Impact of Climate Change Is Hitting Home, U.S. Report Finds

[Farsight001]

As has been established on here previously, there is no such thing as “formal education” in global warming. There are scientists in various fields who have written their opinions, from the points of view of the varying disciplines in which they are educated. Some are from this background educationally, and some are from that. But it is not a single, unified scientific discipline.

This paragraph just reiterates how little you know on the subject.

And you know nothing at all about me.

Normally, no. But if a man tries to tell me that 2+2=5, then I can logically conclude that they don’t know anything about math. Likewise, if a man tells me that global warming is false, I can similarly conclude that the don’t know anything about global warming. And yws, the analogy is proper.

You are obviously fairly new here, and undoubtedly missed out on the many threads that appeared here on the subject over the last years; the graphs pointing up and the ones pointing down, the ones correlated with this and the ones correlated with that. It’s a shame, really, but everybody here has missed some things of value. One could not have read all of that and failed to come away with the conclusion that it is a debated topic with reputable people holding opposite views based on the “science” of it as they saw it.

Fairly new with 1844 posts and a join date of January 2009? I did not fail to conclude that it is a debated topic. It IS a debated topic. We are debating the topic. But just because the average person debates the topic doesn’t mean the experts have not settled the issue already. Like I said before, the game is over. That you wish to continue kicking the ball around does not change this fact.

What precise measures do believers in MMGW such as yourself (and others on here), believe people should adopt a) voluntarily or b) by government fiat? Perhaps, other than the offering you made which I mentioned above, you prefer not to do that. You could have simply said so. A question I already answered, and, in fact, a question that is its own field of study with its own degrees and its own experts. I am not one of those experts and have just learned the basics, so I cannot offer a comprehensive answer. But let me point out here that your question, when it comes down to it, basically equates to “so what if it’s real. What do you expect us to do about it?” The message I get is that you’re basically saying that we shouldn’t bother trying because you don’t know how to fix it.

If, however, it seems preferable to speak to others in a disparaging manner, it probably isn’t me who should seek another site on which to hold forth. On the other hand, I think most here would affirm that those who exhibit reasonably good manners generally find CAF a congenial forum for their points of view.

I have not spoken to a single person in this thread in a disparaging manner. Meanwhile, I have been mocked repeatedly, and been spoken to in a rather patronizing and intentionally difficult way. I feel as though it is some peoples’ priority not to discuss the issue, but to get under the skin of anyone who accepts global warming, which is why we have consistently had to answer the same questions over and over.

 

[Ridgerunner]

This paragraph just reiterates how little you know on the subject.

Normally, no. But if a man tries to tell me that 2+2=5, then I can logically conclude that they don’t know anything about math. Likewise, if a man tells me that global warming is false, I can similarly conclude that the don’t know anything about global warming. And yws, the analogy is proper.

Fairly new with 1844 posts and a join date of January 2009? I did not fail to conclude that it is a debated topic. It IS a debated topic. We are debating the topic. But just because the average person debates the topic doesn’t mean the experts have not settled the issue already. Like I said before, the game is over. That you wish to continue kicking the ball around does not change this fact.

What precise measures do believers in MMGW such as yourself (and others on here), believe people should adopt a) voluntarily or b) by government fiat? Perhaps, other than the offering you made which I mentioned above, you prefer not to do that. You could have simply said so.

A question I already answered, and, in fact, a question that is its own field of study with its own degrees and its own experts. I am not one of those experts and have just learned the basics, so I cannot offer a comprehensive answer. But let me point out here that your question, when it comes down to it, basically equates to “so what if it’s real. What do you expect us to do about it?” The message I get is that you’re basically saying that we shouldn’t bother trying because you don’t know how to fix it.

I have not spoken to a single person in this thread in a disparaging manner. Meanwhile, I have been mocked repeatedly, and been spoken to in a rather patronizing and intentionally difficult way. I feel as though it is some peoples’ priority not to discuss the issue, but to get under the skin of anyone who accepts global warming, which is why we have consistently had to answer the same questions over and over.

The people usually cited as scientific experts on global warming are from all kinds of different disciplines. All one has to do is look at a list of them to know that. It is not a scientific field all its own.

I think many would think some of your posts ill-mannered and rude.
If you don’t see it, you don’t.

Never did I say that “if we don’t know how to fix it, we should not bother trying”. What I intended to say, but apparently didn’t do it sufficiently well, is that the MMGW issue is debated by reputable people, each having their own evidence, but the thing really comes down to what anybody proposes to do about it. In a debate in which there is no certitude, one then needs to consider how peoples’ lives are to be affected by remedies that might or might not be needed. Some remedies I have seen would cause a great deal of misery, even deaths.

That’s not to say no one has a right to talk about it if they have no practical solutions. One does. But if one does not propose remedies, then the whole issue is nothing but an academic debate about something nobody can really prove scientifically.

This from your last post is curious: "Likewise, if a man tells me that global warming is false, I can similarly conclude that the don’t know anything about global warming. "

But you really can’t.

This might be how you feel about it, but what you’re really doing here is requiring acceptance of your premises just because you enunciate them. One might just as validly say that anyone who believes in MMGW can’t know anything about it because the proposition is wrong to begin with.

 

[Farsight001]

The people usually cited as scientific experts on global warming are from all kinds of different disciplines. All one has to do is look at a list of them to know that. It is not a scientific field all its own.

People across disciplines can talk about the impact climate change is having on their discipline. Marine biologists can see the effects climate change and water pollution are having on the coral reefs, and so they speak on that. Entomologists can better see the effect climate change is having on bees, and so can speak on that. Geologists and environmental scientists can be experts on the polar ice caps and their melting, and can speak on that. That does not refute the fact that climate change is its own field of study. They are not speaking on the change itself, but on the effects of that change. There is a difference. So no, all one has to do is actually quite a bit more than just look at the list. This is the crux of your problem - you look at the surface of the situation and conclude that you know just as much as the rest of us, while there is a large depth to all of it that you don’t even seem to know about.

I think many would think some of your posts ill-mannered and rude.
If you don’t see it, you don’t.

Then they are misreading my posts.

Never did I say that “if we don’t know how to fix it, we should not bother trying”.

No, you did not say it, nor did I claim you did. I merely pointed out that it was the logical conclusion of your claim.

What I intended to say, but apparently didn’t do it sufficiently well, is that the MMGW issue is debated by reputable people, each having their own evidence, but the thing really comes down to what anybody proposes to do about it.

If that is what you intended to say, then let me point out that what you intended to say is in no way accurate or reflective of reality. Like I said before, the debate among experts is over. The game has ended. You’re trying to continue kicking the ball around while everyone else wants to clean up the field.

In a debate in which there is no certitude, one then needs to consider how peoples’ lives are to be affected by remedies that might or might not be needed. Some remedies I have seen would cause a great deal of misery, even deaths.

It is true that the impact on peoples’ lives is to be considered. But when the result of not taking action is nothing short of the extinction of the human race, then the impact of whatever plan we wind up carrying out is a drop in the bucket in comparison.

But if one does not propose remedies, then the whole issue is nothing but an academic debate about something nobody can really prove scientifically.

Except, again, it has already been scientifically proven. (As much as one can prove something in science. “proof” is not a word scientists tend toward using in a technical capacity). Global warming has as much evidence to support it as gravity does.

But you really can’t.

Yes, yes I can, and no, it is not just how I feel about it. The analogy with math above, as I said, was perfectly apt. This is what you are just not getting. The game is over. Global warming is as proven real as gravity and the theory of relativity and that dinosaurs are extinct and all that. It’s as real as you and I, so unless you want to dive into Descartian philosophy, I can, and do, in fact, know, by your very denial of a rather absolute truth, that you do not understand the situation. I repeat the analogy - if you claim that 2+2=5, I can logically conclude that you do not understand mathematics. Likewise, and TO THE VERY SAME DEGREE, if you claim that global warming is not real, I can logically conclude that you do not understand global warming. Once again, the game is over. I don’t know how to be more blunt or more clear about this without crossing the line into rule breaking. The reality of global warming has not been in question and has not been a matter of opinion or perspective for many years now.

 

[LisaA]

Likewise, and TO THE VERY SAME DEGREE, if you claim that global warming is not real, I can logically conclude that you do not understand global warming. Once again, the game is over. I don’t know how to be more blunt or more clear about this without crossing the line into rule breaking. The reality of global warming has not been in question and has not been a matter of opinion or perspective for many years now.

You are simply expressing your opinon because there is a group of scientists with whom you agree, despite evidence that these same scientists wanted to hide data that did not comport with their preconceived theories.

So all of the scientists, papers, research and authorities on the other side are completely lacking in credibility and only “YOUR” sources are credible?

Kimmielittle among others has cited many other authorities, provided graphs and charts (at least as credible as your famous hockey stick!) that are also credible but you continue to claim “game over” which sounds more like a bumper sticker than a logical conclusion.

I say the game is not over, there are always new developments both supporting global warming and against this theory.

But your statements are no more credible the 99th time than the first because you are simply expressing an opinion.

Lisa

PS I agree with Ridge, your posts verge on rude and I know what it takes to get benched on this list…been there done that

 

[Farsight001]

You are simply expressing your opinon because there is a group of scientists with whom you agree, despite evidence that these same scientists wanted to hide data that did not comport with their preconceived theories.

No, I am not expressing opinion. And those scientists who you say wanted to hide date? They did no such thing. This has been covered in this very thread already.

So all of the scientists, papers, research and authorities on the other side are completely lacking in credibility and only “YOUR” sources are credible?

No. But there exist no up to date papers on the other side.

Kimmielittle among others has cited many other authorities, provided graphs and charts (at least as credible as your famous hockey stick!) that are also credible but you continue to claim “game over” which sounds more like a bumper sticker than a logical conclusion.

Yes, cited many authors that, due to Kimmielittle and others’ backgrounds in something other than a relevant field, they have clearly misunderstood, because those papers and charts and graphs support, not oppose global warming. this has already been explained as well.

I say the game is not over, there are always new developments both supporting global warming and against this theory.

Hence the problem. When people claim that the game is not over and fight against the outcome, they are effectively holding back progress toward fixing the problem. We can come up with all the solutions we want, but if half the population is unwilling to accept and implement them because they are adamant that the problem doesn’t really exist, then nothing will get fixed. As the saying goes, “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.” And since so many people falsely believe that “it ain’t broke”, they’re not going to be receptive to attempt to fix a problem that they don’t believe exists.

PS I agree with Ridge, your posts verge on rude and I know what it takes to get benched on this list…been there done that

Then you realize that repeatedly calling me and my posts rude and calling my integrity and motivations into question is itself a rule violation. In which case, you should probably stop doing that.

 

[LisaA]

No, I am not expressing opinion. And those scientists who you say wanted to hide date? They did no such thing. This has been covered in this very thread already.

No. But there exist no up to date papers on the other side.

Yes, cited many authors that, due to Kimmielittle and others’ backgrounds in something other than a relevant field, they have clearly misunderstood, because those papers and charts and graphs support, not oppose global warming. this has already been explained as well.

Hence the problem. When people claim that the game is not over and fight against the outcome, they are effectively holding back progress toward fixing the problem. We can come up with all the solutions we want, but if half the population is unwilling to accept and implement them because they are adamant that the problem doesn’t really exist, then nothing will get fixed. As the saying goes, “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.” And since so many people falsely believe that “it ain’t broke”, they’re not going to be receptive to attempt to fix a problem that they don’t believe exists.

Then you realize that repeatedly calling me and my posts rude and calling my integrity and motivations into question is itself a rule violation. In which case, you should probably stop doing that.

No more credible the 100th time and your last sentence was uncalled for. Do not wonder why your cause is shedding supporters. The shrill and overly hysterical warnings just make you sound even less authoritative.

I never called into question your motives. I have no clue why you continue to rail against those who disagree. Now some have financial incentives. Who made more off of Global Warming bloviation than Al Gore (not a scientist FWIW). Nor did I say anything about your integrity. I simply asked why you would not consider any other position on the subject. I don’t know that your scientists are any more credible than the ones Kimmielittle or others have quoted. Repeating the same mantra may help you relax but it’s not very convincing absent any real evidence (your opinion is not evidence).

BTW I grew up with scientists (biology, genetics, botany) and saw how well established theories would sometimes be completely debunked. So just because a scientist said so today doesn’t mean he or another scientist will change positions following additonal research.

Lisa

 

[kimmielittle]

Except, again, it has already been scientifically proven. (As much as one can prove something in science. “proof” is not a word scientists tend toward using in a technical capacity). Global warming has as much evidence to support it as gravity does.

Questions:
What computer and climate model program has been validated? If they were ‘validated’ they would not need “adjustments”…they would be valid ].

What temperature data set has been validated? NOT even the “raw data” is validated - If they were ‘validated’ …no ‘adjustments’ would be necessary ].

When you 'adjust" DATA or computer modeling…YOU DO SO BECAUSE THERE IS A DIVERGANCE from your expected projection.

A Science Hypothesis needs these criteria… falsification and reproducibility.

When you ‘adjust’ toward your hypothesis … That is not science.

 

[wittgenstein]

Dueling scientists? That gives the impression that the facts and opinions are equal. Like one cowboy against another cowboy in a gunfight. In reality 97% of climate scientists support AGW. To call that a duel is even more silly then calling a football game between the Detroit Lions and myself a close contest. If anyone thinks I (and all by myself) could win against the entire Lion’s team… I’ll let you arrive at the obvious conclusion.
I have never personally done any experiments that prove that the world is not flat. I’d imagine that you have not done so also.However, it would be absurd, to think that there is a reasonable possibility that the earth is flat,and that the entire scientific community is lying.
The burden of proof is on the deniers of a spherical earth’s side.

 

[Farsight001]

No more credible the 100th time and your last sentence was uncalled for.

No less credible the 100th time either, and my last sentence was a reflection of what you wrote to me. If mine was uncalled for, so was yours.

Do not wonder why your cause is shedding supporters.

No, I don’t wonder because it’s not shedding supporters.

The shrill and overly hysterical warnings just make you sound even less authoritative.

Well pardon me for not wanting the human race to go extinct. I’m sorry for caring.

I never called into question your motives. I have no clue why you continue to rail against those who disagree.

Because those who disagree are helping us towards catastrophic climate change. If you knew billions of people would die if half the world didn’t change their attitude quick, you’d be flipping out too.

Now some have financial incentives. Who made more off of Global Warming bloviation than Al Gore (not a scientist FWIW).

Oil companies made a whole lot more by convincing people not to care. Now they’re financing the new anti-fracking movie with Matt Damon in it because fracking takes away their business. They also paid the guys who leaked the climategate e-mails to do it in the first place. Didn’t know that one, did you?

Nor did I say anything about your integrity. I simply asked why you would not consider any other position on the subject.

For literally the exact same reason that I would not consider 5 a valid answer to 2+2. I don’t know how you’re not getting this. Once again, the game is over. I’m not exaggerating. This is not a matter opinion. This is reality. As real as you and I and as real as the weak economy. As real as gravity. I can’t be any clearer. Favorite colors are opinion. Favorite foods are opinion. Whether or not global warming is real is not a matter of opinion.

I don’t know that your scientists are any more credible than the ones Kimmielittle or others have quoted.

Like I said, the scientists you and Kimmielittle keep quoting tend to be opposing your position, not supporting it. Other posters here have clarified this same thing for you too.

BTW I grew up with scientists (biology, genetics, botany) and saw how well established theories would sometimes be completely debunked.

While technically possible, theories also reach a point in which they can’t be debunked, but only tweaked. Gravity, for example, is still a theory. No matter how many times you pick something up and watch it fall, it will forever remain a theory, and that theory can’t really ever be overturned, barring some ridiculous discovery such as we’re all living in the matrix or something. Global warming is likewise as solid.

 

[Farsight001]

Questions:
What computer and climate model program has been validated? If they were ‘validated’ they would not need “adjustments”…they would be valid ].

What temperature data set has been validated? NOT even the “raw data” is validated - If they were ‘validated’ …no ‘adjustments’ would be necessary ].

When you 'adjust" DATA or computer modeling…YOU DO SO BECAUSE THERE IS A DIVERGANCE from your expected projection.

A Science Hypothesis needs these criteria… falsification and reproducibility.

When you ‘adjust’ toward your hypothesis … That is not science.

I’m sorry, but nothing you just said was accurate. In ALL fields of science, data models are tweaked regularly. It’s called common sense. I worked in a hospital for some years. I would take blood sugar levels of patients all the time. If I took a blood sugar and the result was 500, but the patient seemed awake, alert, steady on their feet, and just fine, I would not freak out and rush them to the ER. I would realize that something must have contaminated the measurement and tweak it by testing the patient again. Adjustment is a regular and mundane and not all all shocking occurrence.

 

[Farsight001]

Dueling scientists? That gives the impression that the facts and opinions are equal. Like one cowboy against another cowboy in a gunfight. In reality 97% of climate scientists support AGW. To call that a duel is even more silly then calling a football game between the Detroit Lions and myself a close contest.

Well if your name is Mike Ditka…

 

[kimmielittle]

No, I am not expressing opinion. And those scientists who you say wanted to hide date? They did no such thing.

Actually, no…the very scientists involved say it was to hide the decline.

DATA HIDING:
“I’ve been told that IPCC is above national FOI [Freedom of Information] Acts. One way to cover yourself and all those working in AR5 would be to delete all emails at the end of the process,”writes Phil Jones, a scientist working with the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), in a newly released email.

“Any work we have done in the past is done on the back of the research grants we get – and has to be well hidden,” Jones writes in another newly released email. “I’ve discussed this with the main funder (U.S. Dept of Energy) in the past and they are happy about not releasing the original station data



wattsupwiththat.com/2011/11/30/hide-the-decline-worse-than-we-thought/

No. But there exist no up to date papers on the other side.

Nonsense.

Here is just a few: populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html

Kimmielittle and others’ backgrounds in something other than a relevant field.

What background do you claim I hail from?

 

[kimmielittle]

I’m sorry, but nothing you just said was accurate. In ALL fields of science, data models are tweaked regularly. It’s called common sense. I worked in a hospital for some years. I would take blood sugar levels of patients all the time. If I took a blood sugar and the result was 500, but the patient seemed awake, alert, steady on their feet, and just fine, I would not freak out and rush them to the ER. I would realize that something must have contaminated the measurement and tweak it by testing the patient again. Adjustment is a regular and mundane and not all all shocking occurrence.

Sorry, you just described the act of “VALIDATION”. BUT you don’t “tweak” against an invalidated source. Do you care to give us the validation source of climate models / computers that you would need as a litmus?

Just how much did you “tweak” that machine…using a patient… Instead of a credible litmus?

 

[wittgenstein]

Actually, Lisa, the AGW deniers are losing support. Many previois deniers are now supporters. It is not going the opposite way
Also,you actually claim to not be questioning motives after post after post (without any evidence) of ad hominums accusing supporters of AGW of being America hating commies that are part of a conspiracy?

 

[kimmielittle]

Actually, Lisa, the AGW deniers are losing support. Many previois deniers are now supporters.

Support your claim , please.

Even blog stats show otherwise Real Climate and Skeptical Science are down in readers…

Places like Climate Audit - Climate Depot - Watts Up With That - Junkscience - Suytspace …are surging in followers

 

[Farsight001]

Actually, no…the very scientists involved say it was to hide the decline.

Yes, I know what they say. As I said, this has already been explained in this thread. They were not trying to keep data a secret from the public in some sort of conspiracy. It was mundane actions. Read the whole conversation instead of just individual e-mails. The fact that we have to go over this same stuff again and again is ridiculous.

 

[wittgenstein]

Now you get it.

It is pointless to debate these people. They think all empirical evidence from legitimate sources is evidence of a conspiracy. Without data,a real debate is impossible.
From post 351, read the whole post to see my point. Now,you see why I hate the quote function!

 

[wittgenstein]

Response to 514
I am using a tablet and can not now post sites. However, I will after the weekend and I’m at work. You just have to do some googling. The % of Americans that believe in AGW has dramatically increased while those that believe in a conspiracy has drastically declined. Also, many academically credentialed scientists that were global warming deniers are now firmly in the AGW camp.
Yes, this guy is not a scientist, but even Rubert Murdoch has switched his position! When the anti AGW crowd loses the high priest of conspiracy mongering,that says something!

 

[kimmielittle]

Yes, I know what they say. As I said, this has already been explained in this thread. They were not trying to keep data a secret from the public in some sort of conspiracy. It was mundane actions. Read the whole conversation instead of just individual e-mails. The fact that we have to go over this same stuff again and again is ridiculous.

The fact that you can not vindicate the Data manipulation - exclusion - refusal to present data… for scientific scrutiny … They can’t.

IN science you have to present a valid reason to ‘exclude’ data from research. NONE to this date has been given.

Searchable climategate emails.

foia2011.org/index.php

 

[LisaA]

Actually, Lisa, the AGW deniers are losing support. Many previois deniers are now supporters. It is not going the opposite way
Also,you actually claim to not be questioning motives after post after post (without any evidence) of ad hominums accusing supporters of AGW of being America hating commies that are part of a conspiracy?

Actually I’ve heard the opposite, that the GW skeptics are gaining ground. Certainly the GW alarmists have not made a very good case to the people, even the Europeans who got on the bandwagon early.

The whole issue has far less support than it did only a few years ago. You may pooh-pooh Climategate but when you see the very scientists who are making these claims openly discuss a need to hide data that are in opposition to their crusade, then it’s understandable. Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me. Most of us have heard the “Cry Wolf” story.

Also do not know where you came up with anyone in disagreement claims it’s a bunch of Reds plotting the demise of America. You may hate the quote feature but when you make specious claims it helps if you can actually document them.

Lisa