Global Warming & Climate Change: The Phenomenon

[ramonmercado]

Alternately there may be a reaction against any kind of proactive technofix; after all science and technology got us into this mess, why should we trust it to get us out of it?

Cane toads.

Thats a cruel suggestion.

 

[Cochise]

By attempting to adapt to the new environment proactively, some of those deaths may be avoided.

That assumes an unprecedented outburst of rationality on behalf of the human race. Most of whom (including me) aren't convinced of the need to adapt to anything as yet. And can you imagine what will happen if politicians take the real steps needed to counter the supposed global warming and it doesn't in fact transpire or the ice age gives another kick? Dunno, but I suspect, erm, millions would die.

 

[AngelAlice]

I think the real problem is our psychology. As a species we seem determined to predict and then achieve our own extinction. AGW isn't even a proven reality, and even if it were there would still be no real evidence to suggest it would be a 'catastrophe' or even a problem. Yet we have convinced ourselves it's going to kill us, and might end up using measures to 'solve' it that actually *do* kill us or at least destroy our freedoms.

I think we need to stop being scared of boogey men and deal with the real threats that face us. It's not AGW, or overpopulation, or AIDS, or Super Flu, or Terrorism we need to fear, it's the cynical manipulation of these assumed 'threats' by governments and vested interests.

 

[Mythopoeika]

Alternately there may be a reaction against any kind of proactive technofix; after all science and technology got us into this mess, why should we trust it to get us out of it?

Cane toads.

How can they solve the problem?

Ah, you don't know the reference. "Cane toads" is what we say whenever someone suggests that we should trust solely in science and technology. From Wikiopedia:

Cane Toads were introduced to Australia with the aim of controlling a sugar cane pest, but they over-multiplied and became a serious problem in the Australian ecosystem.

Yes, I did understand the reference. 8)

 

[eburacum]

AGW isn't even a proven reality...

Well, it is more realistic to say that anthropogenic global warming is a reality, but it is the magnitude and significance of that warming that is in dispute. No-one except the most extreme fringe climatologists would suggest that an increase in CO2 would bring cooling.

 

[Mythopoeika]

While some glaciers are melting, others elsewhere are growing in size:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-17701677

 

[AngelAlice]

Gaia' scientist James Lovelock: I was 'alarmist' about climate change [but now he's not]

“The problem is we don’t know what the climate is doing. We thought we knew 20 years ago. That led to some alarmist books – mine included – because it looked clear-cut, but it hasn’t happened,” Lovelock said.

“The climate is doing its usual tricks. There’s nothing much really happening yet. We were supposed to be halfway toward a frying world now,” he said.

“The world has not warmed up very much since the millennium. Twelve years is a reasonable time… it (the temperature) has stayed almost constant, whereas it should have been rising -- carbon dioxide is rising, no question about that,” he added.

 

[rynner2]

Gaia' scientist James Lovelock: I was 'alarmist' about climate change [but now he's not]

Selective quoting can suggest almost anything. One man (eg, Lovelock) can have many opinions and change them for many reasons.

The non-specialist would be wiser to go for consensus opinions from larger groups, such as the IPCC.

Or NOAA:

NOAA reports its data in monthly U.S. and global climate reports and annual State of the Climate reports.

Its annual climate summary for 2011 said that the combined land and ocean surface temperature for the world was 0.92 degrees above the 20th century average of 57.0 degrees, making it the 35th consecutive year since 1976 that the yearly global temperature was above average.

“All 11 years of the 21st century so far (2001-2011) rank among the 13 warmest in the 132-year period of record. Only one year during the 20th century, 1998, was warmer than 2011,” it said.

 

[AngelAlice]

Gaia' scientist James Lovelock: I was 'alarmist' about climate change [but now he's not]

Selective quoting can suggest almost anything. One man (eg, Lovelock) can have many opinions and change them for many reasons.

The non-specialist would be wiser to go for consensus opinions from larger groups, such as the IPCC.

Or NOAA:

NOAA reports its data in monthly U.S. and global climate reports and annual State of the Climate reports.

Its annual climate summary for 2011 said that the combined land and ocean surface temperature for the world was 0.92 degrees above the 20th century average of 57.0 degrees, making it the 35th consecutive year since 1976 that the yearly global temperature was above average.

“All 11 years of the 21st century so far (2001-2011) rank among the 13 warmest in the 132-year period of record. Only one year during the 20th century, 1998, was warmer than 2011,” it said.

Scientific questions aren't measured by consensus though are they? They're measured by evidence. That's the trouble with this issue. A scientific question was hijacked by politics and opinion, and wildly premature claims of certainty have been made that are having to be retracted and modified as the evidence fails to support them. This is what Lovelock is saying if you read the whole article.

 

[rynner2]

Scientific questions aren't measured by consensus though are they? They're measured by evidence.

So, you disagree with the consensus opinion about what the evidence is telling us?

 

[Pietro_Mercurios]

Gaia' scientist James Lovelock: I was 'alarmist' about climate change [but now he's not]

“The problem is we don’t know what the climate is doing. We thought we knew 20 years ago. That led to some alarmist books – mine included – because it looked clear-cut, but it hasn’t happened,” Lovelock said.

“The climate is doing its usual tricks. There’s nothing much really happening yet. We were supposed to be halfway toward a frying world now,” he said.

“The world has not warmed up very much since the millennium. Twelve years is a reasonable time… it (the temperature) has stayed almost constant, whereas it should have been rising -- carbon dioxide is rising, no question about that,” he added.

I think this very subject came up, a few years back.

http://www.forteantimes.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=701500&highlight=lovelock#701500

Not to mention:

http://www.forteantimes.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=605629&highlight=lovelock#605629

James Lovelock Speaks

"We're all doomed... DOOMED! I tell ye."

 

[AngelAlice]

Scientific questions aren't measured by consensus though are they? They're measured by evidence.

So, you disagree with the consensus opinion about what the evidence is telling us?

I'm saying the idea of a consensus opinion is not how science works. Science works by offering a theory, making predictions based on the theory and then testing those predictions against real-world results. If the predictions are proved correct by repeated experiment then the theory becomes accepted. If the predictions fail the theory fails. That's it.

The only real test for AGW is not media hype and claims of 'consensus', but how well its original predictions have matched real world events. As Lovelock admits, they haven't matched well at all.

Ipso facto...

(EDIT, here's something on one of those neglected 'alternative' theories on climate change -

Prof. Dr. Henrik Svensmark, Center for Sun-Climate Research Danish National Space Institute.-

He's not an exciting speaker, but worth persisting, as this is real science)

 

[rynner2]

I'm saying the idea of a consensus opinion is not how science works. Science works by offering a theory, making predictions based on the theory and then testing those predictions against real-world results. If the predictions are proved correct by repeated experiment then the theory becomes accepted. If the predictions fail the theory fails.

Yes, I know all that (I was once a science teacher). But there are different sciences which have to operate in different ways. In physics, you can repeat an experiment numerous times, and so far most results do agree with theory with great precision. Until you reach the quantum level - then results become random, and quantum physics can only make statistical predictions.

But sciences like astronomy, climatology, and meteorology deal with complex systems that can't be experimented upon - we can only observe and measure as much data as we can, and try to make sense of it as best we can, with the assistance of chemistry, physics, geology, etc.

But such complex systems have an 'awkward factor' to deal with - Chaos. (In fact, Chaos Theory first arose out of meteorology.) This means that you cannot push your predictions ever further into the future without increasing uncertainty creeping in, eventually rendering your predictions worthless.

The only real test for AGW is not media hype and claims of 'consensus', but how well its original predictions have matched real world events. As Lovelock admits, they haven't matched well at all.

That's the opinion of one man, attempting to excuse his own one-time 'alarmist' attempts at over-egging the pudding.
But the article counters his opinion with this:

Peter Stott, head of climate monitoring and attribution at the U.K.’s respected Met Office Hadley Centre, agreed Lovelock had been too alarmist with claims about people having to live in the Arctic by 2100.

And he also agreed with Lovelock that the rate of warming in recent years had been less than expected by the climate models.
However, Stott said this was a short-term trend that could be within the natural range of variation and it would need to continue for another 10 years or so before it could be considered evidence that something was missing from climate models

(This 'range of variation' is due to the chaotic processes that affect complex systems.)

 

[AngelAlice]

That's the opinion of one man, attempting to excuse his own one-time 'alarmist' attempts at over-egging the pudding.

Not at all. It's no secret to anyone that most of the predictions made for AGW have not come true. Temps haven't risen as much as predicted, or in the latitudes predicted. And many other associated effects have also not materialised.

But the article counters his opinion with this:
Peter Stott, head of climate monitoring and attribution at the U.K.’s respected Met Office Hadley Centre, agreed Lovelock had been too alarmist with claims about people having to live in the Arctic by 2100.
And he also agreed with Lovelock that the rate of warming in recent years had been less than expected by the climate models.
However, Stott said this was a short-term trend that could be within the natural range of variation and it would need to continue for another 10 years or so before it could be considered evidence that something was missing from climate models

Stott can't possibly know if it's a short term trend or not can he? So that part is nonsense. As to the rest - Sure, *if* the warming starts up again, and *if* it catches up to the levels the models predicted then AGW will once again be a plausible theory, but that doesn't change the fact that it currently isn't very robustly supported by data and therefore should not be getting presented as such, let alone as some kind of established and undeniable fact!

 

[Pietro_Mercurios]

...

Not at all. It's no secret to anyone that most of the predictions made for AGW have not come true. Temps haven't risen as much as predicted, or in the latitudes predicted. And many other associated effects have also not materialised.

...

Temperatures are still rising though.

Climate and weather patterns are changing. The fact that these changes are more unpredictable than forecast shouldn't really surprise anybody. The excess heat, at the moment, is being absorbed by the World's enormous heat sinks, like the oceans, the polar ice caps and the World's glaciers, as Lovelock points out, with fairly unpredictable results. Not good ones though, that's fairly certain.

Lovelock appears to have another new book to sell.

 

[SHAYBARSABE]

Temperatures are still rising though.

Climate and weather patterns are changing.

I agree: local temperatures don't tell the overall story. We're still cold here, and have had three summers of cold--which is very, very unusual. But, overall, temperatures have risen.

 

[AngelAlice]

...

Not at all. It's no secret to anyone that most of the predictions made for AGW have not come true. Temps haven't risen as much as predicted, or in the latitudes predicted. And many other associated effects have also not materialised.

...

Temperatures are still rising though.

Climate and weather patterns are changing. The fact that these changes are more unpredictable than forecast shouldn't really surprise anybody. The excess heat, at the moment, is being absorbed by the World's enormous heat sinks, like the oceans, the polar ice caps and the World's glaciers, as Lovelock points out, with fairly unpredictable results. Not good ones though, that's fairly certain.

Lovelock appears to have another new book to sell.

Climate and weather patterns are always changing. The 'excess heat being absorbed by the ocean' is just a theory. The AGW proponents need to either accept their models are in error or find some way of explaining why the expected heating hasn't happened. Because they're human and don't like admitting they were wrong they choose the latter. So they say "ah all the missing heat is in the sea". Weeell, maybe, but there's not much evidence to support that idea, and it's certainly not some kind of established fact - even if Skeptical Science tries to present it as such.

I think we're at the start of a change in perspective on this subject. Even diehard devotees of AGW are going to have to start recognising the data isn't supporting the theory as well as it should, and the sheer common sense reality that other theories of climate-change *might* fit the evidence better is going to be undeniable.

 

[Pietro_Mercurios]

...

Climate and weather patterns are always changing. The 'excess heat being absorbed by the ocean' is just a theory. The AGW proponents need to either accept their models are in error or find some way of explaining why the expected heating hasn't happened. Because they're human and don't like admitting they were wrong they choose the latter. So they say "ah all the missing heat is in the sea". Weeell, maybe, but there's not much evidence to support that idea, and it's certainly not some kind of established fact - even if Skeptical Science tries to present it as such.

I think we're at the start of a change in perspective on this subject. Even diehard devotees of AGW are going to have to start recognising the data isn't supporting the theory as well as it should, and the sheer common sense reality that other theories of climate-change *might* fit the evidence better is going to be undeniable.

Simply not true. Warming is indeed happening and present estimates suggests that if nothing is done to curb greenhouse gas emissions, then we could be on our way to a 6°C degree increase in global temperatures.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/apr/24/we-can-have-safe-sustainable-energy

As it is, even if we meet all the targets, we're still on our way to a 2°C temperature increase and that's a best case scenario, at the moment.

Those natural heat sinks, like glaciers:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-17843648

as well as oceans and Ice caps:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-17843648

Are very much a fragile and finite, resource.

So, simply repeating the nonsense emanating from Koch Bros & Big Oil backed think tanks and bloggers, including the likes of Alex Jones, won't change that.

 

[AngelAlice]

Simply not true. Warming is indeed happening and present estimates suggests that if nothing is done to curb greenhouse gas emissions, then we could be on our way to a 6°C degree increase in global temperatures.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/apr/24/we-can-have-safe-sustainable-energy

Firstly - Warming has slowed to a virtual stop. There was even cooling up to 2008, and the warming since then has been minute. The warming *may* start again in earnest but so far it hasn't. That is just a fact. Secondly - 6 degrees?? That's a bit steep even by alarmist standards. But you do know figures like these are based on the same models that predicted we'd have out-of-control warming by 2001 don't you? The models were wrong, probably because they were programmed with an assumption of positive feedback, which was always an outside chance.

Bottom line - the models are discredited. No more to be said.

So, simply repeating the nonsense emanating from Koch Bros & Big Oil backed think tanks and bloggers, including the likes of Alex Jones, won't change that.

That 'Big Oil' argument just won't wash any more will it? You don't need to work for Exxon to notice the AGW theory has got into trouble or be aware there are other theories that seem to fit the facts better.

Have you watched that video about solar impacts on climate? Some very interesting stuff. It might help you get your head round the idea this is a complex scientific exploration and not a stand-off between Good and Evil.

 

[Pietro_Mercurios]

...

Firstly - Warming has slowed to a virtual stop. There was even cooling up to 2008, and the warming since then has been minute. The warming *may* start again in earnest but so far it hasn't. That is just a fact. Secondly - 6 degrees?? That's a bit steep even by alarmist standards. But you do know figures like these are based on the same models that predicted we'd have out-of-control warming by 2001 don't you? The models were wrong, probably because they were programmed with an assumption of positive feedback, which was always an outside chance.

Bottom line - the models are discredited. No more to be said.

...

Not fact, at all.

Nice animated graphic, from the skeptical science website, explaining Global warming from both the, 'realist and the 'skeptic', viewpoints.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics.php?g=47

...

So, simply repeating the nonsense emanating from Koch Bros & Big Oil backed think tanks and bloggers, including the likes of Alex Jones, won't change that.

That 'Big Oil' argument just won't wash any more will it? You don't need to work for Exxon to notice the AGW theory has got into trouble or be aware there are other theories that seem to fit the facts better.

...

Even more nonsense. There's be no bigger attempt to obfuscate and obscure the true state of the game, since Big Tobacco set out to hide the truth about smoking and cancer.

http://www.desmogblog.com/slamming-the-climate-skeptic-scam

...

Few PR offences have been so obvious, so successful and so despicable as this attack on the science of climate change. It has been a triumph of disinformation – one of the boldest and most extensive PR campaigns in history, primarily financed by the energy industry and executed by some of the best PR talent in the world. As a public relations practitioner, it is a marvel – and a deep humiliation – and I want to see it stop.

Here’s how it works: Public relations is not a process of telling people what to think; people are too smart for that, and North Americans are way too stubborn. Tell a bunch of North Americans what they are supposed to think and you’re likely to wind up the only person at the party enjoying your can of New Coke.

No, the trick to executing a good PR campaign is twofold: you figure out what people are thinking already; and then you nudge them gently from that position to one that is closer to where you want them to be. The first step is research: you find out what they know and understand; you identify the specific gaps in their knowledge. Then you fill those gaps with a purpose-built campaign. You educate. If people are afraid to take Tylenol (as they were after someone poisoned some pills), you explain the extensive safety precautions now typical in the pharmaceutical industry. If people think Martha Stewart is arrogant and uncaring, you create opportunities for her to show a more human side.

In the best cases – the cases that are most personally rewarding – your advice actually guides corporate behavior. That is, if a client wants to protect or revive their reputation, if they want to convince the public that they’re running a responsible company and doing the right thing, the most obvious public relations advice is that they should do the right thing.

It’s the kind of advice that, historically, has been a hard sell in the tobacco industry, in the asbestos industry - and too often in the automotive industry. Those sectors have provided some of the most famous examples of PR disinformation: “smoking isn’t necessarily bad for you;” “it’s not certain that asbestos will give you cancer;” “your seatbelt might actually kill you if you’re the one person in five trillion whose buckle jams just as your car flips into a watery ditch.”

But few PR offences have been so obvious, so successful and so despicable as the attack on the scientific certainty of climate change. Few have been so coldly calculating and few have been so well documented. For example, Ross Gelbspan, in his books, The Heat is On and Boiling Point sets out the whole case, pointing fingers and naming names. PR Watch founder John Stauber has done similarly exemplary work, tracking the bogus campaigns and linking various pseudo scientists to their energy industry funders.

... In the meantime, one of the best proofs of climate disinformation came in a November 2002 memo from political consultant Frank Luntz to the U.S. Republican Party. Luntz followed the rules: he did the research; he identified the soft spots in public opinion; and he made a clever critical judgment about which way the public could be induced to move.

In a section entitled “Winning the Global Warming Debate,” Luntz says this:

“The Scientific Debate Remains Open. Voters believe that there is no consensus about global warming within the scientific community. Should the public come to believe that the scientific issues are settled, their views about global warming will change accordingly. Therefore, you need to make the lack of scientific certainty a primary issue in the debate, and defer to scientists and other experts in the field.”

...

The anti-AGW disinformation campaign continues.


Edit: Changed address for graphic. P_M

 

[AngelAlice]

Nice animated graphic, from the skeptical science website, explaining Global warming from both the, 'realist and the 'skeptic', viewpoints.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics.php?g=47

...

So, simply repeating the nonsense emanating from Koch Bros & Big Oil backed think tanks and bloggers, including the likes of Alex Jones, won't change that.

That 'Big Oil' argument just won't wash any more will it? You don't need to work for Exxon to notice the AGW theory has got into trouble or be aware there are other theories that seem to fit the facts better.

...

Even more nonsense. There's be no bigger attempt to obfuscate and obscure the true state of the game, since Big Tobacco set out to hide the truth about smoking and cancer.

http://www.desmogblog.com/slamming-the-climate-skeptic-scam

...

Few PR offences have been so obvious, so successful and so despicable as this attack on the science of climate change. It has been a triumph of disinformation – one of the boldest and most extensive PR campaigns in history, primarily financed by the energy industry and executed by some of the best PR talent in the world. As a public relations practitioner, it is a marvel – and a deep humiliation – and I want to see it stop.

Here’s how it works: Public relations is not a process of telling people what to think; people are too smart for that, and North Americans are way too stubborn. Tell a bunch of North Americans what they are supposed to think and you’re likely to wind up the only person at the party enjoying your can of New Coke.

No, the trick to executing a good PR campaign is twofold: you figure out what people are thinking already; and then you nudge them gently from that position to one that is closer to where you want them to be. The first step is research: you find out what they know and understand; you identify the specific gaps in their knowledge. Then you fill those gaps with a purpose-built campaign. You educate. If people are afraid to take Tylenol (as they were after someone poisoned some pills), you explain the extensive safety precautions now typical in the pharmaceutical industry. If people think Martha Stewart is arrogant and uncaring, you create opportunities for her to show a more human side.

In the best cases – the cases that are most personally rewarding – your advice actually guides corporate behavior. That is, if a client wants to protect or revive their reputation, if they want to convince the public that they’re running a responsible company and doing the right thing, the most obvious public relations advice is that they should do the right thing.

It’s the kind of advice that, historically, has been a hard sell in the tobacco industry, in the asbestos industry - and too often in the automotive industry. Those sectors have provided some of the most famous examples of PR disinformation: “smoking isn’t necessarily bad for you;” “it’s not certain that asbestos will give you cancer;” “your seatbelt might actually kill you if you’re the one person in five trillion whose buckle jams just as your car flips into a watery ditch.”

But few PR offences have been so obvious, so successful and so despicable as the attack on the scientific certainty of climate change. Few have been so coldly calculating and few have been so well documented. For example, Ross Gelbspan, in his books, The Heat is On and Boiling Point sets out the whole case, pointing fingers and naming names. PR Watch founder John Stauber has done similarly exemplary work, tracking the bogus campaigns and linking various pseudo scientists to their energy industry funders.

... In the meantime, one of the best proofs of climate disinformation came in a November 2002 memo from political consultant Frank Luntz to the U.S. Republican Party. Luntz followed the rules: he did the research; he identified the soft spots in public opinion; and he made a clever critical judgment about which way the public could be induced to move.

In a section entitled “Winning the Global Warming Debate,” Luntz says this:

“The Scientific Debate Remains Open. Voters believe that there is no consensus about global warming within the scientific community. Should the public come to believe that the scientific issues are settled, their views about global warming will change accordingly. Therefore, you need to make the lack of scientific certainty a primary issue in the debate, and defer to scientists and other experts in the field.”

...

The anti-AGW disinformation campaign continues.

P - There IS a lack of scientific certainty, that's just a fact. And it doesn't become less of a fact because this or that person wants to use it for political reasons.

The real problem here is that a scientific issue has become turned into a political game. One side wants to claim AGW is a fact and use that to further their own interests, and one side wants to claim AGW is impossible and use that to further *their* interests. And the first casualty in this is - as ever - truth.

The real, non-political truth is AGW is neither a fact nor an impossibility. It's somewhere in that muddled middle ground. It might be true, or partly true, or wholly false, and only time and research will tell. But as long as people continue to take up polarised, non-scientific positions like yours then the politics will continue to win out over science and we'll all be the worse off for it.

 

[ramonmercado]

Did climate change shape human evolution?
http://phys.org/news/2012-04-climate-hu ... ution.html
April 24th, 2012 in Other Sciences / Archaeology & Fossils

Homo erectus, Museum of Natural History, Ann Arbor, Mich. Credit: Thomas Roche/San Francisco

(Phys.org) -- As human ancestors rose on two feet in Africa and began their migrations across the world, the climate around them got warmer, and colder, wetter and drier. The plants and animals they competed with and relied upon for food changed. Did the shifting climate play a direct role in human evolution?

The evidence so far is thin, said Richard Leakey, the renowned paleoanthropologist and conservationist who joined a score of scientists delivering their findings at a conference on climate change and human evolution this week, held at Columbia’s Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory.
“Is there evidence for a direct connection between changing climate and human evolution?” Leakey asked during a keynote address Thursday. “The answer so far is no. I don’t see it yet.”

Still, a number of scientists are on the hunt. Speakers talked about changes in plants and animals, and how fluctuations in temperature and rainfall would have altered the landscapes. They’re studying what carbon isotopes in soil can tell us about changing plant life and temperature; what hominid teeth suggest about changes in diet; and what sediment cores from the bottom of the ocean have to say about variations in monsoon rainfall.
What did all this mean for our ancestors? If the climate affected human evolution, “there should be a substantial adaptive response,” Leakey said. But with a limited fossil record, “We are stuck with this very, very narrow vision” of human evolution, Leakey said.

Leakey has been in the middle of the search for human ancestors for decades, following in the footsteps of his famous parents, the archeologists Louis and Mary Leakey, whose work at Olduvai Gorge in northern Tanzania was key to the understanding of human evolution. He lives in Kenya, where he has been active in politics and conservation; he also is a professor of anthropology at Stony Brook University.

Leakey suggested the focus of research should be on trying to answer four key questions:

First, what would have prompted hominids to go bipedal – standing upright with the big toe pointing straight ahead?

“Standing upright on two legs is not only an odd way to be,” he said, “but a huge adaptation to what was going on.”

Second, what prompted our ancestors to begin using one tool to make another, and when: “The use of stone to make stone that can cut flesh is important. We’re not empirical things, we’re thinkers. … What was it that triggered that response?”

The third point has to do with the first migration of hominids out of Africa, when homo erectus spread into Asia and Europe. “At some point about 1.8 million years ago, a hominid shoes up in Europe. That implies experience with different environments, and that implies technology,” Leakey said. But, he asked, why didn’t that hominid continue to thrive?
Lastly, what drove the second migration of hominids — this time homo sapiens — out of Africa?

For more on the conference, visit the web site. Stay tuned for a video of the talks, which will be available at the site in the future. Professor Peter deMenocal, a paleoclimatologist at Lamont-Doherty and vice chairman of the Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences, organized the conference, which brought in scientists from around the world to talk about their latest research.

Provided by Columbia University

 

[Pietro_Mercurios]

...

In a section entitled “Winning the Global Warming Debate,” Luntz says this:

“The Scientific Debate Remains Open. Voters believe that there is no consensus about global warming within the scientific community. Should the public come to believe that the scientific issues are settled, their views about global warming will change accordingly. Therefore, you need to make the lack of scientific certainty a primary issue in the debate, and defer to scientists and other experts in the field.”

...

The anti-AGW disinformation campaign continues.

P - There IS a lack of scientific certainty, that's just a fact. And it doesn't become less of a fact because this or that person wants to use it for political reasons.

...

Round and round the garden, like a teddy bear! :lol:

 

[TinFinger_]

Science has already shown that the climate has always changed
the current "human"period has been unusually calm compared to the past
this fact is always ignored
they say the impact of humans etc
but id say flatulence from herbivorses was a factor in the past that would have been comparable

this simply isnt the kind of thing people who like the global warming theroy likes to hear

Science is more of a religion than Christianity currently is,to deny gobal warming is heresy

 

[Pietro_Mercurios]

Science has already shown that the climate has always changed
the current "human"period has been unusually calm compared to the past
this fact is always ignored
they say the impact of humans etc
but id say flatulence from herbivorses was a factor in the past that would have been comparable

this simply isnt the kind of thing people who like the global warming theroy likes to hear

Science is more of a religion than Christianity currently is,to deny gobal warming is heresy

Mostly because it's either conflating vast geological time spans, or totally unsupported by the available evidence.

Elsewhere on this board posters have been bemoaning all the extreme green types for their views, but at least the green types aren't busily trying to herd their fellows off catastrophe's cliff, propelled by their own gaseous effusions.

:lol:

 

[TinFinger_]

wouldnt you agree that since we have measured how the environment it is expected to stay the same for ever?
if it dose not it is for a reason that is currently called "global warming"
i propose that the environment will do what it pleases,as it has been proven to do
regardless of the weather patterns for the last few hundred years

is its obvious that regardless of the time scale that things will change as they always have

id say the whole debate is about how to make money,stay in a job and raise taxes.while pointing at the usual changes in the weather

will you deny that science has become a religion ?as it will crush any thought that isnt within doctorine.
yes the crazy people need policing but history has shown this isnt what has happend within science has it.

 

[rynner2]

yes the crazy people need policing..

So true!

 

[Pietro_Mercurios]

wouldnt you agree that since we have measured how the environment it is expected to stay the same for ever?
...

What does that even mean?

 

[Pete Younger]

yes the crazy people need policing..

So true!

 

[AngelAlice]

The real, non-political truth is AGW is neither a fact nor an impossibility. It's somewhere in that muddled middle ground. It might be true, or partly true, or wholly false, and only time and research will tell. But as long as people continue to take up polarised, non-scientific positions like yours then the politics will continue to win out over science and we'll all be the worse off for it.

Round and round the garden, like a teddy bear! :lol:

Sigh....With that insight and rare grasp of the complexities involved you should start a climate blog.