# Is climate change the greatest threat to our planet today? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 22, 2015, 3:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-climate-change-the-greatest-threat-to-our-planet-today/718254 "2015-04-22T03:24:05Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 18\ **Page:** 3
**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:** [April 23, 2015, 5:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-climate-change-the-greatest-threat-to-our-planet-today/718254/41 "2015-04-23T17:22:12Z")
> [@sleestak](#): > > Taking the past predictions and their accuracy into account, I have no doubt that the present set of predictions will be just as bad. Most of them are indeed of the 70’s popular press variety, the problem is that most scientists were not consulted, **most did predict that warming was coming** even if there was a “Pause” and cooling back then. This argument is already a classic crock from the denier media. > **[Classic Climate Crocks Repost: “In the 70s, They Said There’d Be an Ice Age”](https://thinc.blog/2014/02/08/classic-climate-crocks-repost-in-the-70s-they-said-thered-be-an-ice-age/)** > > I’d been doing the Crock series for only a year when I cranked this one out – I really learned a lot on this one, and had great fun doing it. Still a favorite for many, so I hear. > [@sleestak](#): > > There are issues with the science of Climate Change. It is a very hard problem and I am convinced that there is a whole lot going on that the climate scientists and modelers really don’t understand. > > And on the side of actually doing something about our emissions, well, the green movement successfully killed the only real option which scales the way we need it to which is nuclear. > > I will make a bold prediction. In 10 years things may be a bit warmer. However in 10 years the main cause of human suffering on the planet will be the same as it has been for the few thousand years and that is other humans. I also predict that in 10 years we will still be arguing about the exact same things and that, while things may have changed a bit, the coming catastrophe will still be 15 years away just like it always has been. > > Slee Please watch this and learn that your sources lied (and continue to lie) to you in regards to the cap ice not melting or constantly recuperating, the predicted effects of increasing global warming gases are already happening and are bound to get worse the longer we wait from doing a more significant effort. > **[Time-lapse proof of extreme ice loss](https://www.ted.com/talks/james_balog_time_lapse_proof_of_extreme_ice_loss)** > > Photographer James Balog shares new image sequences from the Extreme Ice Survey, a network of time-lapse cameras recording glaciers receding at an alarming rate, some of the most vivid evidence yet of climate change. ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2015, 5:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-climate-change-the-greatest-threat-to-our-planet-today/718254/42 "2015-04-23T17:30:06Z")
> [@sleestak](#): > > Earth Day just passed. Let’s take a look at some predictions from the first Earth Day. I note that not a single one of those quotes is from a climate scientist talking about climate. This is just another attempt to invoke the silly “experts don’t know nuthin’” meme that I dealt with [over here](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=18310906&postcount=31). It’s not a very useful argument. > [@sleestak](#): > > There are issues with the science of Climate Change. It is a very hard problem and I am convinced that there is a whole lot going on that the climate scientists and modelers really don’t understand. I am convinced that you have no idea what climate scientists really understand and what they don’t, what the difference is, and what this means in terms of actionable policy. In fact it’s obvious from your post that you don’t. > [@sleestak](#): > > And on the side of actually doing something about our emissions, well, the green movement successfully killed the only real option which scales the way we need it to which is nuclear. You (and others) need to stop conflating “movements” with science. Nuclear power is an important clean-energy option [that has been strongly advocated](http://www.cnn.com/2013/11/03/world/nuclear-energy-climate-change-scientists-letter/) by many climate scientists. ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2015, 5:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-climate-change-the-greatest-threat-to-our-planet-today/718254/43 "2015-04-23T17:44:56Z")
I don’t think another round of ‘no it’s not happening - yes it is’ is all that useful. To my mind at least, that question is as settled as any question can be. A much more interesting (to me) debate is ‘how bad will it be - is it really the worst probem we have?’ ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2015, 6:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-climate-change-the-greatest-threat-to-our-planet-today/718254/44 "2015-04-23T18:08:30Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > Can’t we also make a case for nuclear proliferation? Widespread hunger? Religious and ethnic hatred? Great power politics that could lead to a catastrophic general war? My orbital moon laser? ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2015, 6:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-climate-change-the-greatest-threat-to-our-planet-today/718254/45 "2015-04-23T18:11:55Z")
Wouldn’t it be awful? I mean, suppose they put oodles of money into research, and we get the one Einstein level genius who discovers the Holy Grail of energy…cheap, green energy for everybody, rivers full of drinkable water and edible fish. subsistence farmers producing enough to ensure they do not starve, all that good shit and then discover…to our horror and dismay!..that global warming wasn’t that big a deal, and we started a golden age of cheap green energy by mistake! The horror! The horror! ---
**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:** [April 23, 2015, 6:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-climate-change-the-greatest-threat-to-our-planet-today/718254/46 "2015-04-23T18:19:50Z")
> [@Malthus](#): > > I don’t think another round of ‘no it’s not happening - yes it is’ is all that useful. To my mind at least, that question is as settled as any question can be. > > A much more interesting (to me) debate is ‘how bad will it be - is it really the worst probem we have?’ Well, as pointed before this is not likely to have no repercussions on the other problems we have to deal with. What it strikes me the overall impression I get from contrarians that on this subject we can not chew gum and walk at the same time, we have and should deal with those issues at the same time. If you think about it, for example, an effort like offering support to poor nations to deploy better energy sources that are becoming cheaper will make those nations to not depend on the whims of dictators or authoritarians that control fossil fuels. That is bound to do a lot to control war. ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2015, 6:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-climate-change-the-greatest-threat-to-our-planet-today/718254/47 "2015-04-23T18:28:33Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Well, as pointed before this is not likely to have no repercussions on the other problems we have to deal with. > > What it strikes me the overall impression I get from contrarians that on this subject we can not chew gum and walk at the same time, we have and should deal with those issues at the same time. > > If you think about it, for example, an effort like offering support to poor nations to deploy better energy sources that are becoming cheaper will make those nations to not depend on the whims of dictators or authoritarians that control fossil fuels. That is bound to do a lot to control war. Well sure, I tend to agree. Just in the context of the topic of this thread, it is an interesting idea to debate the relative ranking of various problems. Rather than, say, a sterile “debate” about whether global man-made climate change is even happening at all - a debate I think is at this point pretty pointless, as it is pretty settled. Naturally, the various problems are likely to be interdependent - and that goes multiple ways: a real all-out great power war is very likely to have terrible environmental effects, even if nuclear weapons are not used; income inequality is likely to lead “have-not” nations to adopt energy policies that are climate-change-accelerators; etc. Deciding which problem is chicken and which is egg is likely to prove somewhat circular. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2015, 2:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-climate-change-the-greatest-threat-to-our-planet-today/718254/48 "2015-04-24T02:49:12Z")
Let’s say that Congress authorized the President to appoint a czar who would have dictatorial powers on one subject and the President wanted you to be that czar and wanted you to pick the subject. How many of you would honestly pick climate change as your issue, as opposed to health care or reining in the banks, or income redistribution? ---
**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:** [April 24, 2015, 2:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-climate-change-the-greatest-threat-to-our-planet-today/718254/49 "2015-04-24T02:50:49Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > Let’s say that Congress authorized the President to appoint a czar who would have dictatorial powers on one subject and the President wanted you to be that czar and wanted you to pick the subject. > > How many of you would honestly pick climate change as your issue, as opposed to health care or reining in the banks, or income redistribution? Again with the assumption that we are incapable of walking and chewing gum at the same time… ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2015, 2:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-climate-change-the-greatest-threat-to-our-planet-today/718254/50 "2015-04-24T02:55:07Z")
This thread is about the #1 threat, not all the various threats. Effective management means setting priorities, because sometimes priorities can conflict. Climate change policy can conflict with energy prices, job growth, trade, and fighting poverty. For example, if your top priority was to eliminate poverty, that would exacerbate climate change. So you’d have to decide which is more important. You can still fight climate change while fighting poverty, but you’ll be significantly less effective because about 2 billion more people will be driving cars than today. You can also fight poverty while fighting climate change, but if climate change is the priority than you’re going to be doing it in such a way that as poor people enter the middle class, they won’t use much more energy. They might not be able to have their own cars or buy bigger houses. ---
**Author:** ![sleestak](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/919ad9/32.png) [@sleestak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sleestak)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2015, 2:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-climate-change-the-greatest-threat-to-our-planet-today/718254/51 "2015-04-24T02:55:59Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Most of them are indeed of the 70’s popular press variety, the problem is that most scientists were not consulted, **most did predict that warming was coming** even if there was a “Pause” and cooling back then. > > This argument is already a classic crock from the denier media. > > [Classic Climate Crocks Repost: “In the 70s, They Said There’d Be an Ice Age” – This is Not Cool](http://climatecrocks.com/2014/02/08/classic-climate-crocks-repost-in-the-70s-they-said-thered-be-an-ice-age/) > Please watch this and learn that your sources lied (and continue to lie) to you in regards to the cap ice not melting or constantly recuperating, the predicted effects of increasing global warming gases are already happening and are bound to get worse the longer we wait from doing a more significant effort. > > [James Balog: Time-lapse proof of extreme ice loss | TED Talk](http://www.ted.com/talks/james_balog_time_lapse_proof_of_extreme_ice_loss?language=en) NASA lies? Gigo you post that as though you have any idea of what I actually know and what I have actually studied. The Earth Day predictions were an attempt to show that making predictions is hard, especially about the future. And yes, some of those guys were scientists. More importantly, they were taken seriously even though their predictions were absolutely wrong. Hell, Micheal E Mann of the Hockey Stick fame is all buddy buddy with Ehrlich and Ehrlich never got anything right which makes one wonder what Mann thinks about failed predictions. A quick question for you (no peaking): What effect did switching from canvas buckets to metal buckets have on SST readings? How about engine intake readings? When did that happen? I know because I’ve actually read papers on those questions. My interest in this area started about the time of the CRU hack. I saw the source code and was extremely shocked at the horrid source code and the sad state of the databases. At any of the companies I worked for that kind of work would have had the developer fired instantly. So I started looking at things. I got the source for Manns Hockeystick and ran it with pink noise. I checked on Mannian proxies by looking at the actual source data. I’ve looked surface temps and krieging. And I have not been impressed with the science. There are a ton of assumptions and they rely too heavily on computer models. And some of the most visiable scientists really suck at math. I’ve discussed in detail GCMs and their limitations with people who actually _built_ GCMs. Granted, they were using them for a different application but they built GCMs. I’ve discussed the state of models with a friend of mine who, in his job at Lawerence Livermore, had to get the models to run on LLNL computers. The gentleman was at the time quite high up on the compute side of the house. He had an interesting take which was basically ‘The models suck. Climate Change is real and its gonna be bad but the models suck’. I’ve known this guy for ~25 years and he is a full on granola eating, Burkenstock wearing green. Seriously, at the lake he would eat granola every morning and wore Burkenstocks. Anyway, even he thought the models were useless and we discussed them in detail. I’ve looked at the Jonh Cook 97% fiasco. For an interesting read on all that Cook et al. get wrong, this is a good place to [start](http://www.joseduarte.com/blog/cooking-stove-use-housing-associations-white-males-and-the-97). (A side note. Skeptical Science was founded by Cook who was, according to Cook himself, a self employed cartoonist and web developer at the time. And he likes dressing like a [Nazi](https://www.google.com/search?q=john+cook+nazi&espv=2&biw=1455&bih=705&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=Xa45VbuMG871oAS75oG4Bw&ved=0CAYQ_AUoAQ)) I’ve looked at the TCR estimates, the effect of the pause on the TCR estimates. And the effect of aerosols on TCR. And other things that are poorly understood, like clouds. I’ve looked at the use of proxies. For example, using tree rings and lake sediments to do historical reconstructions of ocean currents. Seriously, they are measuring historical ocean currents using proxies that do not directly measure ocean currents. At least we know trees have a temperature response when tree rings are used though there are quite a few issues with tree rings. I’ve also looked at the social side of the issue which is quite ugly. Instant attacks on anyone who dares question the dire predictions. The name slinging, denier for example. Gigo, a quick question for you. You seem to like throwing the word ‘denier’ around. Probably because it is easier than your usual posts on climate change which consist of a link to Skeptical Science. Anyway, can you name one thing I deny besides the accuracy of the models? I looked at the surprise finding that more energy is coming into the magnetosphere from solar wind than anyone guessed. And I watched this suprise finding be totally ignored even though it would affect the magnetosphere and possibly really affect cloud formation. [Link](http://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/local/Earth-Shaking-Surprise-Found-in--59182667.html)[Link 2](http://www.globalwarmingclassroom.info/earth_magnetosphere.htm) I won’t even go into model paramertization. There is more but through all this I’ve come to the conclusion that, yes, the world has warmed. It will warm some more and CO2 is involved. But it won’t be catastrophic and the actual solutions we have to really limit CO2 won’t be used. And all this time and money that is being put into Climate Change (were all gonna DIE!!!) could be put to use to solve some real, immediate problems. Slee ---
**Author:** ![eschereal](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eschereal/32/18939_2.png) [@eschereal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/eschereal)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2015, 3:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-climate-change-the-greatest-threat-to-our-planet-today/718254/52 "2015-04-24T03:04:32Z")
Have we really established that CO[sub]2[/sub] emissions from stuff are the main driver? I mean, as opposed to the radical deforestation of the lands? Is it possible that we could greatly mitigate climate change by creating massive carbon-sinks through reforestation everywhere possible? What would the impact of that be on our lives? ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2015, 4:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-climate-change-the-greatest-threat-to-our-planet-today/718254/53 "2015-04-24T04:42:29Z")
> [@sleestak](#): > > Gigo you post that as though you have any idea of what I actually know and what I have actually studied. This post wasn’t a reply to me but I’ll throw in a few responses. No, I have no idea what you’ve studied. But I’ve read what you’ve posted. And I’ll say again that I am convinced that you have no idea what climate scientists really understand and what they don’t, what the difference is, and what this means in terms of actionable policy. > [@sleestak](#): > > A quick question for you (no peaking): What effect did switching from canvas buckets to metal buckets have on SST readings? How about engine intake readings? When did that happen? I know because I’ve actually read papers on those questions. So, SSTs are not increasing, deep-sea temperatures are not increasing, the world is not warming, and the radiative transfer of greenhouse gases is a myth? Or WTF are you saying? That radiative physics has been overestimated by idiot scientists unaware that, for instance, all their land temperature stations are now located on hot airport tarmacs and inside urban heat islands? 😃 > [@sleestak](#): > > My interest in this area started about the time of the CRU hack. I saw the source code and was extremely shocked at the horrid source code and the sad state of the databases. At any of the companies I worked for that kind of work would have had the developer fired instantly. Perhaps you’d like to show us what “source code” you saw and why it’s the basis for invalidating the scientific consensus of every national science academy of every major industrialized nation on earth and the IPCC about the impact of GHG emissions on climate. I’ve looked at most of the CRU stuff and all I’ve ever seen is an astonishing degree of ignorance and mendacity on the part of those who’ve taken it upon themselves to “interpret” it for the benefit of the masses. > [@sleestak](#): > > So I started looking at things. I got the source for Manns Hockeystick and ran it with pink noise. Apparently what you did was slavishly believe the crap the Steve McIntyre posted on his personal blog critiquing decentered PCA. If you had any interest in honestly examining Mann’s work you would have seen – as Wahl and Amman did in their 2006 and subsequent papers, and that many others did including a review by the National Academy of Sciences – that neither centered nor decentered PCA nor any type of statistical analysis substantially changed the shape of the data. But hey, you “started looking at things”, so now you know better than the National Academies, right? > [@sleestak](#): > > I checked on Mannian proxies by looking at the actual source data. Then you should have seen that none of the challenged proxies change the shape of the data, either. In fact, Mann was exceptionally rigorous in validating his proxies to an extent few others had ever done before. Yes, Virginia, the world really is warming, and it’s not because of Michael Mann. > [@sleestak](#): > > I’ve looked surface temps and krieging. And I have not been impressed with the science. I’m not impressed with the fact that you can’t even spell “kriging” (named after Danie Krige but commonly misspelled). Which in the context of paleoclimate chronologies has just been used to fill in gaps in proxy coverage for purposes of continuity and not for purposes of evil conspiracy. > [@sleestak](#): > > There are a ton of assumptions and they rely too heavily on computer models. And some of the most visiable scientists really suck at math. Please explain what “assumptions rely too heavily on computer models” and why, and which scientists specifically suck at math. I am primarily aware of a few statisticians like Steve McIntyre who suck at integrity, who are so discredited that they can no longer get published, and who spend most of their time running discreditable Internet blogs. > [@sleestak](#): > > I’ve looked at the Jonh Cook 97% fiasco. For an interesting read on all that Cook et al. get wrong, this is a good place to [start](http://www.joseduarte.com/blog/cooking-stove-use-housing-associations-white-males-and-the-97). Why is a personal Internet blog from a student in social psychology supposed to be a persuasive critique of climate science or any of its proponents? Is Jose Duarte really the best you can do? For the record: John Cook is more of a science journalist than a climate scientist. As such, he and some of his colleagues sometimes oversimplify and gloss over details but by and large they get things right. His site is a reliable and informative (and award-winning) source for the casual reader. > [@sleestak](#): > > I’ve looked at the TCR estimates, the effect of the pause on the TCR estimates. And the effect of aerosols on TCR. And other things that are poorly understood, like clouds. I’ve looked at clouds, too. 😃 But please, tell us why you think this so-called “pause” should affect either TCR or ECS, and exactly how, and exactly by how much. There is a world of scientific fame waiting for you out there. > [@sleestak](#): > > I’ve also looked at the social side of the issue which is quite ugly. Instant attacks on anyone who dares question the dire predictions. The name slinging, denier for example. The “attacks” I’ve seen, such as they’ve been, have been impatience and frustration with established deniers who intentionally impede the scientific process, like Roy Spencer and Soon & Baliunas. Real scientists welcome constructive challenges. Constant denial by imbeciles just gets tiring and time-wasting. > [@sleestak](#): > > I looked at the surprise finding that more energy is coming into the magnetosphere from solar wind than anyone guessed. And I watched this suprise finding be totally ignored even though it would affect the magnetosphere and possibly really affect cloud formation. And …? Why is this important, other than another straw-clutching excuse for “maybe it’s all caused by something else” or “maybe climate change will magically stop?” > [@sleestak](#): > > I won’t even go into model paramertization. Oh, please do! > [@sleestak](#): > > There is more but through all this I’ve come to the conclusion that, yes, the world has warmed. It will warm some more and CO2 is involved. But it won’t be catastrophic and the actual solutions we have to really limit CO2 won’t be used. > > And all this time and money that is being put into Climate Change (were all gonna DIE!!!) could be put to use to solve some real, immediate problems. Sadly, all the people who have studied and published on climate science the whole of their professional lives have mostly come to the opposite conclusion. Should we believe them, or should we believe you and Jose Duarte? ---
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2015, 5:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-climate-change-the-greatest-threat-to-our-planet-today/718254/54 "2015-04-24T05:03:01Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > Let’s say that Congress authorized the President to appoint a czar who would have dictatorial powers on one subject and the President wanted you to be that czar and wanted you to pick the subject. > > How many of you would honestly pick climate change as your issue, as opposed to health care or reining in the banks, or income redistribution? The OP ignored some of the politics of this. Obama had 5 problems on his plate when he took office. They were 1) extracting our massive troop deployment in Iraq, 2) passing a stimulus package to fight the worst downturn in post-war history, 3) reforming healthcare, a task that had defeated 3 or more Presidents, 4) passing legislation that would regulate financial entities that acted like banks as banks, so as to prevent another catastrophic financial crisis and 5) addressing the scientific consensus on global warming, and assigning a cost to the damage that greenhouse emissions impose on us. Amazingly we’re 4 for 5, in the teeth of the most obstructionist Republican congress in the nation’s history. There’s more work to be done on all of them. But I would say at the current time, global warming is the most pressing issue in the list. The others are being acted on. That said if we’re discussing worst case scenarios, the greatest threat to our planet today is full scale nuclear war. But while I can think of policies that can increase the odds of that happening (eg invade countries at random without making post-invasion plans), it’s hard to identify a new program that would reduce them. We’re already in serious talks with Iran and the Russian situation is balance of power stuff. ---
**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:** [April 24, 2015, 6:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-climate-change-the-greatest-threat-to-our-planet-today/718254/55 "2015-04-24T06:02:36Z")
Thanks **wolfpup** seems that **sleestak** is never aware of the march of time. Mann is not the only one that worked on this, there is indeed a hockey team of researches with papers that show that Mann did a good job. > **[What evidence is there for the hockey stick?](https://skepticalscience.com/broken-hockey-stick.htm)** > > \Since the hockey stick paper in 1998, there have been a number of proxy studies analysing a variety of different sources including corals, stalagmites, tree rings, boreholes and ice cores. They all confirm the original hockey stick conclusion: the... For some reason contrarians think that debunking the one that dared to be a pioneer on something is like killing the lead zombie, they really seem to think that science works like that. By only looking to discredit past reconstructions and never bothering with new ones with more data and sceptical settings (Muller and the Berkeley team also agreed that one does get indeed that shape too in the record, the earth is warming and the best explanation for the current warming is us) contrarians do look like the creationists that think that debunking Darwin will do the trick, forgetting all the new research that confirms evolution. As for the models, there is also a lot of progress made that is ignored. > **[Why trust climate models? It’s a matter of simple science](https://arstechnica.com/science/2013/09/why-trust-climate-models-its-a-matter-of-simple-science/)** > > How climate scientists test, test again, and use their simulation tools. > [@](#): > > Talk to someone who rejects the conclusions of climate science and you’ll likely hear some variation of the following: “That’s all based on models, and you can make a model say anything you want.” Often, they’ll suggest the models don’t even have a solid foundation of data to work with—garbage in, garbage out, as the old programming adage goes. But how many of us (anywhere on the opinion spectrum) really know enough about what goes into a climate model to judge what comes out? > > Climate models are used to generate projections showing the consequences of various courses of action, so they are relevant to discussions about public policy. Of course, being relevant to public policy also makes a thing vulnerable to the indiscriminate cannons on the foul battlefield of politics. > > Skepticism is certainly not an unreasonable response when first exposed to the concept of a climate model. But skepticism means examining the evidence before making up one’s mind. If anyone has scrutinized the workings of climate models, it’s climate scientists—and they are confident that, just as in other fields, their models are useful scientific tools. > [@](#): > > One surprisingly common misconception about climate models is that they’re just exercises in curve-fitting. The global average temperature record is fed into the model, which matches that trend and spits out a simulation just like it. In this (mistaken) view, having a model that compares well with reality is a necessary outcome of the process. This doesn’t demonstrate that climate models can be trusted to usefully project future trends, but this line of thinking is mistaken for several reasons. > > There’s obviously more to a climate model than a graph of global average temperature. Some parameterizations—those stand-ins for processes that occur at scales finer than a grid cell—are tuned to match observations. After all, they are attempts to describe a process in terms of its large-scale results. But successful parameterizations aren’t used as a gauge of how well the model is reproducing reality. “Obviously, since these factors are tuned for, they don’t count as a model success. However, the model evaluations span a much wider and deeper set of observations, and when you do historical or paleoclimate simulations, none of the data you are interested in has been tuned for,” Schmidt told Ars. > [@](#): > > If you only tune in to public arguments about climate change or read about the latest study that uses climate models, it’s easy to lose sight of the truly extraordinary achievement those models represent. As Andrew Weaver told Ars, “What is so remarkable about these climate models is that it really shows how much we know about the physics and chemistry of the atmosphere, because they’re ultimately driven by one thing—that is, the Sun. So you start with these equations, and you start these equations with a world that has no moisture in the atmosphere that just has seeds on land but has no trees anywhere, that has an ocean that has a constant temperature and a constant amount of salt in it, and it has no sea ice, and all you do is turn it on. [Flick on] the Sun, and you see this model predict a system that looks so much like the real world. It predicts storm tracks where they should be, it predicts ocean circulation where it should be, it grows trees where it should, it grows a carbon cycle—it really is remarkable.” > > But climate scientists know models are just scientific tools—nothing more. In studying the practices of climate modeling groups, Steve Easterbrook saw this firsthand. “One of the most common uses of the models is to look for surprises—places where the model does something unexpected, primarily as a way of probing the boundaries of what we know and what we can simulate," he said. “The models are perfectly suited for this. They get the basic physical processes right but often throw up surprises in the complex interactions between different parts of the Earth system. It is in these areas where the scientific knowledge is weakest. So the models help guide the scientific process.” It is also important to review what science writer Peter Hadfield reported recently about what is driving the science of climate change, and it is indeed not the computer models: [QUOTE] The evidence for climate change WITHOUT computer models or the IPCC [/QUOTE] ---
**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:** [April 24, 2015, 6:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-climate-change-the-greatest-threat-to-our-planet-today/718254/56 "2015-04-24T06:26:49Z")
> [@sleestak](#): > > I’ve looked at the Jonh Cook 97% fiasco. For an interesting read on all that Cook et al. get wrong, this is a good place to [start](http://www.joseduarte.com/blog/cooking-stove-use-housing-associations-white-males-and-the-97). (A side note. Skeptical Science was founded by Cook who was, according to Cook himself, a self employed cartoonist and web developer at the time. And he likes dressing like a [Nazi](https://www.google.com/search?q=john+cook+nazi&espv=2&biw=1455&bih=705&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=Xa45VbuMG871oAS75oG4Bw&ved=0CAYQ_AUoAQ)) And nice to see a Godwin. For a more reasonable look at the Jose Duarte and what he gets wrong and the ideology that is driving him and the deniers that think it is funny to call people like John Cook nazis check this: > **[Denier weirdness: 97% irony - deniers deny the science about the science](https://blog.hotwhopper.com/2014/08/denier-weirdness-97-irony-deniers-deny.html)** > > Global warming & climate change. Eavesdropping on climate science deniers, their weird pseudo-science and crazy conspiracy theories. > [@](#): > > He’s not very good at research, that is clear. He flies off the handle before doing it. And the little he does is very poor. For example, Jose wrote: > > > [@](#): > > > > I discovered that the following papers were included as endorsement, as “climate papers”, again in just ten minutes of looking. They are classified as either implicit or explicit endorsement, and were evidently included in the 97% figure: > > No, José, not all of them were included in the 97% figure. Two of the papers he listed were very clearly marked for the category “not climate related”. And it’s not as if Jose could have easily missed that point, because he wrote: > > > [@](#): > > > > ``` > > In Table 1, page 2, the authors claimed that social science papers were classified as "Not climate related" and not included as endorsement cases. This is a false claim, and the authors should be investigated for fraud. (There were some papers that were classified as "Not climate related" in my quick search, but the above papers were not -- they were classified is implicit or explicit endorsement.) > > > > ``` > > That’s a strong and wrong allegation. All you need to do is go to the SkepticalScience search facility and you’ll find that two of the papers that Jose included in his list were clearly categorised as “not climate related” - here and here. Therefore they weren’t included in the 97%. > > Now what would be the result if Jose were to remove the other six studies from the 3896 endorsing the human cause of global warming (out of 4014 abstracts that were classified as taking a position on the subject)? You’d get 3890 out of 4008, which is still, you guessed it: > > 97% ---
**Author:** ![FXMastermind](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fxmastermind/32/7289_2.png) [@FXMastermind](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FXMastermind)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2015, 5:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-climate-change-the-greatest-threat-to-our-planet-today/718254/57 "2015-04-25T17:37:35Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > The President made that comment in his weekly radio address. Now I accept the science behind climate change. Where I get annoyed is many of the assertions made to follow that up, such as “The world will be uninhabitable!” But his statement got me genuinely curious. Is there any scientific backing for what he said? It depends on what you mean by “scientific backing”. Certainly the worst case scenarios already predicted, and with scientific backing, did not happen. ---
**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:** [April 25, 2015, 6:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-climate-change-the-greatest-threat-to-our-planet-today/718254/58 "2015-04-25T18:29:00Z")
> [@FXMastermind](#): > > It depends on what you mean by “scientific backing”. Certainly the worst case scenarios already predicted, and with scientific backing, did not happen. Again, what you point at is what the popular press was saying based on very few scientists, most scientists predicted warming even when cooling was being reporting in the short range. As science reporter Peter Hatfield mentioned before, most exaggerations that contrarians report were indeed that, but they were coming from popularizers of science that made the impression that many worst case scenarios were going to take place sooner rather than later as published science reported. It is true that in the deep past when high concentrations of CO2 caused the sea levels to rise dozens of feet above what it is today, it will take a few hundred years to reach that level now. But the immediate problem is that on the way to that we can expect about a meter of ocean rise by the end of the century **if there was no acceleration of the loss of ice**. Unfortunately that acceleration loss is being observed now. So while again a catastrophe for coastal cities will be for a far future, in the meantime I have seen reports that the meter rise could be seen more likely in the 2050s and then as time does not end then much higher rises and higher costs are to be expected, with a lot of unrest caused by large human migration. What it can be said is that estimations of what was going to happen with cap Ice, ocean rise and acidification are happening now, and it will get worse the longer we wait to make concerted efforts. Of course the biggest beneficiaries will be our closest future generations, and as the Greeks used to say, ‘Society grows great when old men plant trees whose shade they know they shall never sit in.’ [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-climate-change-the-greatest-threat-to-our-planet-today/718254.md?page=2)