AmericanPapist Comments
those interested might also look to:
ultimateglobalwarmingchallenge.com
The tide is turning on this one. Slowly, but turning. I just heard a radio PSA that included the line "...regardless of what you think about the global warming debate..." That there is even an acknowledgment that there IS a debate on this topic, would not have been possible a year ago.
Every year, approximately 160,000 square kilometers of forest disappears. Each year, 6.5 billion tons of carbon is released into the Earth's atmosphere through the burning of fossil fuels. Another 1.6 billion tons per year is released as a consequence of deforestation. Since 1990, an estimated 14,800,000 acres of land have been lost each year to some form of deforestation.
These are empirical facts. By questioning "manmade" global warming, you seem to tacitly be admitting that there is indeed global warming. Playing along, I can't for the life of me think that what I've listed above is helping matters. The Pope seemingly agrees. Capitol Hill doesn't, but that's because most everyone there is funded by the oil industry or the auto industry, as are a large number of scientists who dispute global warming.
No matter the effect it has on the environment, shouldn't we conserve our resource just as a matter of principle? The current fuel mileage standards are set at 27.5 miles a gallon, and it's been that way since 1985! The Big Three in Detroit are fighting a 7.5 mile/gallon increase in standards to bring the average fuel economy to 35 miles/gallon by 2020. A 7.5 mile/gallon change in 35 years! We put a man on the moon in eight! This country isn't serious about energy independence and fighting terrorism, which is funded through petrodollars. While Toyota and other car manufacturers are overtaking American companies in sales, Detroit still doesn't see the need for innovation that will help the environment and America. It's sad that this nation is full of people looking out for themselves rather than the general good of all.
So as I alluded, opposition to global warming is well-funded by the industries harming the environment, so we know what the opposition's agenda is. What exactly is the left-wing's agenda other than helping the earth be a place where we can live well into the future? Not many people would accuse the Pope of being a liberal hippie.
Total Gag!
"gallon change in 35 years! We put a man on the moon in eight! This country isn't serious about energy independence and fighting terrorism, which is funded through petrodollars."
Of course not. That's abundantly clear by this country's opposition to drilling in the Gulf and in ANWR.
How you feel about that, Nate?
The problem isn't with big industry, Nathan. The deforestation is also a result of people cutting trees on private property for asthetic reasons or to put in houses where none have ever been. I have eleven trees on 1/2 acre. That's not counting the diseased and dead trees that were taken down before I bought the place. My immediate neighbours have 3 trees each. Farther down the street, the average is one tree per house. Twenty years ago, these were all wooded lots. Contrast that with the lumber and mining industries which, by law, have to replant and rebuild hills.
In my region, fossil fuels are used to generate electricity, whereas heating is done with clean-burning natural gas or corn furnaces. However, in talking to the snowbirds who migrate to southern states, I found that they use a lot more electricity through the winter because they run airconditioners constantly.
I don't see the left-wing making suggestions that people stop moving to Texas, New Mexico, and Arizona (where, as an added bonus, the influx has dropped the watertable and made electric pumps, softeners, and de-salinators even more in demand.) I don't see city and township officials demanding permits before individual property-owners cut trees.
I've asked you this before, and you never seem to answer. Please list the major scientific disagreements with the human induced climate change hypothesis as you understand them. You bang on about it endlessly. What are you basing it on?
Here's a hint: The Great Global Warming Swindle and the Hudson Institute screed you've swooned over in the past aren't good places to start.
Got any answers?
[By the way: please note that I haven't said it is a foregone conclusion. So, if you feel tempted to claim as such, don't.]
I find it odd that despite our rampant deforestation, there is more forest on our planet today than there was 100 years, and even more than there was 150 years ago. That's strange. What's even stranger is that most 'global warming' took place from 1850 to 1940 - which was then followed by a cooling period during 'increased' productions of 'greenhouse gas emissions'. That's pretty strange too.
I'm all in favour of helping to preserve the environment in any sane way we can - but people - Gore and co. have serious amounts of coin rapped up in the public believing in global warming. What this means is that Gore and co. will be extremely hostile to anyone, scientist, oil tycoon or perhaps someone with the gaul to suggest further scientific inquiry, that challenges the idea that global warming is anthropocentric. I mean, if you're going to bleat on and on about scientists and politicians in the pocket of big oil being the only opponents to taking action on globaly warming, you should at least realise that you're in bed with pretty much the same type of charlatan.
Major scientific disagreements with anthropogenic global warming?
Start with bad data being collected at various surface stations. If your dataset is bad or tainted, any conclusions reached by applying scientific processes will be invalid. This doesn't even require a knowledge of climate sciences. Personally, I like this comparison chart between West Point and Central Park, which longitudinally the same and latitudinally separated by 0.4 degrees. They tracked pretty well together from 1820-1890 (or so), after which the Central Park station shows a rising trend and West Point stays stable.
Then there's the boondoggle of computational error that showed 2006 as the warmest year in the past 100 years, caused by the problems with changing the source of the data (see here) used to calculate trends. Without correcting for variations in sampling methods, there's a temperature spike caused by the change in sources, in some places as much as 1.75C. Without accounting for that, the trend line looks much worse than it really would have been.
How many other errors exist in the science? I haven't been following the science extremely closely, but I know enough to question the validity of the conclusions drawn from questionable data. And when groups are "selling" the idea as "settled" when it obviously isn't, it certainly makes me question their motives, and therefore I question any announcements they may make regarding climate change.
If you need, I can dig up other issues, such as CO2 levels drastically increasing after periods of warming (calling into question the actual cause-effect relationship, if one exists at all), or how CO2 levels were higher (based on fossil and other geological records) during periods of lower temperature in the distant past. Or I could go dig up some posts I recall from a year ago (elsewhere on the internet) talking about the cyclic nature of various things (i.e., the Sun, tilt of the earth, etc.) that occasionally combine for a maximum effect. (For example, if the sun is on a 15 year peak output cycle and the tilt of the earth is on a 20 year cycle, at year 60 the effects will combine for maximum effect.)
I guess Al doesn't want to hear any "inconvenient truths" about his theories! Tom
MAS:-
Every single one of those issues you raised has been addressed. Here's a good item-by-item survey:-
http://www.skepticalscience.com/...om/
argument.php
Now, you might argue that they haven't been addressed adequately. That could be right. But their are counterpoints to the counterpoints.
Are you absolutely sure that you are familiar with the replies to the criticism?
CBLF, thanks for the link, I'll peruse it later. And I said I hadn't been following the science closely.
However, the surface stations don't seem to be covered, unless you think the talk about the Urban Heat Island effect counts. But that's really just the impact of population density and...well...heat "islands", while the surface station problem really has to do with proper placement of the surface stations themselves. Stations that were properly placed 50 years ago are now no longer properly placed because of nearby construction (air conditioning added to a nearby building, pavement, sidewalks, etc.), which skews the readings at some individual stations.
While Cook's site, at a glance, looks interesting, it doesn't cover my personal belief (which has not been scientifically tested by any stretch of the imagination), which is that the warming is a combination of many factors, one (or several) of which is man-caused. I'm also leery of the proposed solutions I've seen so far. Carbon Credits is just a flat joke. Many of the "required" changes to industry would be devastating to the world economy, without having any certainty of being able to effect a change.
However, the surface stations don't seem to be covered
Yes, they are. There's this link:-
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2007...rface-stations/
I have yet to come across one argument used by skeptics that isn't counterpointed. Once again, that doesn't automatically make the skeptics wrong. But, amongst many skeptics, there's often this perception that there are legions of questions that haven't been answered. This is wrong. (Please note I said answered, not resolved).
More often than not, the skeptics are putting their politics first and the science last. The publisher of this site is a prime case in point. It's patently obvious he has NO idea about what is actually being said, and relies on complete rubbish like The Great Global Warming Swindle to back up his politics.
Clarification: the surface stations didn't seem to be covered by the skepticalscience link. In my quick perusal I didn't catch a link from there to the blog you site now (although it may be there.)
I have a further problem with the blog link in the above post: extrapolating data over a short period (globally speaking) of 25 years to show change over 100 years, which further lends itself to extrapolating the same data over hundreds of years, is cherry-picking data.
I can do something similar to highlight the ridiculousness of such a move. This morning when I got up it was 70 F. It's now (5 hours later) 75 F. At that rate, it'll be 80 by 5pm, 85 at 10pm, 90 at 2am, etc. By next week, it'll be in the 200s!
Even 200 years isn't enough time to make sound calls about climate change.
I'm skeptical about the science behind global climate change. It has nothing to do with politics.
Now, take all the answered-but-not-resolved issues that could have an impact on our observations and model about climate change. In most cases, the argument I've seen from the pro-anthropogenic global warming crowd is that none of them are sufficient to account for the change in temperature. I agree. I think that it's a combination of factors (including human actions), all contributing a small amount. And, in my opinion, the human factor, even removed, wouldn't be as massive an impact as some seem to believe (that would be those people who hint or outright state that man alone is responsible for the increased temperatures.)
And finally, I find your ad hominem argument to be weak (I hate logical fallacies, and will point them out if they come up. Feel free to point out any I make make.). Instead of discussing the information provided, you go after the people. Anthony Watts' opinions may be as you say, but that's immaterial to the information provided. You're basically trying to poison the well, by trying to show that his opinions are a reason to discount the information he's posted. Well, the same argument can easily be made against many global warming proponents...monetary gain being a big and obvious conflict of interest. Grant money, carbon offset companies, etc. However, I don't think that the people who believe in anthropogenic global warming are being deceitful, I think they honestly believe in anthropogenic global warming and want to do something about it.
Those of us, however, who disagree that it's "settled science" are labeled as industry hacks or ignorant buffoons or uneducated skeptics who can't understand the science. We get talked down to, dismissed, ignored. We're told that our skepticism comes from stupidity or political leanings or being corporate shills.
BTW, Anthony Watts is a meteorologist. While that doesn't make his take on things "right", it does imply that he's not as clueless as you make him out to be. Sorry to bust up that personal attack on Watts.
I can do something similar to highlight the ridiculousness of such a move. This morning when I got up it was 70 F. It's now (5 hours later) 75 F. At that rate, it'll be 80 by 5pm, 85 at 10pm, 90 at 2am, etc. By next week, it'll be in the 200s!
Yes, and by 2050, since the growth rate from the time of his death, 1 in 3 people will be Elvis impersonators.
Your argument has been made before, and addressed. As I've said, I've yet to see one showstopper from the denialist camp that has left those who promote the (now) orthodox theory blinking. Standard disclaimer: that does not automatically constitute proof.
Sorry to bust up that personal attack on Watts.
My "ad hominem attack" (possibly the most overused words in this medium outside of "strawman" and "lol") was against American Papist. He amply demonstrates that he doesn't really have much of a grasp on this issue by proferring rubbish like "The Great Global Warming Swindle" as "devastating" evidence against human induced climate change.
You won't find "one showstopper", because one doesn't exist. Just like there isn't a single "showstopper" that will convince a global warming denier that global warming exists.
In other words, you're in the position of trying to prove something that is unprovable to some people. The claim is that man caused the bulk of the global warming, primarily from emissions in the latter part of the 20th century. Correlation doesn't prove causation, however, and the science is so complex that multiple unknown factors surely exist. So, with an extraordinary claim requiring extraordinary proof, it is my opinion that the extraordinary proof hasn't been provided.
Apologies for misinterpreting the aim of your comments about relying on the Swindle...based on the previous paragraph dealing with the surfacestation website, I didn't follow your jump to this "this site", I presumed you were still talking about Watts' site. I have no idea what Thomas' knowledge level may be on this subject, but I'd definitely say "bad form" for taking a swipe at your host.
BTW (and I hope that Isn't too overused for your tastes), the reason the phrases ad hominem" and "strawman" are used so often in this medium is because they are so frequently resorted to. That and the GPs....Grammar Police (which includes not only those who take one to task for not using proper grammar, but those who use obscure definitions of words).
Correlation doesn't prove causation
Another well-worn shibboleth. But it's better suited to things that are obviously unrelated. In this case, correlation goes a long way to suggesting causation according to some arguments.
BTW (and I hope that Isn't too overused for your tastes), the reason the phrases ad hominem" and "strawman" are used so often in this medium is because they are so frequently resorted to.
.... and because they have become a sort of rhetorical Get Out of Jail Free card.
People bandy them about to the point of ridiculousness, relying on their gravitas to deflect the argument. The host of this (as in this very) site bangs on about global warming with a wise patrician air, while referring to some woefully inadequate material that would only dupe the naive. This is a pattern of behaviour that is relevant to the topic, and is completely within the bounds of reasonableness to comment on. Question the stylistics if you really want to, but the motivation is rhetorically sound.
Another well-worn shibboleth.
Oh, I get it. You're just looking for something new. Sorry, I won't be the one to provide it for you. Although you can continue to read my responses and presume I'm saying exactly what was said to you the last time you heard it.
But it's better suited to things that are obviously unrelated.
Not really, although it's more obvious when they're obviously unrelated. Application can be in any situation where there is correlation without proof of cause.
In this case, correlation goes a long way to suggesting causation according to some arguments.
Right. According to some arguments. According to other arguments, the correlation is insufficient to prove causation.
Look, the way I see it, some people have locked so tightly onto anthropogenic global warming due to increased CO2 emissions that they're unwilling to look at any other possible causes. You won't see me arguing that CO2 couldn't be a part of a cause. You won't see me arguing that man couldn't be responsible for any of the warming. I just doubt the claims that it's entirely due to man. I doubt that CO2 is the only cause. And I doubt that extravagant efforts to reduce our CO2 emissions will have a significant impact on the global climate. Thus, I see it as potentially wasted effort, especially since certain people are so fixated on CO2 that discussion of other possible causes is denied/decried.
I have no problem with lowering CO2 emissions. Just like I have no problem separating out the recyclables from my garbage. But I do have a huge problem when inquiry into the facts, doubt of the conclusions, is, essentially, not "allowed". Or when it's discounted with a "this has already been talked about and there is now concensus, so there can be no further discussion."
Look, the way I see it, some people have locked so tightly onto anthropogenic global warming due to increased CO2 emissions that they're unwilling to look at any other possible causes.
Oh, as opposed to the capacious open church that is the denialist bloc.
I just doubt the claims that it's entirely due to man.
Then perhaps you should review what is being said. Why should you do this? Because none of the scientists are saying that "it's entirely due to man". What they ARE saying is that human impact is having a forcing effect on an underlying system.
Or when it's discounted with a "this has already been talked about and there is now concensus, so there can be no further discussion."
Where have I EVER said in this thread that "there can be no further discussion"?
What I am bringing up is the fact that all of the criticisms have ripostes. However, the way that American Papist gets all giddy about utter rubbish like The Great Global Warming Swindle, you could imagine that he thinks that this stuff is unparried.
And you're right. You haven't kept up with the science.
Oh, as opposed to the capacious open church that is the denialist bloc.
*sigh* I thought we were having a civil discussion. Am I being too sensitive, or are you really being intentionally offensive?
Not all "denialists" are in the same boat. Don't use a broad-brush, assuming that all people who disagree with anthropogenic global warming do so for the same reason.
Then perhaps you should review what is being said. Why should you do this? Because none of the scientists are saying that "it's entirely due to man". What they ARE saying is that human impact is having a forcing effect on an underlying system.
This particular post by Thomas was dealing with Al Gore and others like him who use alarmism to push their issue. While Gore doesn't come out and make the (incorrect) claim that ALL global warming is caused by man, he hints at it to such extreme degrees that he's done everything except flatly make the claim.
I'm fully aware that the scientists don't attribute all warming to anthropgenic sources. I also understand the concept of forcing (and the feedback associate with it). I also know that scientists aren't sure about the real effect of some forcing "agents". I.e., a small increase in temperature can lead to warmer air containing more moisture, thus more clouds. The clouds would trap additional energy in, but also reflect more sunlight prior to it reaching the earth. What's the net effect?
Where have I EVER said in this thread that "there can be no further discussion"?
You haven't. Al Gore, through his spokeswoman, has. What you've done is similar, in that you claim that every disagreement raised by skeptics has been dealt with. If that were the case, there wouldn't be skeptics, no?
And you're right. You haven't kept up with the science.
I admitted as much early on. However, what you think I meant above and what I really meant were two different things. I'm familiar enough with forcing, and CO2 and methane in the permafrost, and CO2 being released from the oceans due to higher temperatures, etc. I have a fair grasp of things, but I'm not on top of all of it.
For every claim by skeptics, there's a response from the believers. And for every claim by the believers there's a response from the skeptics. Just because a point has been "answered", doesn't mean it's been answered, if you understand what I'm saying.
If you continue to sneer, I'm going to drop this, because you're really not worth it.
Commenting by HaloScan
