# Global Warming for Dummies **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 30, 2012, 8:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-for-dummies/611172 "2012-01-30T08:44:22Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 12
**Author:** ![JoelUpchurch](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f05b48/32.png) [@JoelUpchurch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JoelUpchurch)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2012, 7:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-for-dummies/611172/221 "2012-02-04T19:37:08Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Not the point. Really, I’m just pointing out that to check the big picture is very important, that and the reports eventually do use regular notation and multiple lines of investigations point at 3 degrees as the most likely outcome of a doubling of CO2. I actually think 3 degrees is a possible answer, although I rate it at upper limit. The uncertainties are such that it can’t measured accurately. As I’ve stated before I have more issues with the economics of the IPCC predictions than the science. C02 emissions forecasts are economic and not scientific. I think we will be hitting peak coal sooner than later. This means that future projections of C02 emissions are way too high. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak\_coal](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_coal) Of course, this isn’t really good thing. This means that countries that haven’t addressed their dependency on fossil fuels are going to experience an economic crises worse than the great depression. ---
**Author:** ![Michael63129](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/3da27b/32.png) [@Michael63129](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Michael63129)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2012, 8:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-for-dummies/611172/222 "2012-02-04T20:17:51Z")
> [@JoelUpchurch](#): > > I actually think 3 degrees is a possible answer, although I rate it at upper limit. The uncertainties are such that it can’t measured accurately. Still, how do you explain the changes during the Ice Age cycles, which are far too large (I am talking about 6C or more) to be explained with such a low climate sensitivity, plus other factors are insufficient to cause such large changes by themselves. The most likely answer is that something amplified the effect of small changes in the Earth’s orbit, and that something is changes in CO2 levels, combined with ice sheets. There is [additional evidence](http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/01/13/207334/science-kiehl-ncar-paleoclimate-lessons-from-earths-hot-past/) for a higher sensitivity as well. Also, current climate projections don’t take into account factors like [methane release](http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/02/17/207552/nsidc-thawing-permafrost-will-turn-from-carbon-sink-to-source-in-mid-2020s-releasing-100-billion-tons-of-carbon-by-2100/) and related feedbacks. > [@](#): > > Even so, in their study, the permafrost is adding more than one billion tons of carbon a year to the atmosphere by the mid-2030s! Note: Methane has about 105 times the global warming potential of CO2 on a decadal timescale (still 30 times after a century), thus that is equivalent to 100 GT of CO2 (3 times the current annual output from human activity); the Arctic has also been [absurdly warm lately](http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/map/images/fnl/sfctmpmer_90b.fnl.html) despite a La Nina influence and I am sure you have seen all of the stories lately about methane emissions. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2012, 9:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-for-dummies/611172/223 "2012-02-04T21:20:28Z")
> [@JoelUpchurch](#): > > I actually think 3 degrees is a possible answer, although I rate it at upper limit. The uncertainties are such that it can’t measured accurately. Not for the studies compared on the previous post. > [@JoelUpchurch](#): > > As I’ve stated before I have more issues with the economics of the IPCC predictions than the science. C02 emissions forecasts are economic and not scientific. I think we will be hitting peak coal sooner than later. This means that future projections of C02 emissions are way too high. > > [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak\_coal](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_coal) Economics are still a science, and we are not talking about just stopping an increase, we are talking about the need of reducing the emissions levels just to avoid going over 2 degrees, peak or no peak. > **[Climate Change: Halving Carbon Dioxide Emissions By 2050 Could Stabilize...](http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/05/090502092019.htm)** > > If carbon dioxide emissions are halved by 2050 compared to 1990, global warming can be stabilized below two degrees, according to a new study by German, Swiss and British researchers. > [@](#): > > Scientists have used a new probability model to calculate how much CO2 our atmosphere tolerates under these target specifications. This1 and another study2, recently published in Nature, produced similar results: From 2000 to 2050, a maximum of 1000 billion tonnes of CO2 may be emitted into the atmosphere. Roughly speaking, today, around one third of this wad has already been shot. > > Like a bath tub > > “The behaviour of CO2 in the atmosphere is best described as a full bathtub,” says Reo Knutti, professor at the Institute for Atmosphere and Climate at ETH Zurich, and co-author of one of the two studies. The inflow of the bathtub is large, but the drainage is small. The CO2 emissions are increasing every year, but the CO2 is only removed from the atmosphere very slowly. To not let the bathtub overflow, the inflow must thus be stopped early enough. “It is wrong to believe that the temperature will remain constant with constant emissions,” says Knutti. > [@](#): > > Budget quickly exhausted > > The models show that there is a 75 percent probability that global warming will not exceed two degrees if a maximum of 1000 billion tonnes of CO2 are emitted into the atmosphere from 2000 to 2050. This number seems high, but 234 billion tonnes had already been flung into the atmosphere between 2000 and 2006. If the emission remain at this high level, or even increase, the budget would be exhausted before 2030. The results show that time to act is short. Knutti is pleased that greenhouse gas emissions in Switzerland in 2007 were 2.7 percent lower than in 1990 but the values continue to be too high: at least a 50 percent reduction is needed worldwide by 2050; the global long-term goal would be less than one tonne per person per year. Currently, some 6 tonnes of CO2 per person are emitted in Western Europe each year, 19 tonnes in North America and 3 tonnes in China – without taking into account grey energy. > > The researchers believe that the next forty years until 2050, in which, according to the study, CO2 emissions must be halved, will be a good indicator of how global warming will develop. “If, in 2050, we find that our measures have been successful and are working, and if we continue to implement them, we can assume that we are on the right track,” says Knutti. > > The study also shows that, if all conservatively estimated available fossil fuels were to be burnt, two to three times more CO2 than allowed for the 2°C target would be emitted. \*\*This only takes into account the fuels which are already known and which are economically viable to extract. The fossil fuels will therefore not run out before the maximum CO2 emission calculated by scientists is reached. \*\* ---
**Author:** ![Michael63129](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/3da27b/32.png) [@Michael63129](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Michael63129)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2012, 10:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-for-dummies/611172/224 "2012-02-04T22:22:02Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > …This only takes into account the fuels which are already known and which are **economically viable** to extract… It is also important to note that the definition of “economically viable” will change over time - shale gas wasn’t economically viable until fracking came along, and the same technique can be applied to shale oil, plus other reserves like Canada’s tar sands are being developed as higher oil prices make them economical (it is true though that conventionally produced oil is at or near a peak, if not already past). I suspect that we’ll wring as much fossil fuels out of the ground as we can if no alternatives can meet the demand\* since the energy content of a barrel of oil is far higher than manual labor can provide, I have heard 25,000 man-hours, equivalent to $250,000 at $10/hour (example [here](http://www.thesustainabilityprinciple.org/definition%20peak%20oil.html)); the same goes for natural gas and coal. \*But there isn’t any reason why they can’t. ---
**Author:** ![JoelUpchurch](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f05b48/32.png) [@JoelUpchurch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JoelUpchurch)\ **Post date:** [February 5, 2012, 7:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-for-dummies/611172/225 "2012-02-05T19:18:33Z")
> [@Michael63129](#): > > Still, how do you explain the changes during the Ice Age cycles, which are far too large (I am talking about 6C or more) to be explained with such a low climate sensitivity, plus other factors are insufficient to cause such large changes by themselves. The most likely answer is that something amplified the effect of small changes in the Earth’s orbit, and that something is changes in CO2 levels, combined with ice sheets. There is [additional evidence](http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/01/13/207334/science-kiehl-ncar-paleoclimate-lessons-from-earths-hot-past/) for a higher sensitivity as well. Also, current climate projections don’t take into account factors like [methane release](http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/02/17/207552/nsidc-thawing-permafrost-will-turn-from-carbon-sink-to-source-in-mid-2020s-releasing-100-billion-tons-of-carbon-by-2100/) and related feedbacks. > > Note: Methane has about 105 times the global warming potential of CO2 on a decadal timescale (still 30 times after a century), thus that is equivalent to 100 GT of CO2 (3 times the current annual output from human activity); the Arctic has also been [absurdly warm lately](http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/map/images/fnl/sfctmpmer_90b.fnl.html) despite a La Nina influence and I am sure you have seen all of the stories lately about methane emissions. You seem to be engaged in circular reasoning. The C02 must be causing the climate change, therefore it has a high sensitivity. I’ve already addressed why I don’t accept paleo data since it must be inaccurate and incomplete compared to our current data. I’ve already the number of theories that are floating around about the PETM. The whole methane story seems to be an admission of failure of the high sensitivity arguments for C02. There are conceding that C02 won’t cause a great deal of warming and now have found huge hidden reservoirs of methane that will cause warming instead. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [February 5, 2012, 7:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-for-dummies/611172/226 "2012-02-05T19:41:41Z")
> [@JoelUpchurch](#): > > You seem to be engaged in circular reasoning. The C02 must be causing the climate change, therefore it has a high sensitivity. I’ve already addressed why I don’t accept paleo data since it must be inaccurate and incomplete compared to our current data. I’ve already the number of theories that are floating around about the PETM. The experts do not get good reasons from the current skeptics to say they are as inaccurate as skeptics claim. There is a circularity reasoning, but it is not coming from the experts. > [@JoelUpchurch](#): > > The whole methane story seems to be an admission of failure of the high sensitivity arguments for C02. There are conceding that C02 won’t cause a great deal of warming and now have found huge hidden reservoirs of methane that will cause warming instead. No, that is just one of the feedbacks added that allows the experts to report that assuming that just 2 degrees of an increase will the upper range to be really a flawed assumption. ---
**Author:** ![Ludovic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7ab992/32.png) [@Ludovic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ludovic)\ **Post date:** [February 5, 2012, 8:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-for-dummies/611172/227 "2012-02-05T20:46:44Z")
> [@Michael63129](#): > > It is also important to note that the definition of “economically viable” will change over time But “economically viable” is different from “energetically viable”. There’s always a lower limit to the energy cost to extract the remaining fossil fuel, even if the demand is less elastic after a certain point. So even for highly concentrated energy needs, after a certain point, it might be a more efficient use of diffuse/nonmobile energy sources to create synthetic gasoline than to use them to mine extremely hard to reach fossil fuels, even if there are still plenty of known reserves left. ---
**Author:** ![JoelUpchurch](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f05b48/32.png) [@JoelUpchurch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JoelUpchurch)\ **Post date:** [February 5, 2012, 8:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-for-dummies/611172/228 "2012-02-05T20:52:53Z")
My definition of economically viable means that we actually generate more energy than it takes to get it out of the ground, refine it and take it to where it needs to used. You references to tar sand and fracking are proving my point that we are getting closer and closer to the peak. We are having to access less and less efficient sources of energy to keep civilization running. For instance, 1 ton of coal generates about 2,460 kWh of electricity. [http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/energy/question481.htm](http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/energy/question481.htm) If you can’t mine the coal and haul it to power plant for a lot less than 2,460 kwh, then it doesn’t make sense to dig it up in the first place. That isn’t economics. It is phyciscs. When I became interested in climate I started studying energy sources. What I discovered with coal is that it’s Achilles heel is logistics. We often spend several times as much energy hauling coal around than digging it up. A ton of coal in Montana often increases in price by a factor of 5 by the time it gets to Georgia. Half the rolling stock in the United States is used just hauling coal around and a similar amount in China. I realized that we are getting closer when China, the largest producer of coal in the world, started importing coal. [http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/05/30/us-coal-asia-idUSTRE74T2Q220110530](http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/05/30/us-coal-asia-idUSTRE74T2Q220110530) ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [February 5, 2012, 9:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-for-dummies/611172/229 "2012-02-05T21:16:58Z")
> [@JoelUpchurch](#): > > My definition of economically viable means that we actually generate more energy than it takes to get it out of the ground, refine it and take it to where it needs to used. You references to tar sand and fracking are proving my point that we are getting closer and closer to the peak. We are having to access less and less efficient sources of energy to keep civilization running. > > For instance, 1 ton of coal generates about 2,460 kWh of electricity. > > [http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/energy/question481.htm](http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/energy/question481.htm) > > If you can’t mine the coal and haul it to power plant for a lot less than 2,460 kwh, then it doesn’t make sense to dig it up in the first place. That isn’t economics. It is phyciscs. > > When I became interested in climate I started studying energy sources. What I discovered with coal is that it’s Achilles heel is logistics. We often spend several times as much energy hauling coal around than digging it up. A ton of coal in Montana often increases in price by a factor of 5 by the time it gets to Georgia. > > Half the rolling stock in the United States is used just hauling coal around and a similar amount in China. > > I realized that we are getting closer when China, the largest producer of coal in the world, started importing coal. > > [http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/05/30/us-coal-asia-idUSTRE74T2Q220110530](http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/05/30/us-coal-asia-idUSTRE74T2Q220110530) As pointed before, relying on suppositions that this will reduce the release of CO2 before we reach the levels that give us more bad than good outcomes is not a good idea, never mind that as per the news cited the coal will come from somewhere else and used. > [@](#): > > CRANKING UP OUTPUT > > Indonesia’s coal mining companies are already cranking up production to meet the fast pace of demand growth, and the country and Kamandanu forecast the country would produce 340 million tonnes this year up from 320 million tonnes in 2010. > > “All the big guys are increasing their numbers,” he said. > > Bayan Resources Tbk, the country’s eighth-largest coal miner, is projected to more than double its output to as much as 25 million tonnes by 2013 versus last year, said chief financial officer Alastair McLeod. The company’s main focus was on striking long-term supply deal to India, he added. > > Bayan expects to produce 14.5 million to 15.5 million tonnes in 2011, up from 11.9 million tonnes in 2010, he told Reuters in an interview. > > “We started two new mines in 2008 and two new mines in 2009, therefore they have a ramp-up profile over four or five years before they get up to their capacity,” McLeod said. “We’ll be continually ramping up – our target by 2013 is to get to 20-25 million tonnes.” ---
**Author:** ![JoelUpchurch](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f05b48/32.png) [@JoelUpchurch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JoelUpchurch)\ **Post date:** [February 5, 2012, 9:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-for-dummies/611172/230 "2012-02-05T21:42:09Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Not for the studies compared on the previous post. > > Economics are still a science, and we are not talking about just stopping an increase, we are talking about the need of reducing the emissions levels just to avoid going over 2 degrees, peak or no peak. > > [Climate Change: Halving Carbon Dioxide Emissions By 2050 Could Stabilize Global Warming | ScienceDaily](http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/05/090502092019.htm) No economics is not a science in the sense that they generates testable and falsifiable hypotheses. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2012, 1:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-for-dummies/611172/231 "2012-02-06T01:57:41Z")
> [@JoelUpchurch](#): > > No economics is not a science in the sense that they generates testable and falsifiable hypotheses. Uh, like if several theories of theirs were not falsified on the latest economical meltdown, it may be dismal or “soft science”, but it is a science nevertheless as one can check the theories, new ones then come forth over the failed ones. As mentioned, there is very little to assume they are not using good evidence to report that it is very unlikely that a coal peak will be there to save us, a peak that will manifest itself and with such a strength that it would reduce emissions by half in 40 years so we will be at safe levels. ---
**Author:** ![John\_DiFool](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_difool/32/19543_2.png) [@John\_DiFool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_DiFool)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2012, 2:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-for-dummies/611172/232 "2012-02-06T14:27:15Z")
[Relevant Doonesbury cartoon today](http://www.gocomics.com/doonesbury#mutable_747840). ---
**Author:** ![JoelUpchurch](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f05b48/32.png) [@JoelUpchurch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JoelUpchurch)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2012, 6:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-for-dummies/611172/233 "2012-02-06T18:33:44Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Uh, like if several theories of theirs were not falsified on the latest economical meltdown, it may be dismal or “soft science”, but it is a science nevertheless as one can check the theories, new ones then come forth over the failed ones. > > As mentioned, there is very little to assume they are not using good evidence to report that it is very unlikely that a coal peak will be there to save us, a peak that will manifest itself and with such a strength that it would reduce emissions by half in 40 years so we will be at safe levels. You need actually read the IPCC reports. They are assuming **increasing** consumption of fossil fuel. I don’t expect any decrease in C02 emissions, but they should start flattening out. Real change will start when people realize that nuclear power is actually cheaper than fossil fuels. It is obvious that the Chinese government believes in peak coal. They are doing everything they can to ramp up their production of nuclear power. Their own projections are that their own emissions of greenhouse will level out between 2040 and 2050. ---
**Author:** ![chappy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/b3f665/32.png) [@chappy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/chappy)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2012, 6:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-for-dummies/611172/234 "2012-02-08T06:29:57Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > 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. I think it’s pretty well established that the earth is going through a warming cycle; just look at the arctic and many of the glaciers that are rapidly disappearing. However I don’t think that the politicians and scientific community have presented real evidence of human causation, at least to a significant degree. It seems that our efforts should be focused toward planning for the inevitable disaster by protecting the coastal areas and cities (similar to the Dutch) as well as pre-planning possible relocation for a large part of the population. The real issue is the proposed carbon tax. Most of the population is painfully aware that this tax would be a licence to steal on a massive scale. There could never be evidence that the reduction of CO2 had been effective in reducing or slowing temperature increases. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2012, 1:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-for-dummies/611172/235 "2012-02-08T13:40:28Z")
> [@chappy](#): > > I think it’s pretty well established that the earth is going through a warming cycle; just look at the arctic and many of the glaciers that are rapidly disappearing. However I don’t think that the politicians and scientific community have presented real evidence of human causation, at least to a significant degree. It seems that our efforts should be focused toward planning for the inevitable disaster by protecting the coastal areas and cities (similar to the Dutch) > as well as pre-planning possible relocation for a large part of the population. The real issue is the proposed carbon tax. Most of the population is painfully aware that this tax would be a licence to steal on a massive scale. There could never be evidence that the reduction of CO2 had been effective in reducing or slowing temperature increases. > **[Empirical evidence that humans are causing global warming](https://skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-global-warming.htm)** > > \Direct observations find that CO2 is rising sharply due to human activity. Satellite and surface measurements find less energy is escaping to space at CO2 absorption wavelengths. Ocean and surface temperature measurements find the planet continues... > [@](#): > > What the science says… > Direct observations find that CO2 is rising sharply due to human activity. Satellite and surface measurements find less energy is escaping to space at CO2 absorption wavelengths. Ocean and surface temperature measurements find the planet continues to accumulate heat. This gives a line of empirical evidence that human CO2 emissions are causing global warming. As Faynman noted, that is needed in science is something to replace the main idea that is based on the best available evidence; as pointed before, there are no good natural causes that can explain the current warming rise. ---
**Author:** ![Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aji_de_gallina/32/260_2.png) [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aji_de_Gallina)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2012, 5:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-for-dummies/611172/236 "2012-02-09T05:16:39Z")
[Great interview by Germany’s Der Spiegel](http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,813814,00.html) with Professor Dr. Fritz Vahrenholt, [del]a well-known denier who’s always been against preserving the environment and a hater of science[/del], sorry a leading researcher in alternative fuels and long time environmentalist who’s saying that the IPCC is wrong on many counts. I’m sure he rapes blinds orphans for fun, too, but don’t worry, [he’s just a guy with a blog](http://www.rwe.com/web/cms/en/66234/rwe/curriculum-vitae-prof-dr-fritz-vahrenholt/); maybe even was in the same continent as Lord Monckton at some point. Also, [Der Spiegel](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Der_Spiegel)is just a a flier photocoped at some small German town. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2012, 4:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-for-dummies/611172/237 "2012-02-09T16:28:14Z")
> [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > [Great interview by Germany’s Der Spiegel](http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,813814,00.html) with Professor Dr. Fritz Vahrenholt, [del]a well-known denier who’s always been against preserving the environment and a hater of science[/del], sorry a leading researcher in alternative fuels and long time environmentalist who’s saying that the IPCC is wrong on many counts. > > I’m sure he rapes blinds orphans for fun, too, but don’t worry, [he’s just a guy with a blog](http://www.rwe.com/web/cms/en/66234/rwe/curriculum-vitae-prof-dr-fritz-vahrenholt/); maybe even was in the same continent as Lord Monckton at some point. > > Also, [Der Spiegel](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Der_Spiegel)is just a a flier photocoped at some small German town. > [@](#): > > Fritz Vahrenholt, 62, who holds a doctorate in chemistry Yep, no easy pickings. And right out of the bat in his interview he goes for the already debunked point that it has not warmed in the recent years. > **[Still Going Down the Up Escalator](https://skepticalscience.com/still-going-down-the-up-escalator.html)** > > The Escalator, originally created as a simple debunking to the myth 'Global warming stopped in \[insert date\]', turned out to be a very popular graphic.  Going Down the Up Escalator, Part 1 recently surpassed 20,000 pageviews, Part 2 has an additional... > [@](#): > > This is a strawman argument. The claim was not that we can say with certainty that surface temperatures have increased over the past decade (although global heat content has). The point is that focusing on temperatures over the past decade (as the fake skeptics constantly do) is pointless to begin with, and that we should be examining longer, statistically significant trends. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_other_waldo_pepper/32/12370_2.png) [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Other_Waldo_Pepper)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2012, 5:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-for-dummies/611172/238 "2012-02-09T17:09:45Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > And right out of the bat in his interview he goes for the already debunked point that it has not warmed in the recent years. > > [Still Going Down the Up Escalator](http://www.skepticalscience.com/still-going-down-the-up-escalator.html) > > > [@](#): > > > > This is a strawman argument. The claim was not that we can say with certainty that surface temperatures have increased over the past decade (although global heat content has). The point is that focusing on temperatures over the past decade (as the fake skeptics constantly do) is pointless to begin with, and that we should be examining longer, statistically significant trends. I especially like the part where that sentence – and paragraph! – ends right there: saying we should examine longer trends, but of course not going on to say how much longer. Instead, they spell out that a decade isn’t significant, add that a somewhat longer trend would be significant, and then – move on to another point, because, hey, why bother establishing how they could be proven wrong? It’s much more important to simply assert, as usual, that it hasn’t happened yet. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2012, 5:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-for-dummies/611172/239 "2012-02-09T17:25:06Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > I especially like the part where that sentence – and paragraph! – ends right there: saying we should examine longer trends, but of course not going on to say how much longer. > > Instead, they spell out that a decade isn’t significant, add that a somewhat longer trend would be significant, and then – move on to another point, because, hey, why bother establishing how they could be proven wrong? It’s much more important to simply assert, as usual, that it hasn’t happened yet. Watching paint will be as useful, as pointed out before, it is not very likely that we will get to see what you want as they are referring to the tests already made. WE have to act according to what it has already been found, not on wishful thinking. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_other_waldo_pepper/32/12370_2.png) [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Other_Waldo_Pepper)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2012, 5:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-for-dummies/611172/240 "2012-02-09T17:52:35Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Watching paint will be as useful, as pointed out before, it is not very likely that we will get to see what you want as they are referring to the tests already made. WE have to act according to what it has already been found, not on wishful thinking. I merely note, as always, that they take the time to claim a given span of years is insignificant to falsifying the stuff – and then to spell out that a longer span of years would be significant to falsifying the stuff – and then for some reason can’t spare even one moment longer to specify; four words would do it, but they can only be bothered to say that more is needed to prove 'em wrong without, y’know, saying how much more. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-for-dummies/611172.md?page=11) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-for-dummies/611172.md?page=13)