Only 20% Think Debate About Global Warming Is Over

[PRB]

??????

Meaning, i don't need to rely solely on reliable instrumental data to have an argument. I am fine using proxies as needed.

 

[Constitutional Paulicy]

 

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

Looking at any temperature before industrial age...

Again, impossible to know. I would venture that anything remotely resembling a thermometer of today would have been invented about this time. I would venture those were fairly inaccurate, and would at least come nowhere close to measuring temperatures within one degree over the last 100+ years.

 

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

Meaning, i don't need to rely solely on reliable instrumental data to have an argument. I am fine using proxies as needed.

So you don't need reliable instrumental data, but your entire claim about global warming rests on these fairly precise measures, specifically that the temperature changed one degree over many decades.

 

[Zippyjuan]

Again, impossible to know. I would venture that anything remotely resembling a thermometer of today would have been invented about this time. I would venture those were fairly inaccurate, and would at least come nowhere close to measuring temperatures within one degree over the last 100+ years.

Older temperatures are calculated by measuring ice cores in the Antarctic (thicker ice accumulations from colder years, less from warmer ones), sediment measurements in the oceans, and tree rings on really old trees (thicker rings in good years, narrow ones for more difficult ones). They then compare them to try to calibrate the data.

 

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

So help me here,...

No, I can't help you. Your entire argument of global warming rests on getting information from non-standardized and inconsistent sources from people all over the globe since the 1800s. You're not even getting this information yourself, so you don't even know anything about these gathering stations, thermometers. etc.

The rest of your argument depends on things like counting the number of leaves in the world and how many are burned.

 

[buenijo]

So help me here, why is greenhouse effect not in dispute or the claim to be examined? Is it just because more people are convinced? Or just your choosing?

Do greenhouse effect claimers still have the burden of proof? or has it been established for so long and accepted so widely, opponents have the burden of proof?

This is a red herring. The veracity of the greenhouse effect is not relevant. "It has been established" and it is "accepted" as you emphasized. You and I established in previous discussion a definition of AGW. Under this definition, a proponent of AGW does not question the ability for GHG emissions from human activities to affect climate. However, there is a very wide variance in the positions taken by the proponents of AGW. For example, both I and Christopher Monckton (widely but wrongly criticized as a "denier" of AGW) take the position that the GHG emissions from human activities are affecting the climate. However, we are skeptical in that we are not convinced sufficient evidence exists to show these affects can be accurately quantified, characterized, forecasted, or even that they will manifest in any measurable or material way.

Again, the contention under scrutiny is not the greenhouse effect. Nor is it the general theory of AGW. The relevant contention is whether or not AGW has been and/or will be detrimental on net balance. If this can be established, then a discussion can continue to determine the best course of action (which may or may not include governmental interventions). The vagueness surrounding the AGW issue includes the unjustified conflation of several questions. Whether AGW exists, whether it is detrimental or not, whether or not we can and should do anything to alleviate the effects, and what our actions should be (if any) are separate issues to be determined in their place.

With this clarity established, you will find the vast majority of people, including those active on this forum, do not doubt the basic AGW premise. Their contentions lie with the other questions.

 

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

Older temperatures are calculated by measuring ice cores in the Antarctic (thicker ice accumulations from colder years, less from warmer ones), sediment measurements in the oceans, and tree rings on really old trees (thicker rings in good years, narrow ones for more difficult ones). They then compare them to try to calibrate the data.

Yes, exactly. They try to calculate the data. You're not getting within one degree, the accuracy and number which is the basis for global warming advocates.

 

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

The relevant contention is whether or not AGW has been and/or will be detrimental on net balance.

Exactly. This detriment has never been established, and actually, quite the opposite has happened. These dipshits back in the 1980s and 1990s talked about Manhattan being under water and the Missouri River disappearing. I don't see these specific claims any more, but these people already made fools of themselves. Their claims are now much more vague, but libs with no common sense still believe them.

 

[PRB]

No, I can't help you. Your entire argument of global warming rests on getting information from non-standardized and inconsistent sources from people all over the globe since the 1800s. You're not even getting this information yourself, so you don't even know anything about these gathering stations, thermometers. etc.

The rest of your argument depends on things like counting the number of leaves in the world and how many are burned.

you got a better way? I'm listening.

 

[buenijo]

you got a better way? I'm listening.

Again, careful about shifting the burden of proof. NorthCarolinaLiberty doesn't have to do shit.

 

[PRB]

Again, careful about shifting the burden of proof. NorthCarolinaLiberty doesn't have to do shit.

he does if he's claiming that unreliable or less than perfect means it's wrong or opposite.

 

[buenijo]

he does if he's claiming that unreliable or less than perfect means it's wrong or opposite.

He's not. Nor am I.

Consider this. My personal study of economics is more relevant to my position on AGW as compared to my formal education in the physical sciences. It was my understanding of the so-called "Austrian" economics perspective that allowed me to see clearly that both the housing market and stock markets were overvalued during the recent past (2005-2006) and due for a significant correction. It's interesting to note that so many economists, financial professionals, and politicians expressed certainty in the stability of the markets at that time. The existence of a housing "bubble" was emphatically denied by these professionals. I knew they were wrong at the time. Many knew they were wrong at the time. In retrospect, we all know they were wrong at the time. We failed to characterize and forecast an economy that is actively tracked and even manipulated by trained professionals. The climate is less well understood than the economy. It seems the rational and humble position is to meet the alarmist claims of many AGW proponents with skepticism.

It's perfectly clear where the burden of proof lies. It is, however, unclear how the evidence (i.e. the uncontested facts) supports the many alarmist claims made by some proponents of AGW.

 

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

he does if he's claiming that unreliable or less than perfect means it's wrong or opposite.

The people you quoted are the ones saying it.

 

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

you got a better way? I'm listening.

So now we've gone from your firm claim of global warming, to your shaky claim of global warming, to you now asking for help.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

Older temperatures are calculated by measuring ice cores in the Antarctic (thicker ice accumulations from colder years, less from warmer ones), sediment measurements in the oceans, and tree rings on really old trees (thicker rings in good years, narrow ones for more difficult ones). They then compare them to try to calibrate the data.

The variation between white and black ice from ice cores is the result of periods of warm and cold, not winter and summer like is often believed. You can have 10 of those in 1 year. They found a fighter plane from the 1950s buried under thousands of layers of ice in Greenland.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

he does if he's claiming that unreliable or less than perfect means it's wrong or opposite.

He's making the claim that it's *not* reliable. You're making the claim that it *is* reliable. The burden of proof is on you.

 

[Henry Rogue]

He's making the claim that it's *not* reliable. You're making the claim that it *is* reliable. The burden of proof is on you.

The P-38 Lighting, named "Glacier Girl". I've seen it when it was in pieces and after it was fully restored and the bit that was used to melt a tunnel down to it.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

The P-38 Lighting, named "Glacier Girl". I've seen it when it was in pieces and after it was fully restored and the bit that was used to melt a tunnel down to it.

That's awesome. I thought this was common knowledge, but apparently people just kind of take ice core data for granted.

 

[PRB]

So now we've gone from your firm claim of global warming, to your shaky claim of global warming, to you now asking for help.

I'm not the one changing the subject