# Do global warming "skeptics" honestly see us as a benign species? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 5, 2014, 11:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-global-warming-skeptics-honestly-see-us-as-a-benign-species/677984 "2014-01-05T23:18:34Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 21
**Author:** ![doorhinge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a5b964/32.png) [@doorhinge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doorhinge)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2014, 6:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-global-warming-skeptics-honestly-see-us-as-a-benign-species/677984/401 "2014-02-10T18:30:34Z")
> [@brazil84](#): > > FYI here is a Realclimate blog post from 2008: > > [RealClimate: What the IPCC models really say](http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/05/what-the-ipcc-models-really-say/) > > According to their chart (the third chart down), the chances of going 15 years without a new high temperature record look to be about 1 in 100. > > A nice run of luck we’re having, eh? Either that or the warmers need to admit that they have most likely overestimated the impact of CO2 on global surface temperatures. 100 to 1!!! I wish I had money on that over-heated horse. 😃 I wonder what the odds are of getting warmers to admit they overestimated the impact of CO2? ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2014, 6:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-global-warming-skeptics-honestly-see-us-as-a-benign-species/677984/402 "2014-02-10T18:43:12Z")
> [@doorhinge](#): > > 100 to 1!!! I wish I had money on that over-heated horse. 😃 I wonder what the odds are of getting warmers to admit they overestimated the impact of CO2? Post #397 [http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=17091827&postcount=397](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=17091827&postcount=397) Remember the movie the Sting? Seems to me that deniers like Anthony Watts tell their mark that the race is still on when the results already took place. You need to deal with the misinformers that continue to mislead many on this subject. ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2014, 6:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-global-warming-skeptics-honestly-see-us-as-a-benign-species/677984/403 "2014-02-10T18:52:31Z")
> [@doorhinge](#): > > I wonder what the odds are of getting warmers to admit they overestimated the impact of CO2? I wonder what the odds are of getting you to answer any of these questions: 1. Why is a 15-year record more valid than a 60-year record in gauging the impact of CO2? 2. Why would either of those be more valid than the effects of CO2 observed in 800,000 years of paleoclimate history, or the effects predicted by the physics of radiative transfer? Equilibrium climate sensitivity to CO2 increases takes hundreds of years to approach stabilization, and potentially thousands of years to reach it. 3. Where do **you** think [this heat](http://www.realclimate.org/images/ipcc2007_radforc.jpg) is going? An actual plausible theory with supporting evidence is more credible than puerile snickering. ---
**Author:** ![doorhinge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a5b964/32.png) [@doorhinge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doorhinge)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2014, 8:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-global-warming-skeptics-honestly-see-us-as-a-benign-species/677984/404 "2014-02-10T20:01:14Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > I wonder what the odds are of getting you to answer any of these questions: > > 1. Why is a 15-year record more valid than a 60-year record in gauging the impact of CO2? > > 2. Why would either of those be more valid than the effects of CO2 observed in 800,000 years of paleoclimate history, or the effects predicted by the physics of radiative transfer? Equilibrium climate sensitivity to CO2 increases takes hundreds of years to approach stabilization, and potentially thousands of years to reach it. > > 3. Where do **you** think [this heat](http://www.realclimate.org/images/ipcc2007_radforc.jpg) is going? An actual plausible theory with supporting evidence is more credible than puerile snickering. 1 & 2) The obvious answer is that both would be valid. 60 years would be 4 times longer than 15 years but that’s not the point in contention. The pause/plateau under current consideration only occurred during the last 1/4 of the most recent 60 year time frame. Both hadcrut4gl and hadsst3gl charts, regardless of their overall length of time, show a recent pause/plateau. A pause/plateau which seems to be a real PITA for the IPCC and agw believers, credibility-wise. “Tamino”, the “Open Mind” blogger says there ain’t no pause. Did “Tamino” prove that the last 15 years of hadcrut4gl and hadsst3gl are wrong? 1. Where-o’-where did the heat go? idk, but I’m not the one trying to convince everyone that agw is currently occurring. If the IPCC and agw believers want people to “convince” people that the global temp is increasing “at an alarming rate”, it’s up to them to provide credible evidence that it’s occurring. If they can’t, well, they’ll just have to try harder. ---
**Author:** ![FXMastermind](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fxmastermind/32/7289_2.png) [@FXMastermind](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FXMastermind)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2014, 9:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-global-warming-skeptics-honestly-see-us-as-a-benign-species/677984/405 "2014-02-10T21:14:40Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > 1. Where do **you** think [this heat](http://www.realclimate.org/images/ipcc2007_radforc.jpg) is going? An actual plausible theory with supporting evidence is more credible than puerile snickering. The idea that ocean overturning is leading to cooling is pretty good. The increased winds around Antarctica (due to ozone depletion) have been theorized to have caused the cooling there. > [@doorhinge](#): > > 1. Where-o’-where did the heat go? idk, but I’m not the one trying to convince everyone that agw is currently occurring. If the IPCC and agw believers want people to “convince” people that the global temp is increasing “at an alarming rate”, it’s up to them to provide credible evidence that it’s occurring. If they can’t, well, they’ll just have to try harder. It’s a conundrum actually. > [@FXMastermind](#): > > [Global warming 'pause' due to unusual trade winds in Pacific ocean, study finds | Climate crisis | The Guardian](http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/feb/09/global-warming-pause-trade-winds-pacific-ocean-study) I highly advise reading my link. ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2014, 10:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-global-warming-skeptics-honestly-see-us-as-a-benign-species/677984/406 "2014-02-10T22:20:22Z")
> [@doorhinge](#): > > 1 & 2) The obvious answer is that both would be valid. Well your “obvious answer” is impossible if “valid” is taken to mean the more accurate representation of the impact of CO2, which is what you claim “alarmists” need to re-evaluate. The entire basis of your claim is that the temperature gradient over the past 15 years is not the same as it was in the previous 60, so one of them is clearly a closer estimation of true long-term climate sensitivity than the other. Guess which one it is – based on hundreds of thousands of years of paleoclimate data, energy budget calculations, and the majority of models? The answer shouldn’t be surprising. > [@doorhinge](#): > > 1. Where-o’-where did the heat go? idk, but I’m not the one trying to convince everyone that agw is currently occurring. If the IPCC and agw believers want people to “convince” people that the global temp is increasing “at an alarming rate”, it’s up to them to provide credible evidence that it’s occurring. If hardcore denialists didn’t believe it in the previous 30 years when temperatures were rising at a record pace, what kind of evidence could possibly convince them? They just deny all evidence. That’s why they’re called denialists. 😛 Case in point is the way you’re denying the graph of anthropogenic forcings that I linked. These are quantified radiative heat exchanges that are adding the specified amounts of heat to the earth’s net energy balance. Those processes are not contentious, at least not to anyone with a basic grasp of physics, nor are their general magnitudes in dispute. The existence of non-linear anomalies in how this affects average global temperature is expected, and when the behavior changes over a reasonably sustained period the objective of the science is to determine why. It isn’t to engage in a new debate with scientific illiterates over the issue of basic AGW that’s been settled for nearly half a century, but rather to propose mechanisms by which changes in the circulation and heat uptake patterns of land, air, and ocean could account for these discontinuities. This the science has been doing. Not, unsurprisingly, to the satisfaction of denialist bloggers, who trot it out as proof that science has failed and we may as well admit that climate change is caused entirely by magic, and presumably go back to our caves and pound some pictures of wooly mammoths into the walls with a piece of rock. ---
**Author:** ![Chief\_Pedant](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@Chief\_Pedant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chief_Pedant)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2014, 11:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-global-warming-skeptics-honestly-see-us-as-a-benign-species/677984/407 "2014-02-10T23:02:30Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > Who are these “alarmists” of which you speak? Do you mean climate scientists? You seem to be under a misconception that the scientists – or environmentalists, or whoever you’re talking about that you hold in such disdain – have some sort of abstract idyllic mission to “save the planet” for its own sake. Such a mission would be both presumptuous and silly, and I can assure you that isn’t the scientific message here. The planet has endured mass extinction events in the past and it may again in the future; the planet will be fine, **we may not be**. Indeed, [a paper in _Nature_](http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v471/n7336/full/nature09678.html) a couple of years ago highlighted exactly this risk: I take it, then, that you feel the reason for alarm over AGW is in proportion only to the degree to which it holds potential harm for our species? And how would you define that harm? How many of us get to overcrowd the planet? How comfortable we are? I’m underwhelmed by that perspective, frankly. And I suspect most of those raising an alarm about AGW are not OK with a message that the planet will be fine if we survive but the environment is trashed. There’s a reason the polar bear is advanced as a tragic icon for our failure to act. The whole point is about environmentalism. It’s not about a human-centric narcissim. We’re making plenty of food for ourselves right now. Heck; with a little more AGW and CO2 fertilization, we might be able to get even more crops out of the northern latitudes and feed even more. We don’t know. (We aren’t interested much in exploring the upside of a warmer planet; Doom sells and fixates much more than does happy talk.) But the energy directed toward fighting AGW is in general based on an altruism toward environmentalism, and not a desire to make sure humans get to finish over-running the earth. And so my point is that AGW does not rank very high on a list of environmental catastrophes, most of which are well into the future. Should we arrive in that future with AGW solved, we will have been busy exterminating species, eating up the oceans, etc etc (see my earlier post). AGW’s putative net-negative future effects are simply not nearly as catastrophic as the rest of the effects we are having right now bending the earth to our more immediate needs. And that’s how I read the OP: Do skeptics see us as a benign species? Indeed, we are not a benign species. From an environmental standpoint we are a very malignant one, and the malignant effects we are causing are Right Now and Very Large. AGW’s net effects are Real Soon Now and unknown. (I’m not saying the predictions are unknown; I’m saying what will actually happen in toto is unknown. It’s easy to predict doom but we haven’t been very good at it so far…) If we don’t get our population under control (and we won’t), piddling around with CO2 production is a waste of time from the perspective of preserving the environment. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2014, 12:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-global-warming-skeptics-honestly-see-us-as-a-benign-species/677984/408 "2014-02-11T00:04:54Z")
> [@Chief\_Pedant](#): > > If we don’t get our population under control (and we won’t), piddling around with CO2 production is a waste of time from the perspective of preserving the environment. Not anyone that I can see as respectable supports that position and we had this conversation before, there are even more skeptics of AGW that also do not agree that the population issue is a game ender as you insist. What I see coming from populations experts is that was has been recommended, family planning with poverty reduction is what works, and controlling CO2 emissions are also in the mix. [http://www.ted.com/talks/hans\_rosling\_on\_global\_population\_growth.html](http://www.ted.com/talks/hans_rosling_on_global_population_growth.html) > [@](#): > > ``` > And what will happen in the future? Well, I'm going to project into 2050. I was in Shanghai recently, and I listened to what's happening in China, and it's pretty sure that they will catch up, just as Japan did. All the projections [say that] this one [billion] will [only] grow with one to two or three percent. [But this second] grows with seven, eight percent, and then they will end up here. They will start flying. And these lower or middle income countries, the emerging income countries, they will also forge forwards economically. **And if, but only if, we invest in the right green technology -- so that we can avoid severe climate change, and energy can still be relatively cheap** -- then they will move all the way up here. And they will start to buy electric cars. This is what we will find there. > > ``` > [@](#): > > What has happened? I start the world. Here we go. Can you see, as the years pass by, child survival is increasing? They get soap, hygiene, education, vaccination, penicillin and then family planning. Family size is decreasing. [When] they get up to 90-percent child survival, then families decrease, and most of the Arab countries in the Middle East is falling down there [to small families]. Look, Bangladesh catching up with India. The whole emerging world joins the Western world with good child survival and small family size, but we still have the poorest billion. Can you see the poorest billion, those [two] boxes I had over here? They are still up here. And they still have a child survival of only 70 to 80 percent, meaning that if you have six children born, there will be at least four who survive to the next generation. And the population will double in one generation. > > So the only way of really getting world population [growth] to stop is to continue to improve child survival to 90 percent. That’s why investments by Gates Foundation, UNICEF and aid organizations, together with national government in the poorest countries, are so good; because they are actually helping us to reach a sustainable population size of the world. We can stop at nine billion if we do the right things. Child survival is the new green. It’s only by child survival that we will stop population growth. And will it happen? Well, I’m not an optimist, neither am I a pessimist. I’m a very serious “possibilist.” It’s a new category where we take emotion apart, and we just work analytically with the world. It can be done. We can have a much more just world. With green technology and with investments to alleviate poverty, and global governance, the world can become like this. > > And look at the position of the old West. Remember when this blue box was all alone, leading the world, living its own life. This will not happen [again]. The role of the old West in the new world is to become the foundation of the modern world – nothing more, nothing less. But it’s a very important role. Do it well and get used to it. ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2014, 2:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-global-warming-skeptics-honestly-see-us-as-a-benign-species/677984/409 "2014-02-11T02:30:36Z")
> [@Chief\_Pedant](#): > > I take it, then, that you feel the reason for alarm over AGW is in proportion only to the degree to which it holds potential harm for our species? The reality is that our survival and the survival of the ecosystem that we inhabit are so inextricably linked that there isn’t a meaningful distinction. That was really the point of the Barnosky et al. paper in _Nature_ that I linked, and there are many others. We may consider ourselves technologically advanced but virtually every food item we need to live has a plant or animal origin. As goes the biosphere, so go we. > [@Chief\_Pedant](#): > > And how would you define that harm? How many of us get to overcrowd the planet? How comfortable we are? Massive property loss and loss of life due to extreme weather events, loss of life from disease and starvation due to widespread crop failures, and a significant reduction in quality of life, just for starters. And I’m really not interested in an abstract philosophical digression about whether violently reducing the world’s population might be a _good_ thing. GHG emissions and population growth are related but orthogonal problems; they have different causes and different solutions. For example, we need transportation to live quality comfortable lives, but that transportation doesn’t need to belch fumes and move four tons of dead weight so that we can get our groceries or take our kids to soccer practice. > [@Chief\_Pedant](#): > > I’m underwhelmed by that perspective, frankly. And I suspect most of those raising an alarm about AGW are not OK with a message that the planet will be fine if we survive but the environment is trashed. There’s a reason the polar bear is advanced as a tragic icon for our failure to act. The whole point is about environmentalism. I don’t really care why the polar bear is an icon for AGW, though I imagine it’s probably because it’s a threatened species and the Arctic itself is an icon for AGW because of the rapid rate of temperature rise there. And probably because they’re cute. None of that matters. Our dependence on the ecosystem matters, and many of those dependencies are intricate and unknown. Even if some species is superficially useless to us, its extinction is a harbinger of the damage that is unfolding, the archetypal canary in the coal mine. > [@Chief\_Pedant](#): > > We’re making plenty of food for ourselves right now. Heck; with a little more AGW and CO2 fertilization, we might be able to get even more crops out of the northern latitudes and feed even more. We don’t know. (We aren’t interested much in exploring the upside of a warmer planet; Doom sells and fixates much more than does happy talk.) Neither climate research nor systematic biological impact assessments bear out that mythology. They bear out the opposite. The first problem is confusing the end state of a “warmer planet” with the violently turbulent process of getting there. You can’t suddenly increase the CO2 level in the atmosphere – and the consequent strength of climate forcing – by 120 ppm in mostly the past century and expect an uneventful transition. All the more so when it’s likely to rise hundreds more before we can stabilize it. The destabilizing effect on the climate for hundreds of years in terms of extreme weather and unpredictable global circulation changes will be profound and eventually catastrophic. And that’s just the physical climate system; the ecosystem will have profound adaptation problems and extreme stresses that will lead to levels of extinction that depend on the amount of temperature rise. Some of these impacts are illustrated [here](http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/fig/figure-spm-2-l.png). It’s also grossly overly simplistic and just flat-out wrong to suggest that CO2 fertilization and warmer temperatures will lead across the board to improved crop yields and happy times. Again, the research suggests quite the opposite. Some of the world’s poorest countries, those in Africa in particular, are both climatologically and economically the most vulnerable. If much of the world’s tropical regions sustain massive crop failures we’re not going to be insulated from the impacts for long. Moreover, even in more northerly latitudes, any improved crop yields would be at best temporary. With rising temperatures and increased frequency of extreme weather events, other factors will begin to dominate: heat stress at critical developmental stages, water shortages, increased incidence of plant disease and pest outbreaks encouraged by the migration of diseases and pests to higher latitudes, and so on. Again, have a look at the above figure. > [@Chief\_Pedant](#): > > And so my point is that AGW does not rank very high on a list of environmental catastrophes, most of which are well into the future. And your point is stated without basis, and disproved by a wide body of research. ---
**Author:** ![FXMastermind](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fxmastermind/32/7289_2.png) [@FXMastermind](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FXMastermind)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2014, 3:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-global-warming-skeptics-honestly-see-us-as-a-benign-species/677984/410 "2014-02-11T03:09:23Z")
Here are a couple of the wild claims that do so much harm to the “global warming movement”. > [@wolfpup](#): > > The destabilizing effect on the climate for hundreds of years in terms of extreme weather and unpredictable global circulation changes will be profound and eventually catastrophic. First, you just don’t know if any of that is true. Stating it as “truth” is prophecy, not science. It is also against the current knowledge of climate and science. If the expected warming of both the arctic and the winters in high latitudes does occur (it hasn’t yet), it is expected to decrease many extreme weather events, especially winter storms, spring tornado outbreaks, and early and late frost damage. As well as heavy snows followed by extreme cold. While it’s possible circulation changes will be destructive, it’s also possible they will be beneficial. Currently the “pause” is being explained by wind driven convection of Pacific heat, which means the trade winds are blowing stronger, and more cold water is upwelling. A completly unexpected thing. Is it due to CO2 forced changes? Even that isn’t known. We simply know so little about actual climate, understanding climate change is far worse. > [@wolfpup](#): > > It’s also grossly overly simplistic and just flat-out wrong to suggest that CO2 fertilization and warmer temperatures will lead across the board to improved crop yields and happy times. No it is not. Plass mentions this in his paper about the greenhouse theory (the one GIGO has linked to, but obviously he never read). He notes that plants actually evolved in the ancient times when CO2 levels were 10 to 30 times higher than present. He noted that plants grow much faster when supplied with CO2 levels 5 to 10 times higher than current atmospheric levels, and attributed this to the obvious low supply at present, for plants that evolved to live in levels far higher. If the CO2 levels were ever at[the calculated levels during the glacier periods](http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/icecore/antarctica/vostok/vostok_data.html), of 180ppm. plants would barely even grow. Not the plants we know of. In short, you barely know what you are even saying. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2014, 3:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-global-warming-skeptics-honestly-see-us-as-a-benign-species/677984/411 "2014-02-11T03:37:21Z")
> [@FXMastermind](#): > > First, you just don’t know if any of that is true. Stating it as “truth” is prophecy, not science. It is also against the current knowledge of climate and science. If the expected warming of both the arctic and the winters in high latitudes does occur (it hasn’t yet) Ah, yes, there is Dyson just being tossed under the bus… 🙂 > [@FXMastermind](#): > > No it is not. Plass mentions this in his paper about the greenhouse theory (the one GIGO has linked to, but obviously he never read). Funny, you claimed before that the theory was not mentioned. > [@FXMastermind](#): > > He notes that plants actually evolved in the ancient times when CO2 levels were 10 to 30 times higher than present. He noted that plants grow much faster when supplied with CO2 levels 5 to 10 times higher than current atmospheric levels, and attributed this to the obvious low supply at present, for plants that evolved to live in levels far higher. And so did insects too, in any case you ignore that in desert conditions there are heat levels were plants do not work as you expect. > [@FXMastermind](#): > > If the CO2 levels were ever at[the calculated levels during the glacier periods](http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/icecore/antarctica/vostok/vostok_data.html), of 180ppm. plants would barely even grow. Not the plants we know of. > > In short, you barely know what you are even saying. Nah, the evidence is there to show all that contrarians are the ones that do not know that researchers even experimented and looked at the plants that lived in those days. [http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1469-8137.2010.03441.x/pdf](http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1469-8137.2010.03441.x/pdf) > [@](#): > > While studies conducted for an entire generation at low [CO2] provide critical information on whole-plant responses with full acclimation (Section V), these studies do not incorporate adaptive changes at low [CO2] that occur over multiple generations with genetic change. The process of understanding plant evolution at low [CO2] has been addressed through two main approaches. In the first, modern plants are selected at low [CO2] (180–200 ppm) for high growth or reproduction, allowing for an understanding of how genetic change may drive adaptive processes in living > plants. These studies are conducted over multiple generations, and differ from the screening methods described in earlier studies, where genotypes were selected for survival during only one generation of exposure to extremely low [CO2] (e.g. Sharma > et al., 1979). > > A second approach involves studying fossilized plant material that actually > occurred during glacial periods; such fossils are highly useful for determining evolutionary responses to low [CO2] since these plants had thousands of yr to adapt to these conditions over multiple generations. A relatively large number of plant > specimens dating to the LGM have been naturally preserved in tar pits, bogs, and caves, and these may serve as critical resources for further addressing this issue (Wells &Jorgensen, 1964; Stock & Harris, 2001). Unfortunately, however, measurements on these fossils are generally restricted to stable isotopes, morphology, DNA sequencing (in some cases), and modeling approaches (because they are nonliving). By studying these specimens, along with modern plants that have been adapted to low [CO2] over multiple generations, we may better understand how plants functioned across a wider range of [CO2], and we may be able to pinpoint the mechanisms that enabled C3 plants to survive during the most limiting [CO2 > ] periods of the past. > > To investigate evolutionary processes, Ward et al. (2000) conducted a selection experiment with A. thaliana (derived from out-crossings) for high seed number over five generations at low [CO2] (200 ppm; control plants were also grown side by side with selected plants, but were randomly selected). At the fifth and final generation of selection, plants from selected populations produced 25% more seeds on average (with no changes in quality) than non selected control plants when both were grown at low [CO2] (Fig. 7). In conjunction with this, selection plants delayed flowering by c. 4 d, had an extended life cycle, and produced 34% more total biomass than control plants (Fig. 7). > > Initially, no differences in physiology were detected between selection and control plants (Ward et al., 2000). However, in a more recent study with the same populations (and improved methods), Gonza`lez-Meler et al. (2009) found that respiration rates were lower in Arabidopsis plants selected at 200 ppm CO2 than in control plants (without reductions in N tissue content ), with a large portion of this response occurring from reduced activity of the alternative pathway. Reduced respiration rates improved the carbon budgets of the low-[CO2]-selected plants, representing a > potentially important adaptive response to low [CO2]. Also with respect to the Ward > et al. (2000) study, Bone & Farres (2001) surveyed the literature and found that the rate of selection at low [CO2] was among the fastest rates reported for a novel global change factor, based on both rates of change over time (yr) and generation number. Taken together, these studies show that low [CO2] can act as a strong selective agent on C3 plants, and suggests that single generation studies may not be fully representative of the responses of glacial plants to low [CO2]. Plant responses to low [CO2] of the past Laci M. Gerhart and Joy K. Ward Department of Ecology & Evolutionary Biology, University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS 66045, USA ---
**Author:** ![vivalostwages](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/d07c76/32.png) [@vivalostwages](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/vivalostwages)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2014, 4:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-global-warming-skeptics-honestly-see-us-as-a-benign-species/677984/412 "2014-02-11T04:03:16Z")
> [@eg8576736](#): > > In the context of modern industrial life, does anyone claim that these problems are primarily caused by an agent other than Man? > > _air pollution aka smog > water pollution, plus damming and diversion of rivers > deforestation (beavers don’t knock down millions of acres) > overfishing (many ocean species are in serious decline) > ocean dead zones due to agricultural runoff > loss of biodiversity > species extinctions (see “The Sixth Extinction”) > topsoil loss and erosion (often tied to deforestation) > soil salination from over-watering > desertification and dust bowls (e.g. U.S. 1930s) > unnatural chemicals in food and the environment > radiation far beyond natural levels_\* > etc. > > To put it another way, is the species that “can’t be causing global warming” also “not causing” the environmental problems listed above? I see apathy about fixing those problems, but little debate about the species that’s at fault. So it seems well accepted that Man is capable of altering and damaging nature. > > But the notion that little old Man can’t harm big old Earth is common among global warming deniers (sorry, I meant skeptics). Why the disparity on that one topic? Are fossil fuels that sacred? Is it solely about money? > snip.[/SIZE] Some of it is religion-based, as evidenced in this article, which claims that overpopulation is a myth and we don’t need to worry about sustainability: > **[ar-sean-article-population-myth.pdf](https://bjgommesen.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/ar-sean-article-population-myth.pdf)** > > 2.74 MB ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2014, 4:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-global-warming-skeptics-honestly-see-us-as-a-benign-species/677984/413 "2014-02-11T04:06:20Z")
> [@FXMastermind](#): > > Here are a couple of the wild claims that do so much harm to the “global warming movement”. > > First, you just don’t know if any of that is true. Stating it as “truth” is prophecy, not science. It is also against the current knowledge of climate and science. If the expected warming of both the arctic and the winters in high latitudes does occur (it hasn’t yet), **it is expected to decrease many extreme weather events** I always enjoy responding to your fantasies, especially the really wacky ones (I’m still chuckling over “water vapor is a forcing”). Like the “expected to decrease extreme weather events” announcement you just made. Try getting your science from scientific sources: [http://www.climatecommunication.org/new/articles/extreme-weather/overview/](http://www.climatecommunication.org/new/articles/extreme-weather/overview/) [http://ipcc-wg2.gov/SREX/](http://ipcc-wg2.gov/SREX/) [http://www.c2es.org/newsroom/articles/scientific-american-series-extreme-weather-climate-change](http://www.c2es.org/newsroom/articles/scientific-american-series-extreme-weather-climate-change) [http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v2/n7/full/nclimate1452.html](http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v2/n7/full/nclimate1452.html) [http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v4/n1/full/nclimate2065.html](http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v4/n1/full/nclimate2065.html) > [@FXMastermind](#): > > No it is not. Plass mentions this in his paper about the greenhouse theory (the one GIGO has linked to, but obviously he never read). He notes that plants actually evolved in the ancient times when CO2 levels were 10 to 30 times higher than present. He noted that plants grow much faster when supplied with CO2 levels 5 to 10 times higher than current atmospheric levels, and attributed this to the obvious low supply at present, for plants that evolved to live in levels far higher. Apparently you have a reading comprehension problem. What I wrote has absolutely nothing to do with how well plants may or may not do in theory at some higher level of CO2, it has everything to do with sum total of consequences in the real world of those elevated levels – real-world climate and weather, and real-world ecological balances. For instance: [http://www.ipcc.ch/publications\_and\_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch5s5-4-2-1.html](http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch5s5-4-2-1.html) > [@FXMastermind](#): > > In short, you barely know what you are even saying. Coming from you, the master of getting everything wrong, that is a high compliment indeed, thanks. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![septimus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/septimus/32/410_2.png) [@septimus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/septimus)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2014, 12:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-global-warming-skeptics-honestly-see-us-as-a-benign-species/677984/414 "2014-02-11T12:08:01Z")
I don’t think that posters insisting on their cherry-picked 15-year downtrend have experience with real-world noisy signals. [Look at a graph of temperature](http://blogs.ncseagrant.org/coastalclimate/files/2009/10/GISS_GATAnom_01-08.jpg) and see that almost the entire 20th century can be cherry-picked into downtrends! [ul] [li]1901-1913 downtrend[/li][li]1916-1925 downtrend[/li][li]1927-1935 downtrend[/li][li]1939-1972 downtrend[/li][li]1973-1981 downtrend[/li][li]1983-1987 downtrend[/li][li]1988-1997 downtrend[/li][li]1998-2009 downtrend[/li][/ul] Despite that, as this demonstrates, all but a very few years can be placed into downtrends, I ask these posters to eyeball the graph and guess the over-all trend. ---
**Author:** ![Chief\_Pedant](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@Chief\_Pedant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chief_Pedant)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2014, 12:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-global-warming-skeptics-honestly-see-us-as-a-benign-species/677984/415 "2014-02-11T12:55:45Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > Massive property loss and loss of life due to extreme weather events, loss of life from disease and starvation due to widespread crop failures, and a significant reduction in quality of life, just for starters. The earnestness with which you advance this notion is admirable. Hell is around the corner. Preaching it captivates us and it sells. The fact is that our history of successful predictions about doom is not good, and the further out we predict them, the more widely disparate the difference between what we predicted and what happened. With AGW, the enthusiasm now is centered around the Great Cause of salvaging mankind, and a secondary cause of salvaging the planet. The Alarmist mentality is to embrace “massive property loss and loss of life…disease…starvation…crop failures…reduction in quality of life…” and that’s just for Starters! It’s sweet to have this degree of concern, but to the extent that it distracts from the other ways we are chewing up the planet, it is badly misplaced. AGW just happens to be the Cause du Jour that’s successfully captivated us (in part due to fabulous marketing such as lonely polar bears on iceless seas and some sort of inferno blazing across the screen on every AGW documentary lead-in). Now of course, with the marketing message switching to ACC-triggered “extreme” events of any kind, we can find terror in the secret AGW hand brushing us a polar vortex meander–even when we’re freezing our ass off. Risible. Not because Doom cannot possibly happen, but because we cannot possibly predict it accurately. A year ago we predicted an Atlantic hurricane season with an ACE 30% above average. What we observed was an Atlantic ACE 70% below average–the quietest season in decades (and in general the northern hemisphere activity was over 40% below average). Why was the prediction so far off base? Because the experts are stupid? Because there’s a conspiracy toward promoting AGW Alarmism? Because we’re unwilling to create good models that don’t predict Doom? With our human propensity to have observations confirm our bias, it’s not even hard to find those who–retrospectively, of course–can explain how the current variation in temperature is simply a local manifestation of (what once was) “global warming” (now “Climate Change,” and soon to be "All Extreme Weather Events confirming our predictions ((AEWE)). So are all these scientists (and their followers who extend their message into an Alarm) bozos? No. The answer is much simpler. What we are crappy at is predicting. We put into that ACE prediction all of the things which we thought were good indicators (El Nino effects, say) and when the model spat out a prediction that was in line with our general paradigm (AGW is a perp for extreme weather), we were comfortable with advancing it. Only when the reality turned out to be so far from the prediction was it obvious to us that our model had left off half of the factors which turned out to ameliorate the actual outcome from the predicted outcome. I don’t deny that AGW may kill us all. Neither do I raise an alarm about it. It’s an interesting possibility that may turn out to be correct, and it’s a further possibility that some of the effects may be harmful. I do argue that the net effect is quite unknown, and I do argue that its as-yet-unknown net effect is nowhere near at the top of current environmental dangers to the health of this planet. As far as mass psychology, I don’t think we learned much from our last major foray into a Great Cause–Y2K (which I ridiculed profoundly here and elsewhere). We love these Great Causes. We love being the Voice in the Wilderness, prophesying Doom. Read the Rational Wiki on climate change denialism for a good chuckle on just how panicky an AGW Great Cause noviate can become: [“If that becomes the case, we may have little choice but to attempt more extraordinary measures (ie. rapid colonization of space).”](http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Global_warming_denialism) That line made stuff come out my nose from laughing. ---
**Author:** ![FXMastermind](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fxmastermind/32/7289_2.png) [@FXMastermind](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FXMastermind)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2014, 1:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-global-warming-skeptics-honestly-see-us-as-a-benign-species/677984/416 "2014-02-11T13:48:23Z")
> [@Chief\_Pedant](#): > > That line made stuff come out my nose from laughing. Yeah, that site is truly hilarious sometimes. I enjoy the hell out of reading your posts, the only criticism I have is that I rarely feel the need to add anything but praise, since I can’t argue with anything. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2014, 3:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-global-warming-skeptics-honestly-see-us-as-a-benign-species/677984/417 "2014-02-11T15:22:38Z")
> [@Chief\_Pedant](#): > > Risible. Not because Doom cannot possibly happen, but because we cannot possibly predict it accurately. A year ago we predicted an Atlantic hurricane season with an ACE 30% above average. What we observed was an Atlantic ACE 70% below average–the quietest season in decades (and in general the northern hemisphere activity was over 40% below average). Why was the prediction so far off base? Because the experts are stupid? Because there’s a conspiracy toward promoting AGW Alarmism? Because we’re unwilling to create good models that don’t predict Doom? With our human propensity to have observations confirm our bias, it’s not even hard to find those who–retrospectively, of course–can explain how the current variation in temperature is simply a local manifestation of (what once was) “global warming” (now “Climate Change,” and soon to be "All Extreme Weather Events confirming our predictions ((AEWE)). > > So are all these scientists (and their followers who extend their message into an Alarm) bozos? Well, more than once climate people have called that to former tv weathermen like Anthony Watts. What you are ignorantly talking about is that hurricanes are extreme weather events they are not climate. > **[Is extreme weather caused by global warming?](https://skepticalscience.com/extreme-weather-global-warming.htm)** > > \There is growing empirical evidence that warming temperatures cause more intense hurricanes, heavier rainfalls and flooding, increased conditions for wildfires and dangerous heat waves.\ > [@](#): > > Global warming amplifies the risk factors for extreme weather events - and that is all that Climate Science claims. What climate researchers are talking about is that extreme weather events like hurricanes can get worse in a warming world, but if you had paid attention the latest from climate researchers is that there is still more to be investigated to figure out if hurricanes will get worse in a warming world, and that is on top of droughts, extreme floods in places with high humidity and even if hurricanes are less in numbers to expect more intensity thanks to more water vapor in the path of the hurricane. > [@Chief\_Pedant](#): > > We love these Great Causes. We love being the Voice in the Wilderness, prophesying Doom. Read the Rational Wiki on climate change denialism for a good chuckle on just how panicky an AGW Great Cause noviate can become: [“If that becomes the case, we may have little choice but to attempt more extraordinary measures (ie. rapid colonization of space).”](http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Global_warming_denialism) > > That line made stuff come out my nose from laughing. What is actually funny is that you did not get the memo. (and the context of that line is from what could happen if we get to do geo engineering wrong, a strong possibility when you consider many contrarians in power are bound to do the reckless thing instead of the recommended things the experts advise.) What it is really ignorant, and FXMastermind just jumps to that ignorance too, is that on the whole climate scientists are not very confident about what the warming will do to the \*\*number \*\*of hurricanes that a warming world will bring, as I pointed many times before it makes a mockery of the say so that climate scientists are just there for the doom and profit from it, what is really happening is that regarding hurricanes climate scientists are indeed “dropping the ball” regarding the doom “racket”. \*\*IOW this does not fit the contrarian canard that they are only into doom. \*\* What is really happening is that the climate researchers are doing science and contrarians only ponder and get it wrong. ---
**Author:** ![FXMastermind](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fxmastermind/32/7289_2.png) [@FXMastermind](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FXMastermind)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2014, 4:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-global-warming-skeptics-honestly-see-us-as-a-benign-species/677984/418 "2014-02-11T16:35:27Z")
It seems pretty obvious that a lot of cranks latch on to the drama and alarmist mentality the global warmer hysteria brings in ample supply. With really no effort they can repeat mantras and feel smug and superior, with out giving up a single ounce of fossil fuels, with out any sacrifice, with out actually doing anything. Or even knowing anything, and in that it certainly lends itself to a religious like feel, especially when there is zero discussion of practical reality, and any questioning leads to name calling and sneering. The global warmer might want to blame somebody, anybody, but never themselves. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2014, 5:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-global-warming-skeptics-honestly-see-us-as-a-benign-species/677984/419 "2014-02-11T17:18:15Z")
> [@FXMastermind](#): > > It seems pretty obvious that a lot of cranks latch on to the drama and alarmist mentality the global warmer hysteria brings in ample supply. With really no effort they can repeat mantras and feel smug and superior, with out giving up a single ounce of fossil fuels, with out any sacrifice, with out actually doing anything. Or even knowing anything, and in that it certainly lends itself to a religious like feel, especially when there is zero discussion of practical reality, and any questioning leads to name calling and sneering. > > The global warmer might want to blame somebody, anybody, but never themselves. You are talking about others as the clear example of the hurricanes show, if you are still insisting that virtually all experts are saying that, then that is a strawman, the sacrifice is already implied on what experts recommend we all have to do. [QUOTE] In Edinburgh, Scotland, Richard Alley explains that if we start soon the cost of the transformation could be similar to that which was paid for something none of us would want to do without - clean water and the modern sanitation system. [/QUOTE] ---
**Author:** ![doorhinge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a5b964/32.png) [@doorhinge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doorhinge)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2014, 5:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-global-warming-skeptics-honestly-see-us-as-a-benign-species/677984/420 "2014-02-11T17:45:38Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > Well your “obvious answer” is impossible if “valid” is taken to mean the more accurate representation of the impact of CO2, which is what you claim “alarmists” need to re-evaluate. The entire basis of your claim is that the temperature gradient over the past 15 years is not the same as it was in the previous 60, so one of them is clearly a closer estimation of true long-term climate sensitivity than the other. Guess which one it is – based on hundreds of thousands of years of paleoclimate data, energy budget calculations, and the majority of models? The answer shouldn’t be surprising. I think I see where your confusion lies. Eye was discussing the recent plateau/pause in global warming over the last 15 years and shouldn’t be “taken to mean the more accurate representation of the impact of CO2”. **GIGObuster** introduced the possibility that the “pause” didn’t exist. Post 394 - _As people with more experience than the one I have tells it, there is plenty of information to be skeptical that there is a pause_. According to hadcrut4gl and hadsst3gl, the most recent 15 years show there is a plateau (my description) or pause (the agw believers choice because that implies that global warming has only paused in it’s upward trend). Since I was discussing the most recent 15 year plateau/pause, in this specific instance, a 25, 60, or 1000 year chart would be valid because the most recent 15 year readings of hadcrut4gl or the most recent 15 year readings of hadsst3gl would show the same temperature readings regardless of the overall timeframe of the chart. Unless you believe that hadsst3gl uses different readings based on the charts timeframe? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-global-warming-skeptics-honestly-see-us-as-a-benign-species/677984.md?page=20) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-global-warming-skeptics-honestly-see-us-as-a-benign-species/677984.md?page=22)