FOXNews.com
Scientists Call AP Report on Global Warming 'Hysteria'
Tuesday , December 16, 2008
FC1
ADVERTISEMENT
Scientists skeptical of the assertion that climate change is the result of man's activites are criticizing a recent Associated Press report on global warming, calling it "irrational hysteria," "horrifically bad" and "incredibly biased."
That is what those critical scientists have to say about anything they don't agree with, and that makes them a lot like WC.
Should it surprise anybody that someone might read an article that they disagree with and find it to be "horrifically bad"?
Again, "Global Warming" or not doesn't really matter. What matters is what we do in response to the potential threat it poses.
If AGW is real, as there is a good chunk of evidence to suggest, the costs of doing nothing go up.
We have credible evidence on both sides and have to make a call, sooner rather than later.
The conservative, less risky option, is to do something, because slightly limiting economic growth is a less bad outcome than global upheavals.
If one wants to truly accept a liberal amount of risk, then by all means, do nothing.
12-17-2008
DarrinS
Re: "Global Warming" or not? Doesn't matter.
Quote:
Originally Posted by xrayzebra
"The mean global temperature, at least as measured by satellite, is now the same as it was in the year 1980. In the last couple of years sea level has stopped rising. Hurricane and cyclone activity in the northern hemisphere is at a 24-year low and sea ice globally is also the same as it was in 1980."
Holy crap, GW is a ticking time bomb. :rolleyes
12-17-2008
DarrinS
Re: "Global Warming" or not? Doesn't matter.
Quote:
Originally Posted by xrayzebra
Scientists skeptical of the assertion that climate change is the result of man's activites are criticizing a recent Associated Press report on global warming, calling it "irrational hysteria," "horrifically bad" and "incredibly biased."
John Stossel speaks to scientists on the MSM's treatment of GW and other "hysterics"
12-19-2008
RandomGuy
Re: "Global Warming" or not? Doesn't matter.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DarrinS
Holy crap, GW is a ticking time bomb. :rolleyes
What are the two dimensions of risk?
12-19-2008
Rohirrim
Re: "Global Warming" or not? Doesn't matter.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DarrinS
John Stossel speaks to scientists on the MSM's treatment of GW and other "hysterics"
I enjoyed that video, thanks for posting.
12-19-2008
doobs
Re: "Global Warming" or not? Doesn't matter.
I heard aliens probably exist, and if so, they may try to invade us sometime in the next century. We should blow up the moon and replace it with a Death Star.
12-19-2008
RandomGuy
Re: "Global Warming" or not? Doesn't matter.
Quote:
Originally Posted by doobs
I heard aliens probably exist, and if so, they may try to invade us sometime in the next century. We should blow up the moon and replace it with a Death Star.
That would be very silly.
12-19-2008
Wild Cobra
Re: "Global Warming" or not? Doesn't matter.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RandomGuy
That would be very silly.
So is your notion of spending trillions to combat global warming when we have no control over nature. I would guess that the threat of being harmed by an alien attack is greater than global warming causijng us harm.
I'm all for the Stratigic Defence Initiative. At least it can be modified to fight alien vessels!
Be sure and watch the video at that link. One of the men on the video claims we were 7 degrees warmer, than we are right now, during the 13th century...a time when the world was prosperous. If true, doesn't that give all you alarmists pause?
At all?
12-22-2008
RandomGuy
Re: "Global Warming" or not? Doesn't matter.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
So is your notion of spending trillions to combat global warming when we have no control over nature. I would guess that the threat of being harmed by an alien attack is greater than global warming causijng us harm.
I'm all for the Stratigic Defence Initiative. At least it can be modified to fight alien vessels!
1) "my notion" of doing things to combat global warming won't quite cost trillions.
2) For someone who accuses the scientists advocating the AGW theory of starting a religion, that was an awfully dogmatic statement.
3) If you turn out to be wrong (yet again), spending trillions now to avoid a series of civilization threatening catastrophes would seem like a bargain.
There are two dimensions of risk, and you always seem to ignore that fact.
As a civilization we literally can't afford your confirmation bias.
12-22-2008
Wild Cobra
Re: "Global Warming" or not? Doesn't matter.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RandomGuy
There are two dimensions of risk, and you always seem to ignore that fact.
I understand that. What you don't understand is that I see the element of risk associated with Anthropogenic Global Warming to be at such a low percentage, that it does not merit targeting funds towards it.
You play that with my as if it's your ace in the hole, and that's so idiotic.
Like Yoni has pointed out, we have been warmer in the past. Paleoclimotology records show we have been warmer several times in the last 10,000 or so years. This is just a natural cycle. I see throwing any money at Global Warming as asinine as trying to run a fire hose to the sun!
Please stop trying to prove to us that the world is flat.
12-22-2008
The Reckoning
Re: "Global Warming" or not? Doesn't matter.
meh. as long as american ingenuity is increased, i'm for it.
12-23-2008
RandomGuy
Re: "Global Warming" or not? Doesn't matter.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
You play that with my as if it's your ace in the hole, and that's so idiotic.
You just don't like it because it shows how unreasonable and biased you really are about this topic.
You have a very distinct bias, and that prevents you from logically and reasonably analyzing the data and evidence that exists, despite having some expertise in that regard.
You aren't as bad about this as say, Galileo is about 9-11, but whether you want to admit it to yourself or not, it is obvious to the rest of us.
12-23-2008
RandomGuy
Re: "Global Warming" or not? Doesn't matter.
Quote:
Answering the question about how much warming has occurred because of increases in greenhouse gases and what we may expect in the future still holds enormous uncertainty, in my view.
This quote from earlier in the thread is from one of the IPCC's skeptics, and from a guy whose job it is to study the data.
Darrin used several of his quotes to imply that the AGW theory is indeed flawed.
My problem with your certainty, WC, is that actual scientists, internet denier mythology aside, are generally fairly certain that our emissions of greenhouse gases are affecting temperatures markedly.
Even the ones who are righfully and scientifically skeptical, such as the one that Darrin quoted, aren't certain to the degree.
Your certainty here does not strike me as the hallmark of reasoned, scientific thinking. I have NEVER seen you demonstrate enough intellectual honesty to instill confidence in me that your opinion is based on logic and reasonable assumptions over your own bias.
12-23-2008
RandomGuy
Re: "Global Warming" or not? Doesn't matter.
Quote:
In 2001, the United States National Academy of Sciences was commissioned by the Bush administration to assess the current understanding of global climate change. Its report, published in June 2001, stated: “The IPCC’s conclusion that most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations accurately reflects the current thinking of the scientific community on this issue.”
Quote:
In the journal Science in 2004, Oreskes published the results of a survey of 928 papers on climate
change published in peer-reviewed journals between 1993 and 2003. She found that three-quarters of
the papers either explicitly or implicitly accepted the view expressed in the IPCC 2001 report that
human activities have had a major impact on climate change in the last 50 years, and none rejected it.
There are some individuals and organisations, some of which are funded by the US oil industry, that
seek to undermine the science of climate change and the work of the IPCC.
The denier websites and adherents sound to me just like the asshats who back the controlled demolition theory.
They too have their sciency-sounding proponents who can spout off reasonable sounding loaded "questions", but in the end, the real work on the subject by objective and logical scientists points to another conclusion.
12-23-2008
RandomGuy
Re: "Global Warming" or not? Doesn't matter.
The political motives of those who advocate AGM theory is pretty much ascribed by the deniers as one of "they are just saying it to get more funding", but the same scrutiny or motives are entirely absent from the scientists whose studies are funded by the very industries that have the most to lose in a "low carbon" world, i.e. oil and coal.
That has the ring to me of the scientific studies done on the health effects of smoking funded by the tobacco companies of the 50's and 60's.
12-23-2008
Wild Cobra
Re: "Global Warming" or not? Doesn't matter.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RandomGuy
You just don't like it because it shows how unreasonable and biased you really are about this topic.
No, it just shows me how foolish it can be to bring sense into the debate. It is you that’s locked onto a mindset that we have to do something about CO2.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RandomGuy
You have a very distinct bias, and that prevents you from logically and reasonably analyzing the data and evidence that exists, despite having some expertise in that regard.
I have done just that. Looked at the data and applied it to known sciences. I am versed in the sciences far more than most people. I see the scare as an utter joke.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RandomGuy
You aren't as bad about this as say, Galileo is about 9-11, but whether you want to admit it to yourself or not, it is obvious to the rest of us.
Yep, I’m a fool to the old world by claiming the world is round when you all believe it’s flat.
OK. I can live with that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RandomGuy
Quote:
Answering the question about how much warming has occurred because of increases in greenhouse gases and what we may expect in the future still holds enormous uncertainty, in my view.
This quote from earlier in the thread is from one of the IPCC's skeptics, and from a guy whose job it is to study the data.
So? I agree when I apply it to my interpretations. You cannot place a certain answer on how much CO2 and other greenhouse gasses affect the warming. CO2 is only about 4% of the greenhouse gasses. Water vapor is the primary greenhouse gas at about 95%. No matter what we do about CO2, water vapor will fluctuate and still be the primary greenhouse gas with all it’s positive and negative feedbacks, keeping the earth within certain norms based on the solar radiation that changes primarily with the Milankovitch cycles.
Water tends to regulate the temperature. As the oceans warm, we see more vapor in the air, which only slightly increases the greenhouse effect. Only slightly because it is already saturated except at the ends of it’s influence. Negative feedback however is far greater. As clouds form from the vapor, it reflects sunlight, cooling the earth.
For more than 10,000 years, the earth has stayed within a 4 C range. With all this so called CO2 warming, we are only slightly higher than the middle of this range.
Darrin used several of his quotes to imply that the AGW theory is indeed flawed.
If you follow news reports of the real sciences, not from pundits, you will find increasing evidence the IPCC if extremely wrong in their assessments.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RandomGuy
My problem with your certainty, WC, is that actual scientists, internet denier mythology aside, are generally fairly certain that our emissions of greenhouse gases are affecting temperatures markedly.
They are simply wrong.
Be careful what you read. I noticed you did this allow with the ozone/smog issue, confusing the two. Are they often interchanging CO2 and carbon, or carbon footprint? They are not the same! Like a square and a rectangle, CO2 is part of the carbon footprint, but carbon footprint is not CO2!
Quote:
Originally Posted by RandomGuy
Even the ones who are righfully and scientifically skeptical, such as the one that Darrin quoted, aren't certain to the degree.
To what certainty do you want? Absolute? Within 10%? Within 200%?
Certainty is a relative term. What absolute range do you want?
Quote:
Originally Posted by RandomGuy
Your certainty here does not strike me as the hallmark of reasoned, scientific thinking. I have NEVER seen you demonstrate enough intellectual honesty to instill confidence in me that your opinion is based on logic and reasonable assumptions over your own bias.
The denier websites and adherents sound to me just like the asshats who back the controlled demolition theory.
They too have their sciency-sounding proponents who can spout off reasonable sounding loaded "questions", but in the end, the real work on the subject by objective and logical scientists points to another conclusion.
The real work by objective and logical scientists shows the alarmists to be wrong. Period.
The IPCC takes models that relied on assumptions. The assumptions were simply wrong. They admit that soot is something like three times more a warming factor than previously thought. I don’t remember reading anywhere the known 0.1% to 0.2% or more known solar radiation increase. I don’t remember reading them acknowledge this lag, where long term solar warming ended about 1950. This 50 year increase has decades of lag, but it was masked by the smog we created reflecting sunlight, actually inducing some cooling. After the EPA was formed, and we started cleaning up our act, we started warming to now what those not taking in such factors blame on increased CO2.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RandomGuy
The political motives of those who advocate AGM theory is pretty much ascribed by the deniers as one of "they are just saying it to get more funding", but the same scrutiny or motives are entirely absent from the scientists whose studies are funded by the very industries that have the most to lose in a "low carbon" world, i.e. oil and coal.
This is an ambiguous argument to me. Who funds who and why. Does it matter? It generates competing ideas, and at some point, the true arguments will win out. The deniers have been winning these last couple years. Can you deny that?
Quote:
Originally Posted by RandomGuy
That has the ring to me of the scientific studies done on the health effects of smoking funded by the tobacco companies of the 50's and 60's.
That better applies to the IPCC than the truth of warming.
It is data from NOAA from 1610 to 2000. I placed two rolling averages on the data. An eight year average, and a seventy-five year average. I also took the 1990 to 2000 data (eleven years) and repeated it until the year 2100, which would incorrectly assume the sun would remain steady until then. We already know solar radiation is likely to decrease as the sun has still been calm when it past schedule on sunspot activity.
Please notice there is a clear 0.18% increase on the 75 year average. I extended it to show the warming from the sun isn't over. I have no clear data to suggest that 75 years is the right number, but there is a long term lag. You can recalculate the data if you like, but keep in mind, lag is real.
That 0.18% paleoclimotology data increase on an assumed 220 K of solar heat effect means an increase of .4 C from preindustrialization, until today. Simply by the solar effect.
12-23-2008
RandomGuy
Re: "Global Warming" or not? Doesn't matter.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
You cannot place a certain answer on how much CO2 and other greenhouse gasses affect the warming.
Yet you go out and do that in every post on the subject.
Hypocritical much?
12-23-2008
RandomGuy
Re: "Global Warming" or not? Doesn't matter.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
The real work by objective and logical scientists shows the alarmists to be wrong. Period.
Name one large organization of scientists that disagrees with the IPCC.
12-23-2008
RandomGuy
Re: "Global Warming" or not? Doesn't matter.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
Be careful what you read. I noticed you did this allow with the ozone/smog issue, confusing the two.
The article was not about whether or not smog was "confused" with ozone, it was about whether or not it was reasonable to include the savings from avoided health care costs in cost/benefit analysis of new pollution legislation.
Again, you completely missed the point of the article and jumped up and down saying "oh lookee here, how silly these environmentalists are, they made a semantic mistake."
You hyper-focus on irrelevant shit like that at the expense of common sense, just like this debate.
So let's go back to a question you don't have the intellectual honesty to answer:
Worst case, what happens if man-made global warming exists, and we do nothing but contribute to it and make it worse?
Don't give me any "it's too remote, so I won't answer", bull-puckey. That is dishonest.
It is data from NOAA from 1610 to 2000. I placed two rolling averages on the data. An eight year average, and a seventy-five year average. I also took the 1990 to 2000 data (eleven years) and repeated it until the year 2100, which would incorrectly assume the sun would remain steady until then. We already know solar radiation is likely to decrease as the sun has still been calm when it past schedule on sunspot activity.
Please notice there is a clear 0.18% increase on the 75 year average. I extended it to show the warming from the sun isn't over. I have no clear data to suggest that 75 years is the right number, but there is a long term lag. You can recalculate the data if you like, but keep in mind, lag is real.
That 0.18% paleoclimotology data increase on an assumed 220 K of solar heat effect means an increase of .4 C from preindustrialization, until today. Simply by the solar effect.
Here’s more data from NOAA from 843 to 1961. I graphed it and added various rolling averages for the lag. Please notice that historical Roman records show taxes collected from wine grapes in England. England has not been able to grow grapes for some time because they are too cold. The solar intensities were greater then than now.
You cannot place a certain answer on how much CO2 and other greenhouse gasses affect the warming.
Yet you go out and do that in every post on the subject.
Hypocritical much?
I’m not being hypocritical. I asked what certainty you would like. Can’t you respond to such a simple question? I am certain within certain bounds. I simply cannot place absolute certainty on the subject!
Quote:
Originally Posted by RandomGuy
Name one large organization of scientists that disagrees with the IPCC.
Since when does the size of a group matter? Again, you are a flat earth believer.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RandomGuy
The article was not about whether or not smog was "confused" with ozone, it was about whether or not it was reasonable to include the savings from avoided health care costs in cost/benefit analysis of new pollution legislation.
No Shit Sherlock…
You finally agree with me.
It was you that was interchanging ozone with smog. Not the article.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RandomGuy
Again, you completely missed the point of the article and jumped up and down saying "oh lookee here, how silly these environmentalists are, they made a semantic mistake."
That’s how you justify confusing the two?
Quote:
Originally Posted by RandomGuy
You hyper-focus on irrelevant shit like that at the expense of common sense, just like this debate.
So let's go back to a question you don't have the intellectual honesty to answer:
Worst case, what happens if man-made global warming exists, and we do nothing but contribute to it and make it worse?
Don't give me any "it's too remote, so I won't answer", bull-puckey. That is dishonest.
Worse case…
We get more precipitation than normal.
If it gets extreme, we can cause damage to sea life. By extreme, I mean nearing 1% in the atmosphere.
It is impossible for CO2 to cause more warming than we have already seen in history.
This is exactly how the models were started that the alarmists use. They looked at temperature changes vs. CO2 changes and ignored everything else. At least with solar data, you can directly apply algebra and say that a given amount of heat is due to the sun. These facts prove the levels the alarmists claim to be wrong.
