• We've made some major changes to the website. You can view a short list : Here
  • Hello guests. Please take a minute to sign up and join in the conversation. It's free, quick, and easy!

Learning Global Warming facts and fiction (1 Viewer)

Joined
Apr 23, 2018
Messages
723
Likes
1,091
Location
Wilson, NC
I still do not understand though why many people who argue against AGW so strongly do not see the basic argument for doing something about it. The simple idea no one can argue against, which is “control the things you can control”. No, science will never 100% prove that all of the recent warming is anthropomorphic, but why not have some common sense policies that address something we humans can do about, regarding CO2 release? You and others give fine arguments as to why the warming may not be anthropogenic, but then again there is nothing we can do about those factors. Sure their are folks who cry “ the sky is falling”, but more dangerous I think are those with their heads in the sand who think their is nothing that needs to be done.
I have no problem with there being measures in places to take care of our environment. A good example of this is deforestation. It’s a big problem in a lot of countries and something that needs guidelines in place to prevent natural resources from being harvested in an unsustainable way. At the same time there are AGW proponents who are constantly fear mongering and saying if we don’t do this or that the world will slip into a catastrophic decline and billions will die. Then there is also the issue of whether the government should be pressure into AGW advocates into making strict environmental rules and regulations to reduce the carbon footprint. I’m not going to go into that one since it’s more of a political nature but these are some of the main issues people like myself have with the AGW advocates who are constantly trying to scare people into believing them.
 
Joined
Dec 10, 2016
Messages
405
Likes
346
Location
Clemmons, NC
The amount of money that would be necessary to make miniscule changes would be a burden to the world economy and cost many jobs and force a different standard of living. While we are at it trying to prevent a "catastrophe" with AGW we better also start a missile shield system for shooting down any rogue asteroids or comets. After all one asteroid hitting the earth could kill billions of animals and humans and change the environment of the Earth for hundreds or perhaps thousands of years and we KNOW this has happened before. Those of us who do not think there is much if any danger of catastrophic AGW does not mean we don't think the Climate is changing, but understand it has for over a million years and will for the next million. The counter argument to the proponents who say " but we've never had this much co2 put into the atmosphere" should read past history of same and also acknowledge we have never had over 7 billion souls on the planet either which is the bigger issue IMO
 
Joined
Dec 4, 2017
Messages
130
Likes
94
Location
Raleigh
Here is a graph to help explain the earths co2 history (there are others if you don't like this one)
Again you are not adressing my argument. No one doubts how much the earth and atmosphere have changed over the millennia, the question is what can humans do about it. It’s a simple risk/ reward equation. You argue it could alter the earths economy to make stricter CO2 emissions, but economic devastation can occur with AGW, just look at the recent hurricanes, which may/ may not be affected by it but if you have reasonable evidence we can do something to change it later then do so. It is as simple as investment now for better investment down the road.
 
Joined
Dec 10, 2016
Messages
405
Likes
346
Location
Clemmons, NC
An argument without a solution is pointless. What exactly do you propose to do to in order to improve whatever you believe is happening to the Climate? We know now that one of the preferred methods of reducing dependence on oil is prohibitively expensive, kills millions of birds and requires way too much space, namely wind power. They won't increase Nuclear because "other"groups think it is inherently unsafe. As for Hurricanes, the increased costs are largely the result of more and increasingly expensive housing and other property being located right on the coast which dramatically increase the potential damage. The amount of major hurricanes striking the US has actually declined since the late 60's.
 
Joined
Dec 4, 2017
Messages
130
Likes
94
Location
Raleigh
An argument without a solution is pointless. What exactly do you propose to do to in order to improve whatever you believe is happening to the Climate? We know now that one of the preferred methods of reducing dependence on oil is prohibitively expensive, kills millions of birds and requires way too much space, namely wind power. They won't increase Nuclear because "other"groups think it is inherently unsafe. As for Hurricanes, the increased costs are largely the result of more and increasingly expensive housing and other property being located right on the coast which dramatically increase the potential damage. The amount of major hurricanes striking the US has actually declined since the late 60's.
I’m not going to try to go into the complicated ways it can be addressed, I just know there must be a healthy medium between “worry mongerers” and then our current administration claiming it is just a hoax to ignore. I was compelled to say something about it just because folks are discussing excellent science here, but then some using the doubt about it as an argument to do nothing. I am a physician, and every time I treat a patient I have to use risk/benefit analysis to treat every patient. Drug A may carry some risk of side effects/adverse event, but it may be a small risk if it has reasonable chance of benefitting the patients health for 25 years down the road. The AGW discussion should be the same that we should debate in a healthy way,and if changing oil production economy could have a significant positive benefit 100 years down the road, then it is well worth some current economic risk. Same thing I tell my children regarding their decision making.
 
Joined
Dec 10, 2016
Messages
405
Likes
346
Location
Clemmons, NC
I’m not going to try to go into the complicated ways it can be addressed, I just know there must be a healthy medium between “worry mongerers” and then our current administration claiming it is just a hoax to ignore. I was compelled to say something about it just because folks are discussing excellent science here, but then some using the doubt about it as an argument to do nothing. I am a physician, and every time I treat a patient I have to use risk/benefit analysis to treat every patient. Drug A may carry some risk of side effects/adverse event, but it may be a small risk if it has reasonable chance of benefitting the patients health for 25 years down the road. The AGW discussion should be the same that we should debate in a healthy way,and if changing oil production economy could have a significant positive benefit 100 years down the road, then it is well worth some current economic risk. Same thing I tell my children regarding their decision making.
But there is a huge difference in trusting a computer model or a proxy as in Climate Science as opposed to a double blind placebo controlled study required for prescription drugs in medicine (your discipline). We are guessing as to whether a model can correctly anticipate any variables involved in a stochastic system like the atmosphere. Like I mentioned earlier with the asteroid possibility, you can not prepare for any and all contingencies, so the ones we can control we should attempt it, but the atmosphere and hence Climate is not one of them IMO. There are likely a myriad of variables about Climate we don't even know about so how can we change them if we don't even know what they are? To spend Trillions ( and that could be a conservative estimate) on an attempt to correct something we don't even understand is a risk reward I am not willing to bet on until we learn a lot more about what the ramifications of all the drivers of our Climate are.
 
Joined
Dec 10, 2016
Messages
405
Likes
346
Location
Clemmons, NC
I will say if we are willing to produce many many more Nuclear power plants to supply most of our energy, I would have no problem with that but moonbats like California Governor Jerry Brown are not willing to do that. Just remember back to a few years ago to the ACA by the previous administration was going to "fix" our health care system, how did that work out for most people?
 
Joined
Dec 28, 2017
Messages
1,781
Likes
1,381
Location
Greenville
I still do not understand though why many people who argue against AGW so strongly do not see the basic argument for doing something about it. The simple idea no one can argue against, which is “control the things you can control”. No, science will never 100% prove that all of the recent warming is anthropomorphic, but why not have some common sense policies that address something we humans can do about, regarding CO2 release? You and others give fine arguments as to why the warming may not be anthropogenic, but then again there is nothing we can do about those factors. Sure their are folks who cry “ the sky is falling”, but more dangerous I think are those with their heads in the sand who think their is nothing that needs to be done.
I think humans make this planet a very dirty, polluted and hostile place to live but I believe that’s because there are A) more of us than ever B) we are a society of consumers

The planet has a way of balancing itself out. We (humans) aren’t even a factor in the grand scheme of things
 

pcbjr

Supporter
Member
Joined
Dec 10, 2016
Messages
6,559
Likes
6,515
Location
Gainesville, FL
I think humans make this planet a very dirty, polluted and hostile place to live but I believe that’s because there are A) more of us than ever B) we are a society of consumers

The planet has a way of balancing itself out. We (humans) aren’t even a factor in the grand scheme of things
Rather be here than say, Venus (hot) or Mars (sterile) ... God gave us this place, the resources to thrive, and the brains to do so ... the rest is up to us ...
 

Rosie

Supporter
Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2017
Messages
213
Likes
173
Location
Blairsville, Ga
I will say if we are willing to produce many many more Nuclear power plants to supply most of our energy, I would have no problem with that but moonbats like California Governor Jerry Brown are not willing to do that. Just remember back to a few years ago to the ACA by the previous administration was going to "fix" our health care system, how did that work out for most people?
Nuclear power is not the answer, dangerous waste. Hydro, solar, wind and geothermal are the way to go.
 
Joined
Dec 10, 2016
Messages
405
Likes
346
Location
Clemmons, NC
Nuclear power is not the answer, dangerous waste. Hydro, solar, wind and geothermal are the way to go.
Sorry but NONE of those have proven to be cost or land usage efficient. The wind mills kill birds in the thousands and also take up huge amounts of valuable land. Solar also requires a lot of money and land to produce much energy. Hydro of course requires massive amounts of water, which is not distributed evenly across the country nor the world. Geothermal is probably the cleanest and waste free of the four you mentioned but it will provide only 4.6% of electricity by 2040 and does not provide energy for vehicles to run on. There is no energy system that can produce anywhere near the amount or cost effectiveness Fossil fuels currently do and won't for (barring an amazing technological advance) better than 100 years from now. A fusion system would be the best but we are a very long way from making that a workable system at less than a prohibitive cost. Should we just do nothing, no, research should continue, but it will require a Manhattan type project to make it in large enough quantities and at a reasonable cost in the foreseeable future. All this assumes of course (which I don't) that co2 is dangerous or potentially catastrophic to our planet. It is good the name calling normally associated with AGW diehard adherents has appeared here in this discussion because that is surely not the case in the Climate Science world where many on that side want to punish, silence and intimidate those that don't buy their thoughts hook line and sinker. Science is not, and never should be, accepted because it is a consensus or else it ceases to be science at all. All viewpoints should be heard but unfortunately in today's academia and in the media it is not
 

pcbjr

Supporter
Member
Joined
Dec 10, 2016
Messages
6,559
Likes
6,515
Location
Gainesville, FL
We have resources; just need to know how to use them reasonably. Coal and oil and natural gas can be burned clean; nuke can be done safely and cleanly; solar works really well if the climate isn't a cloudy one; hydrogen is not out of the question; anything is possible, so long as it is free market and not taxed ... We do have the brain power ... ask your great-grandfathers and grandfathers ... :cool:

Off the soapbox ... :eek:
 
Last edited:
Joined
Dec 4, 2017
Messages
130
Likes
94
Location
Raleigh
Sorry but NONE of those have proven to be cost or land usage efficient. The wind mills kill birds in the thousands and also take up huge amounts of valuable land. Solar also requires a lot of money and land to produce much energy. Hydro of course requires massive amounts of water, which is not distributed evenly across the country nor the world. Geothermal is probably the cleanest and waste free of the four you mentioned but it will provide only 4.6% of electricity by 2040 and does not provide energy for vehicles to run on. There is no energy system that can produce anywhere near the amount or cost effectiveness Fossil fuels currently do and won't for (barring an amazing technological advance) better than 100 years from now. A fusion system would be the best but we are a very long way from making that a workable system at less than a prohibitive cost. Should we just do nothing, no, research should continue, but it will require a Manhattan type project to make it in large enough quantities and at a reasonable cost in the foreseeable future. All this assumes of course (which I don't) that co2 is dangerous or potentially catastrophic to our planet. It is good the name calling normally associated with AGW diehard adherents has appeared here in this discussion because that is surely not the case in the Climate Science world where many on that side want to punish, silence and intimidate those that don't buy their thoughts hook line and sinker. Science is not, and never should be, accepted because it is a consensus or else it ceases to be science at all. All viewpoints should be heard but unfortunately in today's academia and in the media it is not
OK well I was trying not to make this so political, but since you are going that route I feel I better address a few points. So how are these scientists who try to “punish, silence and intimidate” able to do such? Who has the power, a small group of academics doing research and trying to report their concern to the public or the gas and oil industry, all supported by our government and that of oil rich nations such as Russia and Saudi Arabia? Who has the ability to truly wield the power here? Come on man. Of course science should never be a consensus, but again when you do polls where half of Americans believe AGW is not a priority, and well over 95% of scientists who work on this do, that to me is a problem where the folks with the power are the ones in control and casting enough doubt where the average American does not take it seriously. And that is where you have to have some balance with some people trying to shout an alarm of concern vs those who truly wield the power, such as our government currently who is silencing said climate scientists, where the EPA is no longer even able to address the issue, and those speaking up about it could lose their jobs? I agree with a lot of what you say as far as research on new technology but cannot take some of what you say seriously about the “trillions” it would cost to move away from fossil fuels? Is their more evidence for that suspect economic “ certainty” or for the dangers of CO2? I’m sorry you sound more like someone with their pension all in Exxon rather than looking at it objectively. And no more efficient fuel than fossil fuels for the next 100 years?? Ok, but I think humanity can do a little better than that.
 
Joined
Apr 23, 2018
Messages
723
Likes
1,091
Location
Wilson, NC
OK well I was trying not to make this so political, but since you are going that route I feel I better address a few points. So how are these scientists who try to “punish, silence and intimidate” able to do such? Who has the power, a small group of academics doing research and trying to report their concern to the public or the gas and oil industry, all supported by our government and that of oil rich nations such as Russia and Saudi Arabia? Who has the ability to truly wield the power here? Come on man. Of course science should never be a consensus, but again when you do polls where half of Americans believe AGW is not a priority, and well over 95% of scientists who work on this do, that to me is a problem where the folks with the power are the ones in control and casting enough doubt where the average American does not take it seriously. And that is where you have to have some balance with some people trying to shout an alarm of concern vs those who truly wield the power, such as our government currently who is silencing said climate scientists, where the EPA is no longer even able to address the issue, and those speaking up about it could lose their jobs? I agree with a lot of what you say as far as research on new technology but cannot take some of what you say seriously about the “trillions” it would cost to move away from fossil fuels? Is their more evidence for that suspect economic “ certainty” or for the dangers of CO2? I’m sorry you sound more like someone with their pension all in Exxon rather than looking at it objectively. And no more efficient fuel than fossil fuels for the next 100 years?? Ok, but I think humanity can do a little better than that.
People need to stop using the 97% statistic because it’s been debunked already as a false and misleading statistic. See below.

One of the main papers behind the 97 percent claim is authored by John Cook, who runs the popular website SkepticalScience.com, a virtual encyclopedia of arguments trying to defend predictions of catastrophic climate change from all challenges.

Here is Cook’s summary of his paper: “Cook et al. (2013) found that over 97 percent [of papers he surveyed] endorsed the view that the Earth is warming up and human emissions of greenhouse gases are the main cause.”

This is a fairly clear statement—97 percent of the papers surveyed endorsed the view that man-made greenhouse gases were the main cause—main in common usage meaning more than 50 percent.

But even a quick scan of the paper reveals that this is not the case. Cook is able to demonstrate only that a relative handful endorse “the view that the Earth is warming up and human emissions of greenhouse gases are the main cause.” Cook calls this “explicit endorsement with quantification” (quantification meaning 50 percent or more). The problem is, only a small percentage of the papers fall into this category; Cook does not say what percentage, but when the study was publicly challenged by economist David Friedman, one observer calculated that only 1.6 percent explicitly stated that man-made greenhouse gases caused at least 50 percent of global warming.

Where did most of the 97 percent come from, then? Cook had created a category called “explicit endorsement without quantification”—that is, papers in which the author, by Cook’s admission, did not say whether 1 percent or 50 percent or 100 percent of the warming was caused by man. He had also created a category called “implicit endorsement,” for papers that imply (but don’t say) that there is some man-made global warming and don’t quantify it. In other words, he created two categories that he labeled as endorsing a view that they most certainly didn’t.

The 97 percent claim is a deliberate misrepresentation designed to intimidate the public—and numerous scientists whose papers were classified by Cook protested:

“Cook survey included 10 of my 122 eligible papers. 5/10 were rated incorrectly. 4/5 were rated as endorse rather than neutral.”

—Dr. Richard Tol

“That is not an accurate representation of my paper . . .”

—Dr. Craig Idso

“Nope . . . it is not an accurate representation.”

—Dr. Nir Shaviv

“Cook et al. (2013) is based on a strawman argument . . .”

—Dr. Nicola Scafetta

Think about how many times you hear that 97 percent or some similar figure thrown around. It’s based on crude manipulation propagated by people whose ideological agenda it serves. Source https://www.forbes.com/sites/alexep...e-scientists-agree-is-100-wrong/#7702cebf3f9f
For a detailed list of some of the papers and how they were incorrectly classified, see this link below for further details and actual responses from the scientists. The 97% claim is well documented as misleading and incorrect so it’s time people stop using this statistic to argue that the consensus agrees on AGW.
http://www.populartechnology.net/2013/05/97-study-falsely-classifies-scientists.html
 
Joined
Apr 23, 2018
Messages
723
Likes
1,091
Location
Wilson, NC
It’s also interesting to note that a recent study casts doubt on the accuracy of degree of gridded land surface air temperature data sets. See below.

Several groups routinely produce gridded land surface air temperature (LSAT) data sets using station measurements to assess the status and impact of climate change. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Fifth Assessment Report suggests that estimated global and hemispheric mean LSAT trends of different data sets are consistent. However, less attention has been paid to the intercomparison at local/regional scales, which is important for local/regional studies. In this study we comprehensively compare four data sets at different spatial and temporal scales, including Berkley Earth Surface Temperature land surface air temperature data set (BEST‐LAND), Climate Research Unit Temperature Data Set version 4 (CRU‐TEM4v), National Aeronautics and Space Administration Goddard Institute for Space Studies data (NASA‐GISS), and data provided by National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration National Center for Environmental Information (NOAA‐NCEI). The mean LSAT anomalies are remarkably different because of the data coverage differences, with the magnitude nearly 0.4°C for the global and Northern Hemisphere and 0.6°C for the Southern Hemisphere. This study additionally finds that on the regional scale, northern high latitudes, southern middle‐to‐high latitudes, and the equator show the largest differences nearly 0.8°C. These differences cause notable differences for the trend calculation at regional scales. At the local scale, four data sets show significant variations over South America, Africa, Maritime Continent, central Australia, and Antarctica, which leads to remarkable differences in the local trend analysis. For some areas, different data sets produce conflicting results of whether warming exists. Our analysis shows that the differences across scales are associated with the availability of stations and the use of infilling techniques. Our results suggest that conventional LSAT data sets using only station observations have large uncertainties across scales, especially over station‐sparse areas. In developing future LSAT data sets, the data uncertainty caused by limited and unevenly distributed station observations must be reduced. https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1029/2018JD028355
 
Joined
Apr 23, 2018
Messages
723
Likes
1,091
Location
Wilson, NC
Also in regards to slow moving tropical systems, a new paper was recently published stating that no trend has been observed when it comes to TC flooding and heavy rains.

“The aim of this study is to examine the contribution of North Atlantic tropical cyclones (TCs) to flooding and heavy rainfall across the continental United States. Analyses highlight the spatial variability in these hazards, their temporal changes in terms of frequency and magnitude, and their connection to large-scale climate, in particular to the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO) and El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO). We use long-term stream and rain gage measurements, and our analyses are based on annual maxima (AMs) and peaks-over-threshold (POTs). TCs contribute to ∼20–30% of AMs and POTs over Florida and coastal areas of the eastern United States, and the contribution decreases as we move inland. We do not detect statistically significant trends in the magnitude or frequency of TC floods. Regarding the role of climate, NAO and ENSO do not play a large role in controlling the frequency and magnitude of TC flooding. The connection between heavy rainfall and TCs is comparable to what observed in terms of flooding. Unlike flooding, NAO plays a significant role in TC-related extreme rainfall along the U.S. East Coast, while ENSO is most strongly linked to the TC precipitation in Texas. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022169418301549
 

GaWx

Supporter
Member
Joined
Jan 5, 2017
Messages
3,270
Likes
5,486
Location
SAV, GA
People need to stop using the 97% statistic because it’s been debunked already as a false and misleading statistic. See below.



For a detailed list of some of the papers and how they were incorrectly classified, see this link below for further details and actual responses from the scientists. The 97% claim is well documented as misleading and incorrect so it’s time people stop using this statistic to argue that the consensus agrees on AGW.
http://www.populartechnology.net/2013/05/97-study-falsely-classifies-scientists.html
I'm not trying to take sides as I think of myself as being somewhere in the vast space between the alarmist and denier sides/open-minded. However, I have already said in the past that 97% of papers does not necessarily equal 97% of scientists. The 97% of papers could have included some on the alarmist side who wrote numerous papers/more than the average number written by those on the denier side. So, for a hypothetical example to illustrate, the 97% could have been written by, say, 1000 alarmist scientists and the other 3% by, say, 500 denier scientists meaning only 67% on the alarmist side and a respectable 33% on the denier side. OTOH, it could be the other way around, too. And in reality, many are in the middle. I'm just trying to simplify in my example.
 
Joined
Dec 10, 2016
Messages
405
Likes
346
Location
Clemmons, NC
OK well I was trying not to make this so political, but since you are going that route I feel I better address a few points. So how are these scientists who try to “punish, silence and intimidate” able to do such? Who has the power, a small group of academics doing research and trying to report their concern to the public or the gas and oil industry, all supported by our government and that of oil rich nations such as Russia and Saudi Arabia? Who has the ability to truly wield the power here? Come on man. Of course science should never be a consensus, but again when you do polls where half of Americans believe AGW is not a priority, and well over 95% of scientists who work on this do, that to me is a problem where the folks with the power are the ones in control and casting enough doubt where the average American does not take it seriously. And that is where you have to have some balance with some people trying to shout an alarm of concern vs those who truly wield the power, such as our government currently who is silencing said climate scientists, where the EPA is no longer even able to address the issue, and those speaking up about it could lose their jobs? I agree with a lot of what you say as far as research on new technology but cannot take some of what you say seriously about the “trillions” it would cost to move away from fossil fuels? Is their more evidence for that suspect economic “ certainty” or for the dangers of CO2? I’m sorry you sound more like someone with their pension all in Exxon rather than looking at it objectively. And no more efficient fuel than fossil fuels for the next 100 years?? Ok, but I think humanity can do a little better than that.
Ahh, the last resort of people on the AGW side is to lump us with oil companies with NO proof whatsoever. It is like saying Physicians are part of the big Pharma complex, and they own stock in them. Sadly you resorted to the conspiracy nonsense. For the record I have never worked, owned stock or even much liked the oil industry but don't let a few facts get in the way, it isn't ( the AGW debate, and there is a huge debate among scientists in the field believe it or not) or should not be based on emotion but strictly on science
 
Joined
Dec 4, 2017
Messages
130
Likes
94
Location
Raleigh
People need to stop using the 97% statistic because it’s been debunked already as a false and misleading statistic. See below.



For a detailed list of some of the papers and how they were incorrectly classified, see this link below for further details and actual responses from the scientists. The 97% claim is well documented as misleading and incorrect so it’s time people stop using this statistic to argue that the consensus agrees on AGW.
http://www.populartechnology.net/2013/05/97-study-falsely-classifies-scientists.html
I honestly do not know or do not care what the actual statistic is, but even by those numbers it is still a majority. Science needs skeptics on both sides, but this debate has become so divisive that it can skew everyone’s objectivity. My point I was trying to make again is that science is never going to be “definite” regarding our climate. I do not understand why everyone feels a need to pick sides as this is a totally black and white problem. I certainly agree that there are many factors that affect our climate other than AGW. My point is that we can only do something about the factors humans can control. Interpreting and then acting upon science is the hard part, and on that we obviously disagree. I just personally believe that based on the current evidence the risk/benefit ratio of doing nothing/doing something is skewed towards doing more than we are currently committing to. MichaelJ brought up the asteroid hitting earth for example. We do not know either our exact risk of asteroid strikes, but surely the risk/benefit ratio of doing something about an asteroid should be quite low, plus again most scientists agree there is probably not much we could do at this time to stop an asteroid. Now, surely if we found a large asteroid that looked as if there was good evidence it would strike earth within three years, then I bet most of us would agree we would do something about it, that risk:benefit ratio would go up tremendously. The odds of catastrophic affects from AGW are obviously somewhere between 0 to 100%, and I believe the current data we have more supports taking action versus inaction
 
Joined
Dec 4, 2017
Messages
130
Likes
94
Location
Raleigh
Ahh, the last resort of people on the AGW side is to lump us with oil companies with NO proof whatsoever. It is like saying Physicians are part of the big Pharma complex, and they own stock in them. Sadly you resorted to the conspiracy nonsense. For the record I have never worked, owned stock or even much liked the oil industry but don't let a few facts get in the way, it isn't ( the AGW debate, and there is a huge debate among scientists in the field believe it or not) or should not be based on emotion but strictly on science
The only reason I brought this up was due to your comment about how the people who believe in AGW are trying to “silence” the skeptics. Maybe their is some of that happening but I find it ludicrous that their voice is more influential than the clear bias powerful industries have to sway public opinion. Sure so you don’t have anything in oil yourself, but who is spending/lobbying as hard as they can to put more doubt in the science? Some of your comments about the trillions that would be needed to move away from fossil fuels sure sounded like a oil company statement, as they do have billions to lose. Same goes for the science looking at tobacco use, CFCs, DDT, or lead in gasoline. The more money you can throw at the public to cast doubt, the less likely policy or human bevior will occur. Look at lead in gasoline, no one in their right mind would now say it is a good thing now, yet the oil industry pushed back extremely hard and this likely put off action on it for many years, and at a tremendous price to people’s health. Again, we don’t know exactly how much negative effects fossil figures will have in the future, but to say that said companies are not trying to change at least people’s perspectives on the subject, and in my opinion swaying emotion and skewing the science a lot more than the climate change group. And in the court of public opinion, injecting as much doubt as possible about the science is their objective, the longer you can do that the longer you can continue the status quo.
 
Joined
Apr 23, 2018
Messages
723
Likes
1,091
Location
Wilson, NC
I honestly do not know or do not care what the actual statistic is, but even by those numbers it is still a majority. Science needs skeptics on both sides, but this debate has become so divisive that it can skew everyone’s objectivity. My point I was trying to make again is that science is never going to be “definite” regarding our climate. I do not understand why everyone feels a need to pick sides as this is a totally black and white problem. I certainly agree that there are many factors that affect our climate other than AGW. My point is that we can only do something about the factors humans can control. Interpreting and then acting upon science is the hard part, and on that we obviously disagree. I just personally believe that based on the current evidence the risk/benefit ratio of doing nothing/doing something is skewed towards doing more than we are currently committing to. MichaelJ brought up the asteroid hitting earth for example. We do not know either our exact risk of asteroid strikes, but surely the risk/benefit ratio of doing something about an asteroid should be quite low, plus again most scientists agree there is probably not much we could do at this time to stop an asteroid. Now, surely if we found a large asteroid that looked as if there was good evidence it would strike earth within three years, then I bet most of us would agree we would do something about it, that risk:benefit ratio would go up tremendously. The odds of catastrophic affects from AGW are obviously somewhere between 0 to 100%, and I believe the current data we have more supports taking action versus inaction
By what numbers is it a majority? The whole point of the article I shared was that the 97% statistic is incorrect and misleading so we have no true idea what percentage of scientists believe AGW is the primary cause for it. Arguing a majority without any credible statistics is not the way to prove a point... not to mention the "majority consensus" argument does not actually prove it to be true either.

If you read my previous comments you will see I have no problem with things being done in a sustainable way to improve how our resources our used. At the same time MichaelJ has brought up some great points about the issues with switching to various alternative energy sources that are effective, efficient and cost effective for the average consumer.

Here's one possible alternative that explains the warming we've seen as an entirely natural process. It doesn't make it right as there are numerous views out there from skeptics but it shows that there is much we have to learn on this subject.

"Holmes, 2018 In short, there is unlikely to be any significant net warming from the greenhouse effect on any planetary body in the parts of atmospheres which are >10kPa. Instead, it is proposed that the residual temperature difference between the effective temperature and the measured near-surface temperature, is a thermal enhancement caused by gravitationally-induced adiabatic auto compression, powered by convection. A new null hypothesis of global warming or climate change is therefore proposed and argued for; one which does not include any anomalous or net warming from greenhouse gases in the tropospheric atmospheres of any planetary body. … A decline of 6% in lower tropospheric tropical cloud cover (15°N–15°S) occurred 1984 – 2000 according to the international satellite cloud climatology project’s data [29]. These years are contained well with the 1975-2000 period of warming, and an observed 0.4°C rise in global temperatures occurred over the same period. Scatter diagrams [55] of low cloud cover vs global surface air temperatures indicate that a 1% fall in low clouds equates to a 0.07°C rise in surface air temperatures – hence this change in cloudiness accounts for the entire observed rise in global temperatures during the 1975-2000 period, leaving no room for any effect from growing greenhouse gases."

The effects of changes in the climate are poorly understood and not modeled well at all. Here's one example.

"Luo et al., 2018 Over the recent three decades sea surface temperate (SST) in the eastern equatorial Pacific has decreased, which helps reduce the rate of global warming. However, most CMIP5 model simulations with historical radiative forcing do not reproduce this Pacific La Niña-like cooling. Based on the assumption of “perfect” models, previous studies have suggested that errors in simulated internal climate variations and/or external radiative forcing may cause the discrepancy between the multi-model simulations and the observation…. Based on the total 126 realizations of the 38 CMIP5 model Historical simulations, the results show that none of the 126 model historical realizations reproduce the intensity of the observed eastern Pacific cooling (Fig. 1d) and only one simulation produces a weak cooling (−0.007 °C per decade)."

Another example citing the Greenland blocking that wasn't captured.

"Hanna et al., 2018 Recent changes in summer Greenland blocking captured by none of the CMIP5 models … Recent studies note a significant increase in high-pressure blocking over the Greenland region (Greenland Blocking Index, GBI) in summer since the 1990s. … We find that the recent summer GBI increase lies well outside the range of modeled past reconstructions (Historical scenario) and future GBI projections (RCP4.5 and RCP8.5). The models consistently project a future decrease in GBI (linked to an increase in NAO), which highlights a likely key deficiency of current climate models if the recently-observed circulation changes continue to persist. Given well-established connections between atmospheric pressure over the Greenland region and air temperature and precipitation extremes downstream, e.g. over Northwest Europe, this brings into question the accuracy of simulated North Atlantic jet stream changes and resulting climatological anomalies […] as well as of future projections of GrIS mass balance produced using global and regional climate models."

Computer models do not accurate capture what we are observing in real time in the Antarctic region.

"Roach et al., 2018 Consistent biases in Antarctic sea ice concentration simulated by climate models … The simulation of Antarctic sea ice in global climate models often does not agree with observations. [M]odels simulate too much loose, low-concentration sea ice cover throughout the year, and too little compact, high-concentration cover in the summer. [C]urrent sea ice thermodynamics contribute to the inadequate simulation of the low-concentration regime in many models."

These are just a few examples worth evaluation and consideration in the AGW debate/discussion. It's amazing to me how many people trust the predictions of these climate models yet computer models can't even accurately predict a SE snowstorm, hurricane intensity, El Nino/La Nina cycles years in advance or the evolution of the summer Greenland blocking observed in recent years.
 
Joined
Apr 23, 2018
Messages
723
Likes
1,091
Location
Wilson, NC
The only reason I brought this up was due to your comment about how the people who believe in AGW are trying to “silence” the skeptics. Maybe their is some of that happening but I find it ludicrous that their voice is more influential than the clear bias powerful industries have to sway public opinion. Sure so you don’t have anything in oil yourself, but who is spending/lobbying as hard as they can to put more doubt in the science? Some of your comments about the trillions that would be needed to move away from fossil fuels sure sounded like a oil company statement, as they do have billions to lose. Same goes for the science looking at tobacco use, CFCs, DDT, or lead in gasoline. The more money you can throw at the public to cast doubt, the less likely policy or human bevior will occur. Look at lead in gasoline, no one in their right mind would now say it is a good thing now, yet the oil industry pushed back extremely hard and this likely put off action on it for many years, and at a tremendous price to people’s health. Again, we don’t know exactly how much negative effects fossil figures will have in the future, but to say that said companies are not trying to change at least people’s perspectives on the subject, and in my opinion swaying emotion and skewing the science a lot more than the climate change group. And in the court of public opinion, injecting as much doubt as possible about the science is their objective, the longer you can do that the longer you can continue the status quo.
Regarding the first bolded statement there is evidence out there that AGW advocates were actually blocking the publication of people they disagree with or who advocate alternative explanations for the current warming we are seeing. See below.

Olson, 2018 [O]pinion polls and other research show a public that frequently perceives climate science and associated AGW threats as complicated, uncertain and temporally and spatially distant (Anghelcev et al., 2015; Bennett et al., 2016; Gordon et al., 2011). Thus climate scientists, celebrities, public policymakers and other AGW social marketers face a daunting task in convincing a lackadaisical and often skeptical public to support AGW mitigating behaviors and policies. The difficulty of this marketing assignment has also led to the utilization of ethically questionable tactics that hype the severity, immediacy and certainty of AGW threats (O’Neil and Nicholson-Cole, 2009; Rogers, 1975; Rosenberg et al., 2010).

For example, the past 25 years have witnessed a large number of greatly exaggerated predictions regarding the speed and scope of temperature increases and AGW dangers from a variety of AGW “endorsers,” which have fortunately proven to be false alarms (Bastasch, 2015; Grundmann, 2011; Michaels, 2008; Newman, 2014)
.

Another ethically questionable example is provided by the Climategate scandal involving members of the climate science community and their attempts to increase public certainty regarding the methods and predictions of “mainstream” climate models by blocking the publication of research not supportive of the AGW paradigm (Curry, 2014; Grundmann, 2011).

The Fakegate scandal that is the focus of the current research is different than other AGW scandals and ethical missteps, however, because the protagonist publicly admitted to the intentional use of ethically questionable tactics for the purposes of favorably influencing public opinion regarding the AGW cause. Fakegate started with the theft of internal strategy and donor documents from the Heartland Institute, a libertarian think tank and dangerous AGW “competitor” owing to their efforts to educate the public regarding climate model uncertainties and the high economic and political costs of AGW mitigation (Hoffman, 2011). … An analysis of the writing style, content details and errors in the fake document led several bloggers to speculate that the thief and fake document author was Peter Gleick, a climate researcher, environmental think tank president, chairman of a scientific association ethics committee and frequent blogger on climate science and AGW threats (Greenhut, 2012). These publicly discussed suspicions led Gleick to confess and apologize for his use of deception in posing as a Heartland board member to acquire and disseminate the internal documents.
If you're going to argue $$ as a reason that fossil fuel companies are trying to influence the science... you should also consider the $$ which is flowing into these researchers pockets, alternative energy exploration and the AGW cause. There is $$ on both sides to be made/lost so I don't find the $$ argument a compelling one for either side.
 
Joined
Dec 4, 2017
Messages
130
Likes
94
Location
Raleigh
Regarding the first bolded statement there is evidence out there that AGW advocates were actually blocking the publication of people they disagree with or who advocate alternative explanations for the current warming we are seeing. See below.



If you're going to argue $$ as a reason that fossil fuel companies are trying to influence the science... you should also consider the $$ which is flowing into these researchers pockets, alternative energy exploration and the AGW cause. There is $$ on both sides to be made/lost so I don't find the $$ argument a compelling one for either side.
Ok no I am not disagreeing with you that both sides have a stake in it and can influence the science. I was again addressing MichaelJs assertion that implied it was the AGW side that was getting in the way of the science where it certainly works both ways. Look, I think we all agree we need an open mind about it, that is always a good policy. Your prior post also brought up the uncertainty about AGW that I am not denying. My point is that on the whole you have to look at all the evidence you have and make decisions based on the risk/benefit model, and I am in the camp that feels more should be done about it and you are not. But just like the point I made about the studies with lead and CFCs, you cannot just look at the evidence forever and put off action when there is some doubt, we can argue what that point is but I still believe the decision to “wait until we have more evidence” is more costly than some reasonable steps to lower fossil fuels than no action at all.
 
Joined
Apr 23, 2018
Messages
723
Likes
1,091
Location
Wilson, NC
Ok no I am not disagreeing with you that both sides have a stake in it and can influence the science. I was again addressing MichaelJs assertion that implied it was the AGW side that was getting in the way of the science where it certainly works both ways. Look, I think we all agree we need an open mind about it, that is always a good policy. Your prior post also brought up the uncertainty about AGW that I am not denying. My point is that on the whole you have to look at all the evidence you have and make decisions based on the risk/benefit model, and I am in the camp that feels more should be done about it and you are not. But just like the point I made about the studies with lead and CFCs, you cannot just look at the evidence forever and put off action when there is some doubt, we can argue what that point is but I still believe the decision to “wait until we have more evidence” is more costly than some reasonable steps to lower fossil fuels than no action at all.
If you read my previous comments you will see I have no problem with things being done in a sustainable way to improve how our resources our used. At the same time MichaelJ has brought up some great points about the issues with switching to various alternative energy sources that are effective, efficient and cost effective for the average consumer. I'm not against things being done in a sustainable and economically sustainable way... but what alternatives are there that meet these criteria? What do you propose as a cleaner way to power the millions of cars on the road and to get people to switch not just in the US but globally? What about sustainable electricity generation?
 
Joined
Dec 4, 2017
Messages
130
Likes
94
Location
Raleigh
If you read my previous comments you will see I have no problem with things being done in a sustainable way to improve how our resources our used. At the same time MichaelJ has brought up some great points about the issues with switching to various alternative energy sources that are effective, efficient and cost effective for the average consumer. I'm not against things being done in a sustainable and economically sustainable way... but what alternatives are there that meet these criteria? What do you propose as a cleaner way to power the millions of cars on the road and to get people to switch not just in the US but globally? What about sustainable electricity generation?
There is an awful lot I could list as you and Michael have already discussed as far as sustainable energy, some of it viable and some not. Solar is not the full answer but can be an important part, also biofuels, and both need more technology put in them now and in the future (also solar has come along way as far as its efficiency in the past decade). So there are many things that need to be explored while not at the same time installing more coal fire power plants that’s undermines any net improvement. Why I entered this dialogue was not about the myriad possible solutions but about how the science is interpreted and therefore is acted upon, especially in the all important poll of public opinion. In a democratic society a well informed educated population is key to a healthy democracy. In an increasingly partisan country, It is even more important for the public to know at least about the science and about the risks/benefits of policy for or against climate change or any important issue. Recent Gallup poll in March of this year shows more Americans believe it is an important subject, but it is still way down the list of priorities. Again, a big part of that is when you have enough doubt and dissent to make people question their choices on energy use or government policy. Not trying again to be too political, but when you have a current head of state calling it a hoax rather than at least having more open debate on the subject, it is a problem.
 
Joined
Apr 23, 2018
Messages
723
Likes
1,091
Location
Wilson, NC
There is an awful lot I could list as you and Michael have already discussed as far as sustainable energy, some of it viable and some not. Solar is not the full answer but can be an important part, also biofuels, and both need more technology put in them now and in the future (also solar has come along way as far as its efficiency in the past decade). So there are many things that need to be explored while not at the same time installing more coal fire power plants that’s undermines any net improvement. Why I entered this dialogue was not about the myriad possible solutions but about how the science is interpreted and therefore is acted upon, especially in the all important poll of public opinion. In a democratic society a well informed educated population is key to a healthy democracy. In an increasingly partisan country, It is even more important for the public to know at least about the science and about the risks/benefits of policy for or against climate change or any important issue. Recent Gallup poll in March of this year shows more Americans believe it is an important subject, but it is still way down the list of priorities. Again, a big part of that is when you have enough doubt and dissent to make people question their choices on energy use or government policy. Not trying again to be too political, but when you have a current head of state calling it a hoax rather than at least having more open debate on the subject, it is a problem.
Still the question is unanswered, what cleaner, cost effective and efficient fuel source is their for the millions of trucks and cars all over the world? What reliable fuel source is their for power plants that isn't highly disputed like nuclear energy is? Sure there is plenty of research going on in various market sectors for alternative energy methods but until something viable to meet these needs is released then fossil fuels will continue as the primary source of power. Businesses are free to research and explore alternative methods of power there is nothing holding them back from doing so regardless of whether AGW is real, natural or something in between.

I think the media has made it abundantly clear that AGW is real (in their view) and have gone out of their way to promote this. Every single time there is a natural disaster or brutal heat wave you hear the media claiming it's all due to global warming and climate change. People have heard plenty on it so lack of information is not the problem. If anything I would add that people aren't hearing the skeptical side of the debate and only the AGW side. When was the last time you heard a news article discussed on a main news website/tv station that endorsed or presented the skeptical side of things? Do a google search on global warming and you'll quickly find all the top hits are in favor of AGW. That's far from a balanced scientific view into the climate change discussion since there are some incredibly smart people on BOTH sides of this debate but only one side is promoted...

In regards to the second bold statement, I'm not going to debateit in relation to the President since that would be getting into a political debate and that's not what this thread is for nor do I wish to go there so let's leave it at that. However at least make sure that you get the quotes correct, in a recent interview this is what was said by the President "I think something’s happening. Something’s changing and it’ll change back again,” he said. “I don’t think it’s a hoax. I think there’s probably a difference. But I don’t know that it’s manmade. I will say this: I don’t want to give trillions and trillions of dollars. I don’t want to lose millions and millions of jobs.” https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...e-change-not-a-hoax-but-denies-lasting-impact
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)

Top