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

Melchior · February 25, 2014, 2:48am

No, *you *don’t know what a skeptic is. The skeptic starts with the supposition that the other fellow has to prove his case and not just *assert *it. This is why scientific experiments have to show repeatable results from another researcher.

Melchior · February 25, 2014, 2:51am

wolfpup:

What you have shown me so far – and this is why debates with you are such effortless fun – is that you don’t seem to have the first clue about even the most elementary concepts in climate science, let alone any of the more substantive aspects of the subject. When you don’t even understand the basic difference between a climate forcing and a feedback, there’s not much hope for understanding anything else. And when you post a link, it’s usually to a random blog that isn’t even relevant to the conversation, like the one below. And you’ve never tried to defend your egregious errors, because you can’t – you just plow on, making more of them. It’s all very amusing.

Yes, a 5th grade level astronomy blog about variable stars and the sunspot cycle is really relevant to a quantified scientific understanding of post-industrial climate change. There’s another one you might like: “Dick and Jane Visit an Observatory”.

I’ve already discussed the role and limitations of very small TSI variations over time. Then you threw in a digression about UV. I discussed some of the relevant science here. You tried to refute it with a paper that you obviously didn’t read because it confirmed what I had just finished saying. But yeah, we really appreciate your guidance on climate science.

The first statement and the second are mutually contradictory given the quantifiable effect of GHGs. The basic facts are not in dispute. There are legitimate arguments about climate response and equilibrium climate sensitivity, and there will always be unknowns and uncertainties as in any science, but saying that there’s no proof that mankind has altered the climate is just manifestly ridiculous. Unless one defines “proof” as an absolute that no empirical science can ever meet, but that’s just playing semantic games in a bid to ignore the preponderance of evidence.

I question whether ‘climate science’ is even possible.

GIGObuster · February 25, 2014, 3:06am

And Muller did it with his team, things is that he used even more data to compare and verify what other researchers had found.

That is why Muller is no longer an skeptic. What it is denied here also is that the ones that proposed this have not proven their case yet, when in reality they have done so many times already in the paleoclimate front and with the temperature data of the instrumental era.

History shows that most scientists and scientific organizations were skeptical of the mechanisms, levels of emissions and sequestration, it took a lot of effort and evidence to show that indeed this was an issue that could not be ignored and a loot of evidence **reviewed **and checked already to get the almost universal approval of the scientific organizations involved in the issue.

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm

The complacent view that CO2 from human activity could never become a problem was overturned during the 1950s by a series of costly observations. This was a consequence of the Second World War and the Cold War, which brought a new urgency to many fields of research. American scientists enjoyed massively increased government funding, notably from military agencies. The officials were not aiming to answer academic questions about future climates, but to provide for pressing military needs. Almost anything that happened in the atmosphere and oceans could be important for national security. Among the first products of these research efforts were new data for the absorption of infrared radiation, a topic of more interest to weapons engineers than meteorologists.(23)

The early experiments that sent radiation through gases in a tube, measuring bands of the spectrum at sea-level pressure and temperature, had been misleading. The bands seen at sea level were actually made up of overlapping spectral lines, which in the primitive early instruments had been smeared out into broad bands. Improved physics theory and precise laboratory measurements in the 1940s and after encouraged a new way of looking at the absorption. Scientists were especially struck to find that at low pressure and temperature, each band resolved into a cluster of sharply defined lines, like a picket fence, with gaps between the lines where radiation would get through.(24) As Hulburt and Callendar had claimed, the most important CO2 absorption lines did not lie exactly on top of water vapor lines. Instead of two overlapping bands, there were two sets of narrow lines with spaces for radiation to slip through. So even if water vapor in the lower layers of the atmosphere did entirely block any radiation that could have been absorbed by CO2, that would not keep the gas from making a difference in the rarified and frigid upper layers. Those layers held very little water vapor anyway. And scientists were coming to see that you couldn’t just calculate absorption for radiation passing through the atmosphere as a whole, you had to understand what happened in each layer — which was far harder to calculate.

Digital computers were now at hand for such calculations. The theoretical physicist Lewis D. Kaplan decided it was worth taking some time away from what seemed like more important matters to grind through extensive numerical computations. In 1952, he showed that in the upper atmosphere, adding more CO2 must change the balance of radiation.(25)

But would adding carbon dioxide in the upper layers of the air significantly change the surface temperature? Only detailed computations, point by point across the infrared spectrum and layer by layer down through the atmosphere, could answer that question. By 1956, such computations could be carried out thanks to the increasing power of digital computers. The physicist Gilbert N. Plass took up the challenge of calculating the transmission of radiation through the atmosphere (he too did it out of sheer curiosity, as a diversion from his regular work making calculations for weapon engineers). He nailed down the likelihood that adding more CO2 would increase the interference with infrared radiation. Going beyond this qualitative result, Plass calculated that doubling the level would bring a 3-4°C rise. Assuming that emissions would continue at the current (1950s) rate, he expected that human activity would raise the average global temperature “at the rate of 1.1 degree C per century.”(26)

The computation, like Callendar’s, paid no attention to possible changes in water vapor and clouds, and overall was too crude to convince scientists. “It is almost certain,” one authority scolded, “that these figures will be subject to many strong revisions.”(27) Yet Plass had proved one central point: it was a mistake to dismiss the greenhouse effect with spectroscopic arguments. He warned that climate change could be “a serious problem to future generations” — although not for several centuries. Following the usual pattern, Plass was mainly interested in the way variations in CO2 might solve the mystery of the ice ages. “If at the end of this century the average temperature has continued to rise,” he wrote, then it would be “firmly established” that CO2 could cause climate change.(28)

GIGObuster · February 25, 2014, 3:13am

Then you question history too, please read the link in the previous post, there is a reason why scientific organizations are convinced that this is science and that there is a need to make changes.

American Geophysical Union

The American Geophysical Union (AGU) statement, adopted by the society in 2003, revised in 2007,[54] and revised and expanded in 2013,[55] affirms that rising levels of greenhouse gases have caused and will continue to cause the global surface temperature to be warmer:
“Human activities are changing Earth’s climate. At the global level, atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping greenhouse gases have increased sharply since the Industrial Revolution. Fossil fuel burning dominates this increase. Human-caused increases in greenhouse gases are responsible for most of the observed global average surface warming of roughly 0.8°C (1.5°F) over the past 140 years. Because natural processes cannot quickly remove some of these gases (notably carbon dioxide) from the atmosphere, our past, present, and future emissions will influence the climate system for millennia.
While important scientific uncertainties remain as to which particular impacts will be experienced where, no uncertainties are known that could make the impacts of climate change inconsequential. Furthermore, surprise outcomes, such as the unexpectedly rapid loss of Arctic summer sea ice, may entail even more dramatic changes than anticipated."
American Society of Agronomy, Crop Science Society of America, and Soil Science Society of America

In May, 2011, the American Society of Agronomy (ASA), Crop Science Society of America (CSSA), and Soil Science Society of America (SSSA) issued a joint position statement on climate change as it relates to agriculture:
A comprehensive body of scientific evidence indicates beyond reasonable doubt that global climate change is now occurring and that its manifestations threaten the stability of societies as well as natural and managed ecosystems. Increases in ambient temperatures and changes in related processes are directly linked to rising anthropogenic greenhouse gas (GHG) concentrations in the atmosphere.
Unless the emissions of GHGs are curbed significantly, their concentrations will continue to rise, leading to changes in temperature, precipitation, and other climate variables that will undoubtedly affect agriculture around the world.

Climate change has the potential to increase weather variability as well as gradually increase global temperatures. Both of these impacts have the potential to negatively impact the adaptability and resilience of the world’s food production capacity; current research indicates climate change is already reducing the productivity of vulnerable cropping systems.[56]
European Federation of Geologists

In 2008, the European Federation of Geologists[57] (EFG) issued the position paper Carbon Capture and geological Storage :
The EFG recognizes the work of the IPCC and other organizations, and subscribes to the major findings that climate change is happening, is predominantly caused by anthropogenic emissions of CO2, and poses a significant threat to human civilization.
It is clear that major efforts are necessary to quickly and strongly reduce CO2 emissions. The EFG strongly advocates renewable and sustainable energy production, including geothermal energy, as well as the need for increasing energy efficiency.

CCS [Carbon Capture and geological Storage] should also be regarded as a bridging technology, facilitating the move towards a carbon free economy.[58]
European Geosciences Union

In 2005, the Divisions of Atmospheric and Climate Sciences of the European Geosciences Union (EGU) issued a position statement in support of the joint science academies’ statement on global response to climate change. The statement refers to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), as “the main representative of the global scientific community”, and asserts that the IPCC

represents the state-of-the-art of climate science supported by the major science academies around the world and by the vast majority of science researchers and investigators as documented by the peer-reviewed scientific literature.[59]

Additionally, in 2008, the EGU issued a position statement on ocean acidification which states, “Ocean acidification is already occurring today and will continue to intensify, closely tracking atmospheric CO2 increase. Given the potential threat to marine ecosystems and its ensuing impact on human society and economy, especially as it acts in conjunction with anthropogenic global warming, there is an urgent need for immediate action.” The statement then advocates for strategies “to limit future release of CO2 to the atmosphere and/or enhance removal of excess CO2 from the atmosphere.”[60]

Geological Society of America

In 2006, the Geological Society of America adopted a position statement on global climate change. It amended this position on April 20, 2010 with more explicit comments on need for CO2 reduction.

Decades of scientific research have shown that climate can change from both natural and anthropogenic causes. The Geological Society of America (GSA) concurs with assessments by the National Academies of Science (2005), the National Research Council (2006), and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2007) that global climate has warmed and that human activities (mainly greenhouse‐gas emissions) account for most of the warming since the middle 1900s. If current trends continue, the projected increase in global temperature by the end of the twentyfirst century will result in large impacts on humans and other species. Addressing the challenges posed by climate change will require a combination of adaptation to the changes that are likely to occur and global reductions of CO2 emissions from anthropogenic sources.[61]

And much more in the link.

wolfpup · February 25, 2014, 3:23am

You need to read what I wrote a little more carefully. Of course the skeptic must require the other fellow to prove his case; however, the scientific skeptic also has the obligation to examine such proof – “evidence” would be a better word – fairly and objectively, and not just throw it out the window without reason because he doesn’t like it.

Such as, for example, stating without basis that temperature records couldn’t possibly be meaningful – where are you going with this? That we don’t actually know that the climate is warming? Your example seems to impute to the compilers of temperature records an extraordinary degree of incredible buffoonery, as if they are totally ignorant of urbanization and urban heat island effects, and as if there are no temperature proxies, and as if there were not in fact many different multiples lines of evidence all concurrently supporting the same case for AGW.

Or, as another example of an evidence-rejecting dogmatist rather than a rational skeptic, someone who refers to Scientific American as a “pinko rag”.

Melchior · February 25, 2014, 3:38am

wolfpup:

You need to read what I wrote a little more carefully. Of course the skeptic must require the other fellow to prove his case; however, the scientific skeptic also has the obligation to examine such proof – “evidence” would be a better word – fairly and objectively, and not just throw it out the window without reason because he doesn’t like it.

Such as, for example, stating without basis that temperature records couldn’t possibly be meaningful – where are you going with this? That we don’t actually know that the climate is warming? Your example seems to impute to the compilers of temperature records an extraordinary degree of incredible buffoonery, as if they are totally ignorant of urbanization and urban heat island effects, and as if there are no temperature proxies, and as if there were not in fact many different multiples lines of evidence all concurrently supporting the same case for AGW.

Or, as another example of an evidence-rejecting dogmatist rather than a rational skeptic, someone who refers to Scientific American as a “pinko rag”.

I used to read it, but not any more. It’s no longer *scientific *and has not been for quite some time. Might as well watch re-runs of Outer Limits.

Steely_Dan_Fan · February 25, 2014, 3:49am

Climate-change denial is like anti-vaccine propaganda: plenty of things are objectively wrong, but these two are objectively wrong and actively kill people.

Being wrong isn’t a crime in and of itself, of course. But conspiracy to commit manslaughter, on the other hand, isn’t free speech: it’s a felony.

Melchior · February 25, 2014, 3:57am

Again, it is fascinating how ardent are the feelings on this issue.

brazil84 · February 25, 2014, 4:26am

They can only be objectively right or wrong if they have a reasonably clear definition. What does “climate-change denial” mean?

Battle_Pope · February 25, 2014, 4:42am

Awesome!

I don’t think I’ve ever seen the creationist argument of Micro-evolution has been observed but Macro-evolution is just a theory! recast in AGW denier lingo before.

FXMastermind · February 25, 2014, 9:34am

Now we have an off topic but very important issue on the debate table.

This is actually a real and defined fallacy, Shifting the Burden of Proof. If you don’t understand what this means, it’s beyond the scope of this topic to explain it to you. But it is a standard of sorts, something in a debate that is beyond dispute itself. (it is a fallacy that challenges opponents to disprove a claim, rather than asking the person making the claim to defend his/her own argument)

Of course, which is why a fallacy like this is an impossible situation. There is no way to counter such a fallacy, the best thing is to expose it.

FXMastermind · February 25, 2014, 9:55am

Which is why I stated I “believe” mankind has altered regional climate, but I can’t empirically prove it. The reason I say we can’t possibly prove man has altered the entire global climate is obvious however.

As a skeptic and a scientist, it’s against my very nature to make claims that I can’t show evidence and reason to support. This wars with my gut levels feelings, and my absolute belief that the BP oil leak in the Gulf of Mexico damaged the earth, and especially in one region.

Prove it? Go ahead and try and sue BP for the loss of shellfish in your estuary, the losses in a wetland, or the absence of an entire species of fish. Good luck with that.

It’s a lot like that with CO2 emissions. In fact, it’s exactly like trying to prove mercury emissions from a coal plant caused your child to have a malformed brain, or to hold a single person, company or government responsible for cancer caused by particles emitted from a coal stack, or a ruined reactor, or even an above ground hydrogen bomb test.

We know from physics and biology that crude oil, mercury or radioactivity from a meltdown all cause illness and loss. That is a scientific fact.

But proving any one thing is caused by global warming, coal exhaust, leaking crude oil, or a fuckton of cesium dumped into the ocean, or exploded into the air, that is almost impossible. Especially since there will be lawyers involved.

This goes back to the topic of course. Does anyone really think that Fukushima is actually harmless? Do the men running a coal mine actually believe man is a benign species? That no amount of burning of coal can even be harmful? Same for every person driving a car or turning on a light. Do you believe you are benign? That your actions aren’t really doing any harm?

And that it is those “other people over there” who are doing the damage?

FXMastermind · February 25, 2014, 11:00am

I would say it;s more like the propaganda and smear tactics of the nuclear industry, or what we see from mercury pollution. Denial and FUD, attacks on anyone who questions anything, and secrecy and lies.

You are eve hopeful of getting somebody to define their terms.

Poisoning the well fallacy.

MrDibble · February 25, 2014, 11:18am

Really? What field?

FXMastermind · February 25, 2014, 11:30am

MYOB

FXMastermind · February 25, 2014, 1:36pm

Let’s assume for argument sake, that is true. that you are correct, and I am actually as clueless as you claim.

Just saying that means nothing. Zero. it is a meaningless phrase. It only tells somebody what you think.

If you want to be right, or prove somebody wrong, or just make a point, then quote the wrongness, then dispute it, refute it, and source why you have done so, don’t waste time and energy crying and complaining.

Also, when somebody makes a good point, don’t just ignore it or handwave or dismiss it. ** This absurd refusal to acknowledge any points from your “enemy” is a terrible tactic**. To defeat an enemy, you must know him.

Intelligence, information, they are the most important things in any war. The alarmists seem to be all about telling us the enemy is wrong. They are evil. They are pathetic. There is no debate.

Well you can say that all day long, it isn’t going to actually do anything, and certainly won’t stop them.

FXMastermind · February 25, 2014, 2:10pm

For example. everyone of your points deserves an extended answer, rather than just ignoring them, And when I get time and energy, I will do so.

I have stated clearly that EVEN IF THE WARMING ISN’T DISASTROUS there is every reason to believe IT COULD FUCK UP THE OCEANS. This is more than enough to be seriously motivated to solve the problem, speaking for myself of course.
I am 100% dedicated to ending the CO2 increase before it reaches dangerous levels.

watchwolf49 · February 25, 2014, 2:38pm

“The most elementary concepts in climate science” start with the dynamics of the system and the energy transfer contained therein. It is through the study of these motions that we can establish climatic normals. There’s a reason climatology is taught at the junior level in college, the student needs the two years to complete the prerequisites which includes basic dynamic meteorology.

Humans have always adapted to climate change, always will.

GIGObuster · February 25, 2014, 2:56pm

No, in this case you have to mind your own, when you pontificate about an issue where you have no expertise, your opinion is as good as any other, and therefore you do need support from relevant experts to get any recognition or to show that you do understand at least the basics of it.

By not going to the relevant experts we then get typical mistakes that are expanded by non experts, and then many people are misled as a result:

(Video from science writer Peter Hadfield explaining how contrarian sources have a big problem when they rely on people that are not experts in a field)

MrDibble · February 25, 2014, 3:09pm

So that’s a “No” on even pretending to back up your claim to be a scientist, then?

It’s really not that hard, dude. I am a scientist*, and I have no problem owning up to my fields if asked. What actual scientist on this board doesn’t?

And you’re the one who brought your status up, you made it our business. Going all Eric Frank Russell now is a bit late, don’t you think?

*well, I did one BSc at Uni and am doing a second now, anyway, I’m not published in journals or anything.

Topic		Replies	Views
Fight my ignorance re: Global Warming Great Debates	45	3090	February 8, 2007
What's all this talk about "Global Warming?" Great Debates	108	10688	December 5, 2009
"Faith based Science" and Global Warming. Great Debates	69	2466	March 19, 2001
Alaskan glaciers and global warming Great Debates	94	2436	August 9, 2003
Global Warming... Great Debates	73	2673	November 10, 2004

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

Related topics