More Global Warming Skeptics

[The Rabbi]

There also was a study by the U.S. National Academy of Sciences about issues which needed more research.[16] This heightened interest in the fact that climate can change. The 1975 NAS report titled "Understanding Climate Change: A Program for Action" did not make predictions, stating in fact that "we do not have a good quantitative understanding of our climate machine and what determines its course. Without the fundamental understanding, it does not seem possible to predict climate." Its "program for action" consisted simply of a call for further research, because "it is only through the use of adequately calibrated numerical models that we can hope to acquire the information necessary for a quantitative assessment of the climatic impacts."

The report further stated:

    The climates of the earth have always been changing, and they will doubtless continue to do so in the future. How large these future changes will be, and where and how rapidly they will occur, we do not know..

From the Nat'l Academy paper of 1975.  Amazing what we've learned in 30 years. 

[wacki]

From the Nat'l Academy paper of 1975.  Amazing what we've learned in 30 years. 

There has been amazing advances in the science in the last 10 years alone.  Also, look at hansens predictions made in 1988

http://www.logicalscience.com/skeptic_arguments/models-dont-work.html

He correctly predicted temps 20 years into the future.

Also Svente Arrhenius calculated global warming potential due to CO2 in 1896 and its put effect between 4-5.7 degrees Celsius.  It would appear that he was correct.

[Creeping Incrementalism]

The question boils down to, are the models from the experts of the anthropogenic warming consensus right?  From what I've seen, they are wrong.

Dr. James Hansen, who has been called the top climate scientists at NASA by the New York Times, started the whole global warming issue in 1988, where he made a prediction that the earth would warm .35 degrees C by 1997.  The actual value was .11 degrees C.  I saw another analysis that shows an even greater failure in his models.  This is the #1 honcho of global warming, and he isnt even close.  Later he said, The forcings that drive long term climate change are not known with an accuracy sufficient to define future climate change.

NOAA predicted a devastating hurricane season in 2006, and gave only a 5% chance of a light season.  And we got a light season.

Current models for 2100 vary between 2 and 6 degrees increase.  So there is a 3X variation in the models.  And when you consider how climatologists have overestimated temperature increase in the past, this shows how poor their models are.

I find amusing the assumption that most climatologists are paragons of science, with no motivations to skew results one way or the other, whereas only the ones working for oil companies have an ulterior motive.  Climatologists have an incentive to skew their results towards more alarming conclusions, because it suddenly makes an inconsequential field the hottest area in science.  Also, I once saw video of a climatology conference where a speaker got up and gave a talk that put forward a non-anthropomorphic cause of GW.  I was astounded by the emotion in the scientists attacking the theory.  It didn't sound like scientific discussion, it sounded more like religious ideologues shouting, "heretic!  I've heard from various people that a climatologist who publicly doubts global warming will have his career killed.

Then there is the global cooling issue of the 70s, which some say doesn't matter now, because we know so much more now than we did then.  Who is to say we have enough data and modeling now?  Dr. Hansen says we aren't able to predict it.

But if the consensus is correct, it is all academic, because there isn't anything meaningful we can do about it anyway.  Kyoto will reduce temperatures by .1 degree C.  What are we going to do, give up industrialization, and kill off 4 billion people?

wacki, it looks like you've studied this more comprehensibly than I have, so I may have missed some important points.  Please point them out if I have.

[wacki]

The question boils down to, are the models from the experts of the anthropogenic warming consensus right?  From what I've seen, they are wrong.

Dr. James Hansen, who has been called the top climate scientists at NASA by the New York Times, started the whole global warming issue in 1988, where he made a prediction that the earth would warm .35 degrees C by 1997.  The actual value was .11 degrees C.  I saw another analysis that shows an even greater failure in his models.  This is the #1 honcho of global warming, and he isnt even close.  Later he said, The forcings that drive long term climate change are not known with an accuracy sufficient to define future climate change.

Did you say not even close?

recreating the past


predicting 20 years into the future


http://www.logicalscience.com/skeptic_arguments/models-dont-work.html

Just curious where did you get the his models were wrong argument?

NOAA predicted a devastating hurricane season in 2006, and gave only a 5% chance of a light season.  And we got a light season.

It's called Calima.  Please read this
http://www.logicalscience.com/skeptic_arguments/SAL.htm


I'm late for work but I will address the rest of your questions later.

wacki, it looks like you've studied this more comprehensibly than I have, so I may have missed some important points.  Please point them out if I have.

Thanks for being civil.  I've read thousands of papers on the topic and I honestly think the skeptics make about as much sense as the brady campaign.  When I'm done with work I'll gladly help educate the good members of this forum.

[The Rabbi]

It seems to me there are several distinct questions on this issue:

1) Is there "global warming" meaning the earth's temperature is going up.  The consensus seems to be yes on this issue.
2) Is this warming caused by human activity or caused by natural cycles or some combination?  There seems to be no consensus on this.
3) Is this warming actually harmful overall?  Again, no consensus on this issue.
4) If it is harmful, are there steps we can take to stop it?  No consensus.
5) Are the steps being proposed likely to stop it?  No evidence whatsoever that I've seen.  Nor do I think there can be.
6) If the steps proposed are likely to stop it, are those steps cost-effective?  Again, no evidence offered that I've seen.

So the global warming fear-mongers have a long way to go to prove their case.  And I dont think they can.

[Creeping Incrementalism]

wacki,

I found the Hansen info several years ago, but just copied it down and not the source.  The Mt. Pinatubo dip and a coincidence of the period between data was taken might be the reason for the error.  Looking at the current Hansen models I see on your site, and all the other models I've seen on Wikipedia, yes, there is a general upward trend, but I'm still not convinced partly because their own models vary by so much.  Also, I can find a 10 year period where Hansen is wrong.  Maybe it is just a coincidence of the period picked.  Hansen can find a 100 year period where he is right.  If we had good data for 1000 years (and there is again estimation in looking at ice core samples), we might see that he is actually wrong.  Not to motion all the sources of error that come into determining if measured temperatures are correct today, and especially if the measured temperatures were correct and comprehensive enough 100 years ago.

The reasons behind the light hurricane season aren't the issue.  The point is that the experts were wrong in their prediction.

But I think what's more important is--if indeed humans are indeed warming the globe, can anything be done about it that will make a difference?

[Tallpine]

What are we going to do, give up industrialization, and kill off 4 billion people?

I think that option has been seriously suggested by some folks ... 

[Iain]

It seems to me there are several distinct questions on this issue:

1) Is there "global warming" meaning the earth's temperature is going up.  The consensus seems to be yes on this issue.

Yep

2) Is this warming caused by human activity or caused by natural cycles or some combination?  There seems to be no consensus on this.

- there is consensus here, aside from a few who attract a lot of media attention in the name of 'fair and balanced'. Not that I think they should be silenced.

3) Is this warming actually harmful overall?  Again, no consensus on this issue.

There is pretty definite consensus that if the warming happens as predicted, large areas are going to suffer. Badly.

4) If it is harmful, are there steps we can take to stop it?  No consensus.
5) Are the steps being proposed likely to stop it?  No evidence whatsoever that I've seen.  Nor do I think there can be.
6) If the steps proposed are likely to stop it, are those steps cost-effective?  Again, no evidence offered that I've seen.

4+5 - stop filling the 'bathtub' up with CO₂ faster than it is draining is the general idea. It hangs around in the atmosphere for good periods of time, the science says that we are adding to it faster than it is going.

Cost effectiveness - don't know. Not an economist either. The Stern Review suggests that cost now would be significantly less than cost to future generations.

[The Rabbi]

Apparantly the consensus in Germany is that US-caused global warming was responsible for Katrina.  So I dont put much faith in the consensus of Europeans on anything.

[Iain]

Apparantly the consensus in Germany is that US-caused global warming was responsible for Katrina.  So I dont put much faith in the consensus of Europeans on anything.

The consensus amongst German scientists in a climate related discipline?

Let's not be silly here.

[wacki]

Apparantly the consensus in Germany is that US-caused global warming was responsible for Katrina.  So I dont put much faith in the consensus of Europeans on anything.

Katrina specifically? I'd like to see that in print.  As for hurricanes in general.....



please read this

http://www.logicalscience.com/skeptic_arguments/SAL.htm

[wacki]

  Also, I can find a 10 year period where Hansen is wrong. 

Which 10 year period?

The reasons behind the light hurricane season aren't the issue.  The point is that the experts were wrong in their prediction.

This is like saying sombody is wrong when they say you have an 84% chance of rolling something other than a 1 on a six sided die just because you rolled a 1.  Maybe you should look up the reasons why their guess wasn't at 100% and see if on of the reasons is the possibility of a Calima event.  An event which is a short term fluctuation.

There is a reason why they call it "chance".

[wacki]

In science, there can be no such thing as consensus.  It either is or it isn't.   

con·sen·sus (kən-sĕn'səs) pronunciation
n.   1. An opinion or position reached by a group as a whole:
http://www.answers.com/consensus

By the way Mars is warming too.  Do you suppose that is because the Martians are driving Hummers?

Warming on mars?  Please read this:

http://www.badastronomy.com/bablog/2007/04/29/is-global-warming-solar-induced/

[wacki]

2) Is this warming caused by human activity or caused by natural cycles or some combination?  There seems to be no consensus on this.
3) Is this warming actually harmful overall?  Again, no consensus on this issue.

Have you read any of the reports?  There is a nice list of quotes here:
http://www.logicalscience.com/consensus/consensus.htm

4) If it is harmful, are there steps we can take to stop it?  No consensus.
5) Are the steps being proposed likely to stop it?  No evidence whatsoever that I've seen.  Nor do I think there can be.

Ever heard of alternative energy?  Please check this out:
http://www.logicalscience.com/technology/

Btw if the peak oil guys and chevron are right then fighting global warming could make your ammo cheaper in the long run.  Ignoring global warming could make ammo more expensive.  Just something to think about.....

6) If the steps proposed are likely to stop it, are those steps cost-effective?  Again, no evidence offered that I've seen.

Please read the stern report.

oh and this thing tooo....
http://logicalscience.blogspot.com/2006/12/most-expensive-we-can-do-is-nothing.html

It's titled:
"The most expensive thing we can do is nothing"

[The Rabbi]

Dont' feed the troll....

http://www.newszapforums.com/forum60/29173.html

[wacki]

If the firearm community wants to be taken seriously they should make sure the majority of their members/spokesmen can understand highschool level science, math, and physics.  Currently this is not the case.

Huh? 

Don't get me wrong I've been extremely impressed with the expertise on firearms at THR.  And David Kopel's Samurai, Mountie & Cowboy book is one of my favorites.  But when I see Tim Lambert make complete fools of Lott & friends I really start to question whether the firearm community is in the right or the wrong.  Luckily I've complete my own research with the help of the good folks at the THR and my support for the 2A is stronger than ever.  But when the author of one of my favorite books (Kopel) references somebody (Seitz) that believes tobacco doesn't cause cancer, CFC's don't effect the ozone layer, and HIV doesn't cause aids as an expert on climate change I can't help but cringe.  It makes me afraid to recommend his book to my friends.  To my knowledge the firearm community doesn't have a single spokesman that hasn't made some incredibly massive blunders.  There are a few highly respectable profs that have written op-eds but all of the main activists have shot themselves in the foot in one way or another.  And that makes me very very sad because I'm a huge fan of our founding fathers and a strong supporter of our freedoms.

Kopels article:
http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/opinion_columnists/article/0,2777,DRMN_23972_4747222,00.html

I might expand on this later.  I have more to say and I'm a bit nervous I might step on more toes than I need to.  Please realize I do have a ton of respect for many many members of this forum.  I fully support open discussion.  I just wish that some concepts (like natural selection and random mutations) that  weren't debated as hotly as they seem to be here.

Then again if you throw me in an English class I would be a huge ignoramus.  Everyone has their weaknesses and their talents....   

[Iain]

Dont' feed the troll....

http://www.newszapforums.com/forum60/29173.html

He's got a lot of posts over on THR. So what if global warming is a hot button issue for him - there are plenty of others around here the same, at least one who cuts and pastes endless articles in new threads and never responds to any posts, he doesn't get labelled a troll.

[Perd Hapley]

wacki's a troll?  How so?  And who's the other guy who's not a troll? 

[wacki]

wacki's a troll?  How so?  And who's the other guy who's not a troll? 

There is someone in that thread that posted links to the logical science website over and over again.  Maybe he thinks I'm him.  I dunno.  I may have been blunt in this thread and hurt some peoples feelings but I've tried to be polite as possible.  Truth is like surgery, it hurts but it cures.  I wouldn't have even come into this thread if Iain hadn't PM'ed me requesting me to do so.  Once I got started it's not exactly prudent to stop when people are debunking your claims with faulty logic, facts, and figures.  In all honesty I really don't care much about global warming anymore.  I just don't think the people in power care enough to do anything and I don't think quality scientists (not the loony ones you see on TV) are listened to by those that can take action.  We live in a society where a celebrity can make a complete mockery out of the worlds best scientists.  Not too long ago Barbara Streisand convinced the public that the scientific community was lying them.  The result was a perfectly safe chemical called Alar (used by farmers) is now banned.  It took scientists decades to convince the public that smoking causes cancer despite pictures of pitch black lungs.  I could go on and on and on.....  The sad thing is that people would be richer, healthier, they would feel younger, and even have more choices if they just listened to the mainstream scientists.    A few of my favorite quotes are:

Men reject their prophets and slay them, but they love their martyrs and honor those whom they have slain. - Fyodor Dostoyevski

After all, whats the use of having developed a science well enough to make predictions, if in the end, all were willing to do is stand around and wait for them to come true. -Nobel laureate Sherwood Rowland on ozone depletion

Society in general just isn't educated enough, motivated enough, or caring enough to learn what they need to learn about science related political topics.  So if the world doesn't care why should I?  Maybe I'm being too hard on the people and it's just the industry, the politicians, the controversy loving/fabricating media, and the rare but very visible corrupt/politically motivated scientists (on both sides) that are misleading a caring public.  But at this point just let me have my guns so I can take care of myself and I will be happy.  I'm happy to educate people if asked to and people are willing to listen.  I will do the right thing if it will make an impact.  But I'm certainly not on some Al Gore crusade. About a year ago I realized that even top scientists are often powerless (or neutralized for a decade or two).  I just don't think anything I can do on a public forum will have any impact on society as a whole.  And so I just don't care.

If you do care about terrorism, disease, starvation, global warming, energy, and the worlds top ten problems well there is one thing you can do.  You can watch the video here:
"Our Energy Challenge" September 23, 2003
http://128.42.10.107/media/Smalley_OEF_20031101_300k.wmv

found on this page:
http://smalley.rice.edu/

and educate yourself.  It's old and technology has progressed a lot since then but I strongly believe everything he says is dead on accurate.  I truly believe the worlds top ten problems share a common single solution either in whole or in part.  He was dying of cancer when he made this talk so he really didn't have any conflicts of interest.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

The sad thing is that people would be richer, healthier, they would feel younger, and even have more choices if they just listened to the mainstream scientists. 


yje kinda scientists that fordecades told folks to put kids to sleep on their bellys?  then a decade or so reversed direction with the back to sleep slogan/program?  and touted how many lives they were saving?i guess the experts figured the uneducated didn't figure that if the current expert opinion was correct the older expert opinion had killed a few thousand.

an expert knows more and more about less and less till he knows everything about nothin

[wacki]

yje kinda scientists that fordecades told folks to put kids to sleep on their bellys?  then a decade or so reversed direction with the back to sleep slogan/program?  and touted how many lives they were saving?i guess the experts figured the uneducated didn't figure that if the current expert opinion was correct the older expert opinion had killed a few thousand.

And supposedly the scientific community predicted global cooling..... only they didn't.

Who exactly are these scientists?  And what exactly was their proof?  Was it purely statistical correlation or was it a mechanism that they were touting?   All of these things make a big difference.  I mean realclimate.org just showed that republicans are highly correlated with sunspots.  But correlation does not always equal causation and that was the point of the article.  Also a single paper in a journal doesn't count as "the scientific community" even if it is peer review.  It is just one piece of an entire library of evidence.  If you are going to chastise the scientific community as a whole you need to point to an instance where the scientific community as a whole royally screwed up.  There are millions of scientists on this planet and to expect all of them to perform flawlessly despite age, experience, political ideology, pure ability, and bribery is just unrealistic.  This is a very simple concept that very few people seem to be able to grasp.  The NAS is generally extremely careful with their assessment reports.  Last time I checked the NAS hasn't done any assessment reports on sleeping positions.

[Perd Hapley]

Thanks for the explanation, wacki.  But I think you should reconsider this statement:

If the firearm community wants to be taken seriously they should make sure the majority of their members/spokesmen can understand highschool level science, math, and physics.  Currently this is not the case.

Being skeptical about global warming (or evolution for that matter) is not as simple as all of that.  If Kopel or LaPierre, or whoever, has been sold a bill of goods on climate change, it has nothing to do with their mastery of "highschool level science, math, and physics."  If they have picked the wrong side of things outside their line of work, it probably means that they haven't studied these issues as closely as you seem to have.  (What is your science background, by the way?)  Most lay-people get their ideas about science from people they trust, because they don't have the training or interest to pore over the thousands of articles that you alluded to, and come to an oh-so-scientific conclusion. 

Now, this probably means that they should be careful not to run their mouths on topics they don't understand.  But when you talk about being taken seriously, I wonder by whom?.  The person who needs to be convinced of the RKBA argument is just as likely to be put off by other conservative or libertarian points of view that seem abhorrent to them.  What if Kopel professes the ridiculous notion that tax cuts increase revenue?  What if he opines that abortion should be illegal or that gas prices are the result of supply and demand, rather than a shady cabal of oil men with ties to the White House?  I don't think those things would hurt the cause any less.  Anybody with an open mind to consider Kopel's views will also recognize that he can be solid on one issue and flaky on another. 

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

yje kinda scientists that fordecades told folks to put kids to sleep on their bellys?  then a decade or so reversed direction with the back to sleep slogan/program?  and touted how many lives they were saving?i guess the experts figured the uneducated didn't figure that if the current expert opinion was correct the older expert opinion had killed a few thousand.

And supposedly the scientific community predicted global cooling..... only they didn't.

Who exactly are these scientists?  And what exactly was their proof?  Was it purely statistical correlation or was it a mechanism that they were touting?   All of these things make a big difference.  I mean realclimate.org just showed that republicans are highly correlated with sunspots.  But correlation does not always equal causation and that was the point of the article.  Also a single paper in a journal doesn't count as "the scientific community" even if it is peer review.  It is just one piece of an entire library of evidence.  If you are going to chastise the scientific community as a whole you need to point to an instance where the scientific community as a whole royally screwed up.  There are millions of scientists on this planet and to expect all of them to perform flawlessly despite age, experience, political ideology, pure ability, and bribery is just unrealistic.  This is a very simple concept that very few people seem to be able to grasp.  The NAS is generally extremely careful with their assessment reports.  Last time I checked the NAS hasn't done any assessment reports on sleeping positions.

back when you were reading those articles in the 70's you missed the ones that touted the "jet contrail causing global cooling ones?

my grandfather used to laugh about the folks that predicted new yourk was gonna collapse socially cause they were running outa room for the horse manure.

the pediatric docs changed direction 180 degrees without flinching with their back to sleep campaign

i plan on living long enough to mock al gore and the chickem lils

[wacki]

Thanks for the explanation, wacki.  But I think you should reconsider this statement:

If the firearm community wants to be taken seriously they should make sure the majority of their members/spokesmen can understand highschool level science, math, and physics.  Currently this is not the case.

Being skeptical about global warming (or evolution for that matter) is not as simple as all of that.  If Kopel or LaPierre, or whoever, has been sold a bill of goods on climate change, it has nothing to do with their mastery of "highschool level science, math, and physics."

People who are skeptical of global warming really don't get to me.  It's many of the arguments used. 

Among the pros: Ross McKitrick screws up highschool level thermodynamics (physics) equations by using Celcius instead of Kelvin and messes up higschool level math by confusing degrees with radians.  He has a long history of making similar 'mistakes'.  Consistently screwing highschool level math is not something a math focused Ph.D should be doing.  Yet he still retains tons of credibility among the right/conservatives.  That *sortof* gets to me.  The industry funded climate skeptic Pat Michaels edits Hansen's models/graphs and falsely accuses Hansen's predictions as being wrong.  Yet he still manages to be the most interviewed climatologist on the mainstream news by a factor of 2.  That definitely gets to me.  I just don't understand why people can't spot him for what he is.

I limited my arguments to the professionals because I don't like stepping on toes more than I have to.  And in all honesty I really don't feel like pointing fingers at specific people in this forum.  But the frequency of faulty arguments in climate change and evolution (which is different than genesis) threads does bother me.  While I will refrain from engaging in anything more inflammatory than I have to, I am tempted to call people out who can't remember concepts that were explained 5 posts up.

If they have picked the wrong side of things outside their line of work, it probably means that they haven't studied these issues as closely as you seem to have.  (What is your science background, by the way?)  Most lay-people get their ideas about science from people they trust, because they don't have the training or interest to pore over the thousands of articles that you alluded to, and come to an oh-so-scientific conclusion. 

Now, this probably means that they should be careful not to run their mouths on topics they don't understand.  But when you talk about being taken seriously, I wonder by whom?.  The person who needs to be convinced of the RKBA argument is just as likely to be put off by other conservative or libertarian points of view that seem abhorrent to them.  What if Kopel professes the ridiculous notion that tax cuts increase revenue?  What if he opines that abortion should be illegal or that gas prices are the result of supply and demand, rather than a shady cabal of oil men with ties to the White House?  I don't think those things would hurt the cause any less.  Anybody with an open mind to consider Kopel's views will also recognize that he can be solid on one issue and flaky on another. 

I agree with this.

[wacki]

back when you were reading those articles in the 70's you missed the ones that touted the "jet contrail causing global cooling ones?

Multiple anonymous predictions.... :-p Contrails are a negative feedback but their effect is generally considered to be small.  If you can find a single NAS assessment report that says otherwise I'd love to see it.  If you can find a single peer review article that isn't on this list:
http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/iceage/

I'd love to see it.

my grandfather used to laugh about the folks that predicted new yourk was gonna collapse socially cause they were running outa room for the horse manure.

Another anonymous prediction.... I really can't comment.

the pediatric docs changed direction 180 degrees without flinching with their back to sleep campaign

i plan on living long enough to mock al gore and the chickem lils

And yet another anonymous pediatrician.  When will people learn?  See this is what I'm talking about.  Almost everyone here will (rightfully) slam the media because they can't get firearms right.  Yet you somehow think the media accurately reports science?  That seems a little inconsistent.  If you can't give your sources in situations like this I'd appreciate it if you don't even bother posting in this thread.  Anonymous sources are all but useless.  And those that refuse to source are more than likely trolls.