# "The climate may be heating up less in response to greenhouse-gas emissions than was once thought." **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [June 28, 2013, 7:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-climate-may-be-heating-up-less-in-response-to-greenhouse-gas-emissions-than-was-once-thought/662157 "2013-06-28T19:49:51Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/budget_player_cadet/32/205_2.png) [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Budget_Player_Cadet)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2013, 8:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-climate-may-be-heating-up-less-in-response-to-greenhouse-gas-emissions-than-was-once-thought/662157/61 "2013-06-30T08:01:16Z")
> [@Independence](#): > > Your scathing review of my opinion (which I am entitled to) does not move me. What can I say? I disagree with you. Okay, why? > [@](#): > > Human beings have ZERO affect on the Earth’s temperature… none. Nil. Nada. Why do you think this? Have you taken any time to review the appropriate studies, investigate the peer-reviewed literature, look into why there is basically an international scientific consensus on the issue? What makes you so firmly hold to your belief that humans have “zero affect[sic] on the Earth’s temperature” when there is very considerable evidence that: - Atmospheric CO2 content is a massive driver of climate change - The recent (gigantic) increase in CO2 in the atmosphere is primarily anthropogenic - Neither volcanic activity nor solar activity nor any other natural phenomenon we are aware of can account for the current warming > [@Independence](#): > > Thanks. I appreciate your input, I really do. What was your point again? > > By the way, if you have not heard: > > The temperature on Earth has more to do with the ginormous “ball of fire” planet a few hundred light years away (the Sun) that has been radiating it for a few million years, it’s core, gravity, chemical makeup (chemicals that have sustained since the big bang) than it has to do with the humans (and their technology) that have only existed for an infinitesimal amount of time (comparatively speaking)… The sun is not a planet. It’s a star. There’s a considerable difference. What’s more, it’s not a few hundred light years away, it’s 8 light minutes away. But even better, there is substantial evidence that solar output is _down_. Were it solely on the sun to regulate earth’s heat content, we would have had [cooling since the 70s](http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/Solar_vs_Temp_basic.gif). Which we haven’t had. > [@](#): > > Yes, I mean millions of years of other, larger factors have and will continue to have a greater impact on Earth than you or I… or DOW. Great. Then let’s hear about them! Which “other, larger factors” have been having an impact on our climate? You tried the sun, but all of the evidence shows that the sun has nothing to do with our current warming trend, at least over the last 70-odd years. What else ya got? [Volcanoes](http://www.skepticalscience.com/volcanoes-and-global-warming.htm)? You don’t just get to throw this shit out there and not qualify it at all. On this forum, we expect _citations_. Sources. Actual fucking research. Not your brand of threadshitting crap. > [@](#): > > My guess is that bit of logic will be lost on you so by all means, please continue to believe everything you see on TV and read from the Google’s “popular news” feed… Or, you know, what we get from peer-reviewed journals and scientific sources. I haven’t watched TV since 2007, and my news on the subject comes primarily from RealClimate and SkepticalScience, two blogs run by actual scientists who can be relied upon to back themselves up extensively with peer-reviewed scientific papers. And when pressed, I can generally find the first-degree peer-reviewed scientific sources. How about you? Where do _you_ get your information? Right-winger blogs? Fox News? WUWT? :rolleyes: > [@magellan01](#): > > Oh, please. I’m challenging the degree of certainty of the “consensus” he points to. I’m challenging the degree of certainty that should be expected when one wants others to act on beliefs that one has. Pointing that out is valid, lest people think that _any_ counter information will have _any_ effect. Well if there actually was counter-information, it would be effective. Unfortunately, the information provided to us by AGW-deniers is usually _crap_. > [@](#): > > My apologies for thinking that this forum existed to challenge the views of others, your grace. 😉 Hey, if you actually provided any reason for us to believe otherwise, we would think your post is mighty swell. But here’s the thing: you didn’t. You accused us of being a cult, and proclaimed that “no information would ever sway our opinion”. Not exactly the same thing as “challenging our views”. ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2013, 1:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-climate-may-be-heating-up-less-in-response-to-greenhouse-gas-emissions-than-was-once-thought/662157/62 "2013-06-30T13:54:35Z")
I think on climate change there isn’t much reason to have scientific debates on the issue. It’s really an economic and political matter now. Namely, what combination of political activity and economic policies can come together to a) maximize the effort to limit carbon emissions and b) minimize the effects of what I regard to be inevitable warming. A lot of people on this issue have problems with me because I think we should be devoting significantly more resources to b than a, but it’s entirely based on my view of the world’s politics. Some countries are going to do a good/decent job on limiting carbon emissions, some will do ok (I actually think the U.S. does okay, not as good as some, but a combination of economic factors and policies have actually made an impact on the growth rate of our carbon emissions and have lead to some recent years being very low emission relative to other years), but some countries I think will respond little at all. In the United States we have a paralyzed government, so basically only things that can be done through executive order and administrative policies over the Federal bureaucracy will ever happen anytime soon. In other countries there is definitely a mindset that people who live in huts and don’t own cars don’t want to be told by a nation of car owners how to live. There’s also the same sort of short sightedness that we have here in the States in many other countries. So basically I consider it pipe-dream level thinking that the response to emissions will ever be anywhere close to what they need to be, so we need to realistically start figuring out how we can best mitigate the negative effects of climate change. ---
**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:** [June 30, 2013, 2:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-climate-may-be-heating-up-less-in-response-to-greenhouse-gas-emissions-than-was-once-thought/662157/63 "2013-06-30T14:31:13Z")
> [@Martin\_Hyde](#): > > I think on climate change there isn’t much reason to have scientific debates on the issue. It’s really an economic and political matter now. Namely, what combination of political activity and economic policies can come together to a) maximize the effort to limit carbon emissions and b) minimize the effects of what I regard to be inevitable warming. A lot of people on this issue have problems with me because I think we should be devoting significantly more resources to b than a, but it’s entirely based on my view of the world’s politics. While that at least would be more responsible politics, the problem is that currently virtually all Republicans in congress are deniers, and it follows then that not even “b)” is considered as for most republicans “there is no problem, this is a hoax”. And that has been an ongoing point that I do make, many moderated or science minded Republicans are not really aware of the current levels of woo their congress critters really have, and that should not be ignored, because as votes against the EPA and obstruction has shown, large or even small efforts at mitigation are currently being dismissed, the blind are currently leading us. ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2013, 2:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-climate-may-be-heating-up-less-in-response-to-greenhouse-gas-emissions-than-was-once-thought/662157/64 "2013-06-30T14:47:43Z")
> [@FXMastermind](#): > > :smack: > > That’s simply not true. Not only do our activities change the very world we live on, but weather and temperature are modified by all kinds of things humans do. Not sure what is wrong with your quote, but you’re misattributing to me. Your quote link goes to a post of mine, but not the text indicated. **Independence** is the one who wrote the quoted text. ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2013, 2:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-climate-may-be-heating-up-less-in-response-to-greenhouse-gas-emissions-than-was-once-thought/662157/65 "2013-06-30T14:52:07Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > While that at least would be more responsible politics, the problem is that currently virtually all Republicans in congress are deniers, and it follows then that not even “b)” is considered as for most republicans “there is no problem, this is a hoax”. > > And that has been an ongoing point that I do make, many moderated or science minded Republicans are not really aware of the current levels of woo their congress critters really have, and that should not be ignored, because as votes against the EPA and obstruction has shown, large or even small efforts at mitigation are currently being dismissed, the blind are currently leading us. But that’s precisely why this has to be an economic and political discussion. Those sort of battles aren’t won by scientific facts, the science battle is over. The science isn’t, and we’ll always be refining our knowledge in this area, but we know enough to start taking some policy actions so I don’t see a lot of value in continual debates on the core science. I dislike Al Gore both personally and for his politics in general (I agree with him on some political issues), but in spite of that I’m not _blaming_ him; but I do think by injecting himself into this topic with his movie he actually made it more of a politically intractable problem. Again, not his fault, but basically a prominent Democrat doing something made it much “easier”, in my opinion, for this to become a political bitch fight over the science instead of a problem everyone agrees with and just disagrees with how to solve it. (Ex: No one thought the stock market cratering in 2008 and the housing market crashing _wasn’t_ a problem, but there was disagreement about how to respond. Or issues like international trade, most on both sides of the aisle in the U.S. support free trade but with different ideas as to what that actually means and entails.) Now, even without Al Gore I don’t think the worst of the GOP Congressmen would be behaving much differently, but I think him being front and center made their job “easier.” ---
**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:** [June 30, 2013, 3:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-climate-may-be-heating-up-less-in-response-to-greenhouse-gas-emissions-than-was-once-thought/662157/66 "2013-06-30T15:15:31Z")
Now it is your turn to wonder if you are ignoring that the sources you use can distort your ideas. No one had mentioned Gore, but is clear why he remains “a good talking point”, not. > **[Is Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth accurate?](https://skepticalscience.com/al-gore-inconvenient-truth-errors.htm)** > > \While there are minor errors in An Inconvenient Truth, the main truths presented - evidence to show mankind is causing global warming and its various impacts is consistent with peer reviewed science.\ > [@](#): > > Note: the vilification of Al Gore is best understood in the context of personalisation. When opponents attack something abstract - like science - the public may not associate with the argument. By giving a name and a face and a set of behavioural characteristics - being a rich politician, for example - it is easy to create a fictional enemy through inference and association. Al Gore is a successful politician who presented a film, his training and experience suitable to the task. To invoke Gore is a way to obfuscate about climate science, for which Gore has neither responsibility, claim nor blame. So sorry to say but your post is blaming the victim, and it shows how even slightly moderate Republicans get affected by the right wing bubble of information, what you are ignoring is that the Republicans that do take science into account must now offer tough love to their representatives, or to refuse to vote for them until they show reason, because that is what is needed now. It is indeed something that Kerry Emmanuel is doing. > **[Scientist proves conservatism and belief in climate change aren't incompatible](https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2011-jan-05-la-na-scientist-climate-20110105-story.html)** > > Scientist proves conservatism and belief in climate change aren't incompatible > [@](#): > > Emanuel waded into the fray early last year. He wrote a letter to the Wall Street Journal criticizing a friend and colleague for dismissing the evidence of climate change and clinging “to the agenda of denial.” Then Emanuel added his name to the Climate Science Rapid Response Team, a website run by scientists to provide accurate information from top researchers in climate-related fields. > > “I’ve always rebelled against the thinking that ideology can trump fact,” said Emanuel, 55. “The people who call themselves conservative these days aren’t conservative by my definition. I think they’re quite radical.” > > Paradoxically, over the last 40 years, it was conservative Republican administrations that pushed through the creation of the Environmental Protection Agency and the signing of the Endangered Species Act and the Clean Air Act. > > But today, most conservatives have lined up against scientists — and transformed what started out as a technical issue into one dominated by ideology and sometimes religion. > > “Kerry is a self-avowed conservative,” said Michael Mann, a climate scientist who called Emanuel “a leading light” in the field. “But that has no bearing on his view that human-caused climate change is a reality — that, after all, is a scientific issue, not a political issue,” he said. ---
**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:** [June 30, 2013, 3:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-climate-may-be-heating-up-less-in-response-to-greenhouse-gas-emissions-than-was-once-thought/662157/67 "2013-06-30T15:25:22Z")
> [@Martin\_Hyde](#): > > Not sure what is wrong with your quote, but you’re misattributing to me. Your quote link goes to a post of mine, but not the text indicated. **Independence** is the one who wrote the quoted text. You are correct, and I have no idea how that happened. Apologies. The quote is of course not from you. I clicked on the post quoted, how it links to your name instead is a mystery. ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2013, 3:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-climate-may-be-heating-up-less-in-response-to-greenhouse-gas-emissions-than-was-once-thought/662157/68 "2013-06-30T15:54:43Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > So sorry to say but your post is blaming the victim, and it shows how even slightly moderate Republicans get affected by the right wing bubble of information, what you are ignoring is that the Republicans that do take science into account must now offer tough love to their representatives, or to refuse to vote for them until they show reason, because that is what is needed now. It is indeed something that Kerry Emmanuel is doing. I won’t be responding to you any further in this thread since you explicitly and intentionally misinterpreted and misrepresented my opinions on Gore, and also since you presented a statement of opinion about a politician’s impact on a debate as something that called for “sources” to be brought into the discussion. It combines poor discussion manners with annoying behavior (we don’t need citations to discuss comparative feelings about a politician.) ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2013, 4:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-climate-may-be-heating-up-less-in-response-to-greenhouse-gas-emissions-than-was-once-thought/662157/69 "2013-06-30T16:21:56Z")
**Martin Hyde** , I wish we were at the point where such a debate (on whether we should be trying to slow the change or adapt to it) were possible. Because that really is a legitimate debate, and it really isn’t clear to what extent we should be pursuing each of those strategies. But unfortunately, we still have a very large fraction of our body politic denying that there’s any problem at all, which makes a debate about what to do about it impossible. Even those of us who are realists about the topic can’t really go ahead and start the debate while we wait for the deniers to catch up, since an informed debate would require studies which have not yet been done, and which won’t be done until a majority agrees that they’re necessary. ---
**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:** [June 30, 2013, 4:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-climate-may-be-heating-up-less-in-response-to-greenhouse-gas-emissions-than-was-once-thought/662157/70 "2013-06-30T16:31:30Z")
> [@Martin\_Hyde](#): > > I won’t be responding to you any further in this thread since you explicitly and intentionally misinterpreted and misrepresented my opinions on Gore, and also since you presented a statement of opinion about a politician’s impact on a debate as something that called for “sources” to be brought into the discussion. It combines poor discussion manners with annoying behavior (we don’t need citations to discuss comparative feelings about a politician.) Yeah, of course, lets ignore that the 21st century is here and this is just a discussion where we can not point out how distortions from the media are affecting the discussion in the political sphere. I would point out that for all the pretense that “that’s precisely why this has to be an economic and political discussion.” The reality is that when politics are dealt with, what many conservatives show is that there is then a need to clam up. So I do point out at your Gore post as part of the problem, **he is not even at the front and center of this.** and i wonder if it is a fallacy to go for the old “I’m not saying he is X, but…” The demand to the current Republican congress critters should be clear: Stop beating around the bush and deal with what the scientists and experts report are the issues and the solutions. Otherwise, no support, but opposition to you will come from even Republicans in the next election. ---
**Author:** ![Bridget\_Burke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7cd45c/32.png) [@Bridget\_Burke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bridget_Burke)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2013, 5:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-climate-may-be-heating-up-less-in-response-to-greenhouse-gas-emissions-than-was-once-thought/662157/71 "2013-06-30T17:02:39Z")
Last summer, the _Washington Post_ considered how Climate Change had been handled in [different Republican Platforms](http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/08/30/gop-platform-highlights-the-partys-drastic-shift-on-energy-climate-issues/). From 2008: > [@](#): > > The same human economic activity that has brought freedom and opportunity to billions has also increased the amount of carbon in the atmosphere. While the scope and longterm consequences of this are the subject of ongoing scientific research, common sense dictates that the United States should take measured and reasonable steps today to reduce any impact on the environment. Those steps, if consistent with our global competitiveness will also be good for our national security, our energy independence, and our economy. Climate Change was accepted reality. The Republicans did not agree 100% with Democratic proposals & generally favored more conservative methods of handling the problem. > [@](#): > > Skip ahead to 2012, and the GOP platform takes a markedly different tone. That section devoted to climate change? Gone. Instead, the platform flatly opposes ”any and all cap and trade legislation” to curtail greenhouse gases. It demands that Congress “take quick action to prohibit the EPA from moving forward with new greenhouse gas regulations.” It criticizes the Obama administration’s National Security Strategy for ”elevat[ing] ‘climate change’ to the level of a ‘severe threat’ equivalent to foreign aggression.” The platform even tosses in what appears to be a subtle swipe at climate scientists: > > > [@](#): > > > > Moreover, the advance of science and technology advances environmentalism as well. Science allows us to weigh the costs and benefits of a policy so that we can prudently deal with our resources.\*\* This is especially important when the causes and long-range effects of a phenomenon are uncertain.\*\* We must restore scientific integrity to our public research institutions and remove political incentives from publicly funded research. [Emphasis added] The current political, ahem, climate is not favorable to measured debate on how best to deal with Climate Change. Why not just “fix” science so these inconvenient ideas disappear? ---
**Author:** ![Colibri](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/colibri/32/1841_2.png) [@Colibri](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Colibri)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2013, 5:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-climate-may-be-heating-up-less-in-response-to-greenhouse-gas-emissions-than-was-once-thought/662157/72 "2013-06-30T17:07:17Z")
> [@Martin\_Hyde](#): > > Not sure what is wrong with your quote, but you’re misattributing to me. Your quote link goes to a post of mine, but not the text indicated. **Independence** is the one who wrote the quoted text. > [@FXMastermind](#): > > You are correct, and I have no idea how that happened. Apologies. The quote is of course not from you. I clicked on the post quoted, how it links to your name instead is a mystery. Note: I fixed the quote attribution. ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2013, 5:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-climate-may-be-heating-up-less-in-response-to-greenhouse-gas-emissions-than-was-once-thought/662157/73 "2013-06-30T17:25:52Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > **Martin Hyde** , I wish we were at the point where such a debate (on whether we should be trying to slow the change or adapt to it) were possible. Because that really is a legitimate debate, and it really isn’t clear to what extent we should be pursuing each of those strategies. But unfortunately, we still have a very large fraction of our body politic denying that there’s any problem at all, which makes a debate about what to do about it impossible. Even those of us who are realists about the topic can’t really go ahead and start the debate while we wait for the deniers to catch up, since an informed debate would require studies which have not yet been done, and which won’t be done until a majority agrees that they’re necessary. I don’t know that that is true, evolution has long been taught in schools in the United States and a vast swathe of the populace does not believe it at all. I think something like 60% of Americans do not believe in evolution, so there is little to no chance of winning some campaign based on facts and research articles to educate the public. If it hasn’t worked in over a hundred years of evolution debates in the United States I see little reason to expect it to work on climate change. I don’t believe the majority of the public needs to believe any particular bit of scientific knowledge per se, you just need some lever with which to move things. In education it was a bit simpler because while highly political it’s not “as” politicized as things like environmental regulations, but even those are significantly alterable by administrative fiat through control of the EPA and etc. ---
**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:** [June 30, 2013, 5:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-climate-may-be-heating-up-less-in-response-to-greenhouse-gas-emissions-than-was-once-thought/662157/74 "2013-06-30T17:26:06Z")
> [@Colibri](#): > > Note: I fixed the quote attribution. Thanks. ---
**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:** [June 30, 2013, 5:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-climate-may-be-heating-up-less-in-response-to-greenhouse-gas-emissions-than-was-once-thought/662157/75 "2013-06-30T17:34:42Z")
While every topic even remotely about weather or climate tends to turn into a political grudge match, the issue of global temperature response to CO2 forcing is a legitimate issue, all politics and economics aside. Even the most dedicated believer of global warming is now faced with coming up with something to explain the lack of warming. As the years went by the arguments and denial of what actually is happening have evolved and changed. Currently there is even a conflict within the believers camp. As well as the die hard sect that insists warming has proceeded just as the models predicted. While the political and economic and even moral issues are complex, and quite heated, the scientific issues are more important, as knowing what is actually happening is more important than any wishful thinking. There is little doubt at his point, based on available evidence, that global warming has not occurred as predicted by the consensus science. It’s safe to ignore the “there has never been any warming” crowd as it is to ignore the “the warming hasn’t slowed at all” crowd. Both are wrong. ---
**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:** [June 30, 2013, 5:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-climate-may-be-heating-up-less-in-response-to-greenhouse-gas-emissions-than-was-once-thought/662157/76 "2013-06-30T17:54:44Z")
> [@Martin\_Hyde](#): > > I don’t know that that is true, evolution has long been taught in schools in the United States and a vast swathe of the populace does not believe it at all. I think something like 60% of Americans do not believe in evolution, so there is little to no chance of winning some campaign based on facts and research articles to educate the public. If it hasn’t worked in over a hundred years of evolution debates in the United States I see little reason to expect it to work on climate change. I don’t believe the majority of the public needs to believe any particular bit of scientific knowledge per se, you just need some lever with which to move things. In education it was a bit simpler because while highly political it’s not “as” politicized as things like environmental regulations, but even those are significantly alterable by administrative fiat through control of the EPA and etc. When I look at the history of it, one of the main reasons why Evolution is not removed from school even if the majority wants it, is that the courts have rendered their verdicts, quote simply the weight of science triumphs there is because even judges appointed by Republicans conclude that what the creationists and ID proponents push is religion or hopelessly contradictory information that does not begin to form a good alternative to what the science reports. If your point here is that to go ahead we should ignore the politicians where academia an education is concerned, I welcome that, but unfortunately a lot of the sequestration choices made by the Republicans are leading to less money and resources for academia to investigate the solutions there. If the discussion should go ahead in the courts, I would welcome that too as what I have seen, just like in Evolution, the deniers are losing. But I still do not see what that had to do with the debate that needs to take place on the political side, what I get here is the idea that we should not worry about what the politicians are doing right now but as \*\*Chronos \*\*points out, over there it is the blind leading the blind, and it has consequences in the real world. I do not think a political discussion can avoid what is happening in congress. ---
**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:** [June 30, 2013, 5:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-climate-may-be-heating-up-less-in-response-to-greenhouse-gas-emissions-than-was-once-thought/662157/77 "2013-06-30T17:57:46Z")
> [@FXMastermind](#): > > While every topic even remotely about weather or climate tends to turn into a political grudge match, the issue of global temperature response to CO2 forcing is a legitimate issue, all politics and economics aside. > > Even the most dedicated believer of global warming is now faced with coming up with something to explain the lack of warming. As the years went by the arguments and denial of what actually is happening have evolved and changed. Currently there is even a conflict within the believers camp. As well as the die hard sect that insists warming has proceeded just as the models predicted. > > While the political and economic and even moral issues are complex, and quite heated, the scientific issues are more important, as knowing what is actually happening is more important than any wishful thinking. > > There is little doubt at his point, based on available evidence, that global warming has not occurred as predicted by the consensus science. It’s safe to ignore the “there has never been any warming” crowd as it is to ignore the “the warming hasn’t slowed at all” crowd. Both are wrong. As shown before, this point is dishonest. > **[New Research Confirms Global Warming Has Accelerated](https://skepticalscience.com/new-research-confirms-global-warming-has-accelerated.html)** > > A new study of ocean warming has just been published in Geophysical Research Letters by Balmaseda, Trenberth, and Källén (2013).  There are several important conclusions which can be drawn from this paper. > [@](#): > > A new study of ocean warming has just been published in Geophysical Research Letters by Balmaseda, Trenberth, and Källén (2013). There are several important conclusions which can be drawn from this paper. > > ``` > Completely contrary to the popular contrarian myth, global warming has accelerated, with more overall global warming in the past 15 years than the prior 15 years. This is because about 90% of overall global warming goes into heating the oceans, and the oceans have been warming dramatically. > > As suspected, much of the 'missing heat' Kevin Trenberth previously talked about has been found in the deep oceans. Consistent with the results of Nuccitelli et al. (2012), this study finds that 30% of the ocean warming over the past decade has occurred in the deeper oceans below 700 meters, which they note is unprecedented over at least the past half century. > > Some recent studies have concluded based on the slowed global surface warming over the past decade that the sensitivity of the climate to the increased greenhouse effect is somewhat lower than the IPCC best estimate. Those studies are fundamentally flawed because they do not account for the warming of the deep oceans. > > The slowed surface air warming over the past decade has lulled many people into a false and unwarranted sense of security. > > ``` ---
**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:** [June 30, 2013, 6:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-climate-may-be-heating-up-less-in-response-to-greenhouse-gas-emissions-than-was-once-thought/662157/78 "2013-06-30T18:03:22Z")
Special attention should be given to the second graph in this article: > **[Media Overlooking 90% of Global Warming](https://skepticalscience.com/clarifying-continuation-global-warming.html)** > > As we have previously discussed, the overall warming or heat accumulation of the planet has continued, and if anything accelerated over the past 10–15 years (Figure 1). > [@](#): > > Figure 2: A visual depiction of how much global warming heat is going into the various components of the climate system for the period 1993 to 2003, calculated from IPCC AR4 5.2.2.3. **Note that focusing on surface air temperatures misses more than 90% of the overall warming of the planet.** As pointed before to FXMastermind, but he forgot, the point about “the lack of warming” only works by cherry picking the surface air temperatures and a few ocean temperature points, that will only give you an extremely misleading talking point. ---
**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:** [June 30, 2013, 6:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-climate-may-be-heating-up-less-in-response-to-greenhouse-gas-emissions-than-was-once-thought/662157/79 "2013-06-30T18:48:24Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Special attention should be given to the second graph in this article: > > [Media Overlooking 90% of Global Warming](http://www.skepticalscience.com/clarifying-continuation-global-warming.html) > As pointed before to FXMastermind, but he forgot, the point about “the lack of warming” only works by cherry picking the surface air temperatures and a few ocean temperature points, that will only give you an extremely misleading talking point. 2008? Really? Even so, this means you accept that atmospheric temperature has not risen (or at least, hasno’t risen enough). ---
**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:** [June 30, 2013, 7:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-climate-may-be-heating-up-less-in-response-to-greenhouse-gas-emissions-than-was-once-thought/662157/80 "2013-06-30T19:06:23Z")
> [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > 2008? Really? > Even so, this means you accept that atmospheric temperature has not risen (or at least, hasno’t risen enough). And the cherry is picked again, what you always miss from this is that good data is being separated from the context to arrive to misleading say so’s. For example, even the point that “As well as the die hard sect that insists warming has proceeded just as the models predicted.” is misleading as scientists like Latif explained how the false skeptics would misinterpret his statements on the \*\*expected \*\*slowdowns in the surface temperatures. [http://climatecrocks.com/2009/10/06/birth-of-a-crock/](http://climatecrocks.com/2009/10/06/birth-of-a-crock/) > [@](#): > > The observation that natural climate variability exists is not a new one. > > Early in September 2009, at a gathering of experts on global climate change, one of the world’s most respected and experienced climate modelers, Mojib Latif, made some observations on climate, media and human nature. > > The message seemed clear- > natural variations in the long term warming might be misinterpreted > by the media. out of ignorance, or malice. > > Climate deniers were quick to take Latif’s remarks, and begin > doing exactly that. Once again, this is a case for why one should clean up their sources of information, the reality is that no matter how even headed one thinks he/she is. One does eventually pick up really dumb information that shows up in discussions like this one. I have seen even relatives begin to repeat certifiable nonsense, even if one assumes that we have to be fair, the problem here is that just as Oreskes showed many sources are even reporting false equivalency or are even committing fraud, or they are not giving you good information, out of ignorance or malice. And the bull does accumulate. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-climate-may-be-heating-up-less-in-response-to-greenhouse-gas-emissions-than-was-once-thought/662157.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-climate-may-be-heating-up-less-in-response-to-greenhouse-gas-emissions-than-was-once-thought/662157.md?page=5)