OT: Election/Politics thread, Part 6

[Feanor]

Give an example.

[GTHobbes]

Is there anything that could change yours?

Sure...I'm wrong and am forced to rethink things all the time. On the subject of GW, I could be convinced otherwise by a) studies that debunk GW written by leading experts in the field (as opposed to industry hacks), and/or b) getting hit with a few good cold winters in a row. Until then, the subject of man's contribution certainly has my attention.

[Feanor]

Exactly. I also happen to agree with the scientific consensus that HIV causes AIDS, but if some brilliant scientist can conclusively show that this isn't true and the scientific consensus begins to shift then I would have to rethink and wouldn't have any trouble doing so.

[XXXIV]

I also happen to agree with the scientific consensus that HIV causes AIDS

You equate that to humans causing a global warming catastrophe?

[Feanor]

It's just one example of a scientific consensus with some pretty vocal skeptics, if it makes you giggle just you look around the internet and you'll come up with thousands of others.

Can you decisively say that the Sun and Earth's natural cycles of warm periods and ice ages has been broken by man? That variations in cloud cover as it relates to solar energy reaching the Earth and associated heating/cooling is *considerably* less likely that man-made warming?

I certainly can't, and neither can the IPCC. They can only say this:

Today’s report, the first of four volumes to be released this year by the IPCC, also confirms that it is “very likely” that humanity’s emissions of carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide and other greenhouse gases have caused most of the global temperature rise observed since the mid-20th century. The report says that it is likely that effect of human activity since 1750 is five times greater than the effect of fluctuations in the sun’s output.

Susan Soloman, co-chair of the IPCC working group that produced the report, said records from ice cores, going back 10,000 years, show a dramatic rise in greenhouse gases from the onset of the industrial era. “There can be no question that the increase in these greenhouse gases are dominated by human activity.”

If very likely is not good enough for you to support certain policies promoted by Al Gore types then that's totally respectable. Saying climate change science is all hippy junk, is not.

[wco81]

Few (if any) among us GW skeptics dismiss the data or even the premise that the Earth is currently warming. The dispute has to do with how significant anthropogenic factors are in the scheme of things..

Is that the only rationale under which you'd support policies to curb emissions, that the cause of the warming is at least partly due to human activity?

Because the "skeptics" seem disingenuous on this point. First they denied that warming is happening and some still do deny this essential fact.

Then they fall back on, well warming is happening but it isn't because of anthropogenic causes. Or that warming is just a "natural" cycle or solar activity.

There seems to be a strategic progression to oppose action by means of these gradations in stances.

Next thing one might see is an admission that human activity has at least contributed to the problem but that it's too late or we can't fix it or it would be too expensive or that it would be cheaper to adapt (move more inland, learn to swim, give up the oceanfront condos).

[GameSeven]

Exactly. I also happen to agree with the scientific consensus that HIV causes AIDS, but if some brilliant scientist can conclusively show that this isn't true and the scientific consensus begins to shift then I would have to rethink and wouldn't have any trouble doing so.

Resorting to hyperbole doesn't strengthen your argument. The sciences of virology and climatology are considerably different. And while errors of judgment can arise in either, climatology has considerably more to prove.

[GameSeven]

If very likely is not good enough for you to support certain policies promoted by Al Gore types then that's totally respectable. Saying climate change science is all hippy junk, is not.

I've said no such thing. Nor are my opinions inspired by the divine.

[Feanor]

No you haven't, I didn't mean to suggest that you had. It's just something that's come up in this thread. And the other one.

Exactly. I also happen to agree with the scientific consensus that HIV causes AIDS, but if some brilliant scientist can conclusively show that this isn't true and the scientific consensus begins to shift then I would have to rethink and wouldn't have any trouble doing so.

Resorting to hyperbole doesn't strengthen your argument. The sciences of virology and climatology are considerably different. And while errors of judgment can arise in either, climatology has considerably more to prove.

Mentioning another scientific consensus is not hyperbole nor does it imply that I think the two sciences are the same.

[matthewk]

They're not my conclusions, they're the conclusions of the IPCC. You say you're not dismissing the science, but throughtout this thread you'd raved about how the 30 - 50 years of accurate sea ice data isn't enough to bother with. Even finding out there's no evidence of a seasonally ice-free Arctic going back over 700,000 years didn't get you to back off the maybe it's just nature's course stuff.

You're still not listening to what I am saying. None of that data proves that we are responsible for climate change. I didn't "rave about how it's not enough data to bother with", I challenged the conclusion you (or the IPPC) came to that it proves we are responsible for climate change. The 700,000 since doesn't prove anything either. The link you provided states that there was a time when the Arctic was ice-free (about 1 million years ago). So it has been free of ice before.

Here is even a quote from one of the links you provided:

"Despite 30 years of warming and ice loss, the
Arctic cryosphere is still within the envelope
of glacial-interglacial cycles that have characterized
the past 800,000 years. However, although
the Arctic is still not as warm as it was
during the Eemian interglacial 125,000 years
ago [e.g., Andersen et al., 2004], the present
rate of sea ice loss will likely push the system
out of this natural envelope within a century."

At this point we're not "out of whack" with past cycles, although it is "likely" within 100 years. And for the last time, even with these facts, none of this proves it of our own doing.

[Feanor]

Of course, the Arctic has been ice-free before. The entire planet was ice free at some points. If you liked that article enough to quote from it you might enjoy this section:

The Arctic is rapidly losing its permanent ice.
At the present rate, a summer ice-free Arctic
Ocean within a century is a real possibility, a
state not witnessed for at least a million years,
perhaps much longer. The changes appear
to be driven by both natural variability and
anthropogenic forcing. Present-day concentrations
of greenhouse gases [Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change, 2001] are well outside
the interglacial bounds, and are continuing
to rise.

The IPCC says global warming is very likely caused by humans and has studies freely available that you can read to see why they say that. You're arguing with them, not me.

[matthewk]

Matt, just curious, what kind've studies or evidence would it take for you to accept that humans are mostly (or even partly) responsible? Is there anything that could change your mind on this?

I don't know. And yes. I'm not going to say it's impossible, but so far the evidence provided does not lead me to believe that climate change is due in large part to us.

[GTHobbes]

Matt, just curious, what kind've studies or evidence would it take for you to accept that humans are mostly (or even partly) responsible? Is there anything that could change your mind on this?

I don't know. And yes. I'm not going to say it's impossible, but so far the evidence provided does not lead me to believe that climate change is due in large part to us.

Fair enough...thanks for your honest answer.

[GameSeven]

Is that the only rationale under which you'd support policies to curb emissions, that the cause of the warming is at least partly due to human activity?

Not necessarily. As I've said before, I generally support efforts to increase efficiency and be good tenants of the planet we live on. I support re-forestation and other efforts to renew resources. I think pollution caused by industry should be monitored and mitigated using the most effective (cost vs. beneift) manner available.

I'm just skeptical of doomsday scenarios espoused by those whose financial position stands to benefit from impassioned acceptance of their claims. Especially when so much uncertainty applies to their models and other potentially significant factors don't merit inclusion in the models at all.

[Feanor]

I didn't "rave about how it's not enough data to bother with"

Yeah, you did. Even resorting to the old chestnut about 70s scientists and global cooling.

Since records began.....which is only 30 YEARS AGO! How can 30 years of data be enough to have any idea what is really "average" on the planet? 30 years ago these same scientists were screaming about another ice age.

[matthewk]

The IPCC says global warming is very likely caused by humans and has studies freely available that you can read to see why they say that. You're arguing with them, not me.

You're the one posting here, not the IPCC.

[XXXIV]

The 70s????

Global cooling is happening right now.


http://www.nbcaugusta.com/weather/news/16011587.html

Based on the HadCRUT3 system of observed temperatures, global surface temperature anomalies have been trending down since 2001.

[matthewk]

I didn't "rave about how it's not enough data to bother with"

Yeah, you did. Even resorting to the old 70's global cooling chestnut.

Since records began.....which is only 30 YEARS AGO! How can 30 years of data be enough to have any idea what is really "average" on the planet? 30 years ago these same scientists were screaming about another ice age.

Where does my quote say anything about "not enough data to bother with"?. It's not enough to try and prove GW. The data is valid. What you are trying to prove with it is not. There's a difference.

Oh, and constantly being condescending isn't going to help your argument either.

[Feanor]

I wasn't trying to prove global warming was caused by humans when I originally posted the NSIDC links about the Arctic sea ice that casued you to shout about 30 years of data. Just that the polar bears aren't going to be fine if their home continues to melt. What's happening in the Arctic is evidence of global warming, not evidence that it is partly or mainly caused by humans.

Speaking of which...

The IPCC says global warming is very likely caused by humans and has studies freely available that you can read to see why they say that. You're arguing with them, not me.

You're the one posting here, not the IPCC.

Topic 2, page 13:

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-repor ... r4_syr.pdf

[wco81]

I'm just skeptical of doomsday scenarios espoused by those whose financial position stands to benefit from impassioned acceptance of their claims. Especially when so much uncertainty applies to their models and other potentially significant factors don't merit inclusion in the models at all.

Who are these people who stand to benefit?

Are you talking about people who own renewable energy companies?

Or those who trade carbon credits?

If you want to talk about economic stakes of the people involved in this debate, there is nobody who's got as much at stake as the energy companies, which include the most profitable corporations in the history of mankind.

The researchers on the IPCC are not being funded by any industry (renewable energy firms, investment banks which are trading carbon credits), as far as I know, unless you have specific information indicating otherwise.

[JRod]

The reasons for dispelling global warming are mostly ludicrous from not enough evidence, to well the earth cycles, to I don't believe in global warming because I hate Al Gore.


Science very rarely can with absolute certainty prove a theory. That's science. Something as complex as global warming with millions of different variable will never be an absolute.

However to say that humans impact is nominal or there is none, is ludicrous.

The fact remains that those in opposition do not have the amount of science behind them to back "their" claim.

[XXXIV]

The
However to say that humans impact is nominal or there is none, is ludicrous.

Ludicrous is how I describe this statement.

[XXXIV]

In the face of the fear mongering there are some voices of reason.

here is a link with plenty of links.

Scientific consensus my ass.

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm? ... 63dc2d02cb

[XXXIV]

DP

[Teal]

Matt, just curious, what kind've studies or evidence would it take for you to accept that humans are mostly (or even partly) responsible? Is there anything that could change your mind on this?

Let's turn this around, GT: What kind of studies or evidence would it take for you to accept that humans are NOT mostly (or even partly) responsible? Is there anything that could change your mind on this?