Global Warming for Dummies

I am not necessarily a denialist, though I do tend to be skeptical of most things I hear or read. I’m also not a climate scientist, so I can not understand tables and tables of data.

It appears to me that the Global Warming Skeptics make a better argument to the general public with simple, easily understood statements such as the natural variability of weather, the difficulty of differentiating correlation and causation, the over-reliance on computer models which can’t possibly take every factor that affects such a complex system as weather into consideration, and, most recently, the statement that the world has not been warming for 15 years: Global warning: We are actually heading towards a new Ice Age, claim scientists | Daily Mail Online

However, those defending AGW continually point towards a consensus among scientists, and then point me toward a bunch of scientific data that I am unable to understand, or make references to specific studies that, as I’m not a climate scientist, I’m not already aware of. A consensus, even of very smart people with good intentions, can turn out in the long run to be wrong.
I really want to believe the scientists, but the skeptics make better public arguments. Remember, I get my information from reading papers, NPR, TV news and from trying to read sites arguing both sides. I don’t read peer-reviewed journals directly. So, please convince an AGW dummy like me that the world is getting warmer and that humans are causing that to happen. (And, yes, I have read previous links on this board.)

15 years ago, the global average temperature was at about +0.25 degrees over the mean. Today it’s about +0.5 degrees.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/Fig.A2.gif

Double check every statistic you hear, that’s the main advice that I would give.

That said, there is a period between 1940 and 1960 during which the global average temperature was fairly stable. I’m relatively certain that’s due to a volcano. I wouldn’t be surprised if there’s another plateau for the next decade thanks to the big volcanic blast in Iceland a few years ago. At that point in time, it would be truthful to state that there hasn’t been an increase for all that time.

You’re absolutely right. AGW advocates are TERRIBLE at PR (well, except Al Gore). Typical AGW conversations in the media tend to go like this:

Denier: Your models are just computer programs. My computer crashes all the time! How can we trust you Mister Scientist?

Scientist: Well, actually, our operating system utilises the latest climatological data compiled by the IPCC and calculates heat vectors in the ionosphere within an error margin of 0.091524% equal to the quadrilateral on a processor with a hypotenuse of 40 teraflops per half hour. So there!

Denier: I’m not convinced!

Scientist: well…okay. Read these studies.

Denier: I have read them. They’re all bullshit! THIS study, which came out this morning, proves the earth is fine!

Scientist: Has it been peer reviewed?

Denier: Has it my cock and balls! You think the truth has a chance of making it into your so-called “journals” Mister Scientist?

Scientist: Well, I’ll have a look at it, although I must say I’m a little dubious. This cover sheet says your study was funded by the Institute For Burning Absolutely Everything, Including All The Really Big Trees.

Denier: Typical of the academic establishment. No argument, just conspiracy theories.

Viewer: I’ve no fucking idea what’s going on, but I need to fill my tank for work tomorrow. I don’t have time for this crap. I’ve got a life. Get back to me when it’s all sorted out.

Well, it is sorted out. The deniers have convinced people that there is a controversy where none really exists. They know all they have to do is continue to make superficially plausible arguments which are comprehensible to the layman and they’ll keep getting invited on to discussion panels or editorial boards to perpetuate this bogus controversy forever.

I’d say, bluntly, what’s wrong with NOT defecating into the villages only drinking well?

For me its simple. Pollution. In the air, in the water, and in the soil.

There are now 7 billion human beings struggling to survive on this planet. A few of us - maybe 2 billion, enjoy clean water, abundant food, and the miracle of 21st century medicine. We are the ones who argue about climate change.

The other billions - the poor, the hungry, the desperate - they don’t even think about climate change. Filling their stomachs takes all of their energy. I watched a woman in India tear a branch off a tree. Momentarily horrified (India doesn’t have a lot of trees in urban areas) it dawned on me that she needed a fire to cook food and found wood wherever she could. It was a profound moment.

We in the West are very good at lecturing the Third World but have no conception of the harsh reality of life.

Personally I think global population and the poisoning of the worlds environment are more immediate issues than climate change. However all three problems are inextricably linked. So if you live your life trying to reduce global warming, your behaviour will be to reduce pollution and that has to be a good thing.

That’s true, but if you were a betting man, would you bet on the people who did something for a living, or your uncle Bill?

Try reading this: About Climate Change – Part 2 « Reason for a New Age

This is what is known as the “attribution question.” It is an interesting and important question, but it is NOT the critical issue in the global warming debate. I wrote about the attribution question here:

I once saw a thing where they had two fishtanks, one filled with a normal air mix, and the other with a much higher proportion of CO2 (but the same pressure).

By the end of the demo, the CO2 tank was warmer, and many of the people watching then said they had changed from being “skeptics” to “believers”.

But of course the fact that CO2 is a greenhouse gas is hardly up for dispute. It shows the level at which the scientific community needs to engage with the public.

Having said that, the public is hardly blameless. A lot of the problem is simply that people don’t want to hear messages that contradict what they’d prefer to believe.

I don’t see where that article says anything about 15 years. Isn’t the claim that 2011 was cooler than '98 – and that '10 was the same as '98, and that '09 and '08 and '07 and '06 were cooler than '98, and that '05 was the same as '98, and that '04 and '03 and '02 and '01 and '00 and '99 were cooler than '98? Add 'em up: that’s only 14 years; until December plays out, we can’t yet make that “not been warming for 15 years” statement; sure as it’s completely irrelevant that we’re already seeing record-setting cold temperatures here and there, it’d be utterly premature to figure that this year will be like the last fourteen.

The Daily Mail? I’d counter with a cite to the Weekly World News, but I figure that when I’m discussing global warming, I should be citing peer-reviewed articles, not tabloid misinterpretations of the letters section of Nature.

Edit: here’s a discussion of the letter in question from a different perspective.

What would you do, Waldo, if the 2012 data came in and found that 2012 was indeed measureably warmer than 1998? Would you:
a) Say, “Son of a gun! There’s something to global warming after all!” or
b) Keep a low profile until the 2013 data comes out, pray that 2013 is cooler than 2012 and say “Neener neener neener! How long do we have to wait for a falsifiable claim that the 2012 record will be broken!”

Scientists involved with evolution have to deal with creationists and after so many years of having to deal with repeated myths, they come with or do contribute to sites like Talkorigins.org.

One should grasp a basic concept here: deniers of the science are all over the map and do not offer a coherent counter theory to oppose the overwhelming evidence found already to support evolution. As time goes by, even new tactics like “Intelligent Design” was explained many times before and with solid evidence, what I do notice is that it does not matter that the evidence is out there and used many many times to debunk misleading information. Creationists count on the public not being aware of **all **the arguments against evolution that have not only old scientifically based replies already made, but even more up to date ones. TalkOrigins exists for that reason.

The analog to deal with global warming deniers is Skeptical Science. with easily understood statements in the basic tabs and if you are interested on more science that explains the myths you can select the advanced tabs.

Now, if one reads the whole article cited, one can notice a very nasty equivocation move, the Daily Mail is virtually making the scientists say that we should not worry about the warming, but the scientists are talking of a far into the future ice age, they are not talking about the more immediate warming. Sure, the report does quote the scientist saying that "the stark findings do not mean we should stop fighting warming. " but that is not what the headline told us, they implied that there is not going to be global warming in the next 100 years and beyond, this article is a wonder of misdirection.

That should be enough to dismiss the report, but then Skeptical Science has the reply ready to deal with the heavily implied misdirection.

As the basic tab quick line reports, worry about the next hundred years and not of a possible freeze in 10,000

As for the cooling 15 year item, that also has several years of data under the belt to be debunked easily.

I apologize, I had the wrong link from the Daily Mail. The one below is the link that states the world has not been warming for the last 15 years, according to data issued last week by the Met Office and the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit:

Forget global warming - it's Cycle 25 we need to worry about (and if NASA scientists are right the Thames will be freezing over again) | Daily Mail Online Forget global warming - it's Cycle 25 we need to worry about (and if NASA scientists are right the Thames will be freezing over again) | Daily Mail Online

Any link from the Daily Mail is the wrong link. If you want a credible conservative British source, at least try quoting the Telegraph.

Minus any “neener neener”, I’d probably do both. (Or I would have, anyhow, if the ‘fifteen years with no warming’ prediction were still on the table; as far as I can tell, GIGO has withdrawn it and no one else has suggested anything like it; the only remaining predictions neither stand nor fall based on what happens in 2012.)

Why, what exactly will you do if '12 is cooler than '98 and '05 and '10, like every other year in between? Won’t you both say “that doesn’t yet disprove my prediction” and also “we’d need to wait longer before the lack of warming can falsify my predictions” – ?

Going down the escalator, this is also old news, The Daily Mail is counting on the misdirection there too, the scientists do not say what the article maker reports, it is on the end that they offer the opinion of a denier to imply that all the scientists are saying the same.

Of course that refers to the very very unlikely falsification of this in the future, as mentioned before, your point is as useful as watching paint dry for the current discussions.

Since 2012 will undoubtedly come in as one of the top 10 warmest years on record, as virtually all recent years have done, I’d say “The data shows yet again that global warming is real”, because I can discern the difference between trendlines and outliers.

Exactly my point: you’ll say that regardless of whether '12 is cooler or warmer than '98 and '05 and '10 – and so I, too, will be unimpressed whether '12 is cooler or warmer than '98 and '05 and '10; for both of us, the only falsifiable predictions on the table can’t be disproven after only fourteen (or fifteen) years without warming.

[QUOTE=GIGObuster]
Of course that refers to the very very unlikely falsification of this in the future, as mentioned before, your point is as useful as watching paint dry for the current discussions.
[/QUOTE]

In that your first prediction is now off the table, and your second prediction is now off the table; they could’ve been proven false in little time, but your latest prediction can’t even hypothetically be proven false before 2017. If the next seven years play out like the last fourteen, I’ll then mention that you’re wrong – unless they play out like the last fourteen months, in which case you’ll likely move the current-discussion goalpost to some fourth position to again make the evidence irrelevant.

Tap dancing, this already has been tested for the previous 60 years, whereas you attempt to deny it, you are either demanding that nothing is done until 2017, or if you still claim that we should do something now, it actually means that the past evidence is taken into account, and therefore your point is a meaningless exercise for the matter at hand.