Is Manmade Global Warming Real?

[kimmielittle]

Which is why we don’t take opinions of bloggers over the arduous studies of scientists…

Ha ha ha ha…“Bloggers” have been the “check and balance” that IPCC - CRU - Mann - Jones - Bradley et al - Journals - Climate Science itself ], would not SELF-IMPOSE upon itself.

Of course, AGW’ers hate “bloggers”.

You mean many universities are heavily funded by industries like Exxon, Koch, and Shell…,

Nonsense! CRU gets / got funding from the above…along with such as BP.
americanthinker.com/2009/11/cru_files_betray_climate_alarm.html

cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/about/history/

blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100020304/climategate-peak-oil-the-cru-and-the-oman-connection/

and scientists in them have to tow the line & struggle to “disprove” or throw doubt about climate change,

Actually…That IS the job of Scientists - Normal Science protocol…IS it not? ** “The method of science is the method of bold conjectures and ingenious and severe attempts to ‘refute’ them.” Karl Popper**.

and quash anyone on campus who dares to talk about it. I know. That’s been my experience over and over.

Maybe, it’s your delivery? Maybe, it’s mixing fictional unsupportable claims ] with what observational evidence tells us?

 

[kimmielittle]

Here’s something I just read – the data have been refined and the one data set that had 1998 as the warmest year, now has 2010 as being the warmest year on record, with 2005 2nd, and 1998 3rd – however they also point out that this change is no big deal in terms of scientific certainty (just as their original 1998 being the warmest was no big deal and did not prove AGW had stopped or the earth had cooled…which takes decades of data to decide, not just a few years, since el ninos and la ninas can have big short term effect):

smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/perfect-storm-erupts-over-new-climate-data-20120320-1vib5.html

The data sets and methodology haven’t even been released / examined yet. Yet, you and the article support it?

The adjustment to the British data will likely later be reflected in the central collated temperature record, maintained by the World Meteorological Organisation, when the full data set is released. It will be publicly available online shortly.

smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/perfect-storm-erupts-over-new-climate-data-20120320-1vib5.html

At issue was the British dataset only relying on data points, while the 2 U.S. datasets (which did have 2010 as the warmest) would extrapolate from closest data points to regions that had no data. This is important, since greater regions of the arctic than elsewhere have no data points, and the arctic has been warming faster than lower latitudes (which was one of the major causes for the slight discrepancies among datasets).

According to GISS, the Arctic is the fastest warming place on the planet, even though they have no actual temperature data for most of it. Their map shows just how little coverage they have, even allowing for a 250 km projection.

notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2012/02/28/iceland-adjustments-spread-to-norway-and-russia/

The important thing to note is that GHCN_v3 already contains homogeneity “corrections” so there is in most cases now, no difference between
GISS “raw” data (after removing suspicious records), and “after GISS homogeneity adjustments.” As a result, we only get to see temperature data that has already been modified by the hand of man (or a computer under the direction of a man).

Last year in May, GHCN did a major revision of their historical temperature database. They changed the title of the database to GHCN-M version 3. GISS followed. They refer to the new data as GHCN_v3

notrickszone.com/2012/03/01/data-tamperin-giss-caught-red-handed-manipulaing-data-to-produce-arctic-climate-history-revision/

Of course skeptics are going to cry foul and claim that any dataset that shows warming has to be a lie and created by evil-intended scientists out to take over the world, or something.

There is NO reason to trust CRU - IPCC - GISS - GHCN…“adjustments” to history. FOI releases - Climategate 1 - 2 Show these GATEKEEPERS…as self-servers.

 

[kimmielittle]

real-science.com/the-tag-team

One half of the team lies about history, while the other half cools the past and warms the present – thus creating the history which their teammates are rewriting.

 

[lynnvinc]

Hi Lynn,

Not “evil-intended scientists out to take over the world.” More likely opportunistic scientists trying to justify the funding or get more of the same.

The problems with the surface temperature records are many. But this much we know for sure: 1) the custodians of the records are constantly adjusting them, and the vast majority of their adjustments result in the late 20th century being warmer than the 1930’s. 2) James Hansen, Phil Jones, Tom Karl…, The Custodians of the Temps, are notorious proponents of AGW (goes to bias). 3) The records are still contaminated by the urban heat island effect and other biases. 4) Satellite measurement of the bulk atmosphere don’t show as much warming as the surface measurements…

So we skeptics don’t put much stock in what Hansen, Jones et al say about the temp record.

Why not for a moment consider they may be doing legitimate science, tweaking the data to reduce the biases, rather than increase them. The risks if they are right are tremendous, and it would be good to take them seriously, rather than risk great swathes of human and other life. You could write to them and get their (name removed by moderator)ut (they’ve always been forthcoming with my questions). I think they are being needlessly slandered to the detriment of future generations and the poor around the world, and even us, who are suffering the effects of climate change.

Besides, in an unguarded moment, Jones himself said there hasn’t been a statistically significan increase in temps since 1998.

That’s not a secret they’ve been hiding. Climate scientists all know the sun has been in a minimum phase, during which one would expect significant cooling (below the 50 year average, or even 100 year average), if there were no AGW. But that has not happened, the global average temp is still well above those averages.

Climate scientists are aware the climate system is complex with many factors and variables. However, maybe they are concerned the public may not know about these many factors, or be able to distinguish climate from weather. That concerns me too, since the public has decided not to believe scientists, but rely on their own arm-chair folk science specuations, or the more sophisticated twisted science of the climate change disinformation campaign and their websites.

When the sun goes into a maximum irradiation phase, that warming will surely combine with AGW and really heat things up and lead to many harmful impacts. We really don’t want to add to nature’s cycles in that way. Let’s do what we can to reduce our part…on the chance that the climate scientists are honest people doing honest work. I’ve seen the accusations against them, and they don’t really add up to them creating a complete and total lie regarding AGW. We’d best err on the side of prudence, caution, and safety re human life and well-being.

 

[lynnvinc]

http://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2010/10/1998changesannotated.gif?w=500&h=355

real-science.com/the-tag-team

Who exactly is science-denier Steven Goddard?

answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20110309123406AA1ne91

One of our favorite multi-aliased and truth-challenged posters, Napoleon Snowball Rich One Big Brother, has cited his website at least a half-dozen times in “answers” of his during recent months. SG’s name also came up here: answers.yahoo.com/question/index?…
Anyone got more info on SG?

I found a few links, though overall murkiness remains:

climateprogress.org/2008/08/25/a-…

sciblogs.co.nz/hot-topic/2010/10/…
realclimate.org/?comments_pop…
politics.ie/environment/33041…

ANSWER:

Goddard is your typical know nothing AGW denier blogger. He used to be a regular guest author on WattsUpWithThat, except that he became a regular embarrassment, and he and Watts parted ways. In one of the worst examples (although there are so many to choose from), Watts had to apologize for the utter stupidity of one of Goddard’s articles:

“My apologies to readers. I’ll leave it up (note altered title) as an example of what not to do when graphing trends”
wattsupwiththat.com/2010/07/02/ar…

John Cook rebutted another of Goddard’s idiotic WUWT posts here as well:
skepticalscience.com/Watts-Up…

Goddard now runs his own blog. Considering that he was too ignorant even for the exceptionally low standards at WUWT, not surprisingly, very few people actually read it. Apparently it’s not his real name and Steven Goddard is a pseudonym, which is funny, because Anthony Watts claims that everybody who writes on his site goes by their real names.

 

[kimmielittle]

Who exactly is science-denier Steven Goddard?

answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20110309123406AA1ne91

One of our favorite multi-aliased and truth-challenged posters, Napoleon Snowball Rich One Big Brother, has cited his website at least a half-dozen times in “answers” of his during recent months. SG’s name also came up here: answers.yahoo.com/question/index?…
Anyone got more info on SG?

I found a few links, though overall murkiness remains:

climateprogress.org/2008/08/25/a-…

sciblogs.co.nz/hot-topic/2010/10/…
realclimate.org/?comments_pop…
politics.ie/environment/33041…

ANSWER:

Goddard is your typical know nothing AGW denier blogger. He used to be a regular guest author on WattsUpWithThat, except that he became a regular embarrassment, and he and Watts parted ways. In one of the worst examples (although there are so many to choose from), Watts had to apologize for the utter stupidity of one of Goddard’s articles:

“My apologies to readers. I’ll leave it up (note altered title) as an example of what not to do when graphing trends”
wattsupwiththat.com/2010/07/02/ar…

John Cook rebutted another of Goddard’s idiotic WUWT posts here as well:
skepticalscience.com/Watts-Up…

Goddard now runs his own blog. Considering that he was too ignorant even for the exceptionally low standards at WUWT, not surprisingly, very few people actually read it. Apparently it’s not his real name and Steven Goddard is a pseudonym, which is funny, because Anthony Watts claims that everybody who writes on his site goes by their real names.

SOooooooo,you can’t / won’t debate the graphs / adjustments made by the GATEKEEPERS?

You know, you really should put quotation marks around Dana1981 Dana A Nuccitelli of Tetra. Tech, Inc West Sacramento California ] attempted smear…we might think it was yours …originally,

I feel I must warn you in relying on Dana1981 opinions…SUCH AS

“My apologies to readers. I’ll leave it up (note altered title) as an example of what not to do when graphing trends”
wattsupwiththat.com/2010/07/02/ar…

[Note: The title and conclusion are wrong due to bias in the start/end point of the graph,** the mistake was noted by Steven immediately after publication, and listed below as an addendum.

wattsupwiththat.com/2010/07/02/arctic-ice-increasing-by-50000-km2-per-year/

Do you actually do any original research before posting? NONE of Dana1981’s links except the WUWT goes to anything suggesting a reason for the attempted smear by Dana1981.,AND the WUWT quote by dana1981 is typical of what I’ve noticed before…half baked.

 

[kimmielittle]

Why not for a moment consider they may be doing legitimate science, tweaking the data to reduce the biases, rather than increase them.

Because the “biases” are to fit the models…not observational evidence…Follow the pea.

That’s not a secret they’ve been hiding.

Actually, wrong.

but rely on their own arm-chair folk science specuations, or the more sophisticated twisted science of the climate change disinformation campaign and their websites.

You have no evidence of a cartel campaign…WE DO have evidence that IPCC - CRU - Mann - Jones et al have practiced as such.

Let’s do what we can to reduce our part…on the chance that the climate scientists are honest people doing honest work.

When they show us accountability and transparency in data and methodology - THESE ARE the only things demanded of “honest” scientists / science.

 

[MidnightSun12]

Fears of socialism, birth control, and Satan do not lend proof that there is no anthropogenic climate change, but these do reveal why people are afraid to even consider that ACC may be real.

Failing to mitigate climate change is a serious disregard for our neighbors and the poor around the world. What motivated me to get on board 22 years ago was the idea that CC had been increasing droughts and famine in Africa. I just wish other Catholics had such concern for their fellow humans, enough to overcome their fears about CC.

Failing to mitigate climate change may possibly lead to socialism, anarchy, and choas and conflict (or some combo of these), as food productivity slides into serious reductions and potable water becomes scarce. And that would create a horrible “devil’s playground.”

Furthermore, I have never ever called for socialism – I don’t even like Cap & Trade (which is based on a capitalist model), bec it would be ineffective and just put money in the pockets of the fossil fuel industries. I’ve only called for voluntary actions, and at most “Fee & Dividend,” in which ALL the modest fees collected from oil and coal would be divied up and given back to the people…who could use them to pay their slightly higher energy costs, or to become energy/resource efficient/conservative & go to alt energy and really be on the road to wealth and prosperity (while reducing the harm to people and God’s creation).

I do not call for contraception or abortion. I’ve been fighting against abortion for over 40 years, and have been against it for 55 years (many years before I even became a Catholic). I make it a point to tell people that it doesn’t make sense for people to kill children in order to save the world for the children.

Why don’t you Catholics who are skeptical about CC get on board and join me in my Catholic approach to addressing ACC, instead of standing on the sidelines throwing muck at us, and striving to derail us from our mitigating ACC. I’m sure it would please God very much to show how much you care about His people and creation.

Thanks for the reply, Lynn!

It’s not my intention to throw muck at you, but I am tying to help save you from a falsehood that will ultimately lead you down the path of spiritual destruction. Any movement that seeks to elevate the creation (aka. earth) above the creator (God) is by definition satanic. Satan is constantly trying to attach us to money, power and pleasure to separate us from the Lord. How is love of the earth really any different then love of money (or of any other material posession)?

As a fellow catholic, I strongly urge you to watch this video. It’s a bit long, but this video really gave context to a lot of the concerns about the climate change movement that I was feeling deep down:

youtube.com/watch?v=uMFAhW_ZmV8&feature=related

 

[lynnvinc]

Thanks for the reply, Lynn!

It’s not my intention to throw muck at you, but I am tying to help save you from a falsehood that will ultimately lead you down the path of spiritual destruction. Any movement that seeks to elevate the creation (aka. earth) above the creator (God) is by definition satanic. Satan is constantly trying to attach us to money, power and pleasure to separate us from the Lord. How is love of the earth really any different then love of money (or of any other material posession)?

As a fellow catholic, I strongly urge you to watch this video. It’s a bit long, but this video really gave context to a lot of the concerns about the climate change movement that I was feeling deep down:

youtube.com/watch?v=uMFAhW_ZmV8&feature=related

I will NOT return to living a wasteful, profligate lifestyle that harms and kills my fellow humans. No way.

The fact that I also save money to boot, is a plus as in “Seek ye first the kingdom of God and His righteousness, and all things will be added unto you.”

I cannot stomach killing people. Period! I’m a bleeding heart for people’s lives and welfare, and I’m also very concerned about the souls of the skeptics.

The science very clear points to how AGW is and will be killing people. I cannot turn a blind eye to that, and I cannot remain silent. With knowledge goes responsibility.

 

[Kilbourne]

Hi Lynn,

Why not for a moment consider they may be doing legitimate science, tweaking the data to reduce the biases, rather than increase them. T**he risks if they are right are tremendous, and it would be good to take them seriously, rather than risk great swathes of human and other life. **You could write to them and get their (name removed by moderator)ut (they’ve always been forthcoming with my questions). I think they are being needlessly slandered to the detriment of future generations and the poor around the world, and even us, who are suffering the effects of climate change…We’d best err on the side of prudence, caution, and safety re human life and well-being.

As I’ve said before, these guys have proven unworthy of our trust. Their constant tinkering with the data always seems to serve one end, namely that to show that the late 20th century warming was unprecedented and most surely the result of increased atmospheric CO2 from human emissions. If their adjustments were honest, the results wouldn’t always be pointed in one direction.

Regarding your exhortations to act in accordance with the precautionary principal, I recall the words of the late Michael Crichton, who said the PC “cannot be condemned in terms that too harsh.” Just because the GW Movement offers up scary scenarios, doesn’t mean we should get stampeded into drastic cuts of CO2. There are negative consequences to that, as I’ve already shown. I am not saying that you and I can’t adopt some “no regrets” kinds of conservation measures and simple lifestyles (I also plant a lot of trees). However, what these guys, with their wholesale “solutions”, are calling for is nothing less than dismantling our industrial civilization. Hansen is particularly extreme in this regard.

 

[Kilbourne]

Climate skeptics are often dismissed as being driven by ideology and blind to the science. But jeepers, it seems to us that this accusation applies in spades to your heroes in the GW Movement, which is loaded with activist scientists. These guys are quite open about their policy preferences and sometimes are quite candid about their willingness to exaggerate the dangers of GW in order to serve their policy ends. The late Stephen Schneider was infamous in this regard.

Jim Hansen, of course, lost all objectivity long ago. He now likes to get arrested at anti-coal rallies, along with “blond bimbos” like Darryl Hannah.

 

[lynnvinc]

Climate skeptics are often dismissed as being driven by ideology and blind to the science. But jeepers, it seems to us that this accusation applies in spades to your heroes in the GW Movement, which is loaded with activist scientists. These guys are quite open about their policy preferences and sometimes are quite candid about their willingness to exaggerate the dangers of GW in order to serve their policy ends. The late Stephen Schneider was infamous in this regard.

Jim Hansen, of course, lost all objectivity long ago. He now likes to get arrested at anti-coal rallies, along with “blond bimbos” like Darryl Hannah.

Hansen and Hannah are heroes for protesting MTR and coal in general. Even if you don’t believe in AGW, it is a very dirty and harmful thing from mining (MTR or hard-rock) to local pollution, acid rain, AGW, and coal ash spills – harming and killing people.

We might not be brave and bold enough to get arrested for the sake of the life of the world, but we would do well to turn out lights not in use and the many other energy/resource efficient/conservative measures we can feasibly implement, and go on alt energy when feasible.

 

[Lochias]

In the absence of hard, fast and trustworthy evidence, and in the face of hard, fast and trustworthy evidence to the contrary, I am forced to conclude that dangerous man-made global warming is all bunk.

Fear is a powerful tool, and that’s exactly what the folks in charge want the masses to be wallowing in: fear. It breaks down reason and makes others more tractable to one’s will, whatever that may be. The outcries of the so-called scientists and others who endorse such a terror campaign are all nothing but fear-mongers, pulling strings so that sweet, sweet green falls into their pockets from others who want to see the status quo maintained.

I’ve got better things to do than help them get rich off of other people’s fear.

 

[lynnvinc]

I think it might be best to step back away from various details and side isues, and get the big picture of the basics of AGW (which I came to understand well before it became an emotion-ladened issue for people on all sides of the isssue):

1. 
   *]The greenhouse effect has been known about for over 100 years. It is a matter of the laws of physics (you can learn about this in basic books on the subject), and also the finding that the earth was warmer than it should have been without the GH gases and effect. Also, CO2 has been found to be higher during periods of warming, including the present situation. If you don’t accept these facts, then don’t read any further.
   *]Another fact that is indisputable is that humans through the industrial age have been pumping a lot of GHGs into the atmosphere, and the ppm is now some 390, which is a lot higher than it has been in a long time (and even though in the way distant past CO2 was much higher at times, the sun emitted less irradiation then). Again if you don’t accept these facts, then don’t read further.
   *]The climate has warmed about 1.3°F (0.7ºC) in the past 100 years – see www2.ucar.edu/climate/faq/how…last-100-years . If you don’t accept this then…
   ]Greater heat leads to greater evaporation (that’s where the H2O “feedback” comes in – see below), desiccating land and plants. Greater heat also causes greater risk of heat stroke and death. They attribute about half the 30,000 or so European heat deaths of 2003 to global warming, esp due to night temps (minimum diurnal temps) rising faster than maximum diurnal temps (which is another signal of the increasing GH effect); people exposed to great heat during the day need cool nights to recouperate. Seems that is also true for plants – see pnas.org/content/107/33/14562.full.pdf+html
   *]Greater heat also causes greater droughts and greater deluges and floods (sometimes even during droughts). It also melts ice & snow, which will eventually rise the sea-levels, and lead to various water problems.
   *]Heat energy can also turn into kinetic energy under certain weather conditions spawning more intense storms, hurricanes, and winds. It can also contribute to increased risk of wildfires (from the greater plant/land desiccation & winds).
   *]Warming regional climates can allow disease vectors to spread into new territories.
   
   It’s your prerogative not to accept this and to ignore the popes and bishops who have called us to mitigate AGW. You don’t have to do anything, except (as my 5th grade teacher used to tell us) pay taxes and die
   
   My prayers are with you…and the whole world.
   

   ---

   *H2O is indeed the most potent/plentiful GHG, but it is a “feedback,” responding to the heat forcings from other GHGs, such as CO2, CH4, N2O, etc. In other words, there would not have been as much warming if there were no water on earth. The reason H2O is a feedback and not a forcing is that H2O molecules stay in the atmosphere only a few days, while a portion of CO2 molecules can stay up for centuries, even many millennia. CH4 has an atmospheric lifespan of about 10 years, then degrades into CO2 and other substances – and that CO2 from CH4 then can stay in the atmosphere 100s, 1000s of years. (BTW, the sky is not falling and the air is not vanishing – GHGs can and do stay up in the atmosphere, as well as O2 (which is lucky for us )).
   
   According to David Archer, he’s not nearly as concerned about the CH4 as he is the CO2 that comes from it as it degrades – which would lead to long term warming. Other climate scientists, llike Hansen, are very concerned about massive CH4 releases in short time frames from melting permafrost and ocean hydrates, since CH4 is a 25 times more potent GHG than CO2, and if a lot is released within 10 year spans it could magnify the positive feedback loop and lead to a seriou spiraling of the warming, also the way that melting ice/snow leaves much darking ocean & land, which absorbs more heat causing more melt, causing more heat, etc.

 

[kama3]

1. New, revised HadCRUT dataset is out and it shows that 2010 was warmer than 1998: blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2012/03/21/revision-to-temperature-measurements-doesnt-change-global-warming/
2. The natives in Minneapolis say that this spring is very warm. And just one month ago, on this board, people were decrying that hundreds of people are dying of cold in North America.

 

[MidnightSun12]

I will NOT return to living a wasteful, profligate lifestyle that harms and kills my fellow humans. No way.

The fact that I also save money to boot, is a plus as in “Seek ye first the kingdom of God and His righteousness, and all things will be added unto you.”

I cannot stomach killing people. Period! I’m a bleeding heart for people’s lives and welfare, and I’m also very concerned about the souls of the skeptics.

The science very clear points to how AGW is and will be killing people. I cannot turn a blind eye to that, and I cannot remain silent. With knowledge goes responsibility.

I would like to apologize for my previous comment to you. To suggest that your soul is being put at risk by supporting a theory on which people can reasonably agree or disagree was out of line for me. I can’t see any spiritual danger from holding a pro-climate change view unless it starts to compromise your views on abortion, contraception, or God’s providence over His creations.

God Bless!

 

[lynnvinc]

In the absence of hard, fast and trustworthy evidence, and in the face of hard, fast and trustworthy evidence to the contrary, I am forced to conclude that dangerous man-made global warming is all bunk.

Fear is a powerful tool, and that’s exactly what the folks in charge want the masses to be wallowing in: fear. It breaks down reason and makes others more tractable to one’s will, whatever that may be. The outcries of the so-called scientists and others who endorse such a terror campaign are all nothing but fear-mongers, pulling strings so that sweet, sweet green falls into their pockets from others who want to see the status quo maintained.

I’ve got better things to do than help them get rich off of other people’s fear.

I’m thinking the fear is on the part of the skeptics – keeping them from even considering for an instance that the climate scientists are correct and AGW is happening.

I have absolutely no fear of AGW, and what is there to be afraid of…massive shopping cart collisions at Home Depot as people rush to buy energy efficient light bulbs?

I do feel very sad that lives will be lost and opportunities for economic prospertity lost because skeptics have their head so planted in the sand out of fear that mitigating AGW will harm them in some way.

I’ve failed miserably over the past 22 years to convince people that mitigation is not a terrifying thing. (low, hypnotic voice) You save money. You save money. You save money…

Be happy, don’t worry!

 

[Calliso]

In the absence of hard, fast and trustworthy evidence, and in the face of hard, fast and trustworthy evidence to the contrary, I am forced to conclude that dangerous man-made global warming is all bunk.

Fear is a powerful tool, and that’s exactly what the folks in charge want the masses to be wallowing in: fear. It breaks down reason and makes others more tractable to one’s will, whatever that may be. The outcries of the so-called scientists and others who endorse such a terror campaign are all nothing but fear-mongers, pulling strings so that sweet, sweet green falls into their pockets from others who want to see the status quo maintained.

I’ve got better things to do than help them get rich off of other people’s fear.

You know I have heard this claim over and over again but have yet to see any trust worthy evidence that suggests that the scientist saying AGW is real and likely a problem are making lots of money off trying to convince people of that. Yes there has been some unwarrented exaggeration but from what I have noticed most of it is the media misinterpreting things and wanting to make a more interesting story. But the problem is people focus on that andthen think that these scientists saying hey AGW is real and very likely going to be a problem are just a bunch of fearmongers waving their arms around going doom doom doom! But yeah scientists are getting rich off saying AGW is real and a potential threat.

As for no hard evidence for AGW how much have you really looked into this and have you kept an open mind? The problem is when I have gotten into arguments over this isn;t that people haven;t heard the evidence to the contrary its that they just ignore it. But if you are genuinely interested in hearing some evidence here is one link to get you started. skepticalscience.com/human-fingerprint-in-global-warming.html Actually that whole site is pretty good especially the arguments tab which can be a quick way to look up arguments you may have heard on other sites and see rebuttals to them. RealClimate is also a decent site but can get pretty technical and confusing to a layperson. So I would definately start at the start here tab and get familar with some of the basics if need be.
Ultimately for me personally I have looked at evidence and probably not all of it definately not all of it I donlt have quite that amount of time or interest lol but from what I have seen it has been enough to convince me that those saying AGW is real and a real threat. And trust me I would have much rathered have been convinced that AGW is bunk and or nothing to worry about!
Also just found this post on skeptical science while making this post skepticalscience.com/CCCMpersonal2.html it is a personal story of someone that went from full out skeptical of AGW to what the authors describes as a lukewarm opinion and so on. The comments to the article have been interesting as well.

 

[kimmielittle]

Hi Lynn,

As I’ve said before, these guys have proven unworthy of our trust. Their constant tinkering with the data always seems to serve one end, namely that to show that the late 20th century warming was unprecedented and most surely the result of increased atmospheric CO2 from human emissions. If their adjustments were honest, the results wouldn’t always be pointed in one direction.

Regarding your exhortations to act in accordance with the precautionary principal, I recall the words of the late Michael Crichton, who said the PC “cannot be condemned in terms that too harsh.” Just because the GW Movement offers up scary scenarios, doesn’t mean we should get stampeded into drastic cuts of CO2. There are negative consequences to that, as I’ve already shown. I am not saying that you and I can’t adopt some “no regrets” kinds of conservation measures and simple lifestyles (I also plant a lot of trees). However, what these guys, with their wholesale “solutions”, are calling for is nothing less than dismantling our industrial civilization. Hansen is particularly extreme in this regard.

My big brother and I…buy, plant, tend 90-120 trees a year. This means nothing to the AGW’ers - Simply, because we do it as good conservation efforts along with other conservation methods we practice ]. Just ask people like Lynn who don’t acknowledge anything done by people who think the observational evidence doesn’t support AGW - CAGW claims.

The Message: You don’t give a pickle for the environment / good stewardship if you don’t believe in the Post-normal Science around AGW.

 

[septimine]

Hi Lynn,

As I’ve said before, these guys have proven unworthy of our trust. Their constant tinkering with the data always seems to serve one end, namely that to show that the late 20th century warming was unprecedented and most surely the result of increased atmospheric CO2 from human emissions. If their adjustments were honest, the results wouldn’t always be pointed in one direction.

Regarding your exhortations to act in accordance with the precautionary principal, I recall the words of the late Michael Crichton, who said the PC “cannot be condemned in terms that too harsh.” Just because the GW Movement offers up scary scenarios, doesn’t mean we should get stampeded into drastic cuts of CO2. There are negative consequences to that, as I’ve already shown. I am not saying that you and I can’t adopt some “no regrets” kinds of conservation measures and simple lifestyles (I also plant a lot of trees). However, what these guys, with their wholesale “solutions”, are calling for is nothing less than dismantling our industrial civilization. Hansen is particularly extreme in this regard.

I agree with the general ideas of Chrichton – he’s right about one part, none of the stuff that we’re proposing will ever hurt most of US. Drastic cutting of CO2 would collapse the economies of most 3rd world nations, where most people rely on manufacturing to live. If we regulate their CO2 to the point that no manufacturing can take place, they starve. and it’s the same thing with other such restrictions – America grows a lot of the food the world uses, Missouri grows a lot of soybeans for Asia – if restrictions in the US lower crop yields, food prices go up. That probably isn’t going to affect any of us in the comfortable first world, but once again, it means big problems for the world’s poor. If I can’t afford some types of food, it’s not a big deal, even the poorest in the US can afford something. That’s not true in other parts of the world – in Africa for example. If food prices rise in Africa, Africans may very well go hungry. So before we start “fighting global warming” maybe we should make sure that the cure is worth the pain. And I’m not convinced that it’s worth potentially starving millions to prevent even the worst case scenarios.