Man Made Global Warming; Does it exist, Yes and its a fact; Is it bad? Not so much...

[CUnknown]

ronpaulhawaii -

I can't decide whether it is incredibly brave or just incredibly foolish to attempt to defend your post after having it so utterly smacked down. But, anyway, I will rebut.

First, I would like you to point out where I made any claim.

Lol, okay buddy ... I will rephrase to: "the claim you apparently support that global warming denial made it to a "major, peer-reviewed paper" is completely false."

Secondly, I have found it typical of global cooling deniers to ignore any facts and just start into opinionated preaching. If the APS thinks it is BS, you would think they would take some action more effective than the "peer-reviewed" strawman and empty pronouncements

What exactly do you want them to do? Fire the editor of that newsletter?

And "peer-reveiwed" is critically important, not a strawman. We have freedom of the press in this country (for the most part), that means that any fool can publish anything they want. But, not everything is true or worth reading. They publish all kinds of crap about "scientific" creationism and holocaust denial, too.

No scientific journal, peer-reviewed by respectable climate scientists who adhere to the scientific method, would ever publish a paper that contains claims of global warming denial in 2008. It just wouldn't happen. I'm sure in 1970 when the science wasn't good enough, it could have made it easily, but in 2008 that global-warming denial paper wouldn't make it past peer review -- the filter that keeps unscientific crap like this out.

Methinks your (and the FPSEC's under the APS) beef is with the Science and Public Policy institute, who is still claiming the study has been peer-reviewed. That, of course, begs the question of who is spinning the truth?

If the "Science and Public Policy institute" says it was peer reviewed, they are incorrect. Check the APS website, they are the authority on their own journals and newsletters, lol. Besides, if it was, it never would have made it into the journal.

I do note the disclaimer added to the top of the original article and wonder about the power struggle going on in the halls of science. I can hardly fathom how degarding it must be for the avg scientist to have to keep their mouth shut for fear of losing funding.

Power struggle? Don't be foolish, there is no power struggle. That is laughable. All respectable climate scientists agree (and I'm sure 99% of the bad ones agree as well) that global warming is real and is in large part caused by human activity. The "average" climate scientist is speaking with a loud voice against the Bush policies and pseudo-scientific BS these deniers are spouting.

What really p's me off about this is that the junk science being foisted on us for mercantile shenanigans is causing blowback against valid environmental theory.

What are you talking about? You are so ignorant about this issue it's sad.

What happens is that fear-mongerers like AG capitalize from their soapboxes by spreading false fears, which they then "save us" from, at a profit. Anyone with enough experiance, and an open mind, can see right through the charade and many come to distrust most "environmentalists." This marginalizes valid science and shuffles its proponants into the tree-hugger slot. Divide, and conquer.

I am laughing on the inside. It's just too sad for an actual laugh. Okay, maybe a chuckle.

 

[brandon]

You know what pisses me off? The fact that this issue has become so politicized that I don't feel I can trust the information coming from either side, nor do I have the resources or the know-how to conduct my own research into it. So you know what? I have no idea.

+1000

I agree completely. Most of the scientists studying it don't have the know-how or resources either.

 

[Dr.3D]

No scientific journal, peer-reviewed by respectable climate scientists who adhere to the scientific method, would ever publish a paper that contains claims of global warming denial in 2008. It just wouldn't happen. I'm sure in 1970 when the science wasn't good enough, it could have made it easily, but in 2008 that global-warming denial paper wouldn't make it past peer review -- the filter that keeps unscientific crap like this out.

Prove it!

Power struggle? Don't be foolish, there is no power struggle. That is laughable. All respectable climate scientists agree (and I'm sure 99% of the bad ones agree as well) that global warming is real and is in large part caused by human activity. The "average" climate scientist is speaking with a loud voice against the Bush policies and pseudo-scientific BS these deniers are spouting.

Again prove it! There is a power struggle to implement a world government.

What are you talking about? You are so ignorant about this issue it's sad.

Now you attack the person rather than the message. Perhaps it is your ignorance of this issue that is sad.

 

[Kludge]

What are you talking about? You are so ignorant about this issue it's sad.

Hello. I'm sorry to have to inform you that you have failed the internet...

 

[electronicmaji]

Cunknown just did some major PWN.

 

[CUnknown]

And it could be for some of the same reasons, dummy.

Well, actually it can't, seeing as the Earth's warming is being at least mostly caused by human activity. This is scientific fact ... What about that don't you understand?

Besides, I was merely saying that I don't have to explain possible warming on Mars. That fact isn't necessarily relevant to warming on Earth. We're not talking about Mars. There is no reason to bring Mars into the discussion. Let's constrain the discussion to Earth, lol. And you're going to say that's an unreasonable thing to ask, hehe.

[...] there is also a lot of scientific literature I've been following that would put doubt on catastrophic man-made global warming political entities and certain scientists are pushing. [...] it does slam the door on the alarmist hysteria which attributes it mostly to mankind.

Are you ... sure it was scientific? In a peer-reviewed, respectable journal? Impossible.

Besides, humans have experienced warmer periods.

If true (which I doubt), it's not relevant to today. They obviously didn't have as many coastal cities in the stone age or whenever it was that you're talking about. They obviously weren't dealing with the atmosphereic CO2 concentration and attendant potential for out-of-control, self-reinforcing warming that we have today.

 

[brandon]

Well, actually it can't, seeing as the Earth's warming is being at least mostly caused by human activity. This is scientific fact ... What about that don't you understand?

I don't understand ANYTHING about it, and anything else you could possibly say is discredited by the above statement. There is no such thing as "scientific fact." You should really have a better understanding of science before you get into arguments about it.

 

[electronicmaji]

I don't understand ANYTHING about it, and anything else you could possibly say is discredited by the above statement. There is no such thing as "scientific fact." You should really have a better understanding of science before you get into arguments about it.

Not understanding the meaning of "scientific fact" discredits yourself only.

 

[Dr.3D]

Well, actually it can't, seeing as the Earth's warming is being at least mostly caused by human activity. This is scientific fact ... What about that don't you understand?

Not a fact unless you are gullible and believe what you are told my the media.

The warming of Mars and other planets is relevant because it shows the Sun is more than likely the cause of global warming, not the concentration of CO2.

Explain why the atmospheric concentration of CO2 goes up after the atmospheric temperature rises.
Explain why the atmospheric concentration of CO2 goes down after the atmospheric temperature drops.

It has been demonstrated the oceans warm up and release CO2 and as they cool, they take in CO2. The oceans take a considerable time to warm as compared to the atmosphere. This explains why the atmospheric CO2 levels have been rising even as the atmospheric temperatures have started dropping. This lag in atmospheric concentrations of CO2 after atmospheric temperature changes shows the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has little to do with global warming.

 

[CUnknown]

No scientific journal, peer-reviewed by respectable climate scientists who adhere to the scientific method, would ever publish a paper that contains claims of global warming denial in 2008.[...]

Prove it!

I can't prove a negative. I challenge you to prove that it's possible -- find one example of a global warming denial paper, published in a respectably scientific, peer-reviewed, climate-science journal. There is none. You can actually fit this into your denial worldview as a "scientific conspiracy", but fact remains.

Seriously, try to find it. I'd really want to know if one existed, my belief in global warming honestly would be shattered. It would be very convenient if there was no global warming and I'd really like to know. We could continue using coal like crazy even if oil ran out. That would rock.

[...]Don't be foolish, there is no power struggle. That is laughable. All respectable climate scientists agree[...]

Again prove it! There is a power struggle to implement a world government.

Well, I agree that there is a power struggle to implement world government. It's unfortunate if the reality of global warming fits into their plans. I doubt that it does, though, because the oil companies are some of the largest and most influential in the world.

Now you attack the person rather than the message.[...]

Um ... you're right. I apoligize for that. I should have had a softer tone. It's hard to do for me, though, on this issue.

 

[brandon]

Not understanding the meaning of "scientific fact" discredits yourself only.

OK, enlighten me. Give me one example of a "scientific fact."

 

[CUnknown]

Not a fact unless you are gullible and believe what you are told my the media.

Well, what I meant by "fact" was that it has been exhaustively researched over the decades and all available evidence points to it. No one who studies the scientific literature on the subject (and who isn't being paid by Exxon-Mobile) would doubt it.

And furthermore, the early models are starting to come true before our eyes. Notice all the floods, fires, droughts, and hurricanes over the past few years? The expanding deserts? The melting glaciers? It seems likely that in a few years that the arctic circle will be completely without ice during summer. That is almost unthinkable, but it will probably happen. Will you believe in global warming then? What would make you believe? Some people won't even believe when it's right in front of their eyes, it's astonishing.

[...]even as the atmospheric temperatures have started dropping.

I'm going to focus on this one part of the rest of your post. Started dropping? No... Look, just because this year's temperature doesn't quite reach the high of (what was it, '98?), doesn't mean that you can say that "atmospheric temperatures have [been] dropping" since then and have it mean anything. Temperatures have not been dropping, relative to the average global temperature we were used to as kids. They have dropped since '98 maybe, but they are still higher than average over the past 100 years and still rising as CO2 rises.

Any one year, sure, could be up, could be down, but the year-to-year average has been steadily increasing.

I mean, imagine if they hadn't dropped since '98. *shiver* That would mean that every single year is a new record temperature. It's too random, it doesn't quite work like that.

 

[Paulitician]

Well, actually it can't, seeing as the Earth's warming is being at least mostly caused by human activity. This is scientific fact ... What about that don't you understand?

Besides, I was merely saying that I don't have to explain possible warming on Mars. That fact isn't necessarily relevant to warming on Earth. We're not talking about Mars. There is no reason to bring Mars into the discussion. Let's constrain the discussion to Earth, lol. And you're going to say that's an unreasonable thing to ask, hehe.

There is cosmic activity that also causes warming and cooling. Ergo, it is relevant.

"Earth's warming is being at least mostly caused by human activity"

Then how much of last century's .6 to .8 degrees Celsius increase was due to human activity?

Are you ... sure it was scientific? In a peer-reviewed, respectable journal? Impossible.

WTF? How would it be impossible? Is their some ideology that journals follow that says only the AGW theory could be considered? Shut up. You're being absolutely ridiculous.

If true (which I doubt), it's not relevant to today. They obviously didn't have as many coastal cities in the stone age or whenever it was that you're talking about. They obviously weren't dealing with the atmosphereic CO2 concentration and attendant potential for out-of-control, self-reinforcing warming that we have today.

LOL, stone age. It's called the Medieval Warming period... you know, when Greenland was actually green.

Self-reinforcing out-of-control warming? Doesn't seem where anywhere close to there considering we're entering a cyclical cooling period.

 

[CUnknown]

There is cosmic activity that also causes warming and cooling. Ergo, it is relevant.

"Earth's warming is being at least mostly caused by human activity"

Then how much of last century's .6 to .8 degrees Celsius increase was due to human activity?

I honestly have no idea, I am not a climate scientist myself.

In a peer-reviewed, respectable journal? Impossible.

WTF? How would it be impossible? Is their some ideology that journals follow that says only the AGW theory could be considered?[...]

Yes, there is, in fact. It's called the scientific method.

Self-reinforcing out-of-control warming? Doesn't seem where anywhere close to there considering we're entering a cyclical cooling period.

I really hope you are correct on this. I guess we''ll find out. I think James Hansen estimates a 25% chance or so of runaway global warming in our lifetimes. That is an unacceptable risk, imo.

 

[brandon]

Yes, there is, in fact. It's called the scientific method.

Wrong. The scientific method does not produce facts. The application of the scientific method produces evidence that either supports or rejects a hypothesis. It doesn't prove anything.

 

[CUnknown]

I'd like also to point out that electronicmaji's OP was a very moderate one. Not alarmist or extreme or anything like that.. When I first read it, I was going to bash him for downplaying global warming, I thought he was on everyone else's side here. But now I realize that we're on the same side.

Everyone else's opinions are as extreme as mine.

electronicmaji looks at the facts and says "Well, I can't deny global warming, given the actual frickin' warming that is happening .. but that doesn't mean it's going to cause the end of civilization or anything, calm down." That is a moderate position.

My position is: "We're all gonna die!!! AHHHHH!!!!"

Everyone else says: "Just because the earth is warming, doesn't mean global warming exists! What are you, a tree-hugger? Die Al Gore, DIE!!!!!"

 

[Paulitician]

I honestly have no idea, I am not a climate scientist myself.

It doesn't require you being a climate scientist (I don't think anyone on this board is), but ok.

Yes, there is, in fact. It's called the scientific method.

The scientific method is a process not an ideology. To proclaim that theories on global warming besides AGW could never appear in scientific journals is unscientific and ideological, not to mention stupid. AGW is far from being established theory, say, like evolution.

I really hope you are correct on this. I guess we''ll find out. I think James Hansen estimates a 25% chance or so of runaway global warming in our lifetimes. That is an unacceptable risk, imo.

I'd like to see how he came to that conclusion. Do you have the paper perhaps?

We are entering a cooling period of at least a decade (certain scientists say it could be multiple decades). This appreared in Nature about 1 or 2 months ago.

 

[brandon]

electronicmaji looks at the facts and says "Well, I can't deny global warming, given the actual frickin' warming that is happening .. but that doesn't mean it's going to cause the end of civilization or anything, calm down." That is a moderate position.

Who says that the earth is warming? Here are four recent studies that show the earth is actually in a cooling trend.

http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.co...es-say-globally-cooler-in-the-past-12-months/

 

[CUnknown]

Wrong. The scientific method does not produce facts. The application of the scientific method produces evidence that either supports or rejects a hypothesis. It doesn't prove anything.

If you want to get philosophical, yes you are probably right. I don't want to get philosophical. I want to get real. All of the (large quantities of) scientific evidence that we have supports it. I tend to call that a scientific fact.

But, I would agree with you about global warming, show me that peer reviewed paper. I would love to agree with you. But, this group of climate scientists being repressed for their anti-global warming beliefs simply doesn't exist.

 

[brandon]

If you want to get philosophical, yes you are probably right. I don't want to get philosophical. I want to get real. All of the (large quantities of) scientific evidence that we have supports it. I tend to call that a scientific fact.

It is not philosophical, it is scientific. You should really know the meaning of terms before you throw them around. See above for four studies that suggest a global cooling trend.