And by the way, here’s a summary of my supposed nitpicking:
jshore made the following, rather suspicious claim:
I checked into it. It turns out that the 0.12 was ONE figure from ONE study. Not only that, but the actual study stated the following:
The study contained a clear disclaimer that even this one little number was not a prediction or forecast. Just a “scenario,” whatever that means. And yet jshore clearly presented it as a prediction or forecast.
Quite a big nit to pick.
And here’s a link to the thread in question:
You really think that helps your position?
Once again I only saw you pointing at cites that had little or no credibility regarding evidence on the effects of the warming. Going back to discredited evidence regarding the effects and causes of the warming is silly when now the discussion should be on what to do, a subject that even I agree has a lot of merit.
You send me to a picture of a bumper sticker pointing to a business interested in reducing carbon footprints as a sign of mania?
I’ve seen seven “Hi, I’m a Mary Kay beauty consultant!” stickers on my commute this morning. :dubious:
So on one side of the argument I have seen meticulous explanation of data that indicates a trend to adverse but reversible (or at least reducible) human impact on the environment. No one is claiming infallibility, no one is claiming the sky is falling, and the common assertion is that we can and should do something to minimize our impact as quickly as possible.
From the other side I see nitpicking about minutiae within the data and an assertion that because the human impact factor is a variable that radically changes the results of climate modelling, all climate modelling is inaccurate.
And also, that reducing the human impact on the environment is not important unless someone can POSITIVELY BEYOND A SHADOW OF A DOUBT show you that there will be a **catastrophic event **in the very near future.
Therefore, the startup costs associated with programs to reduce the human impact on the environment are a waste of money.
And smack strongly of witchcraft.
My conclusions are:
CGW as presented by the sensationalist media and commercial interests is unlikely.
AGW as presented by the scientific community is real, mitigatible, and our responsibility to address.
Is this fair and accurate?
Muddle through? Duh? That’s seriously your rebuttal?
Alrighty, you sold me. I got what I needed from this thread, thank you.
It’s not just a bumper sticker advertising a business. Somebody probably paid $50 or $100 for the right to put that sticker on their car.
I’ve yet to see a satisfactory explanation of the data I pointed to. And that’s not the only problem.
Care to give an example of this?
Could you show me where this has been asserted? Please QUOTE the assertion. Thank you.
Again, please show me where this has been asserted. Please QUOTE the assertion. Thank you.
I’m not sure . . . by “AGW,” do you mean the same thing as I mean when I say “CAGW”?
Yes.
And you know this… how??? Do you know this for a fact? Or, as seems more likely, are you just making a WAG (Wild Ass Guess, in case you aren’t clear on what WAG stands for)?
By going to the website specified on the bumper sticker. The price for a carbon offset for a Sienna LE driven 12,000 miles per year is $71.40.
I’m a little confused. What’s there to guess about? There are businesses such as “Terrapass” which sell carbon offsets. As I understand things, people can purchase the carbon offset and get a sticker to put on their car. The offset for a typical car runs about 70 bucks. Do you deny any of this?
Where’s the part where this is a sign of mania, again?
Since nobody has even tried to answer this question, I will give my own answer which is very simple: I don’t know.
What’s more, I don’t think anyone knows. Given that it’s unknown what caused this warming, it’s a bit of a stretch to argue that it can be known what caused the similar (in speed and magnitude) warming in roughly the latter half of the 20th century.
:rolleyes:
Actually I have seen papers and cites explaining that the early warming of the 20th century can be explained naturally, the later warming much less so.
The fact that you never saw those when they are available explains why no one has bothered to deal with that question, it is evident that you are not bothering to properly investigate the issue, instad you are still depending on discredited denial sites.
That’s nonsense. I’ve asked the question again and again and nobody’s answered it. If you think you have a good answer, here’s your chance to fight my ignorance.
What, in your view, caused the rapid warming which took place in roughly the first half of the 20th century?
Japan Agency for Marine-Earth Science and Technology
November 5, 2004
Center for Climate System Research, University of Tokyo,
http://www.jamstec.go.jp/frcgc/eng/press/041105/
Just so we are clear, your claim is that the rapid warming in roughly the first half of the early 20th century was a result of (1) recovery from earlier volcanic activity; and (2) changes in solar insolation.
Right?
To be fair, I ignored his question for a far less noble motive - because it seemed earlier in the thread to be the spurs on brazil84’s Gish Gallop, the technique creationist Duane Gish used to jump to fame, attempting to bury his opponents with so many different questions or issues that there was never time to investigate any one issue in depth.
The Gish Gallop doesn’t work well in a message board format where your opponent can just take things one at a time and at whatever pace they desire.
Since you didn’t answer, I will assume that just like me, you do not know what caused the rapid warming which took place roughly in the first half of the 20th century.
As noted above, this is just one example of why the debate isn’t over as some have claimed.
He (apologies to GIGObuster if I have selected the wrong pronoun) did answer. He even provided you with a quote from his source in post #234.
Since it’s somewhat relevant, you could try addressing some related points I made back in post #167.
Katannah, since you apparently don’t care to answer this question, I suspect that your accusation is largely false, just like jshore’s accusation of nitpicking against me was false.
I suspect you are strawmanning a bit here. While it would not surprise me to learn that skeptics have questioned climate models on this basis, there are other more important reasons, to be skeptical of climate simulations.
Certainly you have not substantiated your claim.
Again you have failed to substantiate your claim. I think you’ve set up a complete strawman. Certainly I am not demanding proof beyond a shadow of a doubt of anything. In terms of “human impact on the environment” in general, my view is that one needs to look at the costs and benefits involved.
You did not answer my question about whether “AGW” means the same thing as what I mean when I say “CAGW.” It’s an important distinction.
Look, global surface temperatures rose by a degree or so between the end of the 19th century and the end of the 20th century without little or nothing in the way of significant negative effects. Due to improvement in technology, far fewer people die now in floods, hurricanes, etc. It’s only big increases in temperature which have the potential to cause serious problems.
Why do warmists hold that there will be big increases in temperature? The dirty little secret of warmists is that their hypothesis relies on water vapor feedback. i.e. that warming will cause water vapor levels to increase, which will cause further warming, which will cause water vapor levels to increase further, and so on. Without water vapor feedback, the worst we can expect is small, nuisance warming.
Nobody has shown me convincing evidence of the water vapor feedback hypothesis. I would guess that most warmists are unaware that their entire belief rests on this one, slender reed.