This includes the simple ‘blanket’ picture of the greenhouse effect shown in Figure 1. We will approach the issue more seriously in order to see whether one can reach reasonably rigorous conclusions. It turns out that one can. In Section 2, we present a physically correct view of the greenhouse effect, and show how this view enables us to use modeling results and observations in order to estimate a bound on the greenhouse contribution to recent surface warming of about 1/3. This is, indeed, somewhat less than the iconic claim in the IPCC Summary for Policymakers of Working Group 1 which claimed that it was likely that most of the recent warming was due to man. The present estimate is more constrained, and thereby suggests a lower climate sensitivity than is commonly found in current models. Section 3 discusses the origin of the contradicted claim as well as its relation to claims of high climate sensitivity. It turns out that far more than the iconic claim is needed for the sensitivity required for alarm. The main point of this paper is simply to illustrate why serious and persistent doubts remain concerning the danger of anthropogenic global warming despite the frequent claims that ‘the science is settled.’
Ultimately, however, one must recognize how small the difference is between the estimation that the anthropogenic contribution to recent surface warming is on the order of 1/3, and the iconic claim that it is likely that the human contribution is more that 1/2. Alarm, we see, actually demands much more that the iconic statement itself. It requires that greenhouse warming actually be larger than what has been observed, that about half of it be cancelled by essentially unknown aerosols, and that the aerosols soon disappear. Alarm does not stem directly from the iconic claim, but rather from the uncertainty in the claim, which lumps together greenhouse gas additions and the cancelling aerosol contributions (assuming that they indeed cancel warming), and suggests that the sum is responsible for more than half of the observed surface warming. What this paper attempts to do is point the way to a simple, physically sound approach to reducing uncertainty and establishing estimates of climate sensitivity that are focused and testable. Such an approach would seem to be more comfortable for science than the current emphasis on models testing models, large ranges of persistent uncertainty, and reliance on alleged consensus. Hopefully, this paper has also clarified why significant doubt persists concerning the remarkably politicized issue of global warming alarm.
I'm not sure he's going to be on board with your youtube videos, in short.
The last book is a book from 1992. 20 year-old science in a hot field is probably not terribly valuable anymore.
There, I've dug sources out of pseudo-sources!
Not sure what ur gripe is but thanks for adding more articles. I explained I don't have access to academic journals, nor have I read any. I have merely become familiarized with the skeptics and the establishment. Joseph Lindzen states in "Taking Greenhouse Warming Seriously", and I quote:
The runs shown differ from those that were run for the IPCC in that the models were simplified to isolate the effects of CO2 forcing and climate feedbacks. Also the models were run until equilibrium was established rather than run in a transient mode in order to simulate the past. Thus, they isolate greenhouse warming from other things that might be going on..."
Just because an article is new doesn't make it correct, but I understand what you're saying. This isn't a course at MIT so I think publicly avaiable media suffices.
I respectfully disagree. What you call publicly available media does not suffice in any discussion on a scientific topic. Peer reviewed papers are the only standard, and you most likely do have access to them. If you attend a university you have access to a huge number of pay-walled databases. If not most are available online in some form, at the very least the abstract is free( see: http://www.springerlink.com/ for some stuff, for anything health related: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/ , or http://arxiv.org/ for physics , there are many other databases).
Additionally, while you are correct that age does not mean it is incorrect, the issues presented have most likely been addressed in future papers and correspondence in an active field like climate change.
EPT
. On either side of the aisle, both parties want to be re-elected, which is more likely if they spend money.
![[image loading]](http://wallpapers.androlib.com/wallicons/wallpaper.big-jmx.cs.png)
![[image loading]](http://geothermal.marin.org/geopresentation/images/img114.jpg)
