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

[GIGObuster]

@watchwolf49

Basic Republican opposition boils down to who pays? We both know its a bad solution to shut down all the fossil fuel power plants all at once, so what good solutions should we be asking our nanny-state Congress for?

As the experts already accepted that cold turkey is not an option that is also a straw man.

@watchwolf49

Horseshit, that’s just the lazy way out. Whine and complain that someone else has to change their ways.

No, what you demand is unreasonable when there is a resource like the internet, if everyone had the time your request would be possible, but then that is why experts exist, one has to consult them. Of course than one has to conclude that you do not have a clue about what experts should be look at as you do follow what FX posts. The point stands, virtually all experts agree that this is not an issue we can ignore. As Dr. Richard Milne explained, it is the contrarians the ones that are not making any headway were it counts, so like many creationists they are reduced to go to the public, it is then on public forums where they have to make their noise.

@watchwolf49

wolfpup, feel free to say what you’re doing personally to stop CO[sub]2[/sub] emissions, how many gallons of gas do you burn every month?

And again, what you demand here is a fallacy, what he does does not take away from the cites he made and commented to, in reality that is done to avoid dealing with what the experts cited reported there and it is easy to notice that you will not deal with that.

[GIGObuster]

@watchwolf49

Horseshit, that’s just the lazy way out. Whine and complain that someone else has to change their ways.

And besides the bad rhetorical language, I noticed another thing, you are actually demanding that investigative reporters like Brian Deer that investigated a fraud like Anthony Wakefield should never had reported on what discredited Wakefield unless he had become an expert in the field first. Sorry, that is not how the world works, Brian Deer consulted many experts and that is how he came with his expose.

http://www.csicop.org/si/show/autism-vaccine_link_researcher_andrew_wakefield_accused_of_faking_his_data/

Incidentally, even in this message board, I also had to deal with anti-vaccine people and more than once cited the work of the scientists that ended discrediting Wakefield. I did not need to go to the library to read about genetics, DNA or vaccine history.

What you are recommending us to do would be like asking Cecil to stop making the Straight Dope as Cecil is not an expert on everything ;). Sorry for you, but knowing who to consult and what to check for in articles that are available is also a good skill to have.

What you are in practice telling us is that no good information from experts is available out there and if one does not become an expert then one should never post in discussions like this one.

Sorry, me and others can not do that, ignorance does not deserve a break.

[watchwolf49]

@GIGObuster

What you are recommending us to do would be like asking Cecil to stop making the Straight Dope as Cecil is not an expert on everything

The Master is always quick to say he doesn’t know something, a example you should give merit.

I’m sorry, you throw around “experts” like they’re clergy, and demonstrate religious fervor that would make the Pope blush. I understand, why bother to learn when it’s just spam.

Okay, business-as-usual and cold-turkey are out … c’mon … tease up your grey matter and say what you think should be done, and in what order, and who should pay. I’d really love to hear your views about why the free market won’t solve all this. The tufu-puking NPR-listening whackoes here provided tax subsidies [rolls eyes], it worked really well.

[wolfpup]

@watchwolf49

The Master is always quick to say he doesn’t know something, a example you should give merit.

OK, I can’t resist any longer. Of all the sources in the modern world that we rely on for information, the quickest by far to say he doesn’t know something, and to approach all discovery with evidence-based objectivity and innate skepticism, is most likely to be the practicing scientist, the examplar of the scientific method and the willing subject of peer review. That there are crooks and self-serving weasels in every field of human endeavor is a given, but there are dramatically fewer in the scientific disciplines than there are, say, in PR and ad agencies, in politics, or in the boardrooms of corporations.

We see this all the time in the hesitant and conservative tone of published scientific papers, and in the carefully calibrated conservative assessments of organizations like the IPCC.

Those who don’t know this are almost invariably those who are far removed from the practice of science. I’ve had these discussions elsewhere with a few who laid claim to being “scientists”, who invariably turned out to be grunts doing applied science for industry and were about as far removed from published scientific research as a bank teller is from national monetary policy.

@watchwolf49

wolfpup, feel free to say what you’re doing personally to stop CO[sub]2[/sub] emissions, how many gallons of gas do you burn every month?

You appear to have mistaken me for some kind of enviro-nut crusader. Feel free to quote any of my posts where I exhibit any such trait. If you look carefully, my comments are generally directed to trying to keep the science accurate and free of denialist spin and misconceptions, which are often abundant when denialist sources like disreputable blogs or tabloids are being quoted. It’s not surprising, however, that professed denialists consider scientists to be The Enemy, and it’s no wonder that so many hard-working researchers have been and continue to be smeared by the denialist agenda – climate science pioneers and innovators like Michael Mann, James Hansen, Phil Jones, Kevin Trenberth, Keith Briffa, and indeed almost anyone who is well-known enough to have come to the malign attention of the denialist spin machine. Think about that for a minute. If denialists are constantly attacking mainstream peer-reviewed published climate science and its practitioners as The Enemy, then who are their friends? What do they represent?

[GIGObuster]

@watchwolf49

The Master is always quick to say he doesn’t know something, a example you should give merit.

That is what I say too, but as usual you miss it. More than once I have said that not even my opinion is important, what counts is what the scientists conclude and are telling us, we have seen already a contrarian poster try repeatedly to claim that he knows more than the scientists from the organizations he cherry picks the data from.

@watchwolf49

I’m sorry, you throw around “experts” like they’re clergy, and demonstrate religious fervor that would make the Pope blush. I understand, why bother to learn when it’s just spam.

Missing the point, that is done because some folks do not want to learn, specifically they don’t want to learn that most of the points they bring were already discussed many years ago. And that there are resources available to at least check if one is not reinventing the wheel. Your complain here is no different from the one Tim Minchin noticed in that gal Storm.

@watchwolf49

Okay, business-as-usual and cold-turkey are out … c’mon … tease up your grey matter and say what you think should be done, and in what order, and who should pay.

Everyone should, the point is that as Richard Alley reports, the costs are not going to stop civilization.

How to Talk to an Ostrich: "We can't Afford Clean Energy"

http://earththeoperatorsmanual.com/feature-video/powering-the-planet#sthash.SYiQVevc.dpuf

Brazil has sugar cane. Denmark has wind. Morocco has sunshine. China has plans. And America has politics and indecision… But it doesn’t have to be that way.

POWERING THE PLANET is an eye-opening look at some of the world’s most important case studies in smart energy decisions, and a provocative assessment of what it takes to build a sustainable energy infrastructure — a process that spans decades and requires long-term government support.
READ MORE

In Spain and Morocco, large-scale solar farms and individual photovoltaic panels atop tents in the Sahara are beginning to bring the vast potential of the Sun down to Earth. In Brazil, abundant natural resources — Sun, rain and sugar cane — are transformed into efficient, sustainable biofuel, making Brazil the only nation whose cars could keep running if all gasoline were to vanish. In Samsø, Denmark, and West Texas, citizens have taken sustainability — and economic realities — into their own hands by becoming stakeholders in wind turbines; instead of NIMBY, for them it’s “Yes, in my backyard.” In China, the “new empire of clean tech,” we witness a fast-paced, full-throttle approach to multiple sustainable energy technologies, including exclusive footage from GreenGen, the world’s most advanced low-carbon emissions power generation plant.

In a dramatic illustration of the need to cut emissions worldwide and avoid the possibility of an abrupt climate shift, host Richard Alley bungy-jumps off a bridge – and his CGI avatar goes for a wild ride on the “climate roller coaster” to illustrate how precipitously climate can shift when it reaches a “tipping point.” Later, Alley walks us through Edinburgh, Scotland, to address a common concern about renewables — cost — by relating the transition to a cleaner energy system to the revolution in sanitation and public health. It took about one percent of the world economy to develop the modern infrastructure of clean water and indoor plumbing; that’s roughly what will be required to get rid of “another kind of human waste” — carbon dioxide emissions from burning fuels.

But cost is only one factor, in addition to politics and psychology. The last two segments of the program look at dysfunctional energy choices made by the U.S. government juxtaposed with successful local initiatives in Alaska, Baltimore and Kansas. In the words of former head of Shell U.S.A. John Hofmeister, “You need to think of energy in a fifty-year timeframe, and our elected officials are thinking of energy in two-year election cycles. That’s ridiculous.”

@watchwolf49

I’d really love to hear your views about why the free market won’t solve all this.

And here is the derailment again, not what I said, the concerted effort includes also the free market, that is doing wonderful things in this area in part tanks to the few efforts coming from the current government in the form of subsidies.

@watchwolf49

The tufu-puking NPR-listening whackoes here provided tax subsidies [rolls eyes], it worked really well.

Yep, not a surprise that you are a conservative, once again the warning here is that a lot of the information you rely on is misleading you, just like in the case of ACORN they are also misleading a lot of conservatives into dismissing even ideas that will reduce the carbon footprint of many.

Speaking of subsidies they worked really well in increasing the number of solar installations that do save a lot of money to home owners.

Monopoly Utilities Neglect To Mention Billions In Fossil Fuel Subsidies -...

Last weekend, the New York Times took a look at changing GOP perspectives on solar – particularly rooftop solar – as more conservatives embrace renewables. The article highlights rooftop solar-supporting conservatives like Barry Goldwater Jr. and Tom Morrissey from Arizona, and Debbie Dooley from Georgia. The piece describes a shift in GOP attitudes toward rooftop solar, which represents a competitive threat to monopoly utilities:

“One would not expect to see Barry Goldwater Jr., the very picture of modern conservatism and son of the 1964 Republican nominee for president, arguing passionately on behalf of solar energy customers. But there he was last fall, very publicly opposing a push by Arizona’s biggest utility to charge as much as $100 a month to people who put solar panels on their roofs.”

Debbie Dooley of the Green Tea Party Movement emphasizes a point that should be integral to all energy discussions: “The [monopoly utilities] neglect to mention billions of dollars that the fossil-fuel industries have received.”

Yes – conveniently for utilities, they never talk about the tens of billions of dollars in permanent subsidies they’ve received over the past century. These fossil fuel subsidies are entrenched in the tax code. For example, since the US began subsidizing energy, the average annual subsidy has been $4.86 billion for oil and gas and just $370 million for all renewable technologies (Source: “What Would Jefferson Do”).

And as you can see, what continues is a reprehensible subsidy to fossil fuel companies that are seeing record profits, you are right to be upset about subsidies, but you are barking up the wrong tree and it is mostly Republicans the ones that are and will fight to keep those subsidies to the fossil fuel companies in place and remove the ones for clean technology if we let them.

[doorhinge]

@GIGObuster

That is what I say too, but as usual you miss it. More than once I have said that not even my opinion is important, what counts is what the scientists conclude and are telling us…

The global temp isn’t increasing and hasn’t for many years. The IPCC’s feeder organizations are looking for a reason to explain the “pause”. The scientists seem to have concluded that the global temp isn’t increasing and they need to explain why.

[GIGObuster]

@doorhinge

The global temp isn’t increasing and hasn’t for many years. The IPCC’s feeder organizations are looking for a reason to explain the “pause”. The scientists seem to have concluded that the global temp isn’t increasing and they need to explain why.

Already explained and not the point that I was discussing there. This was posted already but ignored, the experts at NASA ans GISS already reported that the warming is still going on.

http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20140121/

NASA Finds 2013 Sustained Long-Term Climate Warming Trend

Posted Jan. 21, 2014

NASA scientists say 2013 tied with 2009 and 2006 for the seventh warmest year since 1880, continuing a long-term trend of rising global temperatures.

With the exception of 1998, the 10 warmest years in the 134-year record all have occurred since 2000, with 2010 and 2005 ranking as the warmest years on record.

NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York, which analyzes global surface temperatures on an ongoing basis, released an updated report Tuesday on temperatures around the globe in 2013. The comparison shows how Earth continues to experience temperatures warmer than those measured several decades ago.

Scientists emphasize that weather patterns always will cause fluctuations in average temperatures from year to year, but the continued increases in greenhouse gas levels in Earth’s atmosphere are driving a long-term rise in global temperatures. Each successive year will not necessarily be warmer than the year before, but with the current level of greenhouse gas emissions, scientists expect each successive decade to be warmer than the previous.

[Budget_Player_Cadet]

@FXMastermind

The scientific evidence says clearly that the great lakes region has been experiencing a cooling trend, of various time frames and degrees, but there is zero chance it is “natural variability”, the buzzword for an anomaly that goes against anything warming. It didn’t matter. Evidence just doesn’t seem to matter to the global warmer. So of course there will be papers coming out blaming the record cold and ice on global warming. And the strident voices of doom will not learn a thing.

Beyond the fact that numerous people have already pointed out how dumb this is, I still have the same advice I had several weeks ago: publish. Take this hypothesis of yours and publish it in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. You think there’s something meaningful to this? Then publish it. Explain the mechanism behind it, compile the data, and put it up for people who are trained to examine this sort of thing to look at. Because you know what? The papers establishing a long-term warming trend went through this process. The papers establishing the polar vortex went through this process. The papers establishing long-term ice loss went through this process. Why should you get a free pass just because nobody here is a professional sci-OH WAIT YOUR SHIT WAS DEBUNKED ANYWAYS.

[GIGObuster]

@Budget_Player_Cadet

Why should you get a free pass just because nobody here is a professional sci-OH WAIT YOUR SHIT WAS DEBUNKED ANYWAYS.

It is worse than that Budget Player Cadet, because someone here is a professional scientist. *

**jshore **is one, and notoriously a few of the contrarians here did not reply to his posts in this thread. So yes, a lot was debunked already, and by a professional scientist no less.

• And one mod that has also told contrarians how debunked they are in past encounters.

[Aji_de_Gallina]

@Budget_Player_Cadet

Beyond the fact that numerous people have already pointed out how dumb this is, I still have the same advice I had several weeks ago: publish. Take this hypothesis of yours and publish it in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. You think there’s something meaningful to this? Then publish it. Explain the mechanism behind it, compile the data, and put it up for people who are trained to examine this sort of thing to look at. Because you know what? The papers establishing a long-term warming trend went through this process. The papers establishing the polar vortex went through this process. The papers establishing long-term ice loss went through this process. Why should you get a free pass just because nobody here is a professional sci-OH WAIT YOUR SHIT WAS DEBUNKED ANYWAYS.

What journal do you recommend?
What funding will **you **be providing?
Do you know what it takes to get published, beyond being right?
You don’t think that peer-reviews journal publish every paper given to do them, do you? Even if perfectly correct.

[BrainGlutton]

@Aji_de_Gallina

Do you know what it takes to get published, beyond being right?

Clearly you don’t.

[Aji_de_Gallina]

@BrainGlutton

Clearly you don’t.

Do enlighten me.

[DMC]

@doorhinge

The global temp isn’t increasing and hasn’t for many years. The IPCC’s feeder organizations are looking for a reason to explain the “pause”. The scientists seem to have concluded that the global temp isn’t increasing and they need to explain why.

Since you keep pretending that the data doesn’t exist, let me repeat
[QUOTE=DMC]
In the last 15 years, we have set 3 records for highest recorded global temperature of all time.
[/QUOTE]
I’d be interested in hearing how it isn’t increasing and yet we keep setting records.

[Budget_Player_Cadet]

@Aji_de_Gallina

What journal do you recommend?

Take your pick. Any reputable science journal with a section on climatology. The higher the impact factor on researchgate, the better.

What funding will **you **be providing?

Are you serious? Why should I fund this? Why should I give a damn? I don’t think his hypothesis holds any merit, others have kindly pointed out how it’s bullshit, and the idea that I should fund him simply because I don’t hold interest in believing his crap without peer review is just phenomenally dumb.

Do you know what it takes to get published, beyond being right?

Having something interesting that we haven’t seen a lot of before (his hypothesis would certainly qualify), having the patience to wait on a reputable journal to publish it, finding the right journal. Nothing here is an insurmountable barrier - countless scientists do it all the time.

You don’t think that peer-reviews journal publish every paper given to do them, do you? Even if perfectly correct.

:rolleyes:

I don’t know what you’re implying here. Are you implying that peer review is an unreasonable requirement for a hypothesis like this? Or that FX’s simply doesn’t cut the mustard?

[FXMastermind]

That has to be a last resort tactic, the “If you think you are so smart you should publish instead of annoying the living fuck out of me with your facts and your science links”. It’s also quite novel. The goal might be to make it stop, but it just sounds like encouragement to me.

Since this topic has become yet another “argument” over “is it happening”, rather than the leading question in the OP, what the hell.

@wolfpup

With a rapidly warming Arctic, the mid-latitudes would be subject to weakened zonal winds and larger Rossby wave amplitudes, causing jet streams to meander and get stuck in fixed positions for long periods and therefore creating more persistent weather extremes.

There is an obvious problem with such flawed logic. We know what happens when there is a warmer arctic, it happens each year. The polar jet streams weaken and move poleward, reducing the extreme weather. It’s when there is a lot of high pressure (cold) air at the pole that we see extreme weather.

Also, this is just one more example of predicting something from global warming, after it has happened. If climate models and predictions from them had actually predicted the extreme cold, and the cooling trend for NH boreal winters, it would be a different story.

I would bet the researchers don’t even realize what they are doing. Arctic amplification is one of the oldest and well known hypothetical mechanisms to predict disastrous warming. It’s a key part of global warming theory. It’s so important, you can’t actually have global warming with out it.

Using it after the fact to explain completely unexpected events and winters and storms and well, pretty much anything can be blamed on global warming. It makes it useless for predictions, for being able to plan ahead.

A warm stormy winter, a dry warm winter, a very cold winter, a disastrous winter, or an unexpectedly mild winter, they are all global warming now. There is no weather than can’t be explained and blamed on global warming.

That’s not science, or even meteorology anymore.

[FXMastermind]

@Budget_Player_Cadet

Are you implying that peer review is an unreasonable requirement for a hypothesis like this?

While flattery and praise will get you a long way, I offer no hypothesis about the cause, I am looking at the effect, or the effects if you will.

Pointing out that GISS offers a free and easy way to look at temperature trends, and you can simply look at the great lakes region, and see a trend towards colder winters, that isn’t a hypothesis, or even a paper. It’s looking at the goddamn data.

You can also crank the time period back to the coldest period and make the trend look like it’s warming. Which is what you usually see. Start with a cold period and you can make the present look warm.

But that isn’t dealing with reality at all.

[watchwolf49]

@wolfpup

We see this all the time in the hesitant and conservative tone of published scientific papers, and in the carefully calibrated conservative assessments of organizations like the IPCC.

There is an even higher standard with textbooks, where the author is expected to start with simple concepts and build them up into the more complex issues. Yet, you would sweep under the rug any posting of these simple concepts, like your post #478, if they don’t say exactly what you want them to say.

@wolfpup

You appear to have mistaken me for some kind of enviro-nut crusader. Feel free to quote any of my posts where I exhibit any such trait. If you look carefully, my comments are generally directed to trying to keep the science accurate and free of denialist spin and misconceptions, which are often abundant when denialist sources like disreputable blogs or tabloids are being quoted.

Yes, you definitely come across as an Eco-Hippie-Commie-Freak. The science you quote is general wrong-by-omission, as though you don’t understand the fundamentals at play. You, dear sir, are not the person to decide which science is accurate nor to decide what is “denialist misconceptions”. John Houghton agrees with me, orbital geometry has a place in this discussion. Yet when I bring this subject up, the Alarmist howl in anger and pronounce me just another “denialist”, or worst, a conservative.

Even Eco-Hippie-Commie-Freaks are open-minded, and they tend to practice what they preach. Your lack of an answer to the question indicates to me that Exxon loves your personal driving habits.

@GIGObuster

Missing the point, that is done because some folks do not want to learn, specifically they don’t want to learn that most of the points they bring were already discussed many years ago.

Avoiding the point, how would you know what was discussed many years ago? I’ve seen many people ask honest questions on these boards and watch you spam them into submission, with material you admit you don’t understand but a “scientist” said it, so it has to be true. You are one of those folks who don’t want to learn, it’s so much easier to just accept the dogma.

“And America has politics and indecision”

Arizona has politics and indecision … other states are already past the “incubation” stage and have profitable tax-paying businesses providing carbon-neutral electricity. Your problem isn’t with the legislature in Washington DC, it’s with the legislature in Phoenix … right in your backyard.

@DMC

In the last 15 years, we have set 3 records for highest recorded global temperature of all time.

Since you keep pretending that the data doesn’t exist, let me repeatI’d be interested in hearing how it isn’t increasing and yet we keep setting records.

There is a scientific consensus as to why Average Global Temperatures are showing a plateau in the past fifteen years. You should probably find out what that is before you repeat your religious dogma. Here’s a hint, it’s a component of climate change that’s not carbon dioxide.

[FXMastermind]

True dat

[GIGObuster]

@FXMastermind

True dat

Not at all, he had to sweep under the rug several items to get flawed rhetoric going.

For example, I approve the local nuclear power plant, also that while we do have local politicians that are loopy I also pointed at several conservatives that are fed up with the inaction and moves by groups like ALEC and support solar power, following the talking points of the fossil fuel industry and power companies they wanted to add huge fees to the home owners adding solar to their roofs, I protested that, they managed to add a fee, but it was a very small one and most reports did agree that it was a disappointment for the old energy and fossil fuel groups.

Fissures in G.O.P. as Some Conservatives Embrace Renewable Energy (Published...

And regarding his jab about local politics in Arizona the reality is that he is wrong, there are still subsidies as several conservatives do moan over here, but on another front they are more panderers than the ones that do believe that nothing will happen, the local experts from the universities also report what almost all climate scientists are advising us, and local politicians are not stopping the recommended local big projects geared to save water as the prediction of droughts getting worse in the future is not rejected.

So, besides showing up once again as insulting **watchwolf49 **still goes for arguments from ignorance, like the one about the science omitting important things after all the evidence presented that they do take those natural forces in to account, first he insists the science **wolfpup **links or talks about omits the natural forces **watchwolf49 **reports, but then watchwolf49 ends by telling **DMC **that scientists agree that those natural forces are acknowledged by the scientists. :rolleyes:

Contradiction is the rule for the contrarian.

[FXMastermind]

Nope. You are still quite wrong in most regards.