The Taboo Of Not Subscribing To Anthropological Global Warming

[PersianPaladin]

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/opinion/all-evidence-of-this-treachery-went-down-the-memory-hole/story-e6frezz0-1226248729853

[Devonian]

Simple - because the things PP mentions (and there's plenty more) are inextricably linked to CO2 in one way or another. Why can't y'all get it? "Climate Change" and the notion of dealing with CO2 is a catch-all that the simple man can broadly grasp - though whether he cares or not is another matter. As the veil is lifted this thread will have to be re-titled "The Taboo Of Still Subscribing To AGW". And y'know of all the believers on here,I don't think it will be you who's the last man standing,Dev. Hmm,now who will it be?

LG I post here because, fundamentally, I was interested in weather first, as a kid, and then climate. I read the science (text books, science periodicals, reports) and I agree with it, I saw forums like this one and I thought I'd post my views. I've held the same position for several decades, nothing I've read has made me think otherwise - though I hope warming might be 'low end'. No amount of belittling ('believers' 'simple man' or allegations of 'lies') will force me to change my mind - evidence is what changes my mind.

What is soooo wrong with such a stance???

[Devonian]

http://www.dailytele...0-1226248729853

More allegations. And, you know what? For some reason they don't give the view of the accused, it's a one sided trial of a column. Odd that no?

[loafer]

As you say, a one sided column, but there have been so many the other way around, including all of Richard Black's output in the BBC.

We need objectivity on both sides of the argument and more reliance on science.

[BornFromTheVoid]

It's often mentioned on here how nobody ever changes their stance and how the arguments just inevitably go round in circles. Well... since I first joined this forum my thinking on AGW has changed drastically.

Up until about the age of 20 (now 23) I did believe that it was all a huge conspiracy based around cutting off the supply of oil to poorer nations so there would be more for us. I got taken in by much of the propaganda, villainising climate scientists, the peer review system and even found it funny that so many people had been taken in by such obvious twisted nonsense. The warming could be accounted for by the UHI effect and as the Arctic is losing ice, Antarctica is gaining it, so everything is still ok. The LIA and the cooling between the 40s and 70s balanced the MWP and our current warming. I felt I had all bases covered and no phony "scientific papers" could convince me otherwise

Then through work I did in Uni, mostly from 2nd year on, which necessitated reading the actual peer reviewed work and developing a basic understanding of it, things began to change...

Meeting many folk that were involved in the research, even in the IPCC reports and how they're always so determined to get the most accurate data and results possible, even when it goes against what they expect.

Learning that even in a warming world, natural variation still exists and isn't evidence of CO2 having no impact.

Realising that the scientific community have people that specialised in particular areas of atmospheric and climate studies, having devoted decades in developing their expertise, who take no notice of the keyboard scientist who believes he's found a huge loophole in something after spending a few hours on wikipedia! But of course, this fellow types up his "revelation" in a manner that's simple for others to understand and often skips any complexities and because it's easier to follow it than to go through the actual literature on the subject, people believe it, as I once did.

Essentially, the more I learned about the actual science as opposed the the rhetoric and propaganda, the more I trended towards the Pro-AGW camp. I don't believe all the dire predictions made and I don't think it's as big a disaster as it's made out to be. I also think natural variation still plays a larger role than many accept, but that's more of a feeling than anything.

I still find it annoying though how we can't watch a nature show any more without having the dangers of AGW drilled into our heads. Or how newspapers frequently publish sections on how the planet will be near lifeless in just a few hundred years because if CO2, as if it's scientific fact. I equally find it annoying how the term "climate sceptic" is used for practically anybody, because of the PC bull***t surrounding the word "denier".

Anywho, I just though I'd say that because, not everyone has entrenched views, despite what most people on here think. I'd like to think I would change my views again if faced with enough countering evidence and will continue to leave my mind open to genuine scientific work.

Apologies for not being as eloquent as many of the posters on here, end of rant

Edited January 22, 2012 by BornFromTheVoid

[Devonian]

As you say, a one sided column, but there have been so many the other way around, including all of Richard Black's output in the BBC.

We need objectivity on both sides of the argument and more reliance on science.

But, is there really an argument? I'd contend not about CO2 being a ghg or that a doubling of said = about 1C warming. I do think there is debate/argument as to feedbacks - hence the 1-5 or 2-4C figures we see. Do I think Richard Black should be so objective that he reports on people who say CO2 isn't a ghg, or dispute the rise in atmospheric CO2 is our doing? No, frankly, I don't, because that is to report scientific nonsense. I think we'd find Richard Black does report on the varying finding as to what feedbacks will add to known CO2 effects.

Edited January 22, 2012 by Devonian

[laserguy]

But, is there really an argument? I'd contend not about CO2 being a ghg or that a doubling of said = about 1C warming. I do think there is debate/argument as to feedbacks - hence the 1-5 or 2-4C figures we see.

Who cares? Who honestly,truly gives a XXXX anymore,notwithstanding that there was never anything in it in the first place? Waffle guff blather etc. Have y'all really got such wonderful,worry-free lives that this rubbish is all you can concern yourselves with? I dare say I speak for millions in this country alone who dearly wish that some magical warming of the planet was at the top of their anxiety ladder. Watching this forum I feel like the exasperated teacher who's house has burned down and whose missus has run off with the headmaster and who has just lost control of the gaggle of kids discussing the existance or otherwise of Santa.

[BornFromTheVoid]

Just because people here don't go on about issues in their personal life doesn't mean they don't have any. I'd imagine posting on here can often act as an escape for many people.

Don't be so narrow minded as to think this thread is the height on anybodies concerns LG

[PersianPaladin]

More allegations. And, you know what? For some reason they don't give the view of the accused, it's a one sided trial of a column. Odd that no?

Sorry, but there IS a cover-up regarding Peak Oil.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/nov/09/peak-oil-international-energy-agency

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2011/jun/16/peak-oil-labour-government

[Devonian]

Who cares? Who honestly,truly gives a XXXX anymore,notwithstanding that there was never anything in it in the first place? Waffle guff blather etc. Have y'all really got such wonderful,worry-free lives that this rubbish is all you can concern yourselves with? I dare say I speak for millions in this country alone who dearly wish that some magical warming of the planet was at the top of their anxiety ladder. Watching this forum I feel like the exasperated teacher who's house has burned down and whose missus has run off with the headmaster and who has just lost control of the gaggle of kids discussing the existance or otherwise of Santa.

'XXXX...Waffle...guff...blather...rubbish' - got any, you know, evidence rather than just your assertions? And, actually, it might be better if you replied to my reply to you rather than my reply to someone else

Anyway, I don't speak for the millions you do but my other concerns are those of all of us: those close to me, jobs, money, just living.

[Harve]

As you say, a one sided column, but there have been so many the other way around, including all of Richard Black's output in the BBC.

We need objectivity on both sides of the argument and more reliance on science.

This has little relevance to that particular column, but it does to the topic title of AGW: "Both sides of the argument and more reliance on science". The irony of this is that in the scientific community, there is no "both sides" to AGW, there's an overwhelming consensus. Yes, of course there are uncertainties of secondary effects, but the basic theory seems both simple to understand and almost completely incontestable?

I don't come in here often, but it's very sad to see read Bornfromthevoid's post of the views of keyboard scientists overriding those of scientists who dedicate years and years to the subject. I'm interested in the extent to which the earth will warm, the effects away from temperature, and also, the psychology behind the phenomenon of climate scepticism. All are quite remarkable.

[Devonian]

This has little relevance to that particular column, but it does to the topic title of AGW: "Both sides of the argument and more reliance on science". The irony of this is that in the scientific community, there is no "both sides" to AGW, there's an overwhelming consensus. Yes, of course there are uncertainties of secondary effects, but the basic theory seems both simple to understand and almost completely incontestable?

I don't come in here often, but it's very sad to see read Bornfromthevoid's post of the views of keyboard scientists overriding those of scientists who dedicate years and years to the subject. I'm interested in the extent to which the earth will warm, the effects away from temperature, and also, the psychology behind the phenomenon of climate scepticism. All are quite remarkable.

Indeed, I entirely agree.

You might try 'Wattsupwiththat' for a flavor of what science is up against

[knocker]

Who cares? Who honestly,truly gives a XXXX anymore,notwithstanding that there was never anything in it in the first place? Waffle guff blather etc. Have y'all really got such wonderful,worry-free lives that this rubbish is all you can concern yourselves with? I dare say I speak for millions in this country alone who dearly wish that some magical warming of the planet was at the top of their anxiety ladder. Watching this forum I feel like the exasperated teacher who's house has burned down and whose missus has run off with the headmaster and who has just lost control of the gaggle of kids discussing the existance or otherwise of Santa.

What exactly is the point of this forum then and why do you contribute? (mind i use the word loosely).

[laserguy]

What exactly is the point of this forum then and why do you contribute? (mind i use the word loosely).

Don't know what the point of this forum is,seeing as the science is settled. Allegedly. Why not halt all research then,having established that 'fact'? It's like saying fags cause lung cancer then instead of looking for a cure, spending billions on the mechanics behind carcinogenesis for it's own sake. I contribute to while away a few spare moments and I wanna keep my foot in the door for when the collapse comes,then I can feel all warm and smug when I say "told ya so". I know all you warmers would love it if I disappeared into the CO2-haze tinged sunset and left y'all to wring hands and have a group hug whilst sobbing about how dreadful all this warming is,but short of a ban that ain't likely to happen. Too much fun to watch.

[PersianPaladin]

"Consensus" is not scientific truth.

[knocker]

Don't know what the point of this forum is,seeing as the science is settled. Allegedly. Why not halt all research then,having established that 'fact'? It's like saying fags cause lung cancer then instead of looking for a cure, spending billions on the mechanics behind carcinogenesis for it's own sake. I contribute to while away a few spare moments and I wanna keep my foot in the door for when the collapse comes,then I can feel all warm and smug when I say "told ya so". I know all you warmers would love it if I disappeared into the CO2-haze tinged sunset and left y'all to wring hands and have a group hug whilst sobbing about how dreadful all this warming is,but short of a ban that ain't likely to happen. Too much fun to watch.

The analogy btween fags and lung cancer is in fact quite apt because intitially the link was suppressed. The initial response in the 1950s to the link between smoking and lung cancer was in part conditioned by the role of the tobacco industry and the financial importance of tobacco: the British tobacco industry had closer relationships with government than the American one, and did not rely on public relations. Public health interests worked with the industry. But politicians were concerned also about the fluidity of the epidemiological evidence; the dangers of stirring up further pressure over air pollution; the financial and ideological implications of health education and its location; and the electoral dangers of intervening in a popular mass habit

Fortunately the link between CO² emissions and global warming and environmental damage isn't going down the same route. It's not being suppressed but it may already be too late. Just to add, one of the 'cures' of lung cancer was to vastly decrease cigarette smoking so....................

Edited January 23, 2012 by weather ship

[Gray-Wolf]

The point of the Forum is to discuss changes as they occur (as we are with the Arctic/Antarctic) and to discuss how the impacts of warming will manifest (like the CH4/CO2 issues around the permafrost).

Just because we can see that we will warm does not mean we know fully 'how' we will warm?

[Methuselah]

It's often mentioned on here how nobody ever changes their stance and how the arguments just inevitably go round in circles. Well... since I first joined this forum my thinking on AGW has changed drastically.

Up until about the age of 20 (now 23) I did believe that it was all a huge conspiracy based around cutting off the supply of oil to poorer nations so there would be more for us. I got taken in by much of the propaganda, villainising climate scientists, the peer review system and even found it funny that so many people had been taken in by such obvious twisted nonsense. The warming could be accounted for by the UHI effect and as the Arctic is losing ice, Antarctica is gaining it, so everything is still ok. The LIA and the cooling between the 40s and 70s balanced the MWP and our current warming. I felt I had all bases covered and no phony "scientific papers" could convince me otherwise

Then through work I did in Uni, mostly from 2nd year on, which necessitated reading the actual peer reviewed work and developing a basic understanding of it, things began to change...

Meeting many folk that were involved in the research, even in the IPCC reports and how they're always so determined to get the most accurate data and results possible, even when it goes against what they expect.

Learning that even in a warming world, natural variation still exists and isn't evidence of CO2 having no impact.

Realising that the scientific community have people that specialised in particular areas of atmospheric and climate studies, having devoted decades in developing their expertise, who take no notice of the keyboard scientist who believes he's found a huge loophole in something after spending a few hours on wikipedia! But of course, this fellow types up his "revelation" in a manner that's simple for others to understand and often skips any complexities and because it's easier to follow it than to go through the actual literature on the subject, people believe it, as I once did.

Essentially, the more I learned about the actual science as opposed the the rhetoric and propaganda, the more I trended towards the Pro-AGW camp. I don't believe all the dire predictions made and I don't think it's as big a disaster as it's made out to be. I also think natural variation still plays a larger role than many accept, but that's more of a feeling than anything.

I still find it annoying though how we can't watch a nature show any more without having the dangers of AGW drilled into our heads. Or how newspapers frequently publish sections on how the planet will be near lifeless in just a few hundred years because if CO2, as if it's scientific fact. I equally find it annoying how the term "climate sceptic" is used for practically anybody, because of the PC bull***t surrounding the word "denier".

Anywho, I just though I'd say that because, not everyone has entrenched views, despite what most people on here think. I'd like to think I would change my views again if faced with enough countering evidence and will continue to leave my mind open to genuine scientific work.

Apologies for not being as eloquent as many of the posters on here, end of rant

I've changed my opinion too. I was (almost) as sceptical as LG, at one time...

[jethro]

I've changed my mind too - I came to all this with an absolute acceptance that the debate and science were all settled and that we were destined to be a drought ridden, almost Med-like country in the future.

[pottyprof]

I changed my mind when I saw a film. Can't remember who was in it but it was one of those films where you just had to accept everything in it. I think it was called "The Day After Tomorrow". There was another film about a preacher who told everyone to blindly follow him and ask no questions but it wasn't quite my cuppa...

[Devonian]

I learnt about the greenhouse effect and what we might do to it many, many years ago - 80's I think. I can't remember a time when I didn't think the science and evidence shows CO2 doubling will cause a ~1C warming. I also can't see good reason to think feedbacks will add 1-5 (more likely 2-4)C warming effect for a CO2 doubling.

Do I think this is future certain? I think it's very likely. If the evidence changes I'd change my mind - so far it hasn't.

[VillagePlank]

If the evidence changes I'd change my mind - so far it hasn't.

I am curious enough to ask 'what evidence?'

Whilst I am conducting self-flagellation to myself strongly enough to beat the cynicism, I can't help but read this as 'I will change my mind when black ceases to be black and becomes white' I really cannot understand how one can reach such a conclusion.

I'll see if I can explain what I mean. We have the natural world and we think that the natural world is governed by all sorts of laws; a collection of some of those laws requires the CO₂ molecule to be a greenhouse gas - furthermore that the Earth's atmosphere appears to act like a greenhouse is demonstrable by measuring what temperature the Earth would be at if we don't factor such things in and observing the difference. These things have been known about for at least 100 years, some of the laws have withstood scrutiny in a proper scientific manner for much much longer.

By knowing such things we can plug in all the knowns and create a model - as best we can. The same people who made the model then test it against historical time series to see if it replicates what happened in the past. Mainly, they all do. Incidentally, would you want the drug company producing a new cancer killing pill to test it themselves? How about the safety of your car by the firm that manufactured it? If we care about children not dying from cancer or not being mashed up in cars - why do we not care about what happens to the third world (of where there are lots of little children) enough to insist on rigorous testing for climate models by other people? Why do we not care about an environment - a vitally important living breathing biosphere that we must share and pass onto future generations - enough to insist that climate models, like other technological feats of humankind, must be tested by a double-blind strategy?

That's by the by. And it should keep you up at night.

Anyway, the same laws are put together into a computer system, tested against the past, and then extrapolated into the future. Let's review one of the models efficacy,

From, here, with satellite record superimposed.

It does what it says on the tin - it uses the laws of physics to measure a historical record. What it doesn't do is predict the future. At all; the measured record is below the minimum temperature - it is oodles out. For sure improvements have been made - but, crucially, it's still the same laws of physics deep down in the machine. Most climate models are similar you gather your laws of physics, combine then into a program, press go, and then tweak your assumptions until it matches the past. That's why the IPCC has at least a 400% range on it's predicted temperature in 2100. So, at least, it can say it got it right.

I must therefore assume that since the laws of physics are unlikely to change, and that the historical record is, well, the historical record, and that is the only evidence in play here, that you are effectively telling us all that only when black becomes white, and white becomes black will you change your view.

Which is never.

Edited February 16, 2012 by Boar Wrinklestorm

[songster]

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/12/updates-to-model-data-comparisons/

Covers this quite nicely. The 1988 Hansen paper used a value of 4.2 degrees C for climate sensitivity - it's now believed to be about 3 degrees C. Once you adjust for this, the forecast agrees with measurements to within the limits of accuracy. Note that in the real world, emissions have been running slightly below Hansen's scenario B in the 1988 paper.

[loafer]

Interesting.

I wonder if anyone has done a graph showing how estimates of sensitivity to CO2 have changed over the years and whether that trend is likely to continue or reverse?

[songster]

Essentially they've started as a wide scatter and converged somewhat. Wikipedia has a reasonable overview:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_sensitivity