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

[FXMastermind]

@Chief_Pedant

Essentially, the psychology of AGW reflects human nature: Doom.

Well fuck that. It’s the people that look for advancement, profit and the good of mankind that have made good shit happen. Never the doomsters.

[FXMastermind]

@brazil84

Part of the problem with the debate is that a lot of people refuse to distinguish between these two claims.

Truth

[GIGObuster]

@Chief_Pedant

Is it the case that you think skepticism about our ability to predict means the skeptic is making a claim of mass consipiracy?

I realize that makes an easier case for you to defend, but I don’t think it’s a very persuasive tactic.

Actually you are then supporting posters that will drag down your credibility. Read it again, I do not think you should put your support on someone that dismisses what the experts report, even the experts from the same resources that he is cherry picking from.

[FXMastermind]

@Chief_Pedant

We are lousy at predicting, and we just don’t have a good history at all of successful predictions. We have piddled with weather and hurricane modeling for years, and those models aren’t very good at predicting a month out, much less a year out and much less a decade out.

that is the sort of thing the doomsters just hate to discuss, and for good reason.

No model can predict the past, much less the future. None have predicted anything close to what has happened, and there is no doubt none will anytime in the future.

This is the complete failing of climate models, and it’s why there is so much emotion and denial.

[GIGObuster]

@FXMastermind

that is the sort of thing the doomsters just hate to discuss, and for good reason.

No model can predict the past, much less the future. None have predicted anything close to what has happened, and there is no doubt none will anytime in the future.

This is the complete failing of climate models, and it’s why there is so much emotion and denial.

Meh, the reality is that scientists like to discuss that, because it is the predictions of the contrarians are the ones that can not hold a candle to the ones made by the experts.

Roy Spencer’s Junk Science

The bottom line is that Roy Spencer has been arguing all along that natural variation can cause the temperature to go up or down for a while no matter what the external forcing is doing, and no matter how long the time period, but now he suddenly can’t imagine that this could happen over a single decade!

It’s also funny that Steve Milloy passed on Spencer’s assertions, but then just two days later he was promoting a paper in which Spencer argued that standard climate models are uncertain because “alternative hypotheses for the cause(s) of the warming, such as natural climate cycles or indirect forcing by the sun, have seen relatively little research.” (And of course, Roy cited his book, The Great Global Warming Blunder to support this point.) Milloy likes to label as “junk science” any science that leads to conclusions that might precipitate government regulations, but the fact is that he doesn’t have the expertise to understand the science he pans or the “alternative” science he promotes.

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2013/01/13/the-australians-war-on-science-81-matt-ridleys-20-year-old-wrong-prediction/comment-page-1/

Matt Ridley, in The Globe and Mail, 31 Dec 1993.

Global warming, too, has shot its bolt, now that the scientific consensus has settled down on about a degree of temperature increase over a century-that is, little more than has taken place in the past century.

Actually, the scientific consensus at the time, as summarised by the IPCC was for an increase about three times that. We can compare how the IPCC and Ridley’s projection fared over the next two decades:

FAR_Projection_1024_med

(Graph modified from Skeptical Science)

Given how wrong his prediction was so far, Ridley reconsidered his beliefs. Ha ha, just kidding. Ridley still believes exactly the same thing. And being spectacularly wrong doesn’t stop a pundit from being published. Here is Ridley in the Wall Street Journal and reprinted in The Australian.

Given what we know now, there is almost no way that the feared large temperature rise is going to happen. Mr. Lewis comments: “Taking the IPCC scenario that assumes a doubling of CO2, plus the equivalent of another 30% rise from other greenhouse gases by 2100, we are likely to experience a further rise of no more than 1°C.”

It’s clear that Ridley’s approach to this issue is profoundly unscientific. He ignores twenty years of warming and all the other evidence that has accumulated during that period. The only evidence that counts for Ridley is that which supports his belief that warming will be trivial.

His approach also leads him to misrepresent scientific research. For example, he cites as supportive of his belief, a paper by Michael Schlesinger, who responds that Ridley

is just plain wrong about future warming. Our research shows that global warming will exceed 2C, defined as dangerous climate change, by the middle of this century.

[watchwolf49]

@GIGObuster

Actually you are then supporting posters that will drag down your credibility. Read it again, I do not think you should put your support on someone that dismisses what the experts report, even the experts from the same resources that he is cherry picking from.

What an odd way of looking at things … do you think we’re split up into teams or something. Chief Pedant speaks for himself, I think we all would appreciate if you judged his credibility based on what he says. Why, that’s rude to hold someone responsible for another’s post.

Maybe take off the spamming blindfold and you’ll notice more than one person here.

[GIGObuster]

@watchwolf49

What an odd way of looking at things … do you think we’re split up into teams or something. Chief Pedant speaks for himself, I think we all would appreciate if you judged his credibility based on what he says. Why, that’s rude to hold someone responsible for another’s post.

He made the point that what FX said was not a conspiracy theory, he is wrong to defend that.

@watchwolf49

Maybe take off the spamming blindfold and you’ll notice more than one person here.

You need to present evidence, do you agree with FX that the scientists at NASA/GISS, and other organizations that report that this is a serious issue and the planet is warming that they are “the high paid few [priests]” And so we should not consult them because they are getting paid to mislead all humanity?

That is indeed a conspiracy theory, and one that has been debunked many times before.

[watchwolf49]

Who are you to spam judge right and wrong?

Who are you to decide what is spam conspiracy?

Who are you to spam at all?

[FXMastermind]

@DMC

I bet when 2015 rolls around, they won’t be asking for us to use 15 years as that would be 2000, which was the coolest year in the past 15, but you might prove me wrong. Or not.

How much you want to bet?
http://public.tableausoftware.com/shared/94DHF9NZ7?:display_count=no

[GIGObuster]

@watchwolf49

Who are you to spam judge right and wrong?

Who are you to decide what is spam conspiracy?

Who are you to spam at all?

Well, the refusal to answer is a good clue that there is not much difference then.

[FXMastermind]

This slope was enough to make people fear a coming ice age.

I know the current crop of alarmists want to say that didn’t happen, but they are wrong IMNSHO

[watchwolf49]

0.8ºC in 150 years … we’ve had more asteroid hits since then.

Spam on you crazy diamond.

[GIGObuster]

@FXMastermind

This slope was enough to make people fear a coming ice age.

I know the current crop of alarmists want to say that didn’t happen, but they are wrong IMNSHO

As usual the scientists knew that natural variations could do that, they like in the 70’s saw the same and still most told us that warming was coming. Not cooling. Then as now it was mostly popular media (and the denier one) the people that told and tell us about a coming ice age.

RealClimate: Going with the wind

[watchwolf49]

@GIGObuster

As usual the scientists knew that natural variations could do that, they like in the 70’s saw the same and still most told us that warming was coming. Not cooling. Then as now it was mostly popular media (and the denier one) the people that told and tell us about a coming ice age.

That’s a positive 0.8ºC in 150 years …

[GIGObuster]

@watchwolf49

That’s a positive 0.8ºC in 150 years …

So at the beginning of those 150 years we had the same levels of CO2 then? Seems that the concept of an increase in the levels is what is missing there.

Evidence - NASA Science

Certain facts about Earth’s climate are not in dispute:

The heat-trapping nature of carbon dioxide and other gases was demonstrated in the mid-19th century.2Their ability to affect the transfer of infrared energy through the atmosphere is the scientific basis of many instruments flown by NASA. Increased levels of greenhouse gases must cause the Earth to warm in response.
Ice cores drawn from Greenland, Antarctica, and tropical mountain glaciers show that the Earth’s climate responds to changes in solar output, in the Earth’s orbit, and in greenhouse gas levels. They also show that in the past, large changes in climate have happened very quickly, geologically-speaking: in tens of years, not in millions or even thousands.3

Global temperature rise

All three major global surface temperature reconstructions show that Earth has warmed since 1880.5 Most of this warming has occurred since the 1970s, with the 20 warmest years having occurred since 1981 and with all 10 of the warmest years occurring in the past 12 years.6 Even though the 2000s witnessed a solar output decline resulting in an unusually deep solar minimum in 2007-2009, surface temperatures continue to increase.7

[FXMastermind]

@FXMastermind

that is the sort of thing the doomsters just hate to discuss, and for good reason.

@GIGObuster

Meh, the reality is that scientists like to discuss that, because it is the predictions of the contrarians are the ones that can not hold a candle to the ones made by the experts.

And of course, you refuse to discuss the models. I’m talking about you and the other people here who make claims, but refuse to discuss them.

There isn’t even one model that works, especially for the past events. There are obvious reasons, the biggest being you can’t predict natural variations, volcanoes, the solar cycle, or the effects of clouds, snow or even water vapor. Or pollution, albedo feedback, ocean circulation patterns, wind or what happened with the ozone. This is exactly why none of the models are even close right now. They were, and they are, not able to duplicate what happens.

That is what is avoided, an honest discussion of reality.

[GIGObuster]

@FXMastermind

And of course, you refuse to discuss the models. I’m talking about you and the other people here who make claims, but refuse to discuss them.

In the cite I made it shows that the predictions of the IPCC track much much better than the ones made from contrarians. It is you who refuses to see that.

[FXMastermind]

@GIGObuster

In the cite I made it shows

Like I said, you refuse to discuss.

[GIGObuster]

@FXMastermind

Like I said, you refuse to discuss.

Meh, the observation that you are wrong regarding the models is part of the discussion, that you do not like how the discussion did go is a different issue.

[tomndebb]

@FXMastermind

This slope was enough to make people fear a coming ice age.

I know the current crop of alarmists want to say that didn’t happen, but they are wrong IMNSHO

Really? “People?”

Appealing to the mass media instead of actual scientists for one’s science is rather shoddy thinking. Regardless how lacking in humility your opinion may be, there was never anything like strong scientific support for a new ice age as reported by a few news outlets in the 1970s.