Do global warming "skeptics" honestly see us as a benign species?

[GIGObuster]

@brazil84

I assume that by “anthropomorphic global warming hypothesis,” you are mean “global warming caused by humans.”

If so, dire consequences are certainly NOT easily foreseeable. In the past there have been many instances natural warming without dire consequences. For example, the Earth’s emergence from the Little Ice Age.

An impact in a car going at 20 kilometers per hour is not as bad as one where you are going at 80 now.

@brazil84

A rational reader would ask for the evidence and argument that global warming caused by humans necessarily entails dire consequences.

Nah, rational readers realized for a long time that contrarians are the ones minimizing the problem, and they are the ones that are recommending us to get into a car and not to use seat belts.

http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/40652.html

The IPCC’s conservatism is not confined to people’s perceptions but extends to the physical climate as well. The planet’s climate is changing more rapidly than anticipated by the IPCC: According to a recent peer-reviewed analysis by Professors Freudenburgs and Muselli of the University of California, nearly 90 per cent of all reports about new scientific findings since the IPCC’s 2007 assessment reveal global climate disruption to be worse, and progressing more rapidly, than expected.

This, then, is the crux of the matter that is too often overlooked or ignored: Uncertainty cuts both ways. Uncertainty means things could be worse, or indeed far worse, than the generally conservative assessment of the state of the climate provided by the IPCC and other bodies, such as the recent document published by the UK’s Royal Society.

Uncertainty doesn’t mean we needn’t worry - because uncertainty also means that things could be worse than anticipated.

Anyone who argues that we need not act on climate change because of uncertainty is really inviting you come along for a ride into a brick wall at 80 km/h because it might hurt only a little.

Are you feeling lucky?

[wolfpup]

@Chief_Pedant

Perhaps, like me, they are skeptical that AGW ranks particularly high among all the insults to Gaia that you mention (and many more you do not).

In a word, we humans are going to consume the earth, one way or another, and AGW is a relatively trivial concern from an environmental perspective.

That is a variant of the “I personally believe that…” as previously stated by Brazil84 – that is, it is stated without basis in a domain in which facts matter and unsubstantiated opinions do not. What matters is the measured amount of net new CO2 in the carbon cycle from anthropogenic causes, its continuing rate of accumulation, and the consequent rapid and destabilizing changes in climate that this will inevitably cause over the long term – with consequent large risks both to the balance and diversity of the ecosystem and to damage and disruption from extreme weather events and sustained local climate changes. While many uncertainties exist, these effects have generally been well modeled based on physical principles and past climate history, and extensively documented (e.g.- IPCC Working Group II on “Impacts, Adaptations, and Vulnerabilities”). By no objective and factual criterion would a term like “relatively trivial concern” be justified. That is simply unsubstantiated nonsense.

@Chief_Pedant

Indeed, one of the most bizarre contradictions of AGW alarmism is that alarmists simultaneously care about environmentalism and the human race. You can have one or the other, but not both. If AGW catastrophes do scale us back as a species, that’s a terrific thing for environmentalism in the long run since we are by far the most destructive and invasive species.

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 a couple of years ago highlighted exactly this risk:

Even taking into account the difficulties of comparing the fossil and modern records, and applying conservative comparative methods that favour minimizing the differences between fossil and modern extinction metrics, there are clear indications that losing species now in the ‘critically endangered’ category would propel the world to a state of mass extinction that has previously been seen only five times in about 540 million years. Additional losses of species in the ‘endangered’ and ‘vulnerable’ categories could accomplish the sixth mass extinction in just a few centuries. It may be of particular concern that this extinction trajectory would play out under conditions that resemble the ‘perfect storm’ that coincided with past mass extinctions: multiple, atypical high-intensity ecological stressors, including rapid, unusual climate change and highly elevated atmospheric CO2. The huge difference between where we are now, and where we could easily be within a few generations, reveals the urgency of relieving the pressures that are pushing today’s species towards extinction.

[GIGObuster]

As per the moderator note, the personal issues are over here:

ITT: FXMastermind presents his evidence that climategate was scientifically...

FXMastermind was and is invited already by Budget Player Cadet and others. My complaint and the one from others is there.

[doorhinge]

@GIGObuster

No, what you continue to do there is what is absurd. Stop cherry picking, even woodforthress.org is telling you to avoid misleading yourself by using short timelines.

Wood for Trees: Interactive Graphs

Wood for Trees: Interactive Graphs

Hahahaha. It doesn’t matter which chart (hadcrut4gl or hadsst3gl) you look at, they both show that the recent global temp has plateaued.

The IPCC and AGW believers are still searching for a reason to explain why their previous guesstimations failed to account for that plateauing. The leading possibilities are that the oceans are soaking up the heat or that the trade winds are unusually strong? I wish them the best of luck in trying to explain their previous failures.

[GIGObuster]

@doorhinge

Hahahaha. It doesn’t matter which chart (hadcrut4gl or hadsst3gl) you look at, they both show that the recent global temp has plateaued.

And it doesn’t matter how much you repeat it, scientists already saw this before, back then in the 70’s it was popular media who got it wrong, but most scientists back then still reported that warming was coming. Now mostly the denier media gets it wrong and even more scientists report that more warming will come after this “pause” that once again applies mostly to surface temperatures.

@doorhinge

The IPCC and AGW believers are still searching for a reason to explain why their previous guesstimations failed to account for that plateauing.

Not really, you ignoring what was posted before in this thread.

@doorhinge

The leading possibilities are that the oceans are soaking up the heat or that the trade winds are unusually strong? I wish them the best of luck in trying to explain their previous failures.

Well, among the research institutes and academic organizations they already got explanations from the scientists that are not dismissed as you are doing, BTW as it is clear in your post one explanation that you mention was proposed and the data now supports it, seems that they already did what you claim they did not.

You really need to feel lucky when after a previous prediction of warming coming after a pause came to be, and now even more scientists agree that more warming is coming, so I do not agree with the bet that you are making.

[doorhinge]

@GIGObuster

And it doesn’t matter how much you repeat it, scientists already saw this before, back then in the 70’s it was popular media who got it wrong, but most scientists back then still reported that warming was coming. Now mostly the denier media gets it wrong and even more scientists report that more warming will come after this “pause” that once again applies mostly to surface temperatures…

(shortened for clarity)

Yes, there is an obvious “pause” in global warming. A “pause” that has been ongoing for about a decade and a half. CO2Since 1988, the IPCC has been trying to convince people that man-made CO2 is responsible for global warming, then climate change, and then global warming again when the term climate change failed to convince people that the Pause/Plateau was actually an increase.

[doorhinge]

@GIGObuster

…Not really, you ignoring what was posted before in this thread.

Isn’t it your oft stated position that anyone who questions global warming is ignorant? And should be ignored?

The global temp is either going up or it isn’t. The charts show that the global temp isn’t currently increasing and hasn’t been for a while. CO2 levels don’t appear to be increasing/decreasing at the same time as the global temp. Life goes on but the man-made-CO2-is-causing-global-warming camp just isn’t very convincing. Maybe more definitive evidence will yet be discovered? And hopefully vetted by skeptical scientists as well as the usual suspects.

[GIGObuster]

@doorhinge

Isn’t it your oft stated position that anyone who questions global warming is ignorant? And should be ignored?

Can’t, guys like Inhofe and virtually all republican ignorants that continue to bet with our future means that we can not be quiet and say nothing about the damage that they are doing.

@doorhinge

The global temp is either going up or it isn’t. The charts show that the global temp isn’t currently increasing and hasn’t been for a while.

Not the surface temperatures, but once the oceans are included that is not correct.

@doorhinge

CO2 levels don’t appear to be increasing/decreasing at the same time as the global temp.

And scientists that I quoted already were not expecting that, so once again, just ignorance.

@doorhinge

Life goes on but the man-made-CO2-is-causing-global-warming camp just isn’t very convincing.

Cite for the scientific organization that agrees with that? You may not want to face it, but in reality the evidence has convinced all the important organizations out there, (and this took decades, check the history) the remaining fight is political.

@doorhinge

Maybe more definitive evidence will yet be discovered? And hopefully vetted by skeptical scientists as well as the usual suspects.

Keep telling others to ignore what Muller and his skeptical Berkeley team found. It only tells others how out of it you are.

About Berkeley Earth - Berkeley Earth

From 2010-2012, Berkeley Earth systematically addressed the five major concerns that global warming skeptics had identified, and did so in a systematic and objective manner. The first four were potential biases from data selection, data adjustment, poor station quality, and the urban heat island effect. Our analysis showed that these issues did not unduly bias the record. The fifth concern related to the over reliance on large and complex global climate models by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in the attribution of the recent temperature increase to anthropogenic forcings. We obtained a long and accurate record, spanning 250 years and showed that it could be well-fit with a simple model that included a volcanic term and, as an anthropogenic proxy, CO2 concentration. We concluded that the record could be reproduced by just these two contributions, and that inclusion of direct variations in solar intensity did not contribute to the fit.

We released our analysis, programs and established an open database with all the raw data used in our studies. We believe that now it is our responsibility to communicate our findings, in particular with prominent stakeholders familiar with the reasons for global warming skepticism that Berkeley Earth addressed. Additionally, many programs to mitigate global warming ignore the dominant role that China, India, and the rest of the developing world will play in future emissions; we will investigate and propose new options to reduce emissions in those countries.

[FXMastermind]

@doorhinge

Maybe more definitive evidence will yet be discovered? And hopefully vetted by skeptical scientists as well as the usual suspects.

Global warming 'pause' due to unusual trade winds in Pacific ocean, study finds

[GIGObuster]

@doorhinge

(shortened for clarity)

Yes, there is an obvious “pause” in global warming. A “pause” that has been ongoing for about a decade and a half. CO2Since 1988, the IPCC has been trying to convince people that man-made CO2 is responsible for global warming, then climate change, and then global warming again when the term climate change failed to convince people that the Pause/Plateau was actually an increase.

Oh stop saying silly things…

Global warming vs climate change

Both Terms Have Long Been Used

The argument “they changed the name” suggests that the term ‘global warming’ was previously the norm, and the widespread use of the term ‘climate change’ is now. However, this is simply untrue. For example, a seminal climate science work is Gilbert Plass’ 1956 study ‘The Carbon Dioxide Theory of Climatic Change’ (which coincidentally estimated the climate sensitivity to a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide at 3.6°C, not far off from today’s widely accepted most likely value of 3°C). Barrett and Gast published a letter in Science in 1971 entitled simply ‘Climate Change’. The journal ‘Climatic Change’ was created in 1977 (and is still published today). The IPCC was formed in 1988, and of course the ‘CC’ is ‘climate change’, not ‘global warming’. There are many, many other examples of the use of the term ‘climate change’ many decades ago. There is nothing new whatsoever about the usage of the term.

So to sum up, although the terms are used interchangeably because they are causally related, ‘global warming’ and ‘climate change’ refer to different physical phenomena. The term ‘climate change’ has been used frequently in the scientific literature for many decades, and the usage of both terms has increased over the past 40 years. Moreover, since the planet continues to warm, there is no reason to change the terminology. Perhaps the only individual to advocate the change was Frank Luntz, a Republican political strategist and global warming skeptic, who used focus group results to determine that the term ‘climate change’ is less frightening to the general public than ‘global warming’. There is simply no factual basis whatsoever to the myth “they changed the name from global warming to climate change”.

Global Warming? or Climate Change?

Some claims from climate change deniers are not just wrong, they are silly.

Switching the words “climate change”, for global warming, – is it a devious, Orwellian perversion of the language, a mind controlling neurolinguistic word play engineered by psychological manipulators of the New World Order?.

Climate deniers realize that only they can see through the evil plans of the global thought police.
What mysterious and secretive conspiracy is behind this monstrous mind game? [sarcasm]

[doorhinge]

@GIGObuster

Oh stop saying silly things…

Silly things?

"Yes, there is an obvious “pause” in global warming. A “pause” that has been ongoing for about a decade and a half."

A “pause” that the IPCC/agw zealotry doesn’t seem to be able to provide a “convincing” explanation for. It seems to me that they believe they “know” that global warming is occurring, they just can’t prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. I’m willing to wait for more definitive proof.

As it stands right now (aka today), the average global temp doesn’t appear to be increasing and hasn’t been for around 15 years.

[doorhinge]

@GIGObuster

…Keep telling others to ignore what Muller and his skeptical Berkeley team found. It only tells others how out of it you are.

Your mistaken. I haven’t told anyone to ignore Muller or the Berkeley team.

People should use as much information as possible to make up “their own minds” as to whether or not the UN/IPCC/agw camp has proven that the current “pause” in global warming actually proves that global warming is occurring. No global warming = global warming. Of course, :smack: what could be more obvious.

[FXMastermind]

@doorhinge

People should use as much information as possible to make up “their own minds”

@FXMastermind

Global warming 'pause' due to unusual trade winds in Pacific ocean, study finds | Climate crisis | The Guardian

Even after you “make up your own mind” about the global temperature anomalies, there is the issue of “is it bad for the planet?”

[GIGObuster]

@doorhinge

Your mistaken. I haven’t told anyone to ignore Muller or the Berkeley team.

Then you continue to be contradictory to no end, **accept **that the data was vetted by skeptics already.

@doorhinge

People should use as much information as possible to make up “their own minds” as to whether or not the UN/IPCC/agw camp has proven that the current “pause” in global warming actually proves that global warming is occurring. No global warming = global warming. Of course, :smack: what could be more obvious.

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.

The Real Difference between Skeptics and Deniers

When scientists who are genuinely skeptical see something they don’t understand, they try to understand it. When deniers see something scientists don’t understand, they use it as an excuse to claim that “natural variation has been in control, not CO2.”

As most of you are probably already aware, I’m not convinced there even is a “pause” (read this, and this, and this, and this, and this). You might say I’m geniunely skeptical. Of course it’s possible — but I’m quite confident that there is not sufficient evidence to establish its existence.

That’s what scientists do. When we don’t agree on what’s happening, we try to understand it. If a lot of different possibilities are investigated, well that’s the way it always happens. Eventually, we’ll sort through which arguments are most persuasive and reach at least some measure of agreement. That’s how science works. And it works, bitches.

But not Anthony Watts! He already made up his mind that CO2 is unimportant or irrelevant, so if he finds anything on which the scientific community can’t reach agreement, anything we’re still exploring and don’t yet fully understand, he can recite only one conclusion: that CO2 is unimportant or irrelevant. Do note that he doesn’t reach that conclusion — he already concluded it beforehand. His total skepticism about that is less than zero.

And that, dear readers, is the real difference between skeptics and deniers.

[GIGObuster]

@doorhinge

Silly things?

Anyone, but you it seems is ignoring that it was directed at the repetition of the reheated baloney of the scientists changing the terms from global warming to climate change, and then global warming again.

[brazil84]

@doorhinge

Silly things?

"Yes, there is an obvious “pause” in global warming. A “pause” that has been ongoing for about a decade and a half."

A “pause” that the IPCC/agw zealotry doesn’t seem to be able to provide a “convincing” explanation for. It seems to me that they believe they “know” that global warming is occurring, they just can’t prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. I’m willing to wait for more definitive proof.

As it stands right now (aka today), the average global temp doesn’t appear to be increasing and hasn’t been for around 15 years.

FYI here is a Realclimate blog post from 2008:

RealClimate: 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.

[GIGObuster]

@brazil84

FYI here is a Realclimate blog post from 2008:

RealClimate: 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.

Nice to see brazil84 showing all how wrong he is:

Monthly Climate Reports | National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI)

Currently, the warmest year on record is 2010, which was 0.66°C (1.19°F) above average.

[doorhinge]

@GIGObuster

Then you continue to be contradictory to no end, **accept **that the data was vetted by skeptics already.
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.

The Real Difference between Skeptics and Deniers | Open Mind

Are you saying that Grant Foster, aka “Tamino”, the “Open Mind” blogger has proven that both hadcrut4gl and hadsst3gl charts are WRONG, and possibly ignorant, just because their charts show that there is a 15 year pause/plateau in global warming? A pause/plateau that Foster will not accept simply because hadcrut4gl and hadsst3gl show it does?

It’s little wonder that people find the IPCC and agw zealotry to be unconvincing if stalwart bloggers such as “Tamino” don’t agree with the global temperature charts.

[GIGObuster]

@doorhinge

Are you saying that Grant Foster, aka “Tamino”, the “Open Mind” blogger has proven that both hadcrut4gl and hadsst3gl charts are WRONG, and possibly ignorant, just because their charts show that there is a 15 year pause/plateau in global warming? A pause/plateau that Foster will not accept simply because hadcrut4gl and hadsst3gl show it does?

Not paying attention, even I have commented on the issues hadcrut had, and they are correcting them BTW.

@doorhinge

It’s little wonder that people find the IPCC and agw zealotry to be unconvincing if stalwart bloggers such as “Tamino” don’t agree with the global temperature charts.

More ignorance, the differences are there but not as much that even the MET office that controls those data sets is telling you that the warming has not stopped.

And you still need to accept that the data was vetted by skeptics already, they not only looked at hadcrut BTW.

[doorhinge]

@FXMastermind

Even after you “make up your own mind” about the global temperature anomalies, there is the issue of “is it bad for the planet?”

I’m getting the distinct impression that we’re not supposed to make up our own mind but are expected to believe whatever new version of global warming that is being foisted on us by the IPCC and the agw believers. I guess I’ll just wait for actual proof that the global temp is increasing and that the small percentage of man-made CO2 is responsible for the non-increasing increasing global temp.

If the IPCC can actually prove these points, then I expect the IPCC to tell me what my opinion should be as to whether it’s bad for the planet. And then I’ll make up my own mind based on actual facts.