Strawman, the whole post makes the point of not falling for the fallacy of killing the messenger, the omissions and making the report based on an already acknowledged error (you are wrong in your continuous inference that that error was not acknowleged and the correction not used by GISS and others) from the past that was really inconsequential and telling their readers that it can magically apply to the new data and research was misleading, specially when no evidence is presented of an error happening now. Only after that is established is that then it is pertinent to report why the maker of the article is likely doing that.
Wrong again, it is not bad to ask questions, but it has to be taken into account that more capable skeptics than you already did it, and got convinced that there is a problem.
And one should take into account that it was expected by the experts in thousands of years into the future. Not likely to help correct what we are doing to the atmosphere now.
I’m responding to the video you posted. Please listen to about two minutes, starting here:
Then he addresses these naysayers, putting them in two groups, the “cycle”-ists who think it’ll go up and down in a cycle, and the "level-off"ists who think some factor will make things level off.
He ignores those who think that temperatures are rising, and will continue to rise, due to nonanthromorphic factors. Anyone in this camp would refuse the bet.
He goes on to suggest his carbon dumping fee, required bet, and says
I answered that question above. That’s how they can object, without agreeing with AGW scientists. They agree with the “temperatures are rising” bit, but disagree with the “human activity is causing it” part, just as GWB did in his 2nd term. Which is all I originally said, and all I’ve been trying to say.
Do you get the point?
I’m not asking you to yield on the possible viability of such a scheme, just the notion expressed by Boslough that industry should have no objection to it. He’s fulla beans on that point, because he’s ignoring the most likely argument.
I wasn’t arguing with you, I was arguing with the video you posted. Sorry if I didn’t make that clear.
That ok, I see your point, (actually I saw it before) the point I make is that going forward it is not really important that he is humoring the false skeptics from the carbon dumpers, after all the health insurance industry does not care what the tobacco industry thinks, an extra charge is added when someone smokes.
No, you are saying that, I’m only saying that of course it is not likely for polluters to agree, nor as it was likely that the tobacco people would like to be saddled with more taxes and insurance premiums. And really, after seeing him make the “Al Gore did not invent global warming” funny remark, I still think that he was just doing the first part tongue in cheek; but regardless of what he means I (not him) thinks that just as in the case of the tobacco industry, we should not wait for the carbon dumpers to agree.
I would think that my statement that the graph was cherry-picked from Chapter 9 of the IPCC WG1 AR4 would make it fairly obvious that it does. I’ve dealt with the rest of your questions together in the second part of my response.
No, that is the point that is being illustrated, as per the explicit statements made by the researchers actually running the models, some of which I already quoted, rather than your own wishful and incorrect interpretation of a simplistic graph which fails to show the considerable range of observational uncertainties in the underlying data. To repeat the key IPCC statement, from the updated AR5:
The AR5 also endorses this earlier statement from AR4:
… which seems to rather run counter to your wishful and incorrect interpretation that it didn’t.
One might also note that the original graph in question that you seem so obsessed with was taken from the larger FAQ 9.2 Figure 1 in the FAQ entitled “Can the Warming of the 20th Century be Explained by Natural Variability?” in which the very first sentence is “It is very unlikely that the 20th-century warming can be explained by natural causes.”
What you appear to be engaged in here is a confluence of two familiar denialist tactics. One is to create a straw man that implicitly says that the effects of increasing CO2 must be visible as a perfect straight-line consistency from year to year, and then to demolish that straw man when this is turns out not to be the case and demanding that AGW theory must be discarded! I mean, why focus on the first half of the 20th century – why not cherry-pick the period from 1880 to 1910, or 1940 to 1975, by which you can equally “prove” that the effect of anthropogenic CO2 is actually cooling? The reality – as clearly concluded in that very IPCC chapter in which your pet diagram appears – is that the dominant influence of anthropogenic warming in the 20th century is scientifically well established.
The other denialist tactic practiced for fun and profit is to inflate any kind of scientific uncertainty over a specific detail into a grossly exaggerated false claim about lack of certainty in a more general case. Or even worse, somehow turning lack of conclusive evidence into “proof” of the converse, as you have done here. It’s truly astonishing that anyone could think that the IPCC statement I quoted about lack of enough detailed observations in the first half of the 20th century for anthropogenic attribution to be conclusive is somehow proof of the opposite – that anthropogenic causes were NOT a factor, nope, no way, case closed!
How is that an “egregious” error? Is it also wrong to say that last November was globally the warmest November on record? Or that 2013 will likely tie for fourth-warmest? Are the thousands of all-time high temperature records that were broken last year also all wrong?
This is a great example of the FUD I just mentioned previously – take one detail, and use it to try to imply that the entire instrumental temperature record from many different independent sources is therefore wrong, and … here comes the clincher … probably the earth isn’t even warming at all!
Not as much as you may think, but yes, the public has much more distorted notions about climate science than about other, more politically neutral scientific topics that don’t threaten trillion-dollar vested interests. And here is a big part of the reason why.
wow. Your inability to concede the most minor and obvious point really undermines your credibility. You should pay a little more attention to how you communicate. I admit you finally did concede the point, but I can’t believe you didn’t notice yourself belittling everything I said, with rolling eyes and phrases like “What a way to spectacularly miss what bet he is talking about”, while ignoring what I’m actually saying and tilting at the windmills in your own mind.
You are spectacularly missing how you’re coming off. It’s a shame, because you’re a terribly smart and well informed person. I’m done here.
You know, the issue of AGW is so complex that I often see people arguing past each other. By the time one person has gotten a response to his question from one person, he’s moved on and largely not interested in moving back to readdress it (to cries of “WHY YOU IGNORIN’ ME BRAH?!” from both sides).
Since I prefer debate in kind, point for point with opinions on what those points mean, it would be useful if, somehow, we could get a website or note system going to point people to. We could use it to point out the pluses and minuses of both sides. Show where, for instance, everyone is in agreement (e.g. CO2 burns us) and where there could be better research, such as “While these points have solid evidence, this point is lacking” or “More research is needed on this point for plurality.”
It would certainly prove useful in these debates.
As such, does anyone know of a web service or software package that could do this in a usable way?
Of course your point was obvious, but then it is clear that not much willingness to go forward is seen nor it is to look at what it means to go forward, it requires not allowing the polluters to tell us when they will be ready to stop betting. I’m sorry you think that a misunderstanding is more important than the funded nuclear artillery that is tossed at us by the merchants of doubt.
It does like Talkorigins.org does by pointing at the research done to respond to common arguments done many times over by creationists and Intelligent Designers.
Almost all points have 3 levels of explanation, a basic one, an intermediate one and an advanced one. The contrarian myths are arranged by default by how popular they are.
Wouldn’t it be great if we could get sufficient worldwide interest in this topic that we could form, say, an international organization that every five years or so assembled about 1000 of the world’s top climate scientists to provide comprehensive reports on the state of the science that were peer-reviewed by hundreds of other qualified researchers? Reports that provided succinct summaries for policymakers and more comprehensive scientific reports that carefully delineated what we know, what we don’t, relative degrees of confidence, and areas for further research – all carefully cited from the scientific literature? Wouldn’t that be great?
I’ve read that site. The problem is that it takes the activists’ reference of the arguments found and offers no elaboration and keeps the…er…“contrarian” point as simple as possible.
E.g. “I have an issue claiming the end of the world because there an 11,000 year reconstruction that shows it was as high 5,000 years ago without fossil fuels.” becomes “Earth’s climate has varied in the past!” If you are trying to convince someone, as you yourself have probably seen since you seem to relish this sort of thing, you can’t be dismissive of their arguments. Thus, we could curate the actual points, their sources, and other issues. Additionally, activists tend to over-speak the science. Most climate scientists, even assuming we stay on our present course, say that the extreme of doomsday climactic shift by 2100 is probably unlikely. What’s also unlikely is little or no effect (e.g. the damage is done and we can go home and get some whiskey, now). But the wide error bars that the IPCC puts out leaves those ranges pretty much in tact. All the possibilities between those two extremes are present.
So when Wally the Envirowhacko gets on TV and goes “By 2050, hurricane Katrina will happen every 16 minutes!” it discredits the whole idea because that is construed as “climate change scientist” instead of “Wow, that guy bought some REALLY bad pot in Colorado.” That sort of disinformation has hurt the movement as much as anything your Koch brothers fever dreams could conjure up.
Most of the people I deal with, if you bring up any issue that is remotely political they shut down. They are tired of the people that will relentlessly pursue a topic and tend to vote with the side that aggravates them less.
Yes, it is. For scientists or intelligent people with time on their hands. Look at it this way, let’s say you heard that centipedes could be 15 feet long. Would it help if I sent you a four volume printed set of roughly 3,000 or 3,500 pages to read through of scientific literature? No, you are going to look at me like I just peed in your coffee in front of you and then handed your cup back with a smile.
No matter how much awesome it would be if everyone read the science, understood it, discussed it, and participated in the grand scheme of things, that’s just not how it works.
What will really happen is you will spend 15 minutes on Google, find the first thing that affirms your existing beliefs (Look! Hit 74 says they can be up to 15 feet long!) and then be on your way to whatever else you wanted to be doing without any effort. It doesn’t matter that your hit took you to AncientAliens.com/coverups/omgsecretdontlook/aliencritters/centipedes-are-our-masters.html.
By addressing the actual points and any studies that may prop up those points (or different interpretations of those point), you can actually address the concerns that people may have heard from both of the whacko sides of life. The additional benefit is that it can actually address points not covered by climate research scientific literature which is generally ignored by the IPCC in it’s ARs and gives a wide open barn door for every anti-GW conspiracy theory. For example, someone will notice that the IPCC never mentions “nitrogen” and then get all herpidy derp over the fact that they are missing 70% of the atmosphere.
The problem here is that that is not what skeptical science is though, even conservative scientists like Barry Bickmore and Richard Alley recommended it because it is a **resource **to avoid also those envirowhacos as it is the science that is referenced. I only have to say that you are falling for the propaganda the denier sources are using also against resources like Skeptical Science.
You touch on an important issue though, and it is that the normal now is for several contrarians to claim that they do understand the science*, they claim that there will be warming but only at the low levels predicted by the IPCC, the problem is that those low levels are just as likely to become as real as the dire scenarios. (Uncertainty is not their friend)
Sticking to the IPCC it pays to remain conservative and look at the most likely scenario where 2 to 3 degrees of an increase in temperature is coming by the end of the century if not much is done.
The point here is that thanks to many contrarians the mainstream media out there insists that the discussion can only cover the low levels of the increase in warming and the most likely middle of the road scenarios. While it is **conservative **to keep the discussion like that, it should be sobering to realize that just as likely as the low end of the projections it is likely that we will face the high end of them. The problem has been that many contrarians still insist that the most likely outcome that the scientists report is called the alarmist position by them.
*Until we get the same people that claim that to demonstrate that they do not bother to check that their points that they think are show stoppers were actually already used **many **times before and ineffective already; you see, one thing that many miss is that Skeptical Science offers a guideline about what was traveled already, it is like a guide that helpfully shows a junior historian how to avoid looking really silly if they tell their classmates that people thought that the earth was flat until Columbus came along, avoiding that resource only leads to “not even wrong” positions.
And my complaint is that it’s too generic for most people to get on board with.
As I said, let’s go with the 11,000 years study that Marcott did. If you heard from a friend that it proved we are at the same temperature as 5,000 years ago - you can go look at a graph. Hey, there was a plateau for a good chunk of time about 5,000 years ago that was at the same temperature we have, today. Oh, and hey, everyone’s arguing about the plateau of the last 15 years. CLIMATE CHANGE IS A LIE!
If you go to Skeptical Science and look at their “Arguments” page and look for historical context. You have a reference for the MWP at # 27. “It’s a 1500 year cycle” for # 32. “We’re coming out of the little ice age” at # 46. “It’s a natural cycle” at #56. “Solar Cycles cause Global Warming” at # 112. “It warmed just as fast in 1860-1880 and 1910-1940” at #144. That’s all of the “historical” entries on their 174 argument list.
Which one of those as someone looking to confirm or deny their newly found information? That’s right, they’ll go to Google, where they will get the first hit that “speaks” to them and be on their way.
If you want to reach the masses and convince them otherwise, you need to give them the right information in 5 minutes or less without sounding “out of bounds.” That means you can’t talk down to them, make them feel stupid, or act like deniers or activists are the right side. Marketing, hopefully without having to show scantily clad women at a beach.
I would prefer to do this in a way that went “Topic: Short Shorts. Con: We hate short shorts.[1] Pro: We love short shorts.[2]”
[1] A discussion of the study: “Short Shorts Suck” Hoover, 1940 here
[2] A discussion of the study: “Short Shorts are AWESOME” Buffet, 1979 here
and lead them down the rabbit hole that way. But that’s just me.
I’m against neighborhood-level deployment, but not against larger reactors near larger populated areas. I believe my exact words when I brought this up, before, was “coo coo for cocoa puffs”.
It’s dangerous, yes, because some idiot would slide their newfangaled electricimal SUV into the reactor and cause a leak. There could be mitigations to this, such as super-thick shielding or underground installation. But those offer their own advantages/disavantages (e.g. way expensive transport/manufacture or possible undetected ground water contamination - mainly the water mains)
Thorium reactors can’t be made into bombs, fortunately. Even if they were based on something like the Thorium MOX (which is for use in existing reactor cores and not the lower-power generators that would be deployed at a neighborhood-level), there isn’t enough plutonium together inside the rod to create fissionable material without melting the rod down, which is, thankfully, a hefty process to go after.
Waste products would have to be effectively handled, and I can’t trust places like Texas who can’t handle manure storage without letting the facility go critical. I’d be fairly unhappy about some delivery truck knocking over a reactor during the refueling and melding some unlucky (or lucky?) Texan’s hands to their shotguns.
ETA: My coo coo for cocoa puffs statement was actually directed at household installations. They have a few advantages over neighborhood-level deployment, but I’d be fairly reticent to do that, either.
