You’re trolling again.

Humanity will have to become considerably more powerful to affect a multi-billion year old global cycle either negatively or positively.

Getting everyone to reduce, reuse and recycle will solve the immediate (and solvable) problem of us living in our own waste products.

Well, I have to ask, what can we do about climate change? The issue Al Gore harps on is CO2 emissions, his big battle is reducing the ‘carbon footprint’ of everything, because he and his camp believe the CO2 emissions (specifically man-made) are a major source of global warming.

So when you bring up deforestation, topsoil erosion, local pollution, etc etc, I have to stop you and say “I agree with most of that”. I agree that conservation of arable land is important. I agree that water supplies should be protected. What I don’t agree with is that lifestyle changes should be imposed on the basis of the very contentious idea that anything that emits CO2 is bad. (We emit C02, animals, insects, etc) As other posters have noted, Al Gore branded “climate change” brushes over what I and many others believe are more pressing ecological issues.

That is all.

Which is more likely: that humans will adapt to whatever climate changes happen, or that people will voluntarily cripple themselves, technologically?

I don’t watch FOX news anymore, but I used to hear a lot of opposing theories about global warming there. I guess its more of that “us against them,” mindset that prompts me to say some of this stuff. I relate it to the Mac vs Windows arguments I’ve taken part in on different sites. Its a reflex action I guess – I mean, I know Macs are generally better than Microsoft computers, but I hate the Mac fanboys so much – I just like trying to piss them off.

I’ll keep trying to work on this problem.

“Al Gore is fat!!”

That’s about all the substance they have. They seem to think if they just keep repeating the same lies over and over reality will change. It won’t.

There were a lot on the right claiming McCain was going to win, “he may even already be ahead!!1101!!” (true quote) He wasn’t and he didn’t.

It follows the same pattern in many areas, science, economics, law, even politics itself. There is a kind of deep ignorance combined with gung-ho boosterism and a total inability to ever admit you’re wrong.

We have a word for species that use such a strategy – extinct.

I know the oil industry has deep pockets, but still, that’s an awful lot of industry shills.

http://www.petitionproject.org/
http://www.oism.org/pproject/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming

I don’t have the scientific credentials to seriously argue the issue. All I am arguing is that the debate is not 100% closed.

It’s also important to realize that economic incentives for scientists go both ways: some might be receiving oil and coal industry dollars, others might be receiving government or U.N. dollars or have staked their careers on it. Either type of influence should be see as reducing the ojectivity of their findings.

Articles like this one are at least as convincing as anything I have read from the pro-global warming side.

http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=010405M

As a side note, it is surprising that Al Gore is still considered a credible figure considering some of the glaring inaccuracies in the movie, which were highlighted by a recent court case in Britain. There are several of them, but the most forehead-slapping is the claim that “resident of south pacific islands have had to flee to New Zealand.” Only problem is, this apparently hasn’t ever actually happened. No native islanders have ever had to flee to NZ because of rising ocean levels. There are quite a few websites detailing inaccuracies like this, but even this one is quite an oversight for an Academy Award winning documentary.

The problem is that none of these scientists mentioned in the petition or listed on wikipedia have put together a peer-reviewed paper supporting their view that global warming is not man made and providing an alternate theory. All these scientists can have whatever opinion they want, but without any research or data to back it up, it’s quite meaningless.

From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change
A 2004 article by geologist and historian of science Naomi Oreskes summarized a study of the scientific literature on climate change. The essay concluded that there is a scientific consensus on the reality of anthropogenic climate change. The author analyzed 928 abstracts of papers from refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, listed with the keywords “global climate change”. Oreskes divided the abstracts into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. 75% of the abstracts were placed in the first three categories, thus either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, thus taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change; none of the abstracts disagreed with the consensus position, which the author found to be “remarkable”. According to the report, “authors evaluating impacts, developing methods, or studying paleoclimatic change might believe that current climate change is natural. However, none of these papers argued that point.

Since then I’ve yet to hear of any peer-reviewed papers that provide an alternate view and I imagine had such a paper been published, the oil industry and conservatives would have jumped all over it. Not to mention any scientist who could provide such papers, would get huge financial support from oil industry and other carbon heavy industries.

So what we do have is a constant growing number of peer-reviewed papers and studies that support the view that global warming is made made. And the other side of the “debate” are some scientists who disagree, but aren’t willing or are not capable of putting together a peer-reviewed paper to prove their point. Because if they want support their view, this is the only way to add to the scientific conversation. If they can start providing research poking big holes in the research that global warming is not man-made, or providing any alternate theories, then we would start approaching something of a scientific debate on the issue.

However, that’s not the case and from the deniers side we mainly get the same talking points that provide disinformation more than anything.

Here’s a very long list of a lot of those talking points or so called hard questions, with them being refuted with all sorts of references in their arguement:
http://gristmill.grist.org/skeptics
Also all of these refuted claims have comments in which people can debate certain specifics. Unfortunately as it is with this subject, the “debate” is more often a flame war than anything.

That’s what we’ve done through the many ice ages and heat cycles we’ve endured so far; that’s what we’ll do in future ice ages and heat cycles.

Anyway, I just LOVE when issues of science become embedded in party identity.. it really makes me smile when I read commenters like #37, who think that because there is a media shitstorm of “unequivocal” consensus that the debate is settled. Even in this day and age, believe it not, you still have to meet the standards of scientific rigor.. which man-made global warming, as a theory or even a hypothesis, has not.

There were very few scientists who espoused the beliefs of An Inconvenient Truth before it started making headlines, and a whole slew of top name scientists who made very strong cases as to why we should remain skeptical of those claims when it did start influencing policy.

One by one Al Gore and his ‘scientist’ cronies slimed their skeptics, put pressure on respectable institutions who refused to sign on board immediately, and ridiculed those who dared question their rhetoric. This whole issue has become a modern day crusade, where demagogues like Gore have drowned out all the good scientists who dared to raise a finger and say “wait a minute, the jury is not out yet.”. History will look back on this issue with the same kind of shame with which we view McCarthy’s red-scare.

Take a minute to really have a hard look at the science of this issue (read “The Skeptical Environmentalist” by Bjørn Lomborg) and take a deep breath. This isn’t a party issue, this is bigger than that.

“Man is definitely causing global warming”

Skeptic: “Okay, what are your sources?”

AGW: “Well, these Vostok ice-core samples seem to show that with an increase in CO2, temperature increases. And we definitely increase CO2!”

Skeptic: “Wait a minute, this graph looks suspiciously as though CO2 increase lags behind temperature, which would mean that as temperature increases, CO2 follows. Also man-made CO2 accounts for a very small percentage of the CO2 cycle.”

AGW: “Denier, philistine, shill!”

Skeptic: “…”

Regardless of apocalyptic climate change’s validity, there is reason enough to end fossil fuel use and promote efficient use of resources. The geopolitical reasons alone would be a great benefit to the world.

As yet, I’ve seen no politician or climate scientist put their ass on the line and tell the world it’s time to grow up, and fix the world, their corporate backers would ruin them if they did.

It’s time to put the petty bullshit over who is right or wrong aside, and start realizing that much can be done if we stop worrying about what it’ll cost, and who can profit from it. Or is it not enough that all of mankind can reap the rewards of abundant energy, a healthy environment, excellent education, health care for all, and enough work for everyone?

I’m not clear that we are in some kind of agreement. I’m hearing skepticism of the reality and the cause. How can you reach a solution if one doesn’t understand the cause? If global warming is caused by the sun as some would have it then we need a completely different solution than if it is caused by man.

Fortunately, the Know-Nothing Party of the Unusual Suspect is dead and soon to be buried. No one wants to listen to their idiocy any more and they’ll soon fade and find their place in the dustbin of history.

Ok, ya got me. Raging liberal social dems can also be idiotic denialists.

you still have to meet the standards of scientific rigor.. which man-made global warming, as a theory or even a hypothesis, has not.

Citation needed. Really, at this point in time you’ve made several bald faced assertions without the slightest facts to back them up. Please do so now.

There were very few scientists who espoused the beliefs of An Inconvenient Truth before it started making headlines

This is false. I was well aware of the current scientific opinons before “An Inconvenient Truth”. The consensus was overwhelmingly in favor long before Al Gore came along. Over the years the facts have never really changed all that much.

Bjørn Lomborg? His Phd is in what? Oh! I see, political science. Hummmm doop de doop let’s look at what a real scientist has to say.

The Copenhagen Consensus.
Lomborg has a knack of putting the problem in perspective – if the past climate change really was not by far as bad as the two world wars, it doesn’t mean that climate change is unimportant (compared to the Big Bang, nothing seems important, not even HIV/AIDS…). And 50 years ago, I think it’s fair to state that most people didn’t think that HIV/AIDS was important either (most people hadn’t heard of it…), but that doesn’t mean it’s unimportant now. These are some examples of rhetorical tricks he and CC use: As opposed to a wholistic solution, Lomborg presents a picture where one can applies a few fixes here and there. Thus, I think Lomborg, CC, and/or WSJ are/is sneaky and try to wrap a hidden message (that they don’t believe that climate change is important) inside another story.

And according to the website Lomborg Errors there are 319 errors in “The Skeptical Environmentalist”. Kind of a lot, but then he isn’t a climatologist. The same website also lists the errors for Al Gore’s “An Inconvient Truth”

A count of the errors gives the following result:
Al Gore´s film: 2 errors, 8 flaws, 10 in total.
Al Gore´s book: 2 errors, 11 flaws, 13 in total.
Film and book together: 2 errors, 12 flaws, 14 in total.

I think I can safely breathe now.

For the FOX-NEWS crowd: let’s say global warming isn’t man-made. So what? Neither are tornadoes, volcanoes, or planet-destroying meteors. If it’s happening, it’s happening, and we need to man up and deal with it. Thinking that’s something’s better just ’cause it’s natural is for granola-eating tree-hugging hippies. You’re supposed to be better than that.

For the granola-eating tree-hugging hippies: let’s say global warming IS, definitely for certain, man-made. So what? We can’t just stop producing CO2 right now without self-inflicting far more economic damage than global warming would if we do nothing. What will that damage BE, exactly? The seas will rise, so they tell me, but how much and how quickly? Will Denver be the last bastion of humanity, or will the Dutch add a foot on their dikes and call it a day? Is the sky going to turn red and the waters fill with blood, or will we need 5% more power for air conditioning? How much should we be looking to spend to reduce global warming’s effects by 10%? How much are our current measures helping? Costing? All we have are guesses at this point, because most everyone is going from “Global Warming!” to “Reduce the Carbons!” with nothing in between. If anyone questions that reasoning it seems they’re branded a Climate Change Denier and shunned like communist sympathizers in the Fifties. That’s the sort of thing the FOX-NEWS crowd panders to. You’re supposed to be better than that.

* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_cycle

* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planetary_engineering

Please.. You were well aware of the consensus among the same scientists who contributed to AIT. A consensus amongst climatologists who couldn’t even successfully extrapolate a correlation from THEIR OWN GRAPH is hardly reassuring. The burden of proof is not on the skeptics, but those making the claim, sadly. I can cite thousands of brilliant skeptics who point out all the glaring flaws in the Inconvenient Truth conclusion, but what would the point be? Lomborgerrors.com has already made your mind up for you.

No, you did not make it clear in the slightest. Actually, the fact that you posted the Chicken Little estimate despite knowing that it was crap is a good indication that your misdirection was deliberate. You threw the most extreme numbers you could find at me, hoping I’d bite. That’s exactly the kind of behavior you need to stop doing. It doesn’t paint a picture of a reasonable argument following rational observations, it makes you look like a single-minded reactionary freaking out about something they heard on the news. You’re doing just as much a disservice to the actual problem as the deniers you’re trying to refute. Knock it off.

What exactly is your beef? This is clearly personal for you.

Beelzebuddy, the Fox News crowd makes the connection that it definately isn’t happening but if it is there certainly isn’t anything we can do about it. Their counsel is one of complacency and despair.

What will that damage BE, exactly? The seas will rise, so they tell me, but how much and how quickly?

Well that all sort of depends but this stuff has been in the news quite a while now. It isn’t hard to find.

New Scientist:
“If we burn all the fossil fuels that are left underground, the globe will warm by an average of up to 13 °C, according to the first serious assessment of how global warming might progress beyond 2100, the normal time frame of model predictions. That will wipe out most rainforests, destroy the fertility of many soils and leave the Arctic ice-free even in midwinter. London will be as hot as Cairo – except that, along with many of today’s most populous areas, it will have been engulfed by an 11-metre rise in sea levels.”

Probably not a good idea to do that huh? James Hansen has some good resources and unlike Bjørn Lomborg is an actual climatologist. He says we have maybe 5 years at best before we reach a tipping point. After which we may be in for a 3 or 4 °C rise. Not as bad as above but not good at all.

Your Wikipedia link says:

This article lists scientists and former scientists who have stated disagreement with one or more of the principal conclusions of the mainstream scientific opinion on global warming. It should not be interpreted as a list of global warming skeptics. Inclusion is based on specific criteria that do not necessarily reflect skepticism toward climate change caused by human activity, or that such change could be large enough to be harmful.

Your other links boil down to Concerned Citizens Against Whatever and a blog with articles about how to regroup conservatives after the election. Is that really your best shot? How about providing a citation from a recognized science journal? Because those links are partisan astroturf.

For starters it would signal to me the beginning of a debate. Are you aware palindromic that you haven’t given any evidence at all? You just yell and when that doesn’t work you yell louder.

“Wait a minute, this graph looks suspiciously as though CO2 increase lags behind temperature, which would mean that as temperature increases, CO2 follows. Also man-made CO2 accounts for a very small percentage of the CO2 cycle.”

CO2 doesn’t lead, it lags

See? No name calling. But you are wrong.

(Dn’t dr cll t Glbl Wrmng — hd t chng th scrpt.)

Th Clmt Cltsts r ndstgshbl frm th Chrstn Rght n thr ntlrnc f thght tsd f dgm, b t ppsng r mrly mdrt.

Thy’ll nd p wth th sm fbls rslts ll rlgs zlts chv: wr, ntlrnc, nd rgrssv scty.

Science is a very powerful institution, yet when political figureheads twist the life out of the debate with character assassination, vitriol, and baseless claims of corporate pandering.. well, it gets me knickers in a knot, innit? Al Gore never claimed there was a debate.. he announced the debate was over, before there even was one!

If you want to tell the 3rd world they can’t use coal, or sanction their emissions, or do anything to harm the quality of life of those who aren’t struggling with the choices of “free trade” coffee but rather the choice of eating or buying medicine.. well, then you might arrive at the same place that fuels my fire. The sanctions that Kyoto and Gore’s crowd would put in place would irrevocably harm the rights of those who have not yet been given choice. This is a serious debate, and we can’t just close the book on it because one side is shouting louder than the other.