The Taboo Of Not Subscribing To Anthropological Global Warming

[mcweather]

As a response to the original post, in my opinion I wouldn't call it a taboo, the reason is because so many people in the general do not believe in global warming, that I would suggest that's it's actually quite widespread view. Whether this is down to Global warming being an error of judgement, or in fact a lack of understanding from the general public remains to be seen.

I would have to agree with this SP1986. For the past 14 years I have given talks about weather all over my home county of Dorset in that time I have given over 400 of these talks. There is always a question and answer session at the end and I am always asked my view about man made global warming. In response I always ask for a show of hands before I give my opinion so as not to influence the result. Without exception every show of hands at those meetings always show a substantial majority of people who do not subscribe to man global warming although many of the same people do accept that some warming has taken place. For the majority of people there is no taboo whatsoever about not adhering to the AGW mantra they have their own minds and

don't feel the need to join a new religion.

[BornFromTheVoid]

I would have to agree with this SP1986. For the past 14 years I have given talks about weather all over my home county of Dorset in that time I have given over 400 of these talks. There is always a question and answer session at the end and I am always asked my view about man made global warming. In response I always ask for a show of hands before I give my opinion so as not to influence the result. Without exception every show of hands at those meetings always show a substantial majority of people who do not subscribe to man global warming although many of the same people do accept that some warming has taken place. For the majority of people there is no taboo whatsoever about not adhering to the AGW mantra they have their own minds and

don't feel the need to join a new religion.

Was there really a need for that? Those kinda comments are part of the problem imo.

[greybing]

As a response to the original post, in my opinion I wouldn't call it a taboo, the reason is because so many people in the general do not believe in global warming, that I would suggest that's it's actually quite widespread view. Whether this is down to Global warming being an error of judgement, or in fact a lack of understanding from the general public remains to be seen.

I believe you,and others, may well be are correct in what you say but it is certainly provokes in some sections of the pro A.G.W. awful mouthings and the antithesis of scientific method. I think these people feel guilt[subconcious or otherwise] for the exponetial growth of our explotation of earth/ resources ; for our detacted way we live from nature.Incidentaly this detatchment is the mechanism by which all the enviromental OVER explotation happens

So this feeling is strong ,very strong amongst some ,not in others amd none existent in terms of their interaction with the enviroment Certainly this feeling I feel provokes some of the vile utterings taboo or not and un-bending mindsets in some.

Edited October 21, 2011 by greybing

[full_frontal_occlusion]

Topical to say the least:

http://www.bbc.co.uk...onment-15373071

In short, an independent science team (Berkeley Earth Project http://berkeleyearth.org/) comprising Nobel Prize Winners and other luminaries, and funded from sources that include organisations backing lobyists against action on climate change conclude:

• the new results agreed so closely with the warming values published previously by other teams in the US (NASA and NOAA) and the UK (CRU and UEA), " said Professor Muller.
  
• confirms that previously discredited studies (UEA) were executed carefully and that potential biases identified by climate change sceptics did not affect their conclusions.
  
• Since the 1950s, the average temperature over land has increased by 1C
  
• that the urban heat island effect is real but is NOT behind the warming registered by the majority of weather stations around the world.
  

And critically:

• the emphasis that anthropogenic global warming (AGW) driven by greenhouse gas emissions is very much in their picture.
  
• They do state however that the team have not carried out any studies to determine the extent of human influence on the temperature increase.
  

The last point I believe is the game changer for the majority of the public and yet the answers are not there.

Full summary of the conclusions here: http://berkeleyearth..._Summary_20_Oct

ffO

Edited October 20, 2011 by full_frontal_occlusion

[knocker]

I believe you may well be are correct in what you say but it is certainly provokes in some sections of the pro A.G.W. awful mouthings and the antithesis of scientific method. I think these people feel guilt[subconcious or otherwise] for the exponetial growth of our explotation of earth/ resources ; for our detacted way we live from nature.Incidentaly this detatchment is the .

Thanks for sharing that as it ensures I won't dream tonight of going on come dancing with Ann Widdecombe that's been bothering me lately.

[VillagePlank]

Topical to say the least:

http://www.bbc.co.uk...onment-15373071

In short, an independent science team (Berkeley Earth Project http://berkeleyearth.org/) comprising Nobel Prize Winners and other luminaries, and funded from sources that include organisations backing lobyists against action on climate change conclude:

• the new results agreed so closely with the warming values published previously by other teams in the US (NASA and NOAA) and the UK (CRU and UEA), " said Professor Muller.
  
• confirms that previously discredited studies (UEA) were executed carefully and that potential biases identified by climate change sceptics did not affect their conclusions.
  
• Since the 1950s, the average temperature over land has increased by 1C
  
• that the urban heat island effect is real but is NOT behind the warming registered by the majority of weather stations around the world.
  

And critically:

• the emphasis that anthropogenic global warming (AGW) driven by greenhouse gas emissions is very much in their picture.
  
• They do state however that the team have not carried out any studies to determine the extent of human influence on the temperature increase.
  

The last point I believe is the game changer for the majority of the public and yet the answers are not there.

Full summary of the conclusions here: http://berkeleyearth..._Summary_20_Oct

ffO

Importantly - and for the first time - it means that NOAA, NASA, and UEA work can now (demonstrably) be replicated. In parochial language, that means, climate science can now be labelled as science.

Edited October 21, 2011 by Sparticle

[greybing]

Thanks for sharing that as it ensures I won't dream tonight of going on come dancing with Ann Widdecombe that's been bothering me lately.

Hmn...ha,you are funny.

Edited October 21, 2011 by greybing

[Optimus Prime]

• They do state however that the team have not carried out any studies to determine the extent of human influence on the temperature increase.
  

The last point I believe is the game changer for the majority of the public and yet the answers are not there.

Full summary of the conclusions here: http://berkeleyearth..._Summary_20_Oct

ffO

The last point does kind of make the point that, if they don't know what the extent is, not even a rough idea than how on earth did they come up to a conclusion like that in the first place?

Edited October 21, 2011 by Optimus Prime

[knocker]

Current global warming appears anomalous in relation to the climate of the last 20 000 years.

ABSTRACT: To distinguish between natural and anthropogenic forcing, the supposedly ongoing

global warming needs to be put in a longer, geological perspective. When the last ca. 20 000 yr of climate

development is reviewed, including the climatically dramatic period when the Last Ice Age

ended, the Last Termination, it appears that the last centuries of globally rising temperatures should

be regarded as an anomaly. Other, often synchronous climate events are not expressed in a globally

consistent way, but rather are the expression of the complexities of the climate system. Due to the

often poor precision in the dating of older proxy records, such a statement will obviously be met with

some opposition. However, as long as no globally consistent climate event prior to today’s global

warming has been clearly documented, and considering that climate trends during the last millennia

in different parts of the world have, in the last century or so, changed direction into a globally warming

trend, we ought to regard the ongoing changes as anomalies, triggered by anthropogenically

forced alterations of the carbon cycle in the general global environment.

Full text.

http://www.int-res.com/articles/cr_oa/c048p005.pdf

[cyclonic happiness]

Here's an interesting video.

Notice how lack of data affects the first 3rd, then the middle bit shows the temperatures regular and the last part since 1980 shows the temps 'rocketing'???

Doesn't sit well with me for some reason?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/video/2011/oct/20/berkeley-earth-climate-change-video

[greybing]

Wow ,this really does bring that warming home, so to speak.

T o cyclonic .Wow ,this really does bring that warming home, so to speak.

[greybing]

Here's an interesting video.

Notice how lack of data affects the first 3rd, then the middle bit shows the temperatures regular and the last part since 1980 shows the temps 'rocketing'???

Doesn't sit well with me for some reason?

http://www.guardian....te-change-video

Wow.That really brings the warming trend to life.

[Gray-Wolf]

Does anyone think that the loss of all that thick ice in the Arctic ( late 70's first half of the 80's) has a part to play with allowing the temps to have a 'positive skew? Now that we're at a point that we have only 1/3 the amount of ice cover in the late summer Arctic than we had during the early sat. period that this may slowly be now skewing temps ( with the old 'average year now able to pull a positive skew?)?

I do have a concern ,now that the thick ice has gone ,that we have gone beyond a 'point of no return' in the Arctic and that the mixing out of the deep Halocline layer in that Ocean (a remnant of the last ice age?) means we can no longer return to the Arctic that existed up until the early 80's? If we suddenly have 2/3 of that area actively soaking up (80% absorption) the suns energy instead of reflecting most of it (ice albedo 90%) that we have now got a growing 'extra' heater' in the climate system yes?

[Thundery wintry showers]

I would have to agree with this SP1986. For the past 14 years I have given talks about weather all over my home county of Dorset in that time I have given over 400 of these talks. There is always a question and answer session at the end and I am always asked my view about man made global warming. In response I always ask for a show of hands before I give my opinion so as not to influence the result. Without exception every show of hands at those meetings always show a substantial majority of people who do not subscribe to man global warming although many of the same people do accept that some warming has taken place. For the majority of people there is no taboo whatsoever about not adhering to the AGW mantra they have their own minds and

don't feel the need to join a new religion.

If we take "religion" to refer to the dogmatic adherence to a prescribed point of view, it actually exists on both sides of the debate.

On one side, we have those who blindly follow and often exaggerate the consensus view among climate scientists, and reasons for this include "they're the experts, how do I know any better?", "we need to exaggerate to frighten the public into 'doing something'", the desire to push us towards a more sustainable way of living, and various political agendas aimed at overthrowing free market capitalism and establishing something somewhat more socialist.

On the other, we have similar adherence to the "AGW is a myth or is grossly exaggerated/overestimated" position. One common reason for this is the desire to "look on the bright side"- i.e. "if we don't know for 100% certain that something negative will happen, let's hope, and therefore assume, that it won't and just get on with our lives". It is the standard reaction to slow incremental changes- I often mention that the typical reaction to the erosion of our freedoms is much the same. There are also political agendas fuelling this position, mostly of the "free market capitalism is the solution to everything and we should always let the market decide" sort of persuasion.

Also, it isn't as clear-cut as to say "some of us blindly follow prescribed views and some of us think for ourselves". I'd suggest that a large majority of us fall between the two positions- after all, all of us have clearly done some thinking in order to reach our conclusions, but at some point we've all accepted certain starting premises. The assessment of how reliable our views are depends mostly on how much of the available evidence we've surveyed objectively.

Regarding the hypothesis/theory issue, I think the existence of AGW is proven, in the sense that certain relationships (such as the CO2-temperature and the behaviour of shortwave and longwave radiation relating to "greenhouse gases") have been verified by experiments. However, the extent of contribution of various feedback processes, which may enhance or reduce the warming, range between "hypothesis" and "theory". One stark example of a hypothesis would be the "we have committed ourselves to 3 degrees of warming by 2100" sort of statements, as for instance the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report has a lower bound extending below 3C in even the highest emissions scenarios.

[mcweather]

If we take "religion" to refer to the dogmatic adherence to a prescribed point of view, it actually exists on both sides of the debate.

On one side, we have those who blindly follow and often exaggerate the consensus view among climate scientists, and reasons for this include "they're the experts, how do I know any better?", "we need to exaggerate to frighten the public into 'doing something'", the desire to push us towards a more sustainable way of living, and various political agendas aimed at overthrowing free market capitalism and establishing something somewhat more socialist.

On the other, we have similar adherence to the "AGW is a myth or is grossly exaggerated/overestimated" position. One common reason for this is the desire to "look on the bright side"- i.e. "if we don't know for 100% certain that something negative will happen, let's hope, and therefore assume, that it won't and just get on with our lives". It is the standard reaction to slow incremental changes- I often mention that the typical reaction to the erosion of our freedoms is much the same. There are also political agendas fuelling this position, mostly of the "free market capitalism is the solution to everything and we should always let the market decide" sort of persuasion.

Also, it isn't as clear-cut as to say "some of us blindly follow prescribed views and some of us think for ourselves". I'd suggest that a large majority of us fall between the two positions- after all, all of us have clearly done some thinking in order to reach our conclusions, but at some point we've all accepted certain starting premises. The assessment of how reliable our views are depends mostly on how much of the available evidence we've surveyed objectively.

Regarding the hypothesis/theory issue, I think the existence of AGW is proven, in the sense that certain relationships (such as the CO2-temperature and the behaviour of shortwave and longwave radiation relating to "greenhouse gases") have been verified by experiments. However, the extent of contribution of various feedback processes, which may enhance or reduce the warming, range between "hypothesis" and "theory". One stark example of a hypothesis would be the "we have committed ourselves to 3 degrees of warming by 2100" sort of statements, as for instance the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report has a lower bound extending below 3C in even the highest emissions scenarios.

Hi TWS

I tend to agree with you with regard to the entrenched views on either side of the argument.

However the people that I give talks to do not in general tend to come from either of these camps they are pretty much reasonable minded people who read a great deal for themselves and are knowledgeable enough to know that in our media driven world that unless overblown claims are made most stories won't even make it into print.

So they tend to take things with a pinch of salt. As i mentioned a great many of those I talk to accept the warming but just remain unconvinced by the man made side of it. They also know that over geological time that the earth has been much warmer than now with less CO2 in the atmosphere than at present and also much colder than now with much more CO2 in the atmosphere than at present and tend to think that there is far more too the whole thing than the obsession with CO2. They are also wise enough to know that a computer model is just that and not the real atmopshere or anything remotely resembling it.

and also perhaps realise that runaway global warming that destroys life on earth is a figment of the imagination because at times of far higher CO2 concentration than now it hasn't happened as we are all here to prove.

[knocker]

Hi TWS

I tend to agree with you with regard to the entrenched views on either side of the argument.

However the people that I give talks to do not in general tend to come from either of these camps they are pretty much reasonable minded people who read a great deal for themselves and are knowledgeable enough to know that in our media driven world that unless overblown claims are made most stories won't even make it into print.

All I can say is they must have a lot of time on their hands, and access to countless academic journals, bcause the number of papers on the subject across various disciplines is mind boggling,

[Buzzit]

While I accept AGW in the sense that the output of the activites of man does have an impact on the climate, that is where it ends for me... Carbon credits and the like are just another way for government and corporate facists to control the population and make the rich richer. Nature has its own way of righting the balance, and where it is sensible to stop an output (like CFCs) then we have - why do we need any more than this ? We cannot accurately model the weather 14 days ahead - so can we really know what the temperature will be in 100 years time if we keep going as current ? as it is dependant on all other variables staying fixed. as we know, the variables in nature are not fixed, so we do not know what the temperature will be in 100 years time whether we make changes or not - so lets give less control to psuedo government agencies and well meaning meddlers thanks

[mcweather]

All I can say is they must have a lot of time on their hands, and access to countless academic journals, bcause the number of papers on the subject across various disciplines is mind boggling,

Actually you may be right Weathership because a lot of them are retired.

However if you have to have to have read every document printed on AGW to have a legitimate opinion on it then that pretty much cuts out the whole human race.

Edited October 22, 2011 by mcweather

[Alan Robinson]

All I can say is they must have a lot of time on their hands, and access to countless academic journals, bcause the number of papers on the subject across various disciplines is mind boggling,

I suppose intuition plays a significant role in matters where people don't have time to read all those papers and journals; and anyway, they probably wouldn't understand all of what they read. The problem is that politicians have played their AGW cards, and that is largely what makes people suspicious. Can you name for me any other scientific topic that politicians these last 50 years have been so vociferous about?

[knocker]

Actually you may be right Weathership because a lot of them are retired.

However if you have to have to have read every document printed on AGW to have a legitimate opinion on it then that pretty much cuts out the whole human race.

I'm not suggesting you have to read every document but if you are ruling out the media, which is mainly fair enough, to form a legitimate opinion you have to have read a number of papers and a few books, whether you are a denier, pro AGW or a bulverist. Unless of course you are taking someone else's opinion and that would never do.

I suppose intuition plays a significant role in matters where people don't have time to read all those papers and journals; and anyway, they probably wouldn't understand all of what they read. The problem is that politicians have played their AGW cards, and that is largely what makes people suspicious. Can you name for me any other scientific topic that politicians these last 50 years have been so vociferous about?

Well there's a tricky one and just when I'm feeling my age. There probably isn't one but I'll venture eugenics. Forgot about the 50 year limit.

Edited October 22, 2011 by weather ship

[knocker]

and also perhaps realise that runaway global warming that destroys life on earth is a figment of the imagination because at times of far higher CO2 concentration than now it hasn't happened as we are all here to prove.

As a matter of interest whose imagination? I haven't actually come across this in any literature I've read. Plus this higher CO2 argument is irrelevant to the discussion on whether pumping billions of tons of carbon into the atmosphere has a deleterious effect on the natural cycles unless you are goimg to more specific on the natural cycles at the time, including all the not well understood feedback mechanisms. Actually when I think about the first part of that statement it is pure bulverism.

EDIT.

Not a bad book, Requiem For a Species: why we resist the truth about Climate Change, by Clive Hamilton.

Edited October 22, 2011 by weather ship

[Alan Robinson]

I'm not suggesting you have to read every document but if you are ruling out the media, which is mainly fair enough, to form a legitimate opinion you have to have read a number of papers and a few books, whether you are a denier, pro AGW or a bulverist. Unless of course you are taking someone else's opinion and that would never do.

Hmmm. Bulverism.

Maybe some people prefer not to read at all, but listen to others that have done the reading. Having listened they consider themselves sufficiently well advised to form an opinion.

If I understand you correctly, mcweather doesn't like the supposed consequences of AGW, and therefore holds the view that arguments supporting the idea of AGW are mistaken. Is that your point weathership? Only, it seemed to me he wasn't the least concerned about high CO2 concentrations, as he believes such circumstances have prevailed previously with little or no ill effect.

Edited October 23, 2011 by Alan Robinson

[Alan Robinson]

and also perhaps realise that runaway global warming that destroys life on earth is a figment of the imagination because at times of far higher CO2 concentration than now it hasn't happened as we are all here to prove.

I'd say that knowing about the atmosphere even in the not so distant past is one of the most contentious elements in the AGW debate. It seems to me Jaworowski originally made a very strong case back in 1991 that the ice core data is not valid, since when hardly anyone has challenged his views published by the Norwegian Polar Institute. He maintains the whole AGW agenda is the biggest scientific scandal of our times, while mainstream science simply ignores Jaworowski without refuting his very well presented arguments. If ever there was a taboo about AGW, it is Jaworowski.

Just out of interest - it really belongs in the climate science thread - do you hold that the IPCC's method of estimating past CO2 concentrations is valid? And how is it known that past CO2 concentrations have been as high as the supposed dangerous scenario forecast by AGW activists?

Edited October 23, 2011 by Alan Robinson

[knocker]

Hmmm. Bulverism.

Maybe some people prefer not to read at all, but listen to others that have done the reading. Having listened they consider themselves sufficiently well advised to form an opinion.

If I understand you correctly, mcweather doesn't like the supposed consequences of AGW, and therefore holds the view that arguments supporting the idea of AGW are mistaken. Is that your point weathership?

I'm not sure about not liking the consequencies but broadly speaking that is correct. I said bulverism because it's a method of argument that avoids the need to prove that someone is wrong by first assuming their claim is wrong and then explaining why the person could hold such a fallacious view.

[Thundery wintry showers]

Actually you may be right Weathership because a lot of them are retired.

However if you have to have to have read every document printed on AGW to have a legitimate opinion on it then that pretty much cuts out the whole human race.

I don't think it would be necessary to read every document- even the top researchers don't go that far! A modest selection of sources that summarise the state of the science are enough to give a very good idea of what the available evidence suggests. Even just getting in thought-provoking discussions with people who know a lot about the subject (and preferably involving individuals on different parts of the "AGW believer/disbeliever" spectrum so that you don't just get exposed to one point of view) can be very helpful.

The tabloids aren't a good place to start as most tabloid articles are either strongly "for" or "against" AGW. Many people develop an opinion based on the "against" articles, as the "for" articles are generally exaggerated while the "against" articles generally do a good job of debunking the "for" articles but also grossly mis-represent the real state of climate science, failing to differentiate it from the exaggerated stuff we hear when it gets very political. Thus, many people develop a strong "against" opinion based on a misconception of what climate science really says.

For similar reasons, I'd advise those who want to sample the IPCC report against starting with the "Summary for Policymakers" as, from the chapter's definition, it is rather political and thus prone to the "exaggerating/simplifying to make a point" issue. I would recommend "The Physical Science Basis" as a good starting chapter- I think they do a reasonable job of trying to be non-biased, and they do acknowledge some papers from more 'sceptical' sources.