Sorry for the long delay in my answers, I’ve already burned 5 gallons of gas through my rig this month so I walked to my neighbor’s yard to help him recycle a bunch of framing lumber. We’re big around my community about reducing our “carbon footprint”.
Not sure I agree with Sir Houghton that global warming would kill more people than a full scale nuclear exchange between Pakistan and India. However, I do appreciate his efforts to “think globally and act locally”. I live in the United States and I honestly believe that we can act alone and make a huge difference. We have now a president that is seemingly more sympathetic to this cause, but he’s limited by that goddamn Congress sucking up all that money Big Oil is pouring into their “re-election” campaign. And we all know what’s done with any money leftover when a congressman or senator retires, eh?
Why does it offend you so much that I severely limit my use of fossil fuels for reasons that have nothing to do with global warming? What do you do, personally, to limit your carbon footprint?
Glad you brought that out because many contrarians assume wrongly about what proponents of this do. The fallacy part comes precisely from what you mention here, while contrarians could tell us that they are doing their part that does not mean much when they vote for people that deny the issue and they vote in turn to eviscerate even modest regulations from the EPA and other government bodies.
So in reality it does not mean much what we do individually but as a group; however, in the meantime over here I’m going to invest on solar for my roof, and already I lend my gas efficient car to my brother as he has to drive the longest to work and for the short ride to my work I carpool. I’m also dropped the idea of having a lawn and doing Xeriscaping .
So. If you wanted to claim that personalizing the issue would become a great card to use, that point in reality was a very weak one, there is a lot more that we can do once we get a concerted effort going that does not depend on the inactivity of the blind tea party.
Missed the edit window, but over here in Phoenix the remaining power that I will use at night (as I will use solar during the day) will be mostly coming from the local nuclear power plant that I do support and do not protest against.
Coming up, I will work to elect people that accept the science and fight to defeat the ones that are gambling with our future.
It doesn’t matter how often you say it, that kind of blanket generality is essentially meaningless. Whether we’re lousy at predicting something or not has a great deal to do with what is being predicted, and what kind of data and knowledge we have about the phenomena in question. I’ll say the same thing to you that I implicitly said to watchwolf49, who came up with some bizarre other-worldly interpretation of a quote from climate scientist John Houghton. Instead of other-worldly interpretations or our own unsubstantiated personal hunches, we would be better served by listening to what climate scientists are explicitly telling us, like those who write the IPCC assessments, National Academy of Sciences reports, or as in my example with Houghton, when they speak directly to the public.
So in this post you refer to the IPCC WG II document as “fairly representative language of thoughtful people”, but when I quote key conclusions from the exact same document it suddenly becomes “the kind of gibberish [that I] find so persuasive”. :rolleyes: Perhaps the masses can also pass judgment on who seems to be in the habit of brushing aside as “gibberish” all evidence that doesn’t fit his preconceived beliefs.
The linkage between climate change and extreme weather events which I talked about here is statistical; that is, climate forcings push the odds of extreme events towards higher probabilities. It’s rarely possible to attribute a specific weather event to climate change, and never with absolute certainty, but one can observe statistical trends, and they’re increasingly evident, as per the previous link, or this one.
Is it a coincidence that at this very moment a large swath of the US is recovering from the second hundred-year scale winter storm event within just the past few weeks, while simultaneously the UK is experiencing the highest rainfall and flooding in 250 years of weather records, while simultaneously California is experiencing a 100-year scale drought? Maybe. But we seem to be facing more and more remarkable “coincidences” as the years go by. And since these are exactly the kinds of disruptions that climate models predict, chalking up extreme weather events to random natural causes again and again begins to take on the aura of classic denial.
Here’s the thing about weather. It’s always unusual. There is no such thing as normal weather. Or the temperature always being “average”, it just doesn’t happen. It’s always something, because that is weather. But, lets’ take the following statement and examine a “what if”, it should be educational.
Here’s why the “weather is not climate” mantra counts. If instead, we read
[QUOTE=wolfrub]
Is it a coincidence that at this very moment a large swath of the US is sweltering from a year with out a winter, while simultaneously the UK is experiencing a snow free very dry winter, while simultaneously California is experiencing record flooding? Maybe.
[/QUOTE]
It’s the exact same sort of question, it is meaningless. Completely meaningless, in regards to climate.
(the links are to those exact events, for the scientific minded)
It’s why the “OMG the weather shows global warming” crowd are idiots, extremely uneducated and foolish. Because you can take the exact same sort of question at any time, like “Is it a coincidence that at this very moment a large swath of Europe is recovering from record snow and ice, while simultaneously the UK is experiencing above average temperatures, while simultaneously the north east US is experiencing record flooding? Maybe.”
It means nothing at all. If last year had been epic hurricanes, that would be global warming. If this winter had been mild, that would be global warming. If it was wet in California and dry and warm in England, that would be global warming. It’s pseudo-science. And intelligent people recognize this.
The extreme case of denial is when the staunch warmer insists, or just tells you flat out, that the record cold and snow is most likely from glob al warming. It’s shameless, irresponsible fear mongering, and fewer and fewe people are buying any of it.
And the ultimate insult to science? This sort of thing is done, when the mean temperature for the NH isn’t even high. It’s not actually that warm.
Of course. But tune in when I try to center the debate around the AGW marketing efforts.
Trying to claim all extreme events is one of the things that’s killing it. Even the most naive of polloi can recognize bullshit.
When AGW Alarmists can predict that place X will get extreme event Y, that’s a different story. But claiming all extreme events is just what you predicted? Hilariously lame. Not to mention the silence following the “extreme” event that was the 2013 hurricane season. Extremely non-eventful.
Pardon, but your confirmation bias is showing…
FYI I do think the IPCC are thoughtful people. What I meant by gibberish is that thoughtful people trying to crystallize a weak prediction capacity into generalized outcomes still produces gibberish. They are obviously doing the best they can to spin AGW into disaster but there are so many qualifications in there it reminds of the Aladdin cartoon scene where the Genie shifts into the legal weasel mode after he first appears.
Besides you poisoning the well, the note should be made here that weather is not really the point, but what is in the background, it is weather on steroids.
Not at UCAR and many other scientific organizations, if you are correct then you should point at the science organizations that do think that this is pseudoscience, not holding my breath for that.
And this just another example of “intelligent people” that are seeing a problem with us continuing to use the atmosphere as a sewer.
Full of fail so far from your part as I rely on people like science writer Peter Hadfield. Looking at the popular press is not a good idea as they are also more often than not in the pockets of the corporations that do think it is not a good idea to lose all that advertising revenue.
Not really as most of the world does accept that there is a problem, and even in the USA with the real failure of the media of not informing much about the issue the majority of the people still see that it is a serious or somewhat serious.
Sure, the numbers were better, but other groups like the one from Yale report that the difference is not much lower or higher than it was a few years ago, as the point of how this issue is seen elsewhere (with less partisan ideology) it is clear that the right wing partisan media has a lot of the blame on the lowering of the total numbers.
You mean from the one from the consensus that affirmed that hurricanes were more likely to drop in numbers?
Eventually one has to stop assuming that the ones that go for such rhetoric like the one you show here (and yours was very insulting, good luck on trying to tell others that that was not the case when posting that the ones following that crowd “are idiots, extremely uneducated and foolish.”) is the way to convince others.
I gave you the chance to show others that indeed your side is convincing scientific organizations and groups about this issue being pseudoscience, it is clear that no evidence will come from you.
When important groups that for a living investigate pseudoscience are against the deniers this tell us why you lower yourself into attacking the posters and not to look for evidence about your claim that “It’s pseudo-science. And intelligent people recognize this.” because it is clear that even you are aware of the real score that intelligent people have about this issue.
And then, just like the creationists before, contrarians are finding that even in the courts they are losing the argument and it is clear whose side is going for the defaming insults.
In this case even I pointed early at this: Warming is not the cause of the storms, sorry, but that is the current default position. As usual popular press asks the misleading question, what climate researchers are telling us is that the warming is causing, depending on the location, more drier conditions or causing more water vapor to accumulate in several regions and with more energy it intensifies the damage of the storms that nature continue to toss at us.
What is clear to me is that the Daily Fail once again gets a sincere quote from a researcher and “forgets” to report the rest. It is what it is in the background what is making the storms more intense, the causes of the storms are still more natural, but once again, contrarians are the ones gambling that those causes will remain so the warmer it gets.
There was no doubt that this, like every other topic, would turn into an argument over “is it even happening”, rather than what certain people think about us as a species. So, looking back on things …
It’s not that simple, but yes, certainly there is a divide of epic proportions, especially among educated scientists, about the cause of climate changes, including the ones that aren’t a mystery at all.
The division among the lesser folk is of course many times greater, as it was made an economic and political issue, not a scientific one. The alarmists tried to take the high ground with the infamous hockey stick graph, and some still hold on to it like a sacred text. It might seem like both “sides” want to fight that battle, when in reality it’s not even a real fight at all. There is no possibility that two key claims from the global warmer can be true. The first is that up until some ill defined date climate was gradually getting colder, until man heated things up. Completely false.
The second claim is that the sun has little to nothing to do with climate change.
Those two claims make the alarmists movement a joke to educated scientists, simply because they know they can’t be true. For example, here is a small snippet from a college course, that shows why both claims are false. http://oceanworld.tamu.edu/resources/ocng_textbook/chapter05/chapter05_09.htm Now we return to the quote
You see? If you read the sensible and mundane information from a college class, and compare it to the rabid AGW type, it’s not hard to see the problem here. Not that facts are going to make any difference to the rabid warmer at all.
And that certainly is a valid point, but once again, such real world issues don’t seem to matter to some. They want changes, no matter what. Why? Is it some philosophy at work? Some great belief? The topic asks about the “skeptics”, do they honestly see us as a benign species? What is unstated there, is the belief that mankind, as a species, is some terrible destructive force that is destroying the very world it depends on. Hence the question, do the “skeptics” really believe man is good? Not quite a question about global warming at all. And of course then there is the confusing never ending voice of doom.
I don’t even know what he is trying to say. Seriously.
If it is something about how the free market sucks and we need government control of resources like air, water and oceans, that is quite valid, and important. Does it have anything to do with the topic question? It could. But back to the argument over “is it even happening”.
The alarmists refuses to acknowledge this, much less calm down and take a few deep breathes. In fact, based on the best records we have, the climate for the last three decades (aside from the recent winters) has been far better than it was for the last four hundred years. The alarmists hates facts like that.
Once again, ther point about predictions comes up. Not that facts will matter at all.
Which is the blanket dismissal at it’s core. There is no discussion, just futile attempts to demand everybody get on board the crazy train.
There is the sort of attitude that just makes the real world human dismiss all the claims, because one bad apple really does turn the whole bunch into a mess of methane spewing rot. Like the refusal to even debate the temperature record, or the solar influence on climate, the alarmists digs his own rhetorical grave, then jumps in it. They want to beat you over the head with a hockey stick, and tell you the sun means nothing. That is a serious level of delusion. It’s exactly why a lot of people consider the entire global warming thing madness and politics. They really do. After all the arguments over “is it happening” and “what should we force people to do” are done, we return to the topic.
Yes, why?
Why is the question. No matter what you believe, why is still the question.
Thank you, Gigo, for answering my second question, what is your answer to my first please?
Looks like Phoenix get’s over 60% of it’s electric power from fossil fuels. Over half Arizona’s Congressional Delegation is Republican. I think you go to far accusing me of voting for the nasty, anti-EPA, kill-the-trees Democrat Sen. Ron Wyden … then hold up that Flake as a model of Green Liberty.
“Everything is connected to everything else” … this is true for Ecology, and mostly true for Climatology. Your fallacy is picking just one component and saying it’s the only thing that matters, and without really understanding why that could be. Of course you’re entitled to your opinion, but I don’t think your entitled to spam every climate discussion. We all know what you think, give everyone else a chance to say what they think.
First the text book comes from 2005, most of the data that shows that indeed there is more warming absorbed by the ocean that is not included yet and on top of it, the text you linked too has other companion books that do report in support of the IPCC third report.
As for your tired tirade that educated scientists are against the proponents of what the human emitted gases are the main part of the current warming and the sun is not just there for it, what you are doing here is to toss the few skeptical scientists like Pat Michaels under the bus.
Besides the ongoing insults coming from you, the reality is that you are not able to produce evidence that the most educated scientists agree with you, and there is plenty of evidence that the denial in the USA specially is politically based, coming from the efforts of powerful groups that do want the business as usual to continue.
Once again the sun is taken into account, as Pat Michaels puts it, when the sun finally gets out of the current downward cycle the ones that used the sun as the excuse will only kill the few skeptical scientists out there as they will not be able to even put the usual fig leaves to the nature is the only cause, because as it turns out the sun becoming more active does not mean that the human contribution to the forcing is magically gone, what the sun will get us naturally will be **added **to the warming observed.
I already did, doing a good thing is ok and there is no hate coming for that, but it is relatively useless when conservatives help elect deniers to congress.
Timelines are always a problem for conservatives it seems, the trend is to precisely change that percentage, once again you are pressing on the problem, not the ongoing efforts to solve it.
Wrong, this is not what I think, as usual I defer to the experts, and when even experts that have been called to congress by the Republicans like Pat Michaels can not deny the basics it is then really silly to claim it is just what I think, it is much more than that, research evidence and the experts agree that we have to control our emissions, I still remember how even lukewarmers linked to scientific papers that showed that the climate sensibility was in reality a low one for CO2, but the author concluded that we could only expect the low end of the predicted warming is we controlled out emissions ASAP.
Sure, the text book group FX linked to has textbooks that also advises students to check the IPCC for more information, I have to insist that almost all experts in the sciences, academia and the ones that for a living check for what it is pseudoscience or not agree that we have to control our emissions. We have to prevent even more warming than what is established will more likely come as a result of dumping CO2 and other global warming gases in the atmosphere.
To demonstrate for the 100th time what experts report on the issue you need to see and listen to this entertaining lecture. He also teaches about why the sun is not the main factor in the current warming:
It is one hour long, but it shows the current state of the discussion among scientists. For them there is very little controversy, the analogy here is that one should see climate science like a tree, with all scientists and many skeptics in agreement of what the trunk and roots are (Man-made CO2 increasing, CO2 and methane preventing heat from leaving earth, etc), skeptics (the ones that are really skeptics) criticize the current science that tries to answer questions like how bad and when and where the effects of that warming will hit us.
That is represented by the branches of the tree, as one can notice, cutting the small branches that are bad (glaciers in the Himalayas will not melt by 2030 that was supposed to say 2300 in the IPCC second part of the report that had less review) does not mean that the whole tree should be ignored or cut down… like deniers want to do.
[link jumps directly to the metaphor that starts at minute 10, you just need to watch 8 minutes more to see also why Rick Perry and many republicans in congress look like idiots]
Dr. Milne once again shows that one has to call the people that avoids, willfully ignores, cherry picks, and misrepresent the science what they are: deniers of the human contribution to the current warming. They are not skeptics at all, they are only pushing bad science.
