Climate Change Denier comes in from the cold: SCIENCE!!!

marc9000 writes: quote: (About going back 260 years in time) "The uncertainties get large, but it's still usable data" That's science?

Yes. Using usable data is science. If usable data were ignored, you'd be right to complain and might very well claim conspiracy or cover-up.

marc9000 writes: It is if you started with a conclusion and are trying to make it work!

Muller started with a bias against anthropogenic global warming! And some of his funding came from folks with a similar bias. In this interview he says the Koch brothers funded 1/4 or 1/6 of it:
Video: http://youtu.be/QqPuKxXUCPY
Transcript: http://www.democracynow.org/...koch_funded_scientist_richard

marc9000 writes: Muller did the facepalm thing when he looked at carbon dioxide, something we all exhale.

I didn't see the facepalm thing. Neither did I sense that he thought the CO2 in our exhalations
was an issue. The carbon we ingest and the CO2 (and methane) we expel are part of the natural carbon cycle. No one eats fossil fuels (purposely).

Estimates of man's contribution to greenhouse gases BESIDES fossil fuel emissions range from about 15-30% of our total output. This includes land use and biomass burning, byproducts of agriculture (including cow farts), waste processing, etc.
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/global.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas

marc9000 writes: If you global warming believers want people to "accept the science and the facts", a new place to start would be to show, on graphs and charts, the warming and cooling trends that Muller claims have happened in the past 260 years, in a form that non scientists can easily understand. ...

Here you are: http://blogs.nature.com/...ends-record-upholds-findings.html
(That darn hockey stick again!)
There are numerous other summaries, reviews, and excerpts of his work available on the web as well.

If it was dumbed-down enough that anyone could understand it despite their degree of scientific literacy, deniers would certainly label it as non-scientific propaganda (which they do in any case).

marc9000 writes: ... Then follow that up with ways to distinguish between where this carbon dioxide comes from, people exhaling, or from any number of human activities, like using fossil fuels, in certain areas during certain seasons. They need to be shown measurement methods, foolproof ones.

We have reasonable estimates (above). They're certainly sufficient to give good evidence for anthropogenic global warming. In certain areas? Do you insist on knowing precisely how much CO2 our horses, dogs, cats, and hamsters exhale too? Will you require that fart-o-meters are installed on all people and domesticated animals?

marc9000 writes: A thing called accountability for those who claim to have all the answers to re-cool the planet.

I don't believe any degree of accountability would satisfy you. It's like the creationists who demand to see the link between the link before they'll accept evolution, and when shown that link, demand to see the littler links on either side of it. It just goes on forever. It's a stalling tactic to keep their denial alive.

The scientific community at large, like Muller, has only suggested ways to slow the warming: use less fossil fuels. They notion of "re-cooling" the planet is a denier meme, not a serious scientific proposal.

You'll notice that I've avoided addressing any of the political and economic (or personal) issues you've raised. I don't really see any point in discussing the pros and cons of various solutions to the problem with someone who seems to deny there actually IS any problem. Any actions we might take have to be weighed against the consequences of inaction. If you believe there are no consequences due to inaction, then any action would seem inappropriate.

marc9000 writes: But if it's uncertain usable data, then its testability and falsifiability fade quickly.

It's usability would indeed depend on its degree of certainty or precision. However you seem to be suggesting that any degree of uncertainty would necessarily make all the data completely unusable (or its usability would fade?).

I would agree that the pre-1850 data is of limited use, as evidenced by the extreme fuzziness of the extended hockey stick handle indicating a high degree of uncertainty. One way to test it is to see if it correlates with known global climatic cooling events caused by major volcanic eruptions, which indeed it does.

Laki 1783-1784
Tambora 1815
Cosiguina 1835

Usable? Well, you could certainly use it to plan a European vacation using a time machine. You could avoid the "year without a summer" in 1816.

Falsifiable? Some data was indeed "falsified" (filtered out). See: http://berkeleyearth.org/about-data-set

marc9000 writes: The applications of uncertainty are obviously quite subjective in science, not surprisingly, considering most of its members very one-sided political views.

Explain please how uncertainty is "applied" in science. It can be a subjective decision what methods of statistical analysis are applied to a problem. Is that what you're talking about? Muller implied that he used various methods and all yielded similar results. All of his data and methods are available online: http://berkeleyearth.org.

Yes indeed, few scientists tend to be Republicans (something like 10%). That 10% can and do perform research, publish papers, and participate in the peer review process. The entire 100% can (and often do) cry foul when they identify bias in published research. Can you tell us what bias or subjectivity in particular was used in Muller's work? Or are you just throwing shit against the wall to see what sticks?

marc9000 writes: ...[Muller] never said anything about Gore's and Steyer's private jets.

Of course not. The subject was science, not celebrity gossip.

marc9000 writes: "Natural carbon cycle" v technological carbon cycles, I'm not yet seeing how the carbon dioxide measurements of each are distinguished from each other.

"Technological carbon cycle" is a term so rarely used that it's hard to get a handle on it. It seems to mostly apply to industrial methods for capturing and recycling carbon in their emissions and processes.

The carbon cycle is (per wiki) the biogeochemical cycle by which carbon is exchanged among the biosphere, pedosphere, geosphere, hydrosphere, and atmosphere of the Earth. The "natural carbon cycle" seems to be used in 2 ways. One is the carbon cycle minus carbon created through man's burning of fossil fuels. The other is the carbon cycle minus carbon created through any activity of man, including agriculture, waste processing, etc.

marc9000 writes: claims about global warming seem to focus on only the past few centuries, not millions or billions of years

They necessarily focus on the past few centuries because that's how long we've been recording things like temperatures, sunspots, and volcanoes. Some of the relevant data can be pushed back a few thousand more years using ice cores. Other info, like Milankovitch cycles, have been calculated back to 500,000,000 years BP.

However, given what we know of natural cycles, anything older that about 10,000 years is mostly irrelevant. At that time scale, the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age virtually disappear into mere blips. Are you keen to deny that these periods represented climate change as well? With time scales of millions of years, Earth's temperatures are virtually flat. Always.

If you wanted to detect whether you are coming down with a fever today, would you need to see records from when you were an infant?

marc9000 writes: [Muller] himself (in the previous vid the interviewer showed him of himself) said that there were no increases in temperature in the past 10 years. 12 years, according to this column ...

And he immediately follows that statement with, "... But we don’t expect it to happen every year. It’s a gradual thing that builds up." Since he confidently contradicts the "no warming" stance in both videos we've seen, I'd say your point is moot.

That column doesn't mention Muller. You can find denier blogs denying warming for every count in the range of 10 to 18 years, and sometimes even in the 30 year range. Several claim there has been a cooling trend for x number of years.

You can't believe everything you read on the internet. Fancy that!

marc9000 writes: So Muller, and this author, agree that there has been no global warming since the mid 1990's.

Muller makes it clear that global warming is indeed in progress and that man is certainly contributing to it. He and that author obviously disagree about the fact of global warming and man's hand in it.

marc9000 writes: [Muller] himself ... said that there were no increases in temperature in the past 10 years. 12 years, according to this column ... Muller (and other sources) say that there has been no temperature increase ... Muller and others say the increase has thus far, stopped since about 1997 ... NOTHING since 1997 ...

We have no updates from Muller since 2009 on his "no warming" stance. 2010 and 2014 each reached the number one spot with NASA. Muller says Earth is still warming. Mainstream climatologists do too. The "hiatus" is not a "halt", it's only a slowdown.

The "no warming" meme seems to have been born from articles in the UK's Daily Mail by David Rose, in which he distorted and outright lied about the Met Office's data and stance on global warming.

The earliest one seems to be this:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/...ght-Thames-freezing-again.html

Which forced the Met Office to clarify things with this:
https://metofficenews.wordpress.com/...media-29-january-2012

Then Rose struck again...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/...rt-prove-it.html#ixzz29ZOznOnr

... and again forced the Met Office to set the record straight:
https://metofficenews.wordpress.com/...media-14-october-2012

This article contains a good summary of the problems with Rose's chronic "no warming" spin. It also has graphs that non-scientists can understand:
http://www.theguardian.com/...l-global-warming-stopped-wrong

This article has more general info about Rose's sleaziness in reporting on climate science and other issues:
http://www.theguardian.com/.../08/david-rose-climate-science

Apparently comparisons of his instrumental temperature data to proxy ones are beyond scope. From their FAQ: http://berkeleyearth.org/faq

quote:

---

Berkeley Earth has not addressed issues of satellite data, tree ring and proxy data, or climate model accuracy. Scientists at Berkeley Earth remain skeptical of many elements of "climate change" - including attribution of hurricanes, tornadoes, and other extreme weather events to global warming.

---

He seems to be making a special effort to keep things relatively simple, as marc9000 requested for non-scientific folks, in a sincere effort to help skeptics and deniers understand the data.

This is all I can find at the Berkeley Earth site regarding comparisons with things other than CO2 levels: http://static.berkeleyearth.org/...nnouncement-jul-29-12.pdf

quote:

---

Berkeley Earth compared the shape of the gradual rise over 250 years to simple math functions (exponentials, polynomials) and to solar activity (known through historical records of sunspot numbers), and even to rising functions such as world population.

Richard Muller, Founder and Scientific Director of Berkeley Earth, notes “Much to my surprise, by far the best match was to the record of atmospheric carbon dioxide, measured from atmospheric samples and air trapped in polar ice.”

---

I see some similarity between his graph of temps and sunspot activity surrounding the Dalton Minimum.

Oh yes! Much nicer with the white background. Thanks!

marc9000 writes: ... But here are a few questions that I've asked that haven't been addressed yet, very basic ones that any honest global warming advocate should be able to easily answer; Message 9 I take it you don't drive a car or ride a bus much. What fuel is used to heat your home? Is there anything YOU can do personally to combat global warming? a similar one; Message 15 How guilty do you think YOU are about global warming?

These aren't questions for "honest global warming advocates". They're questions by dishonest global warming deniers. Like that Oregon Petition, you, and most deniers, they are political tools. Their purpose is to direct attention away from the facts and avoid discussion of the science that makes their denial untenable; and to move discussion into the area of politics, which is their sole interest. They deny global warming because their political ideologies and political talking heads tell them they should deny it, science be damned.

And these aren't "very basic" questions at all. The most basic questions are, of course:

Do you agree that Earth is warming more quickly that it naturally might?
and
Do you agree that man is contributing to this unnatural warming?

These are the basic questions that honest global warming skeptics ask themselves and then ask of science.

These are not questions that global warming deniers ask themselves. They've been told the correct answers and given tools, like the specious arguments you've given us, for maintaining their supposed correctness despite the science.

We've shown you science's answers: Yes and Yes. You've only shown us those denial devices: attempts to distort, misrepresent, ignore, or deny the body of science on the subject. Devices like this one ...

marc9000 writes: But the following one is the most important one; Message 25 What is the difference between climate change and global warming?

and

marc9000 writes: Charlie Daniels writes: Now the name of the “problem” has been changed from “global warming” to “climate change,” an innocuous title that can be stretched in either direction to accommodate a record snowfall or a record heat wave and any of the numerous natural geological anomalies can be incorporated into the catch all "climate change".

In their most general usage in science, climate change is change in one or more climatic regions of Earth; and global warming is an increase in the overall average surface temperature of Earth. Both refer to long-term multi-decadal trends.

In the context of any specific paper their meanings may be more specific. But nowadays each term can generally be appended with "... as a result of the activities of man."

Here's NASA's take on it: http://pmm.nasa.gov/...name-global-warming-vs-climate-change

In the media as in politics, each term can be appended with "... as a result of the activities of man", or redefined as "a hoax by liberals to destroy America and make Al Gore rich" or some other politically obsessed Limbaugh-esque collection of cliches.

It's clear both terms have been used in the science literature for at least 65 years. It's hard to pin down exactly which came first in the context of the CWP (current warming period). Would it really matter? First it was the atomic bomb, then the A bomb and H bomb, then a nuclear weapon, and then a weapon of mass destruction. Would any sane person point to these changes in terminology and infer that these things don't actually explode?

So far you've answered none of the serious (non-snarky) questions that myself or others have put to you regarding your stance on the science supporting global warming. The honest global warming "advocates" here have taken the time to show you evidence that refutes your arguments. Rather than defend your arguments against the evidence, you've simply replied with other easily refuted arguments or political chit-chat.

It's difficult for me to conceive of an "honest global warming denier". At best, it's someone who is unaware he has been duped by the propaganda machines that promote denial or has been fooled by trusted persons who themselves may have been fooled. But an "honest denier" would be capable of seeing that most or all the deniers' tools, tricks, and devices are designed to deceive people rather than inform them.

So my question to you is Do you recognize that any of the arguments you've made here are illogical, deceptive, or fallacious? An "honest denier" would have to concede: Yes.

marc9000 writes: What Daniels wrote was not science, and not intended to be taken as science. Let's run through it all;

Why run through any of it? Charlie asserts that he knows better than science, using only the Bible and similar lame-o arguments as you have here. He could have denied that the Earth goes around the Sun using similar methods.

marc9000 writes: Now type the words "Wedge Document" into a search. It was STOLEN in exactly the same way as those [climategate] emails ...

The Wedge Document was leaked. Try a web search on "wedge document leaked". Someone shared it with someone who ratted-out the Discovery Institute. No one voluntarily shared those emails. If I am trusted with a top-secret document and hand it over to you, you didn't steal it.

marc9000 writes: ... It's not science, when people notice the double standards, the hypocrisy

No. It's not science. Anyone who thinks the difference between stolen and shared is a double standard has some serious moral issues.

marc9000 writes: It's not science to realize that the temperature in the midwest U.S., where I live, varies by about 110 degrees F. in any one year. (extremes of about 10 below, to 100 above.)

That is science, whether you used reports from meteorological services (scientific organizations) or your backyard thermometer (a scientific instrument). You even used science (mathematics) to calculate the span of temperatures too. You're so deep in denial of science that you even deny that science is science!

marc9000 writes: the scientific community has falsified some data, as has been proven.

Show us proof that it has been proved. All you have are denier gossip mills, same as the ones that tried (and failed) to find any real dirt in those emails.

"Falsified" is just denier-speak for adjusted.

Suppose a weather station between points A, B, C and D begins consistently delivering readings 7F higher than the average of those other four, yet had never previously been so out of sync. It's certain that the stations' instruments are malfunctioning. You can either throw out the readings or apply some statistics to reconstruct its probable reading, based on its historic comparisons of its temps with those of neighboring stations.

A ship's log records a series of noontime temps as 66.2, 66.0, 67.7, 669, 67.5, and 65.9. Changing the 669 to 66.9 is faking the data, according to deniers.

There is a continuing effort to improve the accuracy of weather station data, past and present. Sometime stations are upgraded, and in the process it's discovered that they had been slightly over- or under-stating temps for some time. So, an estimate of the previous errors is calculated and historical records are updated to reflect reality more accurately.

A summary of NOAA's methods is here: www.ncdc.noaa.gov/...ferences/faq/temperature-monitoring.php

All if this is data quality assurance. Deniers call it fraud and falsifying the data.

If these adjustments aren't made, the denier meme machine screams, "Why don't you adjust historical data when there's reason to believe there are inaccuracies?!"

That's the way it goes with all conspiracy theorists. They force all facts to fit their delusions. It's no different with this hoax about there being a global warming hoax.

marc9000 writes: quote: They don't tell you that the Global Historical Climate Network, a U.S. Government entity, has been adjusting the temperature findings to reflect a warming trend. Proven by Paul Homewood, who recorded the actual temperatures in several locations and found them to reflect different numbers than the ones reported by the GHCN.

Homewood didn't record any temperatures. It's just another sensationalist blogger generating hits by turning on conspiracy theorists. Some of the facts can be found here: http://mediamatters.org/...hain-conservative-media-ru/202469

marc9000 writes: My suspicion is, (that I"ve mentioned earlier in this thread) is that global warming advocates never feel that they themselves are part of the problem.

I can't speak for everyone, but it's perfectly obvious to me that everyone who burns fossil fuels, directly or indirectly, is part of the problem. The only way to utterly avoid it is to hike naked into a forest and become a survivalist/hunter-gatherer for the rest of your life. And even then, according to you, you'd still be adding to the problem every time you exhaled, belched or farted.

So, no matter what anyone's response, you can call them a hypocrite for accepting global warming and believing we should try to do something about it.

Another way to be a part of the problem is to vigorously and publicly deny there's a problem, and spread disinformation about the existence of the problem to support other people's denial of it - like you and Charlie Daniels. And this gets back to my original reply to you. It's pointless to discuss blame or solutions to the problem with someone who is in denial of the problem.

marc9000 writes: Global warming was not presented to the general public before the 1990's . ... So you see, global warming got, and continues to get, ALL of it's attention because of politics ...

It's true that few people seemed to care much about it until around the time that Gore sounded the alarm. (BTW, I would agree that "An Inconvenient Truth" is a sensationalist piece of trash. I blame him for a good part of the political polarization that has followed.) However, for those who don't have a stake in denying it, it gets its attention because of the probable consequences of ignoring it.

marc9000 writes: ... since implied remedies for it consist mainly of punishing the successful, to "remedy disparities of power and opportunity.

The main thrust of most proposed solutions has been to conserve energy and rely less on fossil fuel energy, and to accomplish it using personal choices, technology, and government incentives. Carbon taxes at the pump, for example, "punish" the poor as much or more than the successful. According to ultra-cons, every penny the government spends to protect the environment or benefit society is "redistribution of wealth". Redistribution is indeed occurring. The 1% keep getting richer and the other 99% get poorer.

marc9000 writes: Fred Singer is probably to global warming what Michael Behe is (was) to biology.

Hahahaha! Good analogy! Interesting how you need to cite fringe scientists on both fronts, and then pretend that they've "refuted" all the others. It's yet another hallmark of conspiracy theorists.

marc9000 writes: Politics IS involved, isn't it?

Indeed it is. It gets involved in almost everything. But it doesn't change facts.

marc9000 writes: quote: Homewood had in fact uncovered yet another example of the thousands of pieces of evidence coming to light in recent years that show that something very odd has been going on with the temperature data...

Something very odd is that Homewood (supposedly) visited the 4 main reporting stations in Paraguay to retrieve the historical raw data, although it's available at the GHCN website and would have shown the very same adjustments that he noted. This isn't "evidence coming to light". It's sensationalist spin. A single station provides thousands of pieces of data "evidence". He's going to have to pick a lot more cherries before he can claim a genuine conspiracy or reveals his cherry-picking methodology.

marc9000 writes: The U.S Department of Commerce? Could it be..........POLITICS?

I'm not DENYing that politics has gotten involved. I'm saying that you're arguing from consequences; that you're denying the facts because of their political consequences.

marc9000 writes: There are no explosions going on with global warming

True. There are only relatively unsensational warning signs at the moment: slowly rising global temps, slowly rising sea levels, slowly melting glaciers, somewhat more severe droughts and storm surges. But all are happening at an increasing pace. Only a fool would ignore the signs and write them off as politics.

marc9000 writes: They [global warming advocates] haven't taken much time [to answer your questions], it's all out there to copy/paste. Posting charts and graphs and numbers that I have no way of knowing how accurate they are.

Yes, you do have a way of knowing. But it takes time and effort. Check out Muller's site at http://berkeleyearth.org. He does all he can to cut through the crap for you, and explain how he too distrusted the data, and then took a long hard look at it, picking it to pieces. The stuff we've been posting is about the same as what he concluded.

glowby writes: according to you, you'd still be adding to the problem every time you exhaled, belched or farted. marc9000 writes: it seems to be according to the scientific studies about it

Show us a study that says (or implies) that human bodily functions have contributed significantly to the enormous amounts of CO2 we now have in our atmosphere. And please, don't just show us another blogger's or celebrity's spin on it.

It seems that all studies, taken together, leave no doubt that we have extra CO2 in the atmosphere because we've dug and pumped carbon out of the ground and burned it. This is carbon that Earth has kept locked away for millions of years, and could never have been put into the air without our burning massive quantities of it.

Ice cores, tree rings, corals, and ocean chemistry all show that beginning with the industrial revolution, when we started burning fossil fuels, more and more of our air contains CO2, and more and more of that CO2 is from fossil fuels.

To demand a full and precise accounting of CO2 generated from each and every natural source, as a condition to accepting that we're generating huge amounts of it unnaturally, like I implied earlier, is just a lame dodge. If it's winter and your house suddenly gets cold, do you deny that an open door or window could be the cause, and insist it might only be a bad gasket on the refrigerator. If your checkbook's balance is heading toward zero, do you demand an detailed accounting of how much salt, pepper, and flour you're using before you accept that it could be those monthly payments on your new sports car?

marc9000 writes: My reasons for entering this thread are in my first substantial, yet brief, opening Message 8. There were no responses to that particular message, and it's very telling that of all 11, (count em, 11) of my opponents, not a single one of them has agreed with me that "doing something" about global warming involves politics and ethics, not necessarily science.

Well, I agree that "doing something" involves politics and ethics, and it MUST necessarily involve science if we are to deal with the problem effectively. What problem? No problem, according to you. You deny it. You have no sincere interest in dealing with the problem. You seem only interested in dealing with the politics, which themselves are based on denial of the problem. That's why I, personally, avoid replying to the political fluff in your messages.

marc9000 writes: What you consider to be a denial could just be more a case of priorities...

No. It's plain and simple denial. You deny that global warming is happening. You deny that man is causing it. Global warming is a fact. The evidence of man's involvement is overwhelming.

marc9000 writes: ...Some people, (many millions actually) believe that a U.S. or worldwide financial crash could be much more costly ... Or a germ warfare attack ...

... and there are dozens of other costly and deadly threats to the world as well. Global warming is one of them. Explain how the existence of other threats justifies denying this one. Is it because the other potential threats seem more imminent? Global warming is an inevitable threat if we do nothing. At least we have some control over global warming. We caused it. We can put the brakes on it.

marc9000 writes: What specifically, (basically, briefly) did Gore do that you don't agree with?

It's hard to be specific and also basic and brief at the same time! Specifically and briefly, he highlighted individual extreme weather events as evidence for global warming. Only extended patterns of extremes are meaningful. Basically, he talks like a politician. I reflexively distrust them.

marc9000 writes: I posted the following link earlier, there were no comments. ... [list of possible benefits of global warming]... Does something like this get any kind of thoughtful consideration by the scientific community, or is it automatically dismissed, for political reasons?

You deny GW is real. Why do you think its possible benefits could be real?

I'm not saying we should do it, but it would be fun to dissect each of the 10 supposed benefits in that list. I can only identify 3 that aren't fallacious, misleading, miniscule or self-evident.

Anyway, yes, it gets considerable consideration, but it's generally too soon to know how individual (regional) climates will be affected long-term. Whether a region's new climate gets "better" or "worse", adapting to the new system will be costly. And of course, "under water" is an intractable problem for human beings, many of whom live on coasts and none of whom have gills. Either way, Earth's ecosystems and wildlife will take an enormous hit. Yeah sure, they'll get over it eventually if we let them, but not for hundreds or thousands of years or more, if ever.

marc9000 writes: Just what a "fact" is can be hard to define.

No. It's not that hard to define. That hockey stick you deny - it's facts. It's a picture of data. Data is fact. You deny it. The hard part is justifying denial of it. We see you struggling.

marc9000 writes: There have always been plenty of scientific predictions about climate change (warming and cooling) that turned out to not be factual.

Predictions and forecasts are by definition never factual. They are estimates of future events. They are always presented with percents of probabilities and ranges of possible outcomes. Most of the IPCC's predictions (from the earliest reports) have turned out to be within forecasted ranges. Some overestimated the warming, melting, and sea level rise. Some underestimated them.

So what's your point? If the weatherman predicts a 90% chance of rain this coming Saturday and Sunday, you'd put off that picnic despite the fact that he predicted only a 30% chance last Tuesday but it rained most of the day.

Be honest. Please.

marc9000 writes: The scientific community needs to learn that there are consequences to making wrong predictions.

No. You need to learn that there are consequences to ignoring reality by pretending that reasonable estimates of future conditions are "factual" things, and that they must be absolutely right or wrong. If your mechanic tells you that your bald tire will probably blow out in a week or two, but it takes a whole month, was he "wrong" that you needed a new tire? Do you blame him for being in on a conspiracy to sell you tires?

glowby writes: Yes, you do have a way of knowing [the science]. But it takes time and effort. marc9000 writes: I'll try to do that when I get time. But I have no way of knowing just what his part is in the $22 Billion dollars the taxpayers provide annually for this political movement.

You've got the time. You study the political spin religiously. That's how you deliver us these half-assed half-baked political memes, like "$22 Billion dollars ... for this political movement", instead of solid factual knowledge of the subject. Can you explain exactly where each of those $22 billion comes from? Where each one goes? No? If not, doesn't that mean we should deny that any money has changed hands at all? Does it mean you can deny that taxes are collected and spent?

I'm not denying that a lot of money is spent. I don't need to. I'm not a denier.

There's an amusing dissection of Tom Luongo's scam tactics here: http://environmentalforest.blogspot.com/...bout-climate.html

glowby writes: You deny GW is real. marc9000 writes: I don't deny that it's real.

Then why do you post arguments denying it's real?: Message 15, Message 24, Message 25, Message 27, Message 36, Message 42, Message 49, Message 91. Most of your other comments attempt to cast spurious doubt on the science, like the old denier stand-by, "Scientists get paid, therefore they're dishonest." Message 103

Are we to assume that you are now convinced that GW is real?

marc9000 writes: What suggestions do you have?

I suggest that you use facts and evidence to decide whether GW is real, rather than blindly accepting the words of the politicians to whom you're devoted. I also suggest you stop complaining that politics has gotten involved in the issue while at the same time emulating politicians with statements like this...

marc9000 writes: Fossil fuels seem to be the target.

Seem to be? It has made headlines over and over. Fossil fuel use is the cause of the problem. Of course it's the primary target.

marc9000 writes: What steps should be taken to cut back their use? ... I'd like to see you list and justify actions to remedy it.

Summarized nicely by jar in Message 102 and Message 110, and Pressie in Message 108, and others.

marc9000 writes: Do any of your proposals NOT involve politics?

The main proposal I've made to you is to stop denying global warming exists. But in your case it involves only politics. Your denial is inspired by your political affiliation which demands that you deny.

marc9000 writes: How would we measure your proposals effectiveness?

My proposal, if implemented, could be considered effective if you stop denying global warming. It could only be measured by some admission on your part that you're wrong. I don't think this can happen. You're too deeply invested in being "right", politically and personally.

marc9000 writes: Full and precise accountings will have to be a part of actions to reduce man-made CO2.

No, best estimates will have to do. We have reasonable estimates of fossil fuels consumed and CO2 generated by industry, transportation, etc, in every developed country, country by country. We can measure the amount of man-made CO2 that ends up in the atmosphere too. It would be irresponsible to delay action because we haven't measured the gas passed from every gnat's ass.

marc9000 writes: I don't see any way of dealing with it that won't cause far more problems than will ever be solved.

Of course you don't. You deny that there is any problem. Any solution would seem more problematic. I don't see how dealing with it could possibly cause more problems than it solves. Money spent now will lessen money spent later to deal with the consequences. It's similar to maintaining your home or car or health. You let them go to hell, there's hell to pay later.

marc9000 writes: So how can the problem be dealt with, without politics being involved?

It can't be. Sure, we can make some choices in personal lifestyle that consume less energy from fossil fuels, but it's not enough. We need an infrastructure that depends very little on these fuels. Individuals can't accomplish this. Plus, there are many individuals, like you, whose politics and peers demand that they deny the problem, and denigrate those who accept it. They can't accept it for fear of being ostracized from their group.

It's a global problem, therefore it's an international problem. Nations have governments. Governments have politics. It's naive and stupid to suppose that governments shouldn't get involved. They are charged with protecting the interests of their citizens and developing infrastructure. This issue demands that they do their jobs.

marc9000 writes: If there is a financial meltdown ...

Every financial meltdown to date has been caused by the bad economic and financial policies of governments and financial institutions. Whatever stresses mitigation programs add to the world's economies will be compensated by minimizing future stresses associated with the consequences of the warming like coastal flooding, and changing or disappearing agricultural areas.

marc9000 writes: My point is that "doing something about" or "putting the brakes on" global warming involves actions that ALWAYS have costs. If those actions are based on "estimates of future events" that turn out to be wrong, what assurances do we have that the incorrect estimators will pay those costs? None? Be honest, please.

My point is that doing nothing will be more costly in the long run.

Suppose you cancel your trip to Bermuda at the last minute because the weathermen say there's a 90% chance that a hurricane will hit it, and you re-book a week later at a higher price. The hurricane misses the island. The meteorologists had very good reason to believe it would hit, but it didn't. Would you demand compensation from them? Would you consider your re-booking to have been a bad idea.

Projections of future warming could indeed turn out to be very wrong. All it would take is a few truly enormous volcanic eruptions to hit the brakes and put things in reverse ... for a while. If it occurs, it wouldn't mean climatologists were wrong. It would mean that we'd been bought a little more time. And after that time, when the ash has settled, we could have an even worse problem if these volcanoes had generated enough CO2.

marc9000 writes: I also easily see how science is controlled by liberalism and atheism.

... except when doesn't conflict with your ideological extremism. When a new cancer treatment or better weapon technology is developed, you never say, "Oh, those damn godless liberals are at it again!"

But guess what? Galileo and Darwin were right, despite the "right" denying it. You can't whine the facts away with global warming either.

marc9000 writes: ... a temperature increase of 1 DEGREE OVER 50 YEARS!!! HELLO!!!! IS ANYBODY HOME???? ... I know what 1 degree C. is. I know how long 50 years is ... (Message 25) Yes, 2.5 degrees over 50 years.

Actually the change was about 0.6 C (1 F) over 50 years.

So, what is it you know? Are you talking 50 years US or metric?

marc9000 writes: quote: NASA GISS data show that the world warmed by 0.56ºC (1.01ºF) since 1979. That is 2.8x larger than the 0.36ºF figure that Luongo cites. .56 degrees as opposed to Luongo's claim of .36???? WOW, what a shocking difference!!!!!!!

Marc, you really need to pay attention to your Cs and Fs. Read what you quoted. It's 1.01 F as opposed to 0.36 F. Yes, its shocking. It's dishonest too.

marc9000 writes: quote: he starts his graph at 1998 and ends at 2014, which is 16 years, not the 17 years he claims. WHAT A HUGE DIFFERENCE!!!!! Hahahaha - thanks for the amusement!

Big lies, little lies. 280% lies, 6% lies. These lies and all his others have one clear purpose: to deceive.

So, is that all you got out of that article? That one of his lies seemed small? If your date told you she was 17 instead of 16, you'd might consider it a very big lie (in 16 states). Would you tell the judge, "Hahahaha - thanks for the amusement!"

marc9000 writes: But I'm more amused at Al Gore's tactics over the years, or by the fact that so many liberals automatically accept it without question;

I'm amused and baffled why you complain about politics getting involved in the issue, but exclusively refer to political tabloids and bloggers rather than scientific sources. Why would it surprise you that many people accept GW without question. You deny it without question and are forced to go through all kinds of deceitful gymnastics to maintain your position. Virtually all climate scientists say it's so. It's reasonable to accept the consensus view on science.

quote:

---

Coleman says his side of the global-warming debate is being buried in mainstream media circles.

---

Maybe if he were some kind of expert on the matter or had some original research or something, John Coleman would get some attention. But he's just another wacko conspiracy theorist. It isn't just mainstream media that ignores him. Mainstream climate "skeptics" don't seem very interested in his spiel either.

Using just a piece of info that you yourself presented here (1.01 F change in global temps over 50 years), we can see that he has no idea what he's talking about...

quote:

---

"As you look at the atmosphere over the last 25 years, there's been perhaps a degree of warming, perhaps probably a whole lot less than that, and the last year has been so cold that that's been erased," he said.

---

Perhaps probably? Whether he's talking about a quarter or a full degree, there was never a single year with such a change!

You keep insisting we all address your questions. You haven't yet replied to these questions:

glowby writes: Do you agree that Earth is warming more quickly that it naturally might? and Do you agree that man is contributing to this unnatural warming? marc9000 writes: I do not, as it was refuted in the year 2000, to a very comparable degree that Piltdown man was refuted in 1953. You deny it's real. marc9000 writes: I don't deny that it's real, I deny that there's anything humans can do about it.

And in this latest reply you deny GW once again. What's your position now?

Message 21: Can you tell us what bias or subjectivity in particular was used in Muller's work?
Message 21: If you wanted to detect whether you are coming down with a fever today, would you need to see records from when you were an infant?
Message 48: First it was the atomic bomb, then the A bomb and H bomb, then a nuclear weapon, and then a weapon of mass destruction. Would any sane person point to these changes in terminology and infer that these things don't actually explode?
Message 93: Can you explain exactly where each of those $22 billion [global warming costs] comes from? Where each one goes? No? If not, doesn't that mean we should deny that any money has changed hands at all? Does it mean you can deny that taxes are collected and spent?

Message 48: Do you recognize that any of the arguments you've made here are illogical, deceptive, or fallacious?

Re: Message 21: Or are you just throwing shit against the wall to see what sticks?
Never mind. You've already answered.

marc9000 writes: glowby writes: I suggest that you use facts and evidence to decide whether GW is real, rather than blindly accepting the words of the politicians to whom you're devoted. That's not what I was asking, and you know it.

You asked about my proposals. I have one: understand the science instead of simply denying it based on your politics.

The ideas about measuring success and remedial actions are by jar and others, to whom you should reply instead.

marc9000 writes: Other than the voluntary ones that some of the others listed which most seem to agree will accomplish very little, the "continue to legislate" ones ALL involve politics.

That's right, and they necessarily involve politics for the reasons I mentioned. Don't like politics? OK. Go find someplace without a government. Good luck!

marc9000 writes: glowby writes: My proposal, if implemented, could be considered effective if you stop denying global warming. It could only be measured by some admission on your part that you're wrong. So you won't specify what it is, and it's measurement would be successful if people like me would just stop questioning it and start trusting you?

I'm talking to you, marc. I'm suggesting to you that you understand the science instead of simply denying it based on your politics. Try employing your own powers of learning and reasoning instead of simply trusting your political party's spin on the issue. You hate politics? OK. Then stop taking politicians' words as gospel.

marc9000 writes: glowby writes: We have reasonable estimates of fossil fuels consumed and CO2 generated by industry, transportation, etc, in every developed country, country by country. How about a link to that? A country by country list ...?

http://en.wikipedia.org/...tries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions
http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EG.USE.COMM.FO.ZS

There are many more corroborating sources, if you look.

Did it ever occur to you to do a search on "CO2 emissions by country" or "fossil fuel consumption by country"? I don't believe you're that helpless. Is there some kind of filter on your browser? Are you afraid to learn something contrary to what you believe? What's the deal, marc?

marc9000 writes: 4 days ago, 100+ year old LOW temp records were being broken in my area, and other areas of the U.S. Different people have different ideas of what problems are.

Indeed they do. And if any of them thinks the temp in their back yard is a good measure of the Earth's average temp, then they are just plain stupid. Do you suggest we base science and policy on the opinions of stupid people?

marc9000 writes: I said 1 degree in 50 years. 0.6 C rounded off is one degree. 1 F is one degree.

Explain how rounding up from Celsius, adding 67% to its value, is a valid way to arrive at the equivalent Fahrenheit. You were pantsed, dude. At this point you're just bringing more attention to your naughty bits.

marc9000 writes: Why don't you knock off with the "glowby" crap, Razd, and use just one name?

That's the nicest thing anyone has ever said to me here!

Stephen Colbert had a similar gag:

The current research dismisses a number of possible natural processes, some of which are terrestrial and others which are not.

What processes are those? Is there any reason to believe that any have changed significantly during the last 150 years?

I realize that you accept AGW but you're spinning things in a very similar way as deniers do.

...I know that there are non-human weather patterns that take up decades.

Climate scientists know this too. People's vague impression of these patterns is due to their work. They've been unable to identify any pattern that can account for the current warming nor any effects that are now manifesting themselves from any such pattern.

Solar activity cycles are decades long.

Except for the sunspot cycle of 11 yrs or so, all are much MUCH longer. None are reliably periodic. There's little reason to think these cycles could make climate turn on a dime, as it is now, and if this were occurring, solar or cosmic changes would be unmistakable. This smacks of the deniers' "It's the Sun, stupid!" argument. Total solar irradiance is slightly down for the last few decades. We should be cooling very slightly, if it's the Sun.

It's not the sun.

Not only that, but the earth is a big, complex place.

Another denier favorite. Unless every mechanism of cause and effect in climate can be understood to the Nth degree, there's no way of knowing how much (or IF) man is having an effect. Deniers of tobacco's dangers used similar ploys. In both manufactured debates, science knew more than enough to make assessments of the dangers. Rational amateurs were able to understand.

We should expect that effects lag behind their causes for substantial amounts of time.

This seems to builds off the solar/cosmic Mystery Cause(s) that deniers suggest but can't identify, and believe that the world of science is willfully oblivious to or hiding from us.

The point is not that AGW is not the correct conclusion, but rather that climate science is not for amateurs or armchair quarterbacks.

Agreed. But virtually none of modern science is for amateurs. The disparity of understanding between your average guy and science is only made an issue when people need to deny science. No one is going to, for example, release a helium balloon on the floor of the senate, in order to contest the scientific basis of theories of gravity. There's no money or power to be gained or lost by accepting the scientific consensus.

Although the nitty-gritty nuts and bolts of climate science are way over the head of the average guy, it isn't that hard to understand the summarized views that have come about over the generations. I gathered the science for my counter-arguments above from an armchair. (Actually a swiveling desk chair. No arms.).

Neither is it hard to see when science is being challenged for ideological rather than technical reasons. It seems that some of the points you've tried to make here have been influenced by the industrial and political forces that are battling climate science. Or at least, you've adopted a slanted view toward climate science in particular that deniers take advantage of in many people.

But some people today demand political action against a neighbor or company that's "polluting"

Yes, of course. People have always done that. If a neighbor won't stop crapping and pissing in his yard, or in yours, you're going to demand action from local authorities. If there are no ordinances against it, you should demand political action.

Carbon emissions are crap we've been throwing into the atmosphere for generations, but only recently realized the consequences of doing it. It's the same as other garbage. We have to deal with it: Flush it, take it to the curb or dump, hire a collection service, and easiest of all - not make so much of it. Because we haven't disposed of CO2 properly, it's making problems for the entire planet; ourselves and our neighbors included.

Yes, it infringes on our neighbor's liberty if we demand he use a toilet instead of our yards. I suppose it's kind of fun to relieve yourself outdoors and it saves a little on the water bill. But even if his yard is downwind, would you defend his "liberty" from "political action"?