Debunking The Lord of Climate Skeptics

[DaveinOlyWA]

only a fool would think that the effects of 6 billion people on this planet would have no effect on nearly any aspect of Planet Earth.

as far as the Leaf purchase question; i have no doubt that we are accelerating a change in climate we will not enjoy, but that is down the road and i may only see a very brief part of that and i am not going anywhere anytime soon.

but one thing i KNOW I will be affected by if we dont make a major course correction now is the decline of this country with the debt load of foreign oil leading the way.

 

[Fabio]

http://news.discovery.com/earth/volcanoes-co2-people-emissions-climate-110627.html#mkcpgn=rssnws1

I don't think anyone is denying the facts of less ice, change in sea level and that polar bears are stressed.
Most denyers (including me) don't believe that the climate change is man made.

 

[padamson1]

smkettner wrote:

I am OK with the world being a warmer place and all that goes with it. The scientists seem to fear the change and predict a dooms day around every degree of temperature rise.

While you may be OK with a warmer planet, you have the luxury of using all of our man made technology to adapt to it. Unfortunately most of the other living things on the planet do not. If the climate continues to warm as quickly as it has, trees and plants will die before they can propagate to the new habitat where they can survive. Animals that rely on those trees & plants will need to adapt or die, insects specifically evolved to depend on those specific species will just die, etc. We could probably massage things to keep a lot of stuff from disappearing, but as we have shown many times man is not too good at fixing nature and it will cost a lot more than Tea Party types will be willing to spend. Besides, if you believe the reports the Defense Department is producing, we'll be busy spending money fighting everybody for the remaining resources we're accustomed to using (e.g. fresh water).

In the past when the planet changed temperature too quickly (usually meteorite impacts or massive volcanic activity) there were mass extinctions (> 70% of all species on the planet) and it took millions of years for life to recover.

This is one case where I'd like to keep the status quo and invest some money now to keep the planet the way we're accustomed to.

 

[evnow]

The fact that we happen to be right, doesn't change the fact that the other side need to be convinced as well.

But science apparently is not the way to convince these guys (99% don't understand science, anyway).

My argument has always been - why question only a couple of theories, rather than the many million that make up science today ?
- Evolution
- AGW

That shows ideological bias rather than any science based skepticism. Basically some people don't like AGW because that means we need to lt governments intefere in the market to drive change - which they don't like at an ideological level. Same as accepting evolution (to some) invalidates their religious beliefs.

Not that anyone's mind will change because of this simple observation.

 

[jimcmorr]

snip... snip...

That shows ideological bias rather than any science based skepticism. Basically some people don't like AGW because that means we need to lt governments intefere in the market to drive change - which they don't like at an ideological level. Same as accepting evolution (to some) invalidates their religious beliefs.

snip... snip...

Okay. Dumb question time... What is AGW?

 

[drmanny3]

AGW I believe refers to Human caused global warming.
Manny

 

[smkettner]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AGW

Anthropogenic (man made) Global Warming

 

[jimcmorr]

AGW I believe refers to Human caused global warming.
Manny

Thanks Manny. I should have checked Google first. AGW is the acronym for Anthropogenic Global Warming. Google, by the way, finds lots of skeptic web pages when searching for this acronym.

Edit: Thanks also to smkettner.

 

[Fabio]

It would be simplistic to just say that they are dumb.
While some may be of less than average intelligence, there are plenty who are smart and educated but they are too caught up in their refusal of everything that is perceived to come from the "left".

The fact that we happen to be right, doesn't change the fact that the other side need to be convinced as well.

But science apparently is not the way to convince these guys (99% don't understand science, anyway).

 

[SanDust]

I really have strong doubts EVs will affect global temperatures either way.

Most scientists would admit the uncertainties are great, so it's hard to argue with this point, but that doesn't mean the science is bad. What I find ridiculous are people who think because it's been cold for a week that this "proves" planetary temperatures are falling not rising, or the lunatics who contend scientists all over the world are engaged in a giant global warming conspiracy designed to destroy the American way of life. Get real.

FWIW I think 90%+ of Americans would agree with your view so you're definitely not alone. And they probably don't know that before homo sapiens showed up the North Pole was tropical.

 

[AndyH]

I really have strong doubts EVs will affect global temperatures either way.

Most scientists would admit the uncertainties are great

I think it's much more accurate to say that "most scientists would admit that there are uncertainties" though in the same breath must reinforce that the 'cone' of uncertainty is getting tighter as we continue to collect data and refine.

...so it's hard to argue with this point, but that doesn't mean the science is bad. What I find ridiculous are people who think because it's been cold for a week that this "proves" planetary temperatures are falling not rising, or the lunatics who contend scientists all over the world are engaged in a giant global warming conspiracy designed to destroy the American way of life. Get real.

FWIW I think 90%+ of Americans would agree with your view so you're definitely not alone.

And they probably don't know that before homo sapiens showed up the North Pole was tropical.

Ok, the earth under the arctic ocean was sub-tropical (according to the 2004 story), but may not have been the North Pole at the time:

There is also evidence that part of the Arctic Ocean was once a freshwater lake, probably when the Lomonosov Ridge was part of what is now Siberia.

And was apparently also much closer to sea level before it subsided...
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1068797110001781

In the absence of volcanism, they remained near sea level, almost not subsiding, for a long time (at least 70 and 190 myr, respectively).

Beware: Cherry-Picking is the primary tool of the denial crowd.

 

[klapauzius]

While you may be OK with a warmer planet, you have the luxury of using all of our man made technology to adapt to it. Unfortunately most of the other living things on the planet do not

You should include here 90% of mankind that does not have the technological or economical means to comfortably adapt to the new climate situation...While North America might still be a cozy place, other world regions might not fare so well with a 3 C increase....

This whole debate about convincing "believers" of scientific facts (or just facts, as science is ONLY about facts) is somewhat depressing...In the end, knowledge and rational interpretation of facts usually result in real power (e.g. bigger, better guns and bigger, better economies) and those societies who embrace these concepts (historically that has been the "West" in the past couple of centuries) will rule the world...Lets hope that a couple of decades down the road it will still be us.

 

[AndyH]

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) state of the climate for 2010:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/national/2010/13

Weather Channel video
http://www.weather.com/outlook/videos/state-of-the-climate-warm-21129

Globally, 2010 was the 2nd hottest year on record.

Greenland lost more ice; glaciers continue to lose mass/volume; and greenhouse gases continue to rise at an 'unnatural and accelerating rate.'

 

[DaveinOlyWA]

Wow!! Awesome graphic

 

[Bassman]

Great presentation. I've been to the Maldives twice. I'm going to miss them when they're gone in 2050 due to sea level rise. More importantly, where are the 250,000 inhabitants goning to live?

 

[TomT]

Just to keep things in perspective and play Devil's Advocate, I should point out that, statistically, one can have a year with even worse climate events and have it be just a number of outlyers that actually do not show any real trend... Just saying...

[/quote]

 

[abasile]

My argument has always been - why question only a couple of theories, rather than the many million that make up science today ?
- Evolution
- AGW

That shows ideological bias rather than any science based skepticism. Basically some people don't like AGW because that means we need to lt governments intefere in the market to drive change - which they don't like at an ideological level. Same as accepting evolution (to some) invalidates their religious beliefs.

I think you are basically correct. "Evolution", though, is somewhat different from AGW in that it can become a religion in its own way. It often represents an attempt to explain existence with zero involvement from a transcendent Creator, through entirely random, unplanned processes. The other extreme would be that the earth was created about 6000 years ago with no evolutionary processes. I personally find the truth to be in the middle (call me biased if you want). If one doesn't get too hung up on the Genesis 1 "days" being 24 hours, then what you'll find is a creation account that is remarkably consistent with modern scientific observation. The sequence of events described in Genesis 1 corresponds with what an earthbound observer would have seen over the last 4.5 billion years. Reasons to Believe is a "think tank" that, in my opinion, does a decent job of presenting plausible interpretations.

As for AGW skepticism, there can certainly be an ideological component for many people. It doesn't help that people tend to want to preserve the status quo, i.e., pay no mind to their GHG emissions. I myself was a skeptic for a while, until I took the time to somewhat more carefully examine the evidence. Then again, I'm willing to accept the need for some government intervention in this area, even though I tend to favor small government.

 

[LTLFTcomposite]

Mr Abasile, you are a very smart person. One thing not to be overlooked though is there are a lot of people who are invested in being able to tell us there is some great calamity headed our way. They cannot generate interest in themselves by telling us everything is OK.

Mr Mogur, I noticed your map doesn't have anything over Utah. It should noted that they had what may well be the greatest ski conditions in recorded history, with some areas receiving nearly 800 inches of snow and two resorts still open for skiing through this upcoming July 4th weekend.

 

[DaveinOlyWA]

The beauty of Netflix streaming.... watch the six degree national geocities special last night. Very sobering and that info is 4 years old

 

[klapauzius]

I think you are basically correct. "Evolution", though, is somewhat different from AGW in that it can become a religion in its own way. It often represents an attempt to explain existence with zero involvement from a transcendent Creator, through entirely random, unplanned processes. The other extreme would be that the earth was created about 6000 years ago with no evolutionary processes. I personally find the truth to be in the middle (call me biased if you want). If one doesn't get too hung up on the Genesis 1 "days" being 24 hours, then what you'll find is a creation account that is remarkably consistent with modern scientific observation. The sequence of events described in Genesis 1 corresponds with what an earthbound observer would have seen over the last 4.5 billion years. Reasons to Believe is a "think tank" that, in my opinion, does a decent job of presenting plausible interpretations.

Abasile, this is a highly problematic statement, specifically

I personally find the truth to be in the middle

The theory of evolution is one of the most well studied, tested and solid theories in modern science and its findings and predictions so far have been holding up independent of personal beliefs. You might of course BELIEVE something different, but the truth is indeed that life as we know it (including us) has evolved all by itself and in order to explain the world around us no external factors (aka transcendent Creator) are required. Unless you demonstrate, in a transparent, reproducible way, such that others can confirm your findings, that such factors are necessary, you cannot lay any claim to "truth".