Not the only climate change chart you need to see...

[Willis Gravning]

Thanks for the graph.

 

[JacksBratt]

So, again, If the person making statements is pro AGW, then, all is fair game and the data and view is solid.

However, if the accredited individual is anti AGW then all bets are off and no matter what, they will be condescended, ridiculed and passed off as an impostor and the nail in the coffin will be that they are not a climate scientist.

Then to add the final end all point, someone will state something about the "majority" of scientists being pro AGW. As if it is some sort of democratic power to claim proof and truth.

The final deal is...
Nobody can say for certain that CO2 is the cause or a symptom of a warming trend around the globe. It is still not certain if there has been a leveling off of the slight warming and no one can tell if we are going to start cooling off or not.

It is certain, and I don't think anyone would disagree, that we should be vigilant and intelligent about the choices we make for fuel, electrical power generation, transportation, agriculture, and many other significant factors to the environment.

I just don't like being told things are fact if they are not. That we should be instilled with panic, guilt and worry over the global climate as if we can in some way control it.

Let's face it, we are a global community that is made up of numerous governments and some very large populations are not going to change because you say so.

Also, this world is handcuffed by the use of fossil fuels and the combustion of them... you have absolutely no answers to what to do if they ran out tomorrow. You have no solutions, even long term, to convert to.

We are dependent on them and until they diminish to such an extent that other methods become necessary and practical nothing will change.

When the time comes there will be solutions and not until then. They will glean every last dollar from the fossil fuel, all the while speaking with a forked tongue about the problem and gouging you and I to lower the dreaded carbon footprint.

The whole AGW runs on panic because no body can see anything that supports it. Cold winters followed by cool summers are your biggest enemy. Then you have one mild winter and the spin doctors rev up the engine.

The other issue is that most people, like myself are already full throttle at being good stewards of the environment. We drive fuel efficient, environmentally friendly cars, reduce reuse and recycle, compost, and have high efficiency heating for our homes. No longer use Freon for refrigerant and the list goes on.....

We, as people of this and other countries are doing all we can. So stop telling us that "we can do something" because the climate of this globe is going to do what it wants. Paying more money into the whole climate gate is just a money making scam to make rich people richer.

 

[Loudmouth]

So, again, If the person making statements is pro AGW, then, all is fair game and the data and view is solid.

However, if the accredited individual is anti AGW then all bets are off and no matter what, they will be condescended, ridiculed and passed off as an impostor and the nail in the coffin will be that they are not a climate scientist.

Again, what matters is the evidence.

The final deal is...
Nobody can say for certain that CO2 is the cause or a symptom of a warming trend around the globe. It is still not certain if there has been a leveling off of the slight warming and no one can tell if we are going to start cooling off or not.

What we can say is that that the evidence is consistent with human produced CO2 increasing global temperatures.

The whole AGW runs on panic because no body can see anything that supports it. Cold winters followed by cool summers are your biggest enemy. Then you have one mild winter and the spin doctors rev up the engine.

False. It runs on scientific evidence.

 

[Willtor]

...

The whole AGW runs on panic because no body can see anything that supports it. Cold winters followed by cool summers are your biggest enemy. Then you have one mild winter and the spin doctors rev up the engine.

...

It sounds like you've begun to deny that global warming is happening at all. Is this your argument, or are you saying that it is happening but that you see no reason to think that humans are responsible?

 

[JacksBratt]

It sounds like you've begun to deny that global warming is happening at all. Is this your argument, or are you saying that it is happening but that you see no reason to think that humans are responsible?

I'm saying that there is all kinds of arguments for it and against it. I'm saying we all have a right to believe what we believe. I don't adhere to the principal that if more scientists back it it must be the truth.

I'm saying one group will get rich from the fossil fuel supply and it's proposed surplus or proposed shortfall, until it runs out.

I'm saying another group will get rich on raising panic by presenting "data" that shows us to be killing the known world and dooming our grandchildren.

I'm saying that the only real proof will be 20 years from now when we have the actual facts of what happened.

Right now I think it's a huge induced panic. Right now I believe that science has lost the integrity that it had. Right now I think the "truth" is what certain powerful people want to be the "truth". I think that the populous of the civilized world has one big deadly trait..... a very short memory span. I also believe that the governments and powers that be exploit that trait to the detriment of the civilized world and the gain of the elite minority.

 

[The Cadet]

However, if the accredited individual

But the problem is that Patrick Moore is not an accredited individual. He has no credentials relevant to climatology and he has no papers published in the field. You have people who are more accredited than him to speak on Climate Science on this forum telling you that you're wrong! ( @RickG in particular)

Again, when I'm looking for medical advice on, say, a weird lump on my penis, I don't just go to the first schlub with an MD. I look for a specialist in the field of STDs. A cardiologist probably wouldn't be much help to me in that case, because it isn't their field. But what you're doing is even worse - what you're doing is like having a weird lump on your penis, and then going to someone with a PhD in computer sciences for medical advice. His opinion on the subject matters no more than my opinion.
Just like Patrick Moore's opinion on climate science matters about as much as Michael Moore's or Roger Moore's. He has a science background, but he has no expertise in the field he's speaking in and is blatantly wrong about the claims he makes.

Nobody can say for certain that CO2 is the cause or a symptom of a warming trend around the globe.

Actually, we can, and I've cited numerous papers to precisely that point. We can say with certainty that CO2 is the cause of the current warming trend, and a symptom, albeit to a far lesser degree. The fact that you know very little about the subject does not somehow negate the knowledge of those who know quite a lot more about it.

 

[RickG]

Actually, we can, and I've cited numerous papers to precisely that point. We can say with certainty that CO2 is the cause of the current warming trend, and a symptom, albeit to a far lesser degree. The fact that you know very little about the subject does not somehow negate the knowledge of those who know quite a lot more about it.

Just to add a little more, we also know the increase of CO2, 280 ppm to 400 ppm, is due to fossil fuels from the isotope signature of 13C/12C ratios.

Stuiver, M., Burk, R. L. and Quay, P. D. 1984. 13C/12C ratios and the transfer of biospheric carbon to the atmosphere. J. Geophys. Res. 89, 11,731-11,748.

Francey, R.J., Allison, C.E., Etheridge, D.M., Trudinger, C.M., Enting, I.G., Leuenberger, M., Langenfelds, R.L., Michel, E., Steele, L.P., 1999. A 1000-year high precision record of d13Cin atmospheric CO2. Tellus 51B, 170–193.

Quay, P.D., B. Tilbrook, C.S. Wong. Oceanic uptake of fossil fuel CO2: carbon-13 evidence. Science 256 (1992), 74-79

 

[Willtor]

I'm saying that there is all kinds of arguments for it and against it. I'm saying we all have a right to believe what we believe. I don't adhere to the principal that if more scientists back it it must be the truth.

I'm saying one group will get rich from the fossil fuel supply and it's proposed surplus or proposed shortfall, until it runs out.

I'm saying another group will get rich on raising panic by presenting "data" that shows us to be killing the known world and dooming our grandchildren.

I'm saying that the only real proof will be 20 years from now when we have the actual facts of what happened.

Right now I think it's a huge induced panic. Right now I believe that science has lost the integrity that it had. Right now I think the "truth" is what certain powerful people want to be the "truth". I think that the populous of the civilized world has one big deadly trait..... a very short memory span. I also believe that the governments and powers that be exploit that trait to the detriment of the civilized world and the gain of the elite minority.

If you start getting into, "I have the right to believe what I want," then you're wandering dangerously into the territory of, "I'm allowed to be wrong." It is true that you are allowed to believe whatever you want, but you _should_ try to believe only things that are true, insofar as you are able. This is Willtor's view, anyway. YMMV.

That aside...

The science, from what I've read, has quite a lot of integrity. It's the big-name institutes and pundits on the other side that don't. Why?! Well, I read articles all the time on Ars Technica talking about a study that corrects some error in the climate model. Sometimes it leads to a worse outcome (from our perspective), sometimes a less bad one, and sometimes there is uncertainty as to the implications. This is a surprising thing if the scientists are believed to be acting intellectually dishonestly and pushing an agenda. It looks like a healthy science, wherein data forces them to alter their models. On the other side, I see people making arguments that humans aren't responsible for the warming trend, other people arguing that it isn't happening at all, and a host of other self-contradictory views... made by the same people! It's almost as if they don't have a model for the data they have, let alone hammer on it as new data comes in.

 

[RickG]

The science, from what I've read, has quite a lot of integrity. It's the big-name institutes and pundits on the other side that don't. Why?! Well, I read articles all the time on Ars Technica talking about a study that corrects some error in the climate model. Sometimes it leads to a worse outcome (from our perspective), sometimes a less bad one, and sometimes there is uncertainty as to the implications. This is a surprising thing if the scientists are believed to be acting intellectually dishonestly and pushing an agenda. It looks like a healthy science, wherein data forces them to alter their models. On the other side, I see people making arguments that humans aren't responsible for the warming trend, other people arguing that it isn't happening at all, and a host of other self-contradictory views... made by the same people! It's almost as if they don't have a model for the data they have, let alone hammer on it as new data comes in.

An excellent observation Willtor. The fact that the skeptics have many arguments that don't agree within themselves and the more than obvious "cherry picked" data they present should throw up a red flag. Not to mention that almost entirely all of the skeptic arguments are from non-science sources or an appeal to authority fallacy. And of the actual practicing climatologists that are considered skeptics, I don't know a single one that denies that it is warming. That includes, Spencer, Pielke Sr & Jr, Lindzen, Curry and Christy.

 

[fargonic]

I'm saying that there is all kinds of arguments for it and against it.

Very few "against" it. Just to be clear.

I'm saying we all have a right to believe what we believe.

Right up until the point where your personal ignorance threatens action to stop something bad happening.

At that point your right to believe whatever you want is superseded by our right to make the best course of action.

I don't adhere to the principal that if more scientists back it it must be the truth.

No one does. The problem is, if you don't have any scientific training, why would you side with the position that almost no professional scientist sides with?

No offense, but that is the biggest point here. People like you with almost no scientific training have no way to really assess the value of the arguments, so statistically speaking you are betting against the house. If you were in Vegas you would lose.

I'm saying another group will get rich on raising panic by presenting "data" that shows us to be killing the known world and dooming our grandchildren.

Again, you clearly know next to nothing about how rich scientists get. Most of the scientists you and your denialist brethren lambaste as "hoaxers" or liars aren't making as much as if they worked as a business man in an oil company. They never will.

I'm a research chemist and I guarantee you I make more money here in industry than my fellow research chemists do in academia for the most part.

Right now I believe that science has lost the integrity that it had.

HOW DO YOU KNOW? If you don't understand basic chemistry how on earth could you make such a claim??? If you haven't had any statistics training how one earth would you know this?

It would be as if I were to make a blanket statement about whatever it is YOU do for a living and say "The people who do whatever JacksBratt does for a living have no integrity." Would you think that was a rational position for me to take?

 

[RickG]

No offense, but that is the biggest point here. People [sic] with almost no scientific training have no way to really assess the value of the arguments.....

And stick their head in the sand when shown without a shadow of doubt that information they are presenting is misrepresented cherry picked data.

 

[The Cadet]

I'm saying that there is all kinds of arguments for it and against it.

What kind of argument is this, though? There are arguments for and against the existence of lizard people. Pick any issue, and you'll find some cantankerous contrarian making blatantly fallacious arguments about it.