E
estesbob
Guest
I have been ever since the Koch brothers started writing me checks every month
- Status
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
You ask for real scientific proof that humans are causing the world to heat up. But in the previous paragraph you seem to be ruling out the language of science as the means of delivering that proof. You have set an impossible standard.
You can approach this question in two general ways. The first is to embrace the language of science and get down and dirty with the details, like a real scientist. The second is to evaluate the various authorities based on reputation, character, and history. Both methods have a valid place in the discussion. But you do have to decide which approach you are taking.
E
estesbob
Guest
The Third is to recognize there has been no warming for nearly 20 years despite significant increases in CO2 . And it doesn’t take a scientist to recognize that .
L
lynnvinc
Guest
No, that’s already been established by climate scientists; that study was just showing the impacts of increasing warming.
AGW is done deal, starting over 100 years ago when they came up with the greenhouse effect THEORY that beautifully explains why Venus (with a very strong GH effect) is so much hotter than it should be, given its distance from the sun; why Earth (with a moderate GH effect) is somewhat warmer than it should be given its distance; and why Mars (with a weak GH effect) is only very slightly warmer than it should be.
And OBSERVATIONS, especially since the mid-1900s, that show there has been a significant increase in temps (correlating with increasing GHGs in the atmosphere), and that cannot be explained alone by the other factors that impact climate. The first studies to reach 95% confidence that AGW was happening came out in 1995, and the science has become very “robust” since – supported by many 1000s of studies by 1000s of climate scientists and scientists in related fields. It’s a done deal and no need for me to prove that…
It should be noted that science requires both good solid theories and observations/evidence – and that what AGW has.
If you think differently, then you have not been following the science, but perhaps have been reading too many denialists’ blogs and their “blog science” or listening to ill-informed friends.
Why not listen to the Pope for a change – he has a good background in science and is very well self-educated in climate change science and other environmental problems.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
That is a form of the first method I mentioned, because it does take some scientific thought to evaluation whether or not there has been any warming for nearly 20 years. A person’s non-scientific impression formed by anecdotal observations of backyard events are not sufficient to decide this question.
K
Karen107
Guest
That post just doesn’t make any sense. Lets put this in perspective.You said: ** Skeptics like myself don’t doubt that humans have an effect on the climate **
---- The fact is that the climate changes is because of global warming caused by humans, people aren’t saying that something else is causing climate change, not even you… You said:… **Skeptics like myself don’t doubt that humans have an effect on the climate **
You’re dismayed that the Holy Father has spoken out about global warming,
---- When it is a consensus among scientists that AGW is in fact real and only a very small number of scientists are holding out or are skeptics (an a little bit larger number of non-scientists who are swayed by public opinion more than anything scientifically sound, (See some of the posts above.)
You believe that the Pope’s speaking out against AGW and working towards lowering CO2 emissions will in some way harm people. Yet you said ** Skeptics like myself don’t doubt that humans have an effect on the climate**. However, it is the climate change that is harming humans by making the weather events more harsh, drought, flooding, earthquakes, tsunamis, forest fires, and changes in environments which render former habitable lands uninhabitable so people must migrate or succumb to desperate measures in order to live including crime and human trafficking.
So why wouldn’t our Holy Father speak out when there’s people who are suffering because of the effects of global warming caused by man which is causing climate change ? I fully respect him for doing so!
If you could only see how circular your argument is and that really you nullified your own arguments.
F
ferdgoodfellow
Guest
Hi Karen,
There is also the Copenhagen Consensus approach. Bjorn Lomborg, a Danish political scientist, argues that, even though human caused global warming will be problematic, climate change is not the most important problem facing the world. We are better off expending precious world resources on present problems rather on mitigating a problem whose worst effects will not materialize for another 100 years.
And, as I’ve said before, present policies driven by concerns over global warming are very damaging to the poor and the environment. Farmers are plowing up marginal ground so they can grow corn to sell to ethanol plants. Tropical forests are being cleared in Asia to make room for palm oil production for fuel. I will say it again, the baneful effects of climate change policies are upon us now!
I don’t doubt that adding CO2 to the atmosphere will cause some warming. It has to. The question is how sensitive the climate system is to this particular forcing. That is very much in dispute. A fair assessment of the evidence so far is that the climate system is not all that sensitive and that other factors (e.g. sun and natural variability) play a much larger role.
You said: ** Skeptics like myself don’t doubt that humans have an effect on the climate **
---- The fact is that the climate changes is because of global warming caused by humans, people aren’t saying that something else is causing climate change, not even you… You said:… **Skeptics like myself don’t doubt that humans have an effect on the climate **
I think there is a large consensus that CO2 causes some global warming. I believe it mahself. But when you say “AGW is in fact real,” you really have a much larger proposition in mind. You mean that human CO2 emissions will cause dangerous global warming. The supposed consensus on that is vastly exaggerated and is supported by junk science, the Cook et al “97%” study being a good example.
Again, there is no good evidence that Global Warming of Doom Hyphothesis is correct. In addition, there is evidence that a warmer planet will be beneficial in a lot of ways. Some of us are rooting for a little global warming. Would you like to join my chapter of North Dakotans for Global Warming (sister organization to the more famous Minnesotans 4 GW)?
It is not at all certain that the negative effects of human CO2 emissions will be all that bad. That’s the point. And even if there will be negative effects, don’t we also have to weigh them against the benefits?
There is also the Copenhagen Consensus approach. Bjorn Lomborg, a Danish political scientist, argues that, even though human caused global warming will be problematic, climate change is not the most important problem facing the world. We are better off expending precious world resources on present problems rather on mitigating a problem whose worst effects will not materialize for another 100 years.
And, as I’ve said before, present policies driven by concerns over global warming are very damaging to the poor and the environment. Farmers are plowing up marginal ground so they can grow corn to sell to ethanol plants. Tropical forests are being cleared in Asia to make room for palm oil production for fuel. I will say it again, the baneful effects of climate change policies are upon us now!
No. Admitting that humans contribute some to global warming does not undermine my position.
F
ferdgoodfellow
Guest
I think that the way the whole global warming question is normally framed is too simplistic and more than little dishonest. It usually goes something like this: “Climate change is real. We therefore gotta do X, Y and Z.” But concealed therein is a whole lot of assumed science and policy calculations which ought not be assumed. Think about it. All of the following have to be true before it makes any sense to do X, Y, and Z:
The Global Warming of Doom Hypothesis
5. The GWD Hypothesis (1-4) has been sufficiently proved to justify action.
The Policy Claim
6. GW should be given priority over other problems.
7. It will be better overall to mitigate the problem rather than to simply adapt to it.
8. Drastically reducing CO2 emissions from fossils by means of X,Y, and Z will be effective in reducing CO2 levels.
9. We have reasonably identified the costs of cutting CO2 by means of X, Y and Z.
10. Benefits of implementing X, Y and Z outweigh the costs.
The Global Warming of Doom Hypothesis
- Earth is getting warmer.
- Warming is mostly caused by rising CO2 concentrations in atmosphere.
- Burning of fossil fuels is the primary cause of rising CO2 levels.
- Warming will be catastrophically dangerous.
5. The GWD Hypothesis (1-4) has been sufficiently proved to justify action.
The Policy Claim
6. GW should be given priority over other problems.
7. It will be better overall to mitigate the problem rather than to simply adapt to it.
8. Drastically reducing CO2 emissions from fossils by means of X,Y, and Z will be effective in reducing CO2 levels.
9. We have reasonably identified the costs of cutting CO2 by means of X, Y and Z.
10. Benefits of implementing X, Y and Z outweigh the costs.
F
ferdgoodfellow
Guest
By embracing climate activism, Pope Francis is assuming 1-10 are true, which is not a reasonable assumption.
F
ferdgoodfellow
Guest
E
estesbob
Guest
Yes I am aware that to date there are some 80 different excuses given as to why the world is not warmingv as we were told it would be. The other approach has been, as NASA did , is that’s if the data doesn’t show warming change it so it does . These are not anecdotal observations - this is been well reported and even climate scientists have commented on the “problem” of no warming.
E
Ender
Guest
K
Karen107
Guest
But NASA IS saying we are experiencing global warming. A 1.4 F degree increase since 1880 in fact.
climate.nasa.gov/
(See chart on website click on global temperature)
Global Temperature
GLOBAL LAND-OCEAN TEMPERATURE INDEX
Data source: NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS). Credit: NASA/GISS
18801890190019101920193019401950196019701980199020002010YEAR-0.50-0.250.000.250.50
Temperature Anomaly (C)
Annual mean
5 year mean
This graph illustrates the change in global surface temperature relative to 1951-1980 average temperatures. The 10 warmest years in the 134-year record all have occurred since 2000, with the exception of 1998. The year 2014 ranks as the warmest on record. (Source: NASA/GISS). This research is broadly consistent with similar constructions prepared by the Climatic Research Unit and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
R
rmartensjr
Guest
Sign me up for the Wisconsinites for Global Warming!!!
F
ferdgoodfellow
Guest
Done.
K
Karen107
Guest
On the flip side to that…
It is not an assumption, AGW is based on extensive scientific research, and the longer we wait on acting to reduce our greenhouse gases, the longer are going to be locked into the effects of global warming and climate change.
E
estesbob
Guest
He hasn’t:
13) Does the pope say things that are critical of the standard secular environmentalism that is popular in the media?
Yes. Among other things, he rejects approaches that:
- Treat mankind as if it is fundamentally harmful to the environment
- Fail to take into account human needs, especially those of the poor
- Blame the world’s environmental problems on population growth
- Seek to justify abortion on environmental grounds
E
estesbob
Guest
But they changed the numbers to show warming, The original data showed no warming-an inconvenient truth for NASA. The most accurate readings come from satellites and they show no warming for over 20 years
K
Karen107
Guest
So in essence you’re calling NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration liars. The ‘myth’ that the satellites are showing no warming. has been debunked .
Satellite measurements do show warming in the Tropsphere when a cooling bias from the Stratosphere is removed. Warming trends agree well with surface temperatures and model predictions except near the Poles. Differences between various analyses are largely due to analysis techniques and compensations for satellite data issues.
skepticalscience.com/satellite-measurements-warming-troposphere-advanced.htm
S
sps49
Guest
Since science does not understand the difference in effects between AGW and natural variation, the statement “going to be locked into the effects of global warming and climate change” carries little if any weight.
- Status