Global Warming Fact From Fiction

The positive argument

from JoeUser Forums

Dr. Guy has a recent entry where he claims there is a debate, yes a debate, about global warming. You can deny global warming if you like, but denial does not make a debate. To debate you should do more than just point to extreme behavior from the opposing viewpoint--you should also provide some justification for your own. This is difficult to do, because climate change denial is at its heart nothing but a statement of opinion that there isn't enough proof. It is an argument of negatives.

Negative Space

Global warming deniers have no evidence to support their ill formed opinion. Having little to defend themselves they attempt to draw attention to the unknown and irrelevant. Pointing out that not everything is known yet about climate change is not an argument that global warming does not exist.

Not everything is known about gravity, there are many holes and inconsistencies in grand theory. But that doesn't mean things don't fall. Electricity is both highly understood, and still vastly mysterious, but you can't deny that science and the scientific method have allowed you to be at a computer reading this.

When we want to know about things like global warming or climate change, we ask scientists. And they tell us what they know and what they don't know. The fact that they don't know something, is, again, not a direct refutation of what they do know.

So what does science say?

If any debate exists , as is Dr. Guy's main claim in my opinion, it is not among the people I would trust to know. Scientists, people who devote their lives to specifically and methodically studying the world, say global warming is real. Dr. Guy says, "there is no conclusive answer yet", but provides no evidence of that. On the contrary, all evidence points to scientists being in near agreement on the base ideas of increasing average temperature and a real human influence on that.

Even the Wiki pages discussing the "Scientific opinion on climate change" and the "Global warming controversy" are not marked as controversial, disputed, or biased in any way. The facts are in and global warming is real.

There may exist individuals who will dispute this, but no repeatable, methodologically sound experiments exist to provide any factual evidence for global warming deniers. You can find someone to say anything, as Dr. Guy demonstrates with his unsourced environmental group asking for climate change denial to be illegal, but the overwhelming scientific evidence supports the consensus among the scientific community--global warming is a real phenomena.

The evidence supporting the broad topic of global warming is based on contributions from fields such as geology, climatology, biology, archeology, and many more. The few "scientists" who deny global warming tend to come from perhaps the one field least likely to have a valid opinion on the matter, "political science". Most global warming deniers have no credentials whatsoever, and even irrelevant economic and political arguments are soundly debunked. The jury is not still out, scientific facts, empirical data(PDF), and the agreement of experts in relevant scientific fields confirm the reality of global warming.

WWJD?

There really is no serious debate among the scientific community, as my sources have shown. There does exist some debate among theologians, specifically Christians. But even among many evangelicals, the debate centers not around the reality of climate change, but around how God's word in the Bible tells us to deal with it. Does the concept of "stewardship" mean Christians should strive to protect God's gift, or do Biblical imperatives for helping the poor trump such arguments? While this may be a debate, it remains a debate of theology at best and political policy at worst. It is a debate of the response to more so than a debate about the reality of climate change.

There are many Christian deniers, of course, but they almost always resort to the negative argument and are in no position of scientific expertise to speak on scientific matters. If believers want to believe because they feel some Biblical justification, then they can debate the Biblical justification. Until they provide scientific evidence in support of their opinion, it has no bearing on the actual state of the world, and should not affect public policy.

Truth and Consequences

Pascal's Wager is not a purely logically sound argument, because in it's strict application it could apply to any fanciful notion. But, in light of the scientific proof and the theological near admission, climate change becomes an apt subject for an exploration of Pascal's base argument. Applied to global warming, Pascal's Wager might be phrased:

Considering the authority of experts--secular and sectarian--argument, the experimental supporting data, and moral motivations for accepting global warming, we are faced with an option.

Deny that it exists, do nothing, run out of oil, drive plants and animal species to extinction, and possibly ruin things so spectacularly as to wipe out humanity altogether in a horrific manner.

Or, accept that it is reality, and make efforts to protect the environment and prevent further damage in concert with a strategy to improve the standard of living for everyone economically and spiritually.

Unlike the existence of an afterlife, the fact that we are going to have kids is well established. How should we behave in this life to best deserve, receive, and achieve the spiritual reward of a better life for our descendants?

What is the point?

Dr. Guy points to an extremist view held by passionate environmentalists. First, extremists views are just that; non-reflective in many cases of the mainstream. Not only besides the point he seems to be trying to make, it also ignores the larger context in which this statement was made. Think what you may about France and Germany, but they have laws against lying and are not communist. The United States has laws against lying, such as against slander, libel, and perjury. Denial law is a current global ongoing debate, and this is an attempt to ride the bandwagon. I'm sure they appreciate the free publicity Dr. Guy has given them.

I tend to agree with Dr. Guy that freedom of speech is more important than making lying illegal, but I find it disingenuous for a supporter of Bush's Patriot Act and, presumably, the Military Commissions Act, to cry about infringement of civil liberties.

Climate change denial is simply factually incorrect, theologically nearly indefensible, philosophically unwise, morally irresponsible, and ethically neglectful .

If a debate about global warming really does exist, as Dr. Guy claims, it is a debate the deniers have lost.
11,596 views 28 replies
Reply #1 from JoeUser Forums Top
I see that you completely skirted the cause issue which was in fact at the heart of the article you are trying (and failing) to dispute.
Reply #2 from JoeUser Forums Top
Gee the earth has been warming and cooling for MILLIONS of years, but now the left wants to make an election issue of it. Typical of the party that lost its way years ago and has fallen with the ENEMIES of America.
CursorFX - Customize your Windows cursor
Reply #3 from JoeUser Forums Top
lol, this is science at its most medieval. If wood burns, and witches burn, and wood floats, then witches must float.

The misdirection involved in Inquisitional environmentalism is a matter of causation. Correlation does not equal causation. When they are accused of making such shoddy assumptions they scream "HOW CAN YOU DENY THE EARTH IS WARMER??!?!?!" as we see here, when the issue is what is making it warmer.

Sure the earth is warmer, but not the warmest it has been in the past; a past without the effects of modern civilization and its pollution. The Luddites see pollution, and they see the earth getting warmer, so they start the witch hunt. Not unlike some 16th century farmer whose cow died after he offended the crone next door.

The saddest part is that these people are dupes for politicians like Gore who don't really give a damn about the environment. It's just a 'guru' issue they can use to remain relevant, since their economic, military, etc., expertise is non-existent. If you want to talk about irrational religion, this blog looks a lot more like the rants of the brainwashed than anything the opposition has offered in a long time.
Reply #4 from JoeUser Forums Top
The misdirection involved in Inquisitional environmentalism is a matter of causation. Correlation does not equal causation. When they are accused of making such shoddy assumptions they scream "HOW CAN YOU DENY THE EARTH IS WARMER??!?!?!" as we see here, when the issue is what is making it warmer.


It's something I've always been a bit suspicious of. I'm all for improved environmental efficiency, don't get me wrong. But a volcanic eruption will put out more pollutants than some countries greenhouse gas outputs for an entire year.

I think we should do everything we can to reduce output, but only because it has a direct influence on the standard of living and health of anyone exposed, not necessarily because it's causing global warming. Car exhaust contains known carcinogens; it'd be easier to argue cleaning it up on the basis of public health than convincing the intractable we need to cos of global warming.

Oh, and oil's not about to run out in the next century or so even with higher demand. As the cost rises new forms of extraction (eg from oil shale, which the world has a lot of) will become economically viable. Oil will be hideously expensive far before we're at any risk of losing it altogether.
Reply #5 from JoeUser Forums Top
It's something I've always been a bit suspicious of. I'm all for improved environmental efficiency, don't get me wrong. But a volcanic eruption will put out more pollutants than some countries greenhouse gas outputs for an entire year.

I think we should do everything we can to reduce output, but only because it has a direct influence on the standard of living and health of anyone exposed, not necessarily because it's causing global warming. Car exhaust contains known carcinogens; it'd be easier to argue cleaning it up on the basis of public health than convincing the intractable we need to cos of global warming.


Will wonders never cease? Something we actually agree upon!
Reply #6 from JoeUser Forums Top
I agree with you, I'm not a pollution advocate or anything. What bothers me is how some of these treaties and agreements can be used to penalize industrialized nations and leverage a better position for nations who are just so damned backwards they CAN'T produce much pollution.

I just find it humorous that America is the focus when a couple of other crumbling empires dump everything they make in the nearest water source and burn anything they can find to stay warm in the winter. It's like China condemning the US human rights situation, or if Russia was suddenly concerned with the safety of our nuclear plants.

Little European nations whose industrial economies withered generations ago are suddenly concerned with all the soot we're putting out... lol. A cleaner environment would be better for everyone, I don't dispute that. Letting opportunists undercut prosperity on the fear of global warming won't benefit anyone.
Reply #7 from JoeUser Forums Top
What bothers me is how some of these treaties and agreements can be used to penalize industrialized nations and leverage a better position for nations who are just so damned backwards they CAN'T produce much pollution.


The backward nations generally produce the most. They're the ones creating the Great Haze of Southeast Asia, they're the ones dumping everything in the waterways, they're the ones deforesting jungles (goldmines for medical products) in favour of unproductive agricultural land. If the global community was really that serious about global warming they'd put funding into giving the 3rd world less destructive technologies and tightening up their capacity for enforcement of environmental laws.
Reply #8 from JoeUser Forums Top
I agree with you, I'm not a pollution advocate or anything. What bothers me is how some of these treaties and agreements can be used to penalize industrialized nations and leverage a better position for nations who are just so damned backwards they CAN'T produce much pollution.


That is really the whole point. It's all political and economic games. It has nothing to do with any actual environmental concerns.
Reply #9 from JoeUser Forums Top
The media, in a desire to appear balanced has presented any apposing view as equal, no matter the source. This has given the illusion that there is a debate among those in the field. There is no such debate as you quite clearly prove.

Now that it’s been so politicized some can’t seem to separate the rhetoric from the fact that best scientific minds we have are telling us we’re warming the planet. When confronted with this the GW deniers call into question their integrity. Well if these scientists had no integrity it wouldn’t be hard to find several with there hands out willing to tow whatever line paid the most. And it’s very clear the ones getting paid are the ones with no credentials.
Reply #10 from JoeUser Forums Top
Now that it’s been so politicized some can’t seem to separate the rhetoric from the fact that best scientific minds we have are telling us we’re warming the planet


So what you're saying here is that those scientists who disagree are obviously not the "best minds"? Give me a break. There is plenty of geologic evidence that the planet has been much warmer in the past than it is now. Also much colder. I used to actually believe this global warming is being caused by people thing until I started researching the facts. It isn't nearly as cut and dried as some who have serious research grants at stake would like us to believe.
Reply #11 from JoeUser Forums Top
No that’s not what I’m saying but I should have phrased it to say, the best scientific minds in the field of Climatology. The only scientists whom disagree aren’t in the field. They’re geologist or paleontologist forming opinions based on one piece of the puzzle. And apposing view even from the peanut gallery scientist is hard to find. The consensus on this is equal to that of special relativity.

So you believe that they’re aware of their findings that suggest the earth was warmer in the past and are deliberately ignoring this evidence so they can continue to receive grants? If this were true then there really would be debate going on because scientist love to prove each other wrong.
Reply #12 from JoeUser Forums Top
I stand in the middle on this issue. I agree we need to take more responsibility for our environmental pollution but we should also be looking at ways of educating third world nations on how not to make the same mistakes we've made and how to make the best of their natural resources.

There is no doubt temperatures are rising. Today, it is 36 degrees celcius, which is about 97 degrees farenheit. This is about 15 degrees warmer than it normally is. Yesterday was a similar temperature. And of course, the drought Australia is currently experiencing is another indication of climate change. But as I see it, the Earth is a living organisam, and as such, is supposed to change, getter hotter, cool down, etc. I think the difference this go round is mankind being able to witness these changes. We're never going to see anything quite like 'The Day After Tomorrow', which was rather sensationalist and, from a purely scientific view, completely wrong.

There is no denying global warming is happening and the whole world needs to look at ways it can decrease pollution output levels because this will help slow down the process. But the process is happening regardless of whether we deny it or not. I think it was probably always going to happen and maybe all we've done is sped up the process.
Reply #13 from JoeUser Forums Top
No that’s not what I’m saying but I should have phrased it to say, the best scientific minds in the field of Climatology.


That's better.

The only scientists whom disagree aren’t in the field. They’re geologist or paleontologist forming opinions based on one piece of the puzzle.


That's correct. Climatologists only look at climate data which is only one piece of the puzzle. Most scientists only look at data within their field. A truly curious or skeptical person would take a look at data from many fields of study don't you think? Sadly, most scientists in all fields fail to do this.

And apposing view even from the peanut gallery scientist is hard to find

Handy way of disregarding opposing views.



So you believe that they’re aware of their findings that suggest the earth was warmer in the past and are deliberately ignoring this evidence so they can continue to receive grants? If this were true then there really would be debate going on because scientist love to prove each other wrong.


I am suggesting that many have jumped on the grants bandwagon. Scientists need to make a living just like everyone else. Also, there are many who's view is very narrow and thus do not look at conclusions from other fields. The fact that the planet has been warmer in the past is hardly disputable as the evidence is far too strong.

Scientists studying any field have drawn incorrect conclusions for as long as science has existed so why do people assume that the scientific conclusion du jour must be absolute truth?

In geological references, a 1 degree variation over the course of 100 years isn't even worthy of note and yet some seem to feel that it signifies the end of the world. Let's try and put this in real perspective here, shall we?
Reply #14 from JoeUser Forums Top
~~The Earth is warming up! We can stop it, but you have to strictly adhere to our agenda! The United States (but no one else, for some odd reason) immediately needs to:

1. Halt any and all industrial production!
2. Abandon your homes! Live in caves and lean-tos made of thatch!
3. Stop driving cars!
4. Don't wear clothes!
5. Start wiping your asses with leaves!

.......But; please ignore us if we ourselves take no part in what we tell you to do.~~

Thanks but no thanks.

Nice article, but-----

Last year, I read an article in The Week magazine. I read that scientists have said that all the environmental action legislation passed in the last few decades has negatively impacted the environment. There is so much less pollution in the air now, it seems, that less sunlight is being reflected off into space. Therefore, the Earth is heating up even faster!
Where does it end? Don't pass laws, destroy the Earth; do pass them, and kill it sooner. Which should we do?
If the GW drumbeaters, maybe, could get together and come up with a common agenda, vision and plan of action, maybe people would take them more seriously. Instead, one group of hysterics says one thing, another says another, another yet another.......
Another article I read said that global temperatures in the last century or so (since they started regularly monitoring them, at least) have increased by about---are you ready?--- 1.25 degrees---cue up the scary organ music.

When it gets freakishly hot and dry in the summer, it's because of global warming. When it gets freakishly cold and snowy in the winter....global warming. All your bases are covered, whether logically or not. Three people died in Buffalo because of an early snowstorm. Is that global warming?
I, myself, would find it much easier to believe in all the hysteria if it hadn't appeared right around the time when the all global cooling mania started to wane with no soap. Another emergency conjured up to replace the last failure.

What I'd like to know is what happened to all the big hurricanes that were supposed to appear this year. Didn't Algore say that because of the Bush administration's policies affecting global warming, it would be even worse this year than last?

I don't specifically trust the word of "scientists", either.....they develop their theories, and those theories are, likely as not, disproven. Grain of salt, and all that.
Or, they come up with a theory which meets some criteria or other, gets accepted, and is called FACT; but then, five or ten years later, someone comes along and says something else, and that new FACT becomes the flavor of the week. What do scientists really "know"? Pretty much Squat, when it all boils down.

I once said that, in my lifetime alone, scientists have been through three schools of thought on the nature and future of the universe. I just turned 39. In that same time, the Earth's environment has been careening, out of control and beyond nearly all attempts at halting it, in two different directions. The only constant has been the direction from which the hysterical warnings have come.....the Left.
Reply #15 from JoeUser Forums Top

The Scientific Consensus is that human activity has had a direct causal influence on global climate factors.

Bakerstreet writes with conviction:

The misdirection involved in Inquisitional environmentalism is a matter of causation. Correlation does not equal causation. When they are accused of making such shoddy assumptions they scream "HOW CAN YOU DENY THE EARTH IS WARMER??!?!?!" as we see here, when the issue is what is making it warmer.

Indeed, you at least have the issue right. Now, who should we trust to have an informed opinion, a near paranoid blog commenter whose knowledge of the subject is limited to a couple factoids and determination, or the The National Acadamy of Sciences, or the American Meteorological Society(PDF), or The National Center for Atmospheric Research, or the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change?

These distinguished scientific bodies, and many more, have each issued statements confirming a not only correlation, but causal link between human activity and the climate.

Bakerstreet continues.

Sure the earth is warmer, but not the warmest it has been in the past; a past without the effects of modern civilization and its pollution. The Luddites see pollution, and they see the earth getting warmer, so they start the witch hunt. Not unlike some 16th century farmer whose cow died after he offended the crone next door

So, your argument is the earth has been hotter in the past. That's it? Just want to get that straight. Even granting this single observation, your conclusion does not follow. In its simplicity it overlooks that regardless of whether it has been warmer in the past, it is getting warmer than we are used to now, which will change the climate drastically in a negative manner natural causes or not. And as each of those links above demonstrate, human activity directly contributes to climate change.

The Luddite accusation suggests subconscious projection or a misunderstanding. These scientists are the best the world has to offer using cutting edge technology and climate modeling. Science isn't witchcraft, if you disagree with just about every established, respected scientific body in the world, you'll need more than that accusation and a trivial pursuit answer.

Bakerstreet concludes:

The saddest part is that these people are dupes for politicians like Gore who don't really give a damn about the environment. It's just a 'guru' issue they can use to remain relevant, since their economic, military, etc., expertise is non-existent. If you want to talk about irrational religion, this blog looks a lot more like the rants of the brainwashed than anything the opposition has offered in a long time

Claiming that the world's scientists and even greatest religious thinkers who believe the actual evidence are all "dupes" of a failed politician has to be the height of conspiracy and paranoia. Not to mention, the administration's own Environmental Protection Agency admits "compelling" evidence of human impact.

MasonM speculates:

Climatologists only look at climate data which is only one piece of the puzzle. Most scientists only look at data within their field. A truly curious or skeptical person would take a look at data from many fields of study don't you think? Sadly, most scientists in all fields fail to do this.

Well, saying that the scientists who study the climate study the climate isn't much of a point. Again I will refer you to the links in the above post, which are statments and studies made by large bodies of scientists with many fields of study working together.

There are accusations of politicization. I feel I have avoided the political side of this, except a couple jabs. If anyone is politicizing the matter it is the deniers, and I will refer you to Dr. Guy's original article entitled: "Liberals: When You Cant Win with Facts"[sic].

Most of those who have trouble accepting reality are also worried about economic impacts or reduction in the rate of industrialization. If you wish to debate the scientific, economical, and humanitarian effects that responding or not responding to global warming might entail, go ahead.

But don't confuse your politics, and economical opinions with the science on global warming.

The most amusing thing is that deniers simply want people to believe that maybe there is a shadow of a doubt. They have speculation based on cereal box back filler factoids,

"Gee the earth has been warming and cooling for MILLIONS of years...

and little else to refute the opinion of every major scientific organization in the world, and want for us to keep paying attention.

Reply #16 from JoeUser Forums Top
rabidrobot, you seemed to have entirely missed the point. The scientific bodies you have linked are the same ones that beat the drum regarding Global Cooling not so long ago. Science is hardly perfect, nor are the human beings that we call scientists.

If you truly believe that these scientific bodies are not influenced by money and politcs you are truly naive. Imagine how quickly research grants would dry up if there was no looming catastrophy which needed to be studied in depth. It seems that every decade or two some new disaster is just around the corner which required billions of dollars for research and yet they just never seem to materialize. Their track record on this sort of thing leaves a lot to be desired.

The planet's climate is fluid and cyclic. I would be seriously concerned if it became static. Areas that are deserts today were once dense forests. Areas that at one time were under water are now farmland. There have been some dramatic climate changes throughout the history of our planet and yet life goes on. All of this panic and dramatics regarding climate change does make for a nice little cash machine though.
Reply #17 from JoeUser Forums Top
The planet's climate is fluid and cyclic

Again, I will defer to the opinions of actual scientists, rather than some guy who knows a single fact and think it makes him qualified to have a valid opinion on global climate. You all state this one little tidbit of knowledge as if it were fait accompli, as if a point has been made! You will have to have more scientific evidence than a single observation blown out of logical proportion.

Even if it were not incredibly dense to base one's opinion on climate change on a single observation, your logic does not follow. Consider swings at a playground. You are saying because the wind blows the swing back and forth, sometimes a lot, it is impossible for a human to walk over and give it a shove!

So, again, I think I will respect the opinions of the trained, learned indiiduals who base their opinion on established data and innovative research. You seem to be saying, I didn't understand the science ten years ago, and I don't understand it now! Well, that doesn't amount to a real reason for me to distrust the science.


The scientific bodies you have linked are the same ones that beat the drum regarding Global Cooling not so long ago

I am sorry you find these fluctuations confusing. Perhaps climate science isn't really your field. I don't think I missed the point though, as my links have addressed this specifically. Aerosol pollutants had a cooling effect, which has since been overcome and overshadowed by the warming effect of a different pollutant, CO2.

The grant money conspiracy is a weak argument. You cannot assail the science itself, so you pick at grant money. Grant money pays for research and a basic salary. Researchers get decent wages for doing serious important work. To suggest that every scientist in the world would abandon all scientific principle in order to be able to pay their rent is just asinine.

First, this is a global issue, with scientists from around the world. Private and public researchers from multiple nations. They are not all competing for some little bit of U.S. grant funds. Additionally, if there were science research that even had a hint of supporting the negative side of this issue, THAT RESEARCH would be the line of study that would get grants under the current administration.

The motivations of deniars are questionable. I think these weak, mantra-like accusations hide a basic underlying desire to just not have to give a shit. If you just don't care, fine. If you'd rather maintain status quo regardless, argue for that. But if these arguments of negativity and ignorance are the best you have against, again, everyone else in the world, then I think I'll go with the crowd this once.
Reply #18 from JoeUser Forums Top
We have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we may have. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.

-Stephen Schneider (leading advocate of the global warming theory)
(in interview for Discover magazine, Oct 1989)


In the long run, the replacement of the precise and disciplined language of science by the misleading language of litigation and advocacy may be one of the more important sources of damage to society incurred in the current debate over global warming.

-Dr. Richard S. Lindzen
(leading climate and atmospheric science expert- MIT)


Researchers pound the global-warming drum because they know there is politics and, therefore, money behind it. . . I've been critical of global warming and am persona non grata."

-Dr. William Gray
(Professor of Atmospheric Sciences at Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado and leading expert of hurricane prediction )
(in an interview for the Denver Rocky Mountain News, November 28, 1999)


Scientists who want to attract attention to themselves, who want to attract great funding to themselves, have to (find a) way to scare the public . . . and this you can achieve only by making things bigger and more dangerous than they really are."

-Petr Chylek
(Professor of Physics and Atmospheric Science, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia)
Commenting on reports by other researchers that Greenland's glaciers are melting.
(Halifax Chronicle-Herald, August 22, 2001)


No matter if the science is all phony, there are collateral environmental benefits.... Climate change [provides] the greatest chance to bring about justice and equality in the world."

-Christine Stewart, Minister of the Environment of Canada
quote from the Calgary Herald



Reply #19 from JoeUser Forums Top
From Oct 4, 2006 Media Release:

Published online in “Proceedings of the Royal Society A”, October 3rd

Title: ‘Experimental Evidence for the role of Ions in Particle Nucleation under Atmospheric Conditions’.

Authors: Henrik Svensmark, Jens Olaf Pepke Pedersen, Nigel Marsh, Martin Enghoff and Ulrik Uggerhøj.

A team at the Danish National Space Center has discovered how cosmic rays can help to make clouds in the atmosphere. The results support the theory that cosmic rays influence Earth’s climate.

The experimental results lend strong empirical support to the theory proposed a decade ago by Henrik Svensmark and Eigil Friis-Christensen that cosmic rays influence Earth’s climate through their effect on cloud formation. The original theory rested on data showing a strong correlation between variation in the intensity of cosmic radiation penetrating the atmosphere and the amount of low-altitude clouds. Cloud cover increases when the intensity of cosmic rays grows and decreases when the intensity declines.

Interestingly, during the 20th Century, the Sun’s magnetic field which shields Earth from cosmic rays more than doubled, thereby reducing the average influx of cosmic rays. The resulting reduction in cloudiness, especially of low-altitude clouds, may be a significant factor in the global warming Earth has undergone during the last century. However, until now, there has been no experimental evidence of how the causal mechanism linking cosmic rays and cloud formation may work.

‘Many climate scientists have considered the linkages from cosmic rays to clouds to climate as unproven,’ comments Eigil Friis-Christensen, who is now Director of the Danish National Space Center. ‘Some said there was no conceivable way in which cosmic rays could influence cloud cover. The SKY experiment now shows how they do so, and should help to put the cosmic-ray connection firmly onto the agenda of international climate research.’

Reply #20 from JoeUser Forums Top

I must say I am honored for the attribution, and now can understand why the point of my article would be so authenticated.  As there are sheeple as naive as you that have no clue of what they are talking about.  I salute those of both sides who have commented on this and basically told you what a jerk you are.  And I understand now where that cretin could get his justification for persecuting those who do not believe as he does.  You validate his lunacy.

I will participate in your delusions.  For the sake of argument (and by no means it is a concensus as you claim, but cannot prove) we will accept the earth is warming.  now prove the cause.  Go ahead.  Eliminate the sun and then prove your case.  And kill those you do not agree with, for that is in reality your argument.  You are arguing for the censure of all that do not agree with you.

You are a bad example of the liberals.  Unfortunately, you are not alone.  Fortunately for the rest of us, we know you do not represent all liberals and fortunately for you that is the case as some of your saner breathren will get some moderate votes, discounting the loony fringe as not indicative of what the left truly represents. 

In time, they will not be able to make that distinction as you will control the left.  The loony fringe.  Congratulations on your conquest.  Short lived as it may be.

Reply #21 from JoeUser Forums Top
What really gets me is how RR can write, literally, hundreds of words and never really address anything. He repeats the argument, derides it, and then says that "smart" people agree with him. Basically his perspective seems to be "I'm going to believe scientists because they are scientists".

I mean good lord, re-read post #15. He looks at my argument and says "That's it?", but is there a single argument of his own in there anywhere? Is there any real proof of causation there? Nope, and that's why his response is so wordy and indignant yet makes no attempt to explain anything or offer anything other than self-righteous tone.

No, RR can't really say anything to anyone about 'cereal box' debate, because in post after post he just diverts to other people's boxes and offers nothing but insult in terms of personal insight. Well, pal, showing up with a grocery list of links to propaganda isn't any more insightful... less, actually. Come on, at least we are saying why we believe what we believe at this point, you just say you believe so-and-so says so.

dupe.
Reply #22 from JoeUser Forums Top
"Global warming deniers have no evidence to support their ill formed opinion"

Unstoppable Global Warming—Every 1500

The Greenhouse Theory says the atmosphere above us should warm faster than the Earth’s surface around us. But this doesn’t seem to be happening. For example, compare California temperatures in the state’s central farming valleys with the readings on the Sierra Nevada Mountains just above them.

John Christy, a native of the Valley now at the University of Alabama/Huntsville, has done just that. He recently led a team that digitized the old manual temperature records and adjusted for any change that could have altered the individual station records: location, instruments, paving, etc.

The adjusted record says the San Joaquin Valley’s minimum summer-fall temperatures have risen about 3 degrees C since 1910—“a rise that is not detectable in the adjacent Sierra Nevada.” Christy says the big reason for the mountain-valley differential is that the Central Valley today is irrigating an additional 1 million acres of farmland. “Human engineering of the environment has changed a [highly-reflective] desert into a darker, moister, vegetated plain” that absorbs more heat.

However, the big news from the more-accurate record is that Sierra Nevada Mountains show only a tiny warming trend--0.02 degrees C per decade from 1910–2003. Why didn’t the Sierra Nevada warm more? The carefully adjusted records of the virtually undeveloped Sierra Nevada weather stations disagree with the global climate models. And high-altitude stations are where the Greenhouse Theory says the signs of human-induced warming should be clearest.

Then we have the discrepancies between the surface thermometers and the high-altitude balloons and satellites. Seven out of eight datasets on upper air temperatures in the tropics show much less warming in the atmosphere than on the Earth’s surface, according to Christy’s July 20, 2006 testimony before Congress. Christy points out that the tropics make up one-third of the planet’s surface. He warns that seven datasets are very unlikely to differ from the eighth in the same way by random chance, he warns.

Christy’s conclusion: “There is likely a significant difference between the surface and atmospheric trends, with the atmosphere being cooler. This is significant because all model simulations indicate the atmosphere should be warming faster than the surface if greenhouse influences are correctly included in climate models.”

He believes that the earth is warming slowly, and that some part of the warming could be related to additional greenhouse gases. However, he says, we have no way to know how much of the 0.6 degree C warming of the 20th century has been natural.

Ice cores from Greenland and Antarctica brought up in the 1980s have told of a long, moderate, irregular 1500-year global warming cycle linked to the sun. It was too moderate and masked by too much natural climate variability to be discerned by primitive peoples without thermometers or written records. It has since been found in seabed sediments, tree rings, glacier retreats, stalagmites, pollen fossils, seashells, and prehistoric dwelling sites all over the world.

The current warming began about 1850, before much human-emitted CO2, and the record includes such erratic events as the global cooling from 1940 to 1975. The 1500-year cycle explains our warming better than the Greenhouse Theory. If we subtract the 0.5 degree C of warming that occurred before 1940 from the overall warming of 0.7-0.8 degrees C, that doesn’t leave much to generate scary scenarios about human-emitted CO2. Christy’s new paper strengthens the case for examining natural warming factors besides CO2, such as the broadly documented 1500-year cycle.

Christy says he is unimpressed by claims that today’s weather is “unusual.” In his experience, weather is always erratic and wildly variable—and humans always think it’s unusual.
Reply #23 from JoeUser Forums Top
What really gets me is how RR can write, literally, hundreds of words and never really address anything. He repeats the argument, derides it, and then says that "smart" people agree with him. Basically his perspective seems to be "I'm going to believe scientists because they are scientists".

I mean good lord, re-read post #15. He looks at my argument and says "That's it?", but is there a single argument of his own in there anywhere? Is there any real proof of causation there? Nope, and that's why his response is so wordy and indignant yet makes no attempt to explain anything or offer anything other than self-righteous tone.

No, RR can't really say anything to anyone about 'cereal box' debate, because in post after post he just diverts to other people's boxes and offers nothing but insult in terms of personal insight. Well, pal, showing up with a grocery list of links to propaganda isn't any more insightful... less, actually. Come on, at least we are saying why we believe what we believe at this point, you just say you believe so-and-so says so.


ass.

My first post consists of not one, but at least three arguments in favor of accepting human influence on climate change-the argument from experts of science is only one of them. Deniers keep trying to use quasi-scientific method to back up their claims. Such as claims like "the earth...is warmer than it was in the past", pointing out that there has been historical fluctuations, and the mind-boggling truism that it is the Sun that provides the Earth with energy.

I return to the scientific, reasoned, and rational argument because this is the debate the deniers have engaged, ignoring theological and philosophical aspects, not to mention the political, economical, and social impact discussion. Deniers take isolated facts, state them as if they sum up centuries of scientific research, then leap to illogical conclusions from them. It is fair for me to point out as many times as this is done, that these arguments are insipid, asinine and ignorant on several levels. If you can only handle one science tidbit at a time, then multi-variable climate modeling is just going to be too confusing.

But know that the scientists are aware of sunspots and the Sun for christ's sake. They are aware of cosmic freaking waves. They welcome regional studies of valleys into their cumulative knowledge. Being skeptical sorts they will give such studies scriutiny, and among such there will be differences of opinion and plenty of quotes to take out of context. The model takes your isolated anecdotes into account, and finds that recent dramatic climate change is human caused. This model is built on all the fluctuation data you all sum up so well. This model is just one aspect of the scientific body of knowledge on climate change. The data that allows people to make remarks such as, 'the temperature has always fluctuated', is the very data that these scientists have actually collected and researched. Summing up some third grade factoid about the climate, again, does not allow one to make the conclusion that climate change is not real.



Arguments of science will be responded to in a logical manner with sources, as is proper. If you find the debate style of baseless "The sun heats the earth, therefore global warming is a myth" claims back and forth more entertaining, tough shit.

You could always have debated the more flexible theological and philosophical discussion. Deniers have chosen the focus of the discussion, science. Which just shows how out of touch they are, because it is their weakest argument of all.

The fact that BakerStreet completely overlooked 80% of my original post only shows that even the swiftest of you can only think about the issue so much without resorting to name calling and repeating yourselves. If you think I am missing the point, state the point again. I think I've covered all the bases thus far, but again, I have probably just written too much. I can hardly expect those who can't even internalize what I write myself to actually look at my sources.

For example, BakerStreet asks, "Is there any real proof of causation there? " in response to sources like Link. And says I offer no argument besides that of the reality of scientific opinion in response to my original post.

I say again, any debate that exists, the deniers have lost. They don't even take themselves seriously. Their only hope now is to argue that there is actually a debate, lost cause or not, please let us debate. Well, here it is. You've lost the scientific debate, cherry-picked quotes and isolated studies aside from (actually not 'aside from' but 'part of' the overall) the vast majority of scientific consensus. You can't win on that front--arguing what is real, so if you don't want to keep losing there, then either move the discussion, or for a change, accept reality. You can't win on the logical front--Dr. Guy, in there somewhere, says,
Eliminate the sun and then prove your case. And kill those you do not agree with, for that is in reality your argument.

If that's the quality of the deniers' reasoned, rational 'debate', then I really don't have to say anything.
Reply #25 from JoeUser Forums Top
How do you account for the fact that ice core samples demonstrate the fact that the planet has been warming and CO2 levels have been rising for the past 18,000 years?