Yeah for our team!

[Yonivore]

Desperate Days For Global Warm-ongers (http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=553263&p=2)

A good opinion piece, well worth reading but, let me grab what I think will be the most controversial paragraph and let's get started...


With no evidence in the environment that man-made global warming is occurring, there is an urgent need among the global warming believers to keep reminding the public about their hunch.
That's a bold statement. What say you "Global Warm-ongers?"

What evidence is there that man-made global warming is occurring? Let's debate the science instead of the politics. Since, I dare say, none of us -- in this forum -- are climate scientists, I'm assuming we'll have to base our arguments on the claims of real climate scientists.

Please source your posts.

And, begin...

[Veterinarian]

You planning on actually reading this one yourself faggot?

[DMX7]

You planning on actually reading this one yourself faggot?

:lol

[ChumpDumper]

It's a good idea to spread your meltdown across several threads, yoni.

[Oh, Gee!!]

Please source your posts.

Oh, that's rich. :lulz

[Oh, Gee!!]

almost as rich as yoni passing off an op-ed whose arguments consists of global warming is hoax, na na na na boo boo, as a scientific article that needs to be refuted lest yoni wins the point on this issue. Okay, counterargument: no it's not you doodie head.

[Yonivore]

So, no opposing points of view? I understand.

[RandomGuy]

Desperate Days For Global Warm-ongers (http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=553263&p=2)

A good opinion piece, well worth reading but, let me grab what I think will be the most controversial paragraph and let's get started...


That's a bold statement. What say you "Global Warm-ongers?"

What evidence is there that man-made global warming is occurring? Let's debate the science instead of the politics. Since, I dare say, none of us -- in this forum -- are climate scientists, I'm assuming we'll have to base our arguments on the claims of real climate scientists.

Please source your posts.

And, begin...

Start with:

"With no evidence in the environment that man-made global warming is occurring"

That is about as un-scientific as it gets.

Absolute blanket dismissals are simply not the way science works.

Do I need to source that?

[DarrinS]

If we can get the climate to remain in a steady state, it would be for the first time in 4½ billion years.

[RandomGuy]

Most of the global average warming over the past 50 years is
very likely due to anthropogenic GHG increases and it is likely that
there is a discernible human-induced warming averaged over each
continent (except Antarctica)

When you actually read real scientific reports or summaries, you see words very similar to that of intelligence assessments. "likely, probable, not likely".


To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning.[2] A scientific method consists of the collection of data through observation and experimentation, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses.

The closest that the IPCC report comes to absolutes is:


Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident
from observations of increases in global average air and ocean
temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice and rising global
average sea level.

This is a rather testable phenomenon, and easily verifiable.

The other thing that science does is make predictions based on hypotheses.


For the next two decades a warming of about 0.2°C per decade
is projected for a range of SRES emissions scenarios. {WGI 10.3,
10.7, SPM}
Continued GHG emissions at or above current rates would cause
further warming and induce many changes in the global climate
system during the 21st century that would very likely be larger than
those observed during the 20th century. {WGI 10.3, 11.1, SPM}

I know this is going to open up a whole range of tired, oft-cited saws on both sides.

So let's cut to the chase.

If, as I am positive Wild Cobra will posit here shortly, differences in solar output are more responsible for the observed warming trends, then we will be easily able to measure that.

If solar output does not change markedly, but CO2 levels continue to rise and the surface of the earth continues to warm, we can effectively rule out the "solar" theory.

Time will tell. We will gather more data year on year, and get better and better at understanding the complex system that is our planetary climate.

If there really is "no evidence" then it will be easier and easier for the skeptics to get their say in peer-reviewed papers, and that will be more evident.

(shrugs)

Again, time will tell.

I have looked into a good deal of what passes for science among AGW deniers, and was not all that impressed.

The biggest thing that keeps me from really assigning much credence to a lot of skeptics, aside from the obviously political motivations of many, is the lack of peer-reviewed science.

[RandomGuy]

If we can get the climate to remain in a steady state, it would be for the first time in 4½ billion years.

Climates both micro- and macro- do change. No one has ever claimed otherwise.

[DarrinS]

When you actually read real scientific reports or summaries, you see words very similar to that of intelligence assessments. "likely, probable, not likely".



The closest that the IPCC report comes to absolutes is:



This is a rather testable phenomenon, and easily verifiable.

The other thing that science does is make predictions based on hypotheses.



I know this is going to open up a whole range of tired, oft-cited saws on both sides.

So let's cut to the chase.

If, as I am positive Wild Cobra will posit here shortly, differences in solar output are more responsible for the observed warming trends, then we will be easily able to measure that.

If solar output does not change markedly, but CO2 levels continue to rise and the surface of the earth continues to warm, we can effectively rule out the "solar" theory.

Time will tell. We will gather more data year on year, and get better and better at understanding the complex system that is our planetary climate.

If there really is "no evidence" then it will be easier and easier for the skeptics to get their say in peer-reviewed papers, and that will be more evident.

(shrugs)

Again, time will tell.

I have looked into a good deal of what passes for science among AGW deniers, and was not all that impressed.

The biggest thing that keeps me from really assigning much credence to a lot of skeptics, aside from the obviously political motivations of many, is the lack of peer-reviewed science.



With the hundreds of factors that affect climate, do you think climate can be "controlled" by addressing ONE of those factors?

[MannyIsGod]

:lol controlled

[RandomGuy]

With the hundreds of factors that affect climate, do you think climate can be "controlled" by addressing ONE of those factors?

Again, you have stated something that no one else does.

Both of your posts here seem to be laying the ground for "strawman" logical fallacies, wherein you attempt to distort what people like the IPCC says, either deliberately, or through sheer ignorance of what they are saying.

The answer to your question:

No, I do not, and more importantly, neither does anyone else.

Are there any other irrelevant questions you want me to answer?

[TeyshaBlue]

With the hundreds of factors that affect climate, do you think climate can be "controlled" by addressing ONE of those factors?

lol...as if controlled and affected were synonyms. I guess they are in Darrinland.

[DarrinS]

Again, you have stated something that no one else does.

Both of your posts here seem to be laying the ground for "strawman" logical fallacies, wherein you attempt to distort what people like the IPCC says, either deliberately, or through sheer ignorance of what they are saying.

The answer to your question:

No, I do not, and more importantly, neither does anyone else.

Are there any other irrelevant questions you want me to answer?


Do you think the Earth would continue warming, regardless of CO2 emmissions, as it has been since the end of the little ice age?

[DarrinS]

lol...as if controlled and affected were synonyms. I guess they are in Darrinland.

There's probably a reason I surrounded that word with quotation marks.

[Yonivore]

Start with:

"With no evidence in the environment that man-made global warming is occurring"

That is about as un-scientific as it gets.

Absolute blanket dismissals are simply not the way science works.

Do I need to source that?
No, I'd rather you present "evidence in the environment that man-made global warming is occurring," and source that. Instead of attacking what is being said or who is saying it, refute it with "evidence."

I'd really be interested to see if your side of the argument has anything other than "a consensus of climate experts say it's happening and that's good enough for me to trash the global economy in order to make (what are admittedly) modest environmental benefits."

So, where is the evidence that mankind is affecting the global climate?

[George Gervin's Afro]

No, I'd rather you present "evidence in the environment that man-made global warming is occurring," and source that. Instead of attacking what is being said or who is saying it, refute it with "evidence."

I'd really be interested to see if your side of the argument has anything other than "a consensus of climate experts say it's happening and that's good enough for me to trash the global economy in order to make (what are admittedly) modest environmental benefits."

So, where is the evidence that mankind is affecting the global climate?

'trash the global economy?:lmao

"cigarettes are good for you.."

[clambake]

perfect illustration of what yoni has been instructed to fear. lol

[Yonivore]

lol...as if controlled and affected were synonyms. I guess they are in Darrinland.
I honestly think you and Random miss the point Darrin (possibly inadvertently) raises.

In a sense, all of the Kyoto Protocol and other global initiatives are attempts to "control" the global climate through man-made, government-directed processes. I think it's just as silly to presume we can control it as it is to presume we affect it.

And, Random, there's been so much quackery revealed and associated with the IPCC report that you won't get much traction in your argument by quoting it here.

Here, let me help you with a more recent document (http://www.dbcca.com/dbcca/EN/_media/DBCCAColumbiaSkepticPaper090710.pdf) produced by your side...

That's the latest (of which I'm aware) attempt to address skeptics like me.

[Yonivore]

'trash the global economy?:lmao

"cigarettes are good for you.."
At the very least, Kyoto would have trashed our economy and, seeing as we're already struggling and the rest of the world is struggling as a result, "trashing the global economy" is not a far-fetched assertion.

[Wild Cobra]

So, no opposing points of view? I understand.

They only know what they're told. They only say what they're told to say.

[Wild Cobra]

Start with:

"With no evidence in the environment that man-made global warming is occurring"

That is about as un-scientific as it gets.

Absolute blanket dismissals are simply not the way science works.

Do I need to source that?
True science starts with skepticism. There is no real evidence that anthropogenic global warming is real. All causal relationships also have natural causal relationships.

[Yonivore]

They only know what they're told. They only say what they're told to say.
Hell, I'd take that. I think they've only ever attacked the skeptics and truly don't know what the science is that ostensibly supports their position that anthropogenic global climate change exists.

[Wild Cobra]

Hell, I'd take that. I think they've only ever attacked the skeptics and truly don't know what the science is that ostensibly supports their position that anthropogenic global climate change exists.
Very few do. I think only two or three AGW believers here comprehend many of the points I make.

[RandomGuy]

Do you think the Earth would continue warming, regardless of CO2 emmissions, as it has been since the end of the little ice age?

The answer to that question is:

It is impossible to answer that question. I cannot "think" anything, because I do not believe I have sufficient data or understanding to answer it.

Again, your question seems to be based on a misconception as to what AGW says.

It is hard to have a logical discussion about something without agreeing about what we are talking about.

Can you state, in your own words, what the theory is that you are criticising, so we can reach something mutually agreed on, please?

[RandomGuy]

There is no real evidence that anthropogenic global warming is real.

Again, that is a very un-scientific statement.

There are many scientists who claim there is.

The implication of your statement is that they are lying and committing outright fraud.

Do you have any evidence, such as admissions of outright fabricating of data?

or proof that data was outright faked?

This would not include errors that can reasonably attributed to honest mistakes, but would clearly have been fabricated. To make the claim, you really need a "smoking gun". Climategate emails do not meet that criteria.

[RandomGuy]

No, I'd rather you present "evidence in the environment that man-made global warming is occurring," and source that. Instead of attacking what is being said or who is saying it, refute it with "evidence."

I'd really be interested to see if your side of the argument has anything other than "a consensus of climate experts say it's happening and that's good enough for me to trash the global economy in order to make (what are admittedly) modest environmental benefits."

So, where is the evidence that mankind is affecting the global climate?

I reject the assertion that it would "trash the global economy".

You have made a claim. It is now your burden to prove this assertion.

Link?

[DarrinS]

The answer to that question is:

It is impossible to answer that question. I cannot "think" anything, because I do not believe I have sufficient data or understanding to answer it.

Again, your question seems to be based on a misconception as to what AGW says.

It is hard to have a logical discussion about something without agreeing about what we are talking about.

Can you state, in your own words, what the theory is that you are criticising, so we can reach something mutually agreed on, please?


Isn't the consensus theory of AGW that man-made CO2 emmissions have caused unprecedented warming in the 20th century and that by severely limiting CO2 emmissions, we can ameliorate the catastrophic climate changes that will take place because of the current warming rate of 1 degree per century?

[RandomGuy]

Isn't the consensus theory of AGW that man-made CO2 emmissions have caused unprecedented warming in the 20th century and that by severely limiting CO2 emmissions, we can ameliorate the catastrophic climate changes that will take place because of the current warming rate of 1 degree per century?

Yes, that is about right.

One important addition:

Underlying warming is taking place as well. I would recommend fully reading the IPCC report, if you have not done so already.

[DarrinS]

Yes, that is about right.

One important addition:

Underlying warming is taking place as well. I would recommend fully reading the IPCC report, if you have not done so already.


I just heard something interesting on GMA. Hurricane season ends at the end of this month. And, for the first time since records have been kept (since 1878), we have gone through 5 consecutive years without a hurricane hitting the east coast.

[RandomGuy]

I just heard something interesting on GMA. Hurricane season ends at the end of this month. And, for the first time since records have been kept (since 1878), we have gone through 5 consecutive years without a hurricane hitting the east coast.

Interesting.

They did a study in California showing that veterans were dying at a rate HIGHER than the death rate from combat in Iraq/Afghanistan. This was mostly due to two factors. One was a high rate of suicide, it was *the* main cause of death, if memory serves. The other was motor vehicle accidents at a rate much higher than the same aged civilian population, suggesting risk-taking behavior.

[DarrinS]

Interesting.

They did a study in California showing that veterans were dying at a rate HIGHER than the death rate from combat in Iraq/Afghanistan. This was mostly due to two factors. One was a high rate of suicide, it was *the* main cause of death, if memory serves. The other was motor vehicle accidents at a rate much higher than the same aged civilian population, suggesting risk-taking behavior.


How is that related to climate change? Hurricane frequency and intensity are supposedly related to AGW.

[RandomGuy]

I just heard something interesting on GMA. Hurricane season ends at the end of this month. And, for the first time since records have been kept (since 1878), we have gone through 5 consecutive years without a hurricane hitting the east coast.


So we both can agree on this:

The consensus theory of AGW that man-made CO2 emmissions have caused unprecedented warming in addition to an underlying warming trend in the 20th century and that by severely limiting CO2 emmissions, we can ameliorate the catastrophic climate changes that will take place because of the current warming rate of 1 degree per century.

???

Let me know when/if you have read the full IPCC report. I guess we can discuss this without you having done so, but it would be better for the discussion, if the main report is something everybody has read, since it is central to a lot of the topic. I have read a good chunk of it, but will go back and re-read it.

[RandomGuy]

How is that related to climate change? Hurricane frequency and intensity are supposedly related to AGW.

Oh, I thought we were posting things we found interesting, rather than something to do with the subject at hand. Sorry about that.

Your post concerned the path of hurricanes, not the frequency or intensity of the storms, correct?







Yes, I am being something of a smart ass, but did so to prove a point. :p:

[DarrinS]

So we both can agree on this:

The consensus theory of AGW that man-made CO2 emmissions have caused unprecedented warming in addition to an underlying warming trend in the 20th century and that by severely limiting CO2 emmissions, we can ameliorate the catastrophic climate changes that will take place because of the current warming rate of 1 degree per century.

???

Let me know when/if you have read the full IPCC report. I guess we can discuss this without you having done so, but it would be better for the discussion, if the main report is something everybody has read, since it is central to a lot of the topic. I have read a good chunk of it, but will go back and re-read it.


I pretty much agree with Bjorn Lomborg on this issue. The scare mongers have oversold the message of climate change and we'd be much better off funding alll kinds of "green" energy research than implementing cap and trade schemes.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/12/bjorn-lomborg-al-gore-and_n_782409.html

[Wild Cobra]

I pretty much agree with Bjorn Lomborg on this issue. The scare mongers have oversold the message of climate change and we'd be much better off funding alll kinds of "green" energy research than implementing cap and trade schemes.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/12/bjorn-lomborg-al-gore-and_n_782409.html
I'm all for more research to better understand the truth. Those advocating Cap and Tax are just fools, or gaming the system for profit. There simply isn't any compelling evidence that AGW is as strong as the advocates say.

[RandomGuy]

So we both can agree on this:

The consensus theory of AGW that man-made CO2 emmissions have caused unprecedented warming in addition to an underlying warming trend in the 20th century and that by severely limiting CO2 emmissions, we can ameliorate the catastrophic climate changes that will take place because of the current warming rate of 1 degree per century.

???


I pretty much agree with Bjorn Lomborg on this issue. The scare mongers have oversold the message of climate change and we'd be much better off funding alll kinds of "green" energy research than implementing cap and trade schemes.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/12/bjorn-lomborg-al-gore-and_n_782409.html

I think the doom and gloom scenarios on both sides are wildly exaggerated.

In this I would agree with Mr. Lomborg as well.

Do you think that Yoni's "economic catastrophe" predicted due to cap and trade might be a *wee* bit of a similar exaggeration?

[RandomGuy]

Darrin, we still need to come to a working agreement as to what the AGW people, as most fully represented by the IPCC report are saying.


Can we both agree that this is the working hypothesis?

The consensus theory of AGW that man-made CO2 emmissions have caused unprecedented warming in addition to an underlying warming trend in the 20th century and that by severely limiting CO2 emmissions, we can ameliorate the catastrophic climate changes that will take place because of the current warming rate of 1 degree per century.

???

[DarrinS]

I think the doom and gloom scenarios on both sides are wildly exaggerated.

In this I would agree with Mr. Lomborg as well.

Do you think that Yoni's "economic catastrophe" predicted due to cap and trade might be a *wee* bit of a similar exaggeration?


Like Lomborg said, what's the point of spending a dollar to get a few cents benefit?

[DarrinS]

Darrin, we still need to come to a working agreement as to what the AGW people, as most fully represented by the IPCC report are saying.


Can we both agree that this is the working hypothesis?

The consensus theory of AGW that man-made CO2 emmissions have caused unprecedented warming in addition to an underlying warming trend in the 20th century and that by severely limiting CO2 emmissions, we can ameliorate the catastrophic climate changes that will take place because of the current warming rate of 1 degree per century.

???


I agree that's the theory -- I just don't believe there will be "catastrophic climate changes".

[RandomGuy]

Like Lomborg said, what's the point of spending a dollar to get a few cents benefit?

THAT is a matter of considerable interpretation, i.e. nailing down the specific cost/benefits.

Given the winding down of fossil fuels is, by most accounts, upon us, and the implications thereof, I would assign converting now while energy is fairly cheap a good deal of "benefit", for reasons I have spelled out here repeatedly.

I can flesh that out here if you want, basically I think the cost of conversion will be LOT higher if we wait, and we will gain a good deal of benefit if we let the rest of the world deal with increased demand bidding for decreasing supplies.

[RandomGuy]

I agree that's the theory -- I just don't believe there will be "catastrophic climate changes".

Thank you.

I believe we don't know enough to really rule out that possiblity, nor do we know enough to really assign that a probability to any reasonable degree of certainty.

The possbility of our actions "flipping the switch" of some unknown tipping point, is enough to make me think the conservative, risk-avoiding approach is probably best, until we know more.

[Yonivore]

THAT is a matter of considerable interpretation, i.e. nailing down the specific cost/benefits.

Given the winding down of fossil fuels is, by most accounts, upon us, and the implications thereof, I would assign converting now while energy is fairly cheap a good deal of "benefit", for reasons I have spelled out here repeatedly.

I can flesh that out here if you want, basically I think the cost of conversion will be LOT higher if we wait, and we will gain a good deal of benefit if we let the rest of the world deal with increased demand bidding for decreasing supplies.
I'm amazed at your lack of faith in human ingenuity. When, in the history of mankind, have we not arrived at a fairly cost-effective solution to such problems?

Considering there is considerable disagreement over what are the costs and benefits of current environmental policy, I say we wait and see how mankind resolves this in the absence of government policies that -- so far -- have proven less than effective and more costly than advertised.

[RandomGuy]

I'm amazed at your lack of faith in human ingenuity. When, in the history of mankind, have we not arrived at a fairly cost-effective solution to such problems?

Considering there is considerable disagreement over what are the costs and benefits of current environmental policy, I say we wait and see how mankind resolves this in the absence of government policies that -- so far -- have proven less than effective and more costly than advertised.

That is why cap and trade can be one of the better solutions. All it is designed to do is to make fossil fuels more expensive relative to renewables energy.

It doesn't pick the "winning" renewable energy source directly. Or at least it shouldn't.

I have a huge amount of faith in human ingenuity. Some "peak oil" proponents wave their hands talking about apocolyptic malthusian scenarios, and I am most certainly not one of those people. Our ingenuity will prevent that.

I just want to give that ingenuity a head start.

[RandomGuy]

(edit: added a bit)

THAT said, I am not all that wedded to the idea. I really want what works. If cap and trade ain't it, and there is some indications that it isn't, based on the EU's limited try out, then try something else. The EU seems to fail more because implimentation than concept.

I am genuinely skeptical of complex government schemes. They often has some unintended consequences that bite you in the ass, and often get corrupted in the process. I would agree with you on that not always being the optimal solution.

BUT

I think we need to do *something*. Darrin has suggested research in green tech, and I am for federal funding for that.

Fertilize the ground, and let human ingenuity bloom. :)

[Yonivore]

That is why cap and trade can be one of the better solutions. All it is designed to do is to make fossil fuels more expensive relative to renewables energy.

It doesn't pick the "winning" renewable energy source directly. Or at least it shouldn't.

I have a huge amount of faith in human ingenuity. Some "peak oil" proponents wave their hands talking about apocolyptic malthusian scenarios, and I am most certainly not one of those people. Our ingenuity will prevent that.

I just want to give that ingenuity a head start.
This all assumes "fossil fuels" are the boogey man the environmental crowd is making it out to be. Not everyone agrees.

Also, cap and trade is an onerous, heavy-handed, approach that will cause the loss of jobs in the oil and coal industries.

I'm in favor of letting the natural laws of economics drive the solution. Instead of getting government to monkey with supply and demand, why not allow the public to decide if they want to move to a more expensive fuel source?

[ChumpDumper]

Yoni prefers running out of energy before finding a new source.

[Yonivore]

On a related note:

A bad news week for AGW proponents (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/11/12/a-bad-news-week-for-agw-proponents/)

Fewer and fewer people are buying into this load of crap.