What’s most depressing is that we have entered into an era of shameless lying. An era where the Creationists and Flat-Earthers and Truthers and Birthers and others can promote their viewpoints, not only lying their asses off, but doing so knowingly. This is especially remarkable in the Faith-Based arguments, such as Creationism, given that one of the Commandments of the Lord is not to bear false witness.
So, we, the average unwashed, vaguely educated blokes – I know next to nothing about planetary science or climatology! – are compelled to weed through mounds of excrement and lakes of sewage – much of it intentional distortions – to try to arrive at the truth.
To me, thus, when a tipping point of consensus is achieved, and when one can say that 95% of all climate scientists hold a particular view, then the arguments against this have to be viewed with the direst suspicion.
GIGObuster’s cites are simply more persuasive than Ají de Gallina’s cites. GIGObuster’s explanatory approach is also the more persuasive. He presents his case with far less ridicule and less vitriol than the local opposition. He doesn’t resort to “Ha ha” rhetoric (or at least much less than the others.)
Thus, between the better evidence and the better presentation, I have to hold with the current scientific consensus.
That, and the fact that you can see photos of the glaciers disappearing all over the world.
So you’re a conspiracy theorist. Fine. You believe that thousands of people around the world, from different countries, different organizations and different creeds are working together to trick you.
Nice to know that you live in fear of that kind of world.
So, you’re a climate scientist? Can you please show me what you’ve published?
I am ignorant about much. I don’t know how to fly a jet. So I don’t tell people who do know that I think their techniques are flawed.
I don’t repeat other people’s opinions. I accept the scientific consensus, you reject it, because you think people are lying to you.
That’s an absurd stance, and one, I suspect you don’t take in other facets of your life. Are you an anti-vaxer too? Because you never know, those scientists might be lyin’. :rolleyes:
It appears that you’re the one who doesn’t know how educated or uneducated I might be on the subject. Just because you’ve gotten in over your head and been called on it—beautifully, I might add—that’s no reason to lash out out of frustration. Tsk, tsk, tsk.
Intelligent people can’t know everything. So they should accept what the experts say. Like when you get on a jet, get operated on, walk on a bridge, or drive your car.
In each of those activities you trust the experts who know so much more than you, who made those activities possible.
Only someone suffering from the Dunning-Kruger effect can think that without training in science, they can accurately assess PhD level papers and that their opinions mean anything more than the gut-instincts of a novice.
uh… What? That is the stupidest thing you’ve said yet. We’re reducing co2 because technology is driving it and not because of the chicken Little crowd.
Given that you profess to be part of the reality-based community, you really need to rethink that assessment. But somehow, I do not question that you are unable to see it.
Let me see if I understand you. You admit to not being an expert on the subject, you’re probably not aware of all the work and you admit not being able to fully comprehend PhD level papers on the subject, yet, you know, you just KNOW that these people are completely correct and that people like Ají de Gallina, FXMastermind or others who are skeptical of claims about the findings and some of the conclusions drawn from them are talking out of their asses. How dare they not swallow whole the arguments and papers that you admit to not being able to fully comprehend! Thank goodness you’re here—with your lack of expertise—to call them on it and shut down any dissent. :rolleyes:
Now I don’t really agree that a non-expert can’t comprehend all the information. I admit to not even trying to do so. Which is why I have not made many claims about the science itself. In these threads it is attitudes like yours and GIGO’s that cause me to be even more skeptical. Truth be told, we agree MUCH more than we disagree. But as I’ve said before, you guys treat this like a fire and brimstone evangelist treats arguments from heathens. The fact that the basis for your belief is rooted in science instead of faith matters not. Again, it’s the attitude I’m talking about…the way dissent is entertained.
Now look back to what you wrote. Don’t you find it funny that you’ve described people on your side of the debate and not the skeptics in this thread? I do.
The phrase “no further warming” is not scientific. How do you propose to show me records and graphs and measurements of “no further warming?” What will the earth’s temperature be in 2023?
If you had said, “If warming actually stopped five years ago,” or some other length of time, that might have some validity. Except, of course, there isn’t any evidence for that, either.
To the extent that this is funny, it’s how you’re demonstrating my link in living color.
In any case, I’m not a scientist. Neither are you (I suspect).
Are you aware that the vast majority of working climate scientists think climate change is real and man is contributing? Scientific Consensus - NASA Science
If you’re not aware of that, I guess I can understand why you think I’m randomly choosing one side. In fact, I’m siding with the vast, vast majority of experts.
So you’ll understand why internet worthies like you lot don’t do much to convince me.
Nope. What I do know is that their arguments are not as persuasive as GIGObuster’s arguments. He is presenting the better case. He links to better sources, and his manner of scientific discourse is vastly the superior. He’s winning.
The superiority of his demeanor is not proof of the correctness of his claims. It is, however, the way one wins and argument on a discussion board.
Also, if what you say is true, can you explain why there is not 100% consensus among scientists and experts. Do you think you and/or GIGO know more? Understand more?
Finally, this debate is not like assessing the thickness of steel in order to support Load X. Implying it is is, at best, wrong. Surely you’re aware that there are political and social issues tightly tied to the debate. Are you of the mind that for all the experts involved on your side that the no one’s thinking is skewed one iota?
Well, of course, a creationist would not be my choice, but there are no easy pickings for the contrarians, at least he is right huh?
Nope.
Don’t think so, you need to take your beef to Barry Bickmore, Kerry Emmanuel, Richard Alley * and other conservative scientists that tell you that you are wrong on this one.
We have to remember how skewed the sciences are regarding the number of liberals in their ranks, so it is very telling that among the less numerous conservative scientists we get to find many to press the point…
…for the Democrats in congress.
*(Called by the Democrats to testify in recent Climate change hearings, the Republicans prefer to call non-scientists like Christoper Monckton to testify for them)
I’m afraid that Alex Trebek wouldn’t agree with you. The Jeopardy catagory chosen in the OP was “Global Warming” for 100 - "Leaked IPCC report: 90% confidence in AGW is now 95% – and sea level will rise". Since the new-and-improved IPCC report hasn’t been officially released, there is no way the public could know what data, facts, and fallacy it contains. The correct answer is, “How would I know what’s in a report that hasn’t been made public yet?”
The global warming debate has been going on for some 25 years. There are people who accept it’s warts and magically disappearing numbers as a thing of beauty. Others have argued that there is “something” wrong with the “claims” and would like to see more facts, figures, and proof. Most of us have seen or heard these arguments ad nauseum. If the old links and sources weren’t persuasive before, there is little reason to believe they’ll be persuasive the 3rd or 5th time.
The Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX) was North America’s only voluntary, legally binding greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction and trading system for emission sources and offset projects in North America.
It operated from 2003 until 2010 when it died from lack of interest and boredom. People literally weren’t buying what the IPCC reports was selling.
GW interest was high during the Kyoto Protocol days and there was some original excitement over the COP meetings but that excitment has waned as more and more specific questions were being asked about the science itself but few related answers followed. Instead, people were told they couldn’t understand it, or that they were ignorant, or that the science was settled. Hardly the best method to convince someone that your side is right.
I’ll wait for the mother-of-all IPCC reports to convince me that man-made CO2 or just plain ol’ CO2 is currently driving the “global” temp higher and higher. I’ll wait for the MOA IPCC reports to divulge the total volume of ice at the poles and the current volume of water in the oceans. This ain’t rocket surgery. Adding the two together should give a pretty good estimate of how much the sea level could rise.
The IPCC has a lot of practice issuing reports. Let’s see if they’ve learned how to write a convincing report?
Ignorant say so, and already shown as wrong, try more than 100 years.
As for the exchanges, the key for Chicago was “Congressional action”
And indeed it was thanks to the “no” votes of many Climate Change Denier Tea Partiers that got us that. So your assumptions why it fell down were wrong.
Now, as the article from National Geographic reports, the voters in California were still in favor of going forward thus:
Even the articles I linked to, from IIRC NYT and Scientific American, though they come down pretty substantially on the side of this being only a “pause” in warming before the global temperature starts rising again, admit to there having been a plateau for the past decade or more. But they also point out that this plateaued decade is the warmest on record. There is of course no conflict between those two facts because of all the warming that happened previously. You climb up to 8,000 feet and then go a hundred miles along a plateau, you are still at 8,000 feet.
Anyway, my point is: the temperature could stay exactly where it is now (with of course a little fluctuation up and down) for the foreseeable future, and we would still presumably see glaciers continue to melt for quite some time, because we are dealing with a “new normal” of sustained temperatures that are warmer than they had previously been for a very long time before recently. Right?
There is one of those very messy issues concerning climate, global temperatures and the science of earth. Snowfall and possibly soot are the main factor in glacier growth or shrinking, except at lower altitudes. There are also drastic differences between tropical glaciers, alpine glaciers, tidewater glaciers and your giant Piedmont glaciers and glaciers that are actually ice sheets. They all respond differently.
Tidewater glaciers are very much at the mercy of ocean circulation, and the smaller tidewater and alpine glaciers are used as climate indicators because they respond quickly to changes in temperature. Even with the “alarming warming” the large glaciers still haven’t melted away, and some are actually expanding, as snowfall in the upper elevations is the main factor, not LTT temperature trends.
There are other major things concerning earth science in regards to climate, none of which neatly fit into the official story of the nebulous AGW fears.
Once again this is the problem of just depending on feelies. Please look at the record of the last 200 years and you can see that we already passed for an even longer pause from the 60’s to the 80’s, that the contrarians have even used in the past to make the misleading claim that “scientists predicted cooling in the 70’s”
Then take into account that in reality a super majority of scientific papers noted that the “cooling” seen was temporary and that warming was going to come. (yes that was the case, contrarians relied and continue to rely on popular press articles that almost usually do get it wrong)
Most scientists were correct, and that is another reason why the consensus is what it is nowadays, because the reason mentioned in most of those papers that reported that warming was coming after the pause pointed at the mechanism: Global warming caused by an increase of CO2 in the atmosphere.
The point stands, CO2 is not likely to have reformed his ways from the 70’s, nor from the paleoclimate days. The more you add to the atmosphere the warmer will get and **there is no good mechanism that could tell us that nature will continue to keep this pause forever, most of the ones proposed do not last for a long a time. **
