Announcement

**Kershaw** · 12-28-2012, 09:41 PM

Right. That's why I've been done with this thread for awhile. They are dogmatic about their position, so why bother? If I show someone the evidence and they don't believe me, I call them an idiot and leave. I'm not going to waste more of my time.

**gwb72tii** · 12-28-2012, 11:39 PM

funny kershaw, look in the mirror and do the same
dogmatic? how about close minded, exactly the opposite of what science is supposed to be and could be said of you, z31, rwh and his twin cale
the inability of you and your group to ever consider you could be wrong is evidence of your collective lack of intellectual integrity.
perhaps Q5 is qualified to argue the science. you and me, not so much
but there are plenty of Q5's that don't reach the same conclusion about AGW, yet you and your gang can't admit it.
wast of time? yup

**BraveUlysses** · 12-29-2012, 01:13 AM

Originally posted by gwb72tii View Post

you are completely worthless
you mom must be proud

This literally has no meaning coming from you.

**cale** · 12-29-2012, 01:24 PM

Originally posted by gwb72tii View Post

the inability of you and your group to ever consider you could be wrong is evidence of your collective lack of intellectual integrity.

Who has ever said there's no chance we could be wrong about some things? The science is not perfect and there likely are flaws in it, but that does not mean the study of GW as a whole is bankrupt as you think it is. You seem to think the entire academic community who finds it to be correct is corrupted, talk about close minded.

The science tells us we're not wrong to believe AGW is correct, and the weak science you've brought forward here does not dismiss it.

**gwb72tii** · 12-30-2012, 05:59 PM

welcome to the "deniers" side cale
at least you're man enough to admit there IS another side to the AGW argument

**cale** · 12-30-2012, 06:20 PM

Science is an ever changing, ever growing entity. That isn't to say that it is incorrect if it is not complete, and admitting such is far different from taking the stance that it is wrong because it is incomplete, or pushing blatant fallacies and arguments from ignorance.

I'm no denier.

**rwh11385** · 12-31-2012, 09:28 AM

Originally posted by cale View Post

Science is an ever changing, ever growing entity. That isn't to say that it is incorrect if it is not complete, and admitting such is far different from taking the stance that it is wrong because it is incomplete, or pushing blatant fallacies and arguments from ignorance.

Bingo. But I mean, we aren't in a thread called "Global Warming is over" or anything, right? Oh, we are.

But people aren't arguing that we can't take action because the science isn't "complete" yet, are they? Oh... they are. Is the science of gravity complete yet? Time? Was CFCs or SO2 cause of Ozone depletion and acid rain accepted by absolutely everyone? I mean the moon landing is still a conspiracy...

The real shock of this thread is the constant attack of science and people who don't know much about it thinking they know the same as everyone else because all but 1 of us aren't in the field of climate change. There's a difference between not being an expert and being a foolish parrot who knows nothing about science or modeling and simply repeats what he is told.

But no one would ever say that people should spend their time disproving their own theories instead of improving them through an iterative process, right? Oh, they did? Did they call how nearly everyone models "assbackwards" although they clearly don't deal with raw data or modeling ever, and can't even understand their favorite economists model? Oh...

Originally posted by gwb72tii View Post

and speaking of hypotheses, and the scientific method
i find it interesting that the AGW camp strives to modify their models for current data when the data doesn't agree with their initial assumptions. exactly backasswards.
the AGW camp should be striving to disprove their models' predicted results once they're set to test their original hypotheses, not modify the models to fit the results

And now for the ultimate irony:

Originally posted by gwb72tii View Post

get a fucking original thought and come back

Like with his financial opinion, George is a parrot along with the others in this thread. Pretty much all of their arguments are here:

7 Answers to Climate Contrarian Nonsense

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=seven-answers-to-climate-contrarian-nonsense

Evidence for human interference with Earth’s climate continues to accumulate

Claim 1: Anthropogenic CO2 can't be changing climate, because CO2 is only a trace gas in the atmosphere and the amount produced by humans is dwarfed by the amount from volcanoes and other natural sources. Water vapor is by far the most important greenhouse gas, so changes in CO2 are irrelevant.

...

Contrarians frequently object that water vapor, not CO2, is the most abundant and powerful greenhouse gas; they insist that climate scientists routinely leave it out of their models. The latter is simply untrue: from Arrhenius on, climatologists have incorporated water vapor into their models. In fact, water vapor is why rising CO2 has such a big effect on climate. CO2 absorbs some wavelengths of infrared that water does not so it independently adds heat to the atmosphere. As the temperature rises, more water vapor enters the atmosphere and multiplies CO2's greenhouse effect; the IPCC notes that water vapor (pdf) may “approximately double the increase in the greenhouse effect due to the added CO2 alone.”

The trouble with the red herring is that there is a distinct limit of water vapor allowed at a given temperature, which anyone who understands was "relative humidity" means would understand.

Claim 2: The alleged "hockey stick" graph of temperatures over the past 1,600 years has been disproved. It doesn't even acknowledge the existence of a "medieval warm period" around 1000 A.D. that was hotter than today is. Therefore, global warming is a myth.

Claim 3: Global warming stopped a decade ago; Earth has been cooling since then.

Claim 4: The sun or cosmic rays are much more likely to be the real causes of global warming.

Claim 5: Climatologists conspire to hide the truth about global warming by locking away their data. Their so-called "consensus" on global warming is scientifically irrelevant because science isn't settled by popularity.

Claim 6: Climatologists have a vested interest in raising the alarm because it brings them money and prestige.

I mean, they don't actually look into what they are saying or understand it, but repeat it like a pull-string doll that spits out a denier argument each tug. And when they are challenged by a question of their logic, they typically change the subject and move on, just to cycle back to another poor argument or back to a previously failed one.

Nothing is funnier than a financial advisor talking about intellectual integrity though.

**rwh11385** · 12-31-2012, 09:54 AM

More: http://grist.org/series/skeptics/
HOW TO TALK TO A CLIMATE SKEPTIC: RESPONSES TO THE MOST COMMON SKEPTICAL ARGUMENTS ON GLOBAL WARMING

Since deniers distract and drag down science, here's a helpful reference guide so we can move on and actually discuss sustainability.

Here's all arguments repeated in the thread:

'There is no evidence' -- Yes, there is

http://grist.org/climate-energy/there-is-no-evidence/

(Part of the How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic guide) Objection: Despite what the computer models tell us, there is actually no evidence of significant global warming. Answer: Global warming is not an output of computer models; it is a conclusion based on observations of a great many global indicators. By far the most straightforward evidence is the actual surface temperature record. While there are places -- in England, for example -- that have records going back several centuries, the two major global temperature analyses can only go back around 150 years due to their requirements for both quantity and distribution of temperature recording stations. These are the two most reputable globally and seasonally averaged temperature trend analyses:

There is no proof in science, but there are mountains of evidence

http://grist.org/climate-energy/there-is-no-proof-that-co2-is-causing-global-warming/

(Part of the How to Talk to a Global Warming Skeptic guide) Objection: Correlation is not proof of causation. There is no proof that CO2 is the cause of current warming. Answer: There is no "proof" in science -- that is a property of mathematics. In science, what matters is the balance of evidence, and theories that can explain that evidence. Where possible, scientists make predictions and design experiments to confirm, modify, or contradict their theories, and must modify these theories as new information comes in.

'The scientists aren't even sure' -- No scientist ever is

http://grist.org/climate-energy/the-scientists-arent-even-sure/

(Part of the How to Talk to a Global Warming Skeptic guide) Objection: Even the scientists don't know that the climate is changing more than normal and if it's our fault or not. If you read what they write it is full of "probably," "likely," "evidence of" and all kinds of qualifiers. If they don't know for sure, why should we worry yet?

'Global warming is part of a natural cycle'--This idea is one short step above appealing to magic

http://grist.org/climate-energy/current-global-warming-is-just-part-of-a-natural-cycle/

(Part of the How to Talk to a Global Warming Skeptic guide) Objection: Current warming is just part of a natural cycle. Answer: While it is undoubtedly true that there are natural cycles and variations in global climate, those who insist that current warming is purely natural -- or even mostly natural -- have two challenges. First, they need to identify the mechanism behind this alleged natural cycle. Absent a forcing of some sort, there will be no change in global energy balance. The balance is changing, so natural or otherwise, we need to find this mysterious cause. Second, they need to come up with an explanation for why a 35% increase in the second most important greenhouse gas does not affect the global temperature. Theory predicts temperature will rise given an enhanced greenhouse effect, so how or why is it not happening?

'Global warming stopped in 1998'--Only if you flagrantly cherry pick

http://grist.org/climate-energy/global-warming-stopped-in-1998/

(Part of the How to Talk to a Global Warming Skeptic guide) Objection: Global temperatures have been trending down since 1998. Global warming is over. Answer: At the time, 1998 was a record high year in both the CRU and the NASA GISS analyses. In fact, it blew away the previous record by .2 degrees C. (That previous record went all the way back to 1997, by the way!) According to NASA, it was elevated far above the trend line because 1998 was the year of the strongest El Nino of the century. Choosing that year as a starting point is a classic cherry pick and demonstrates why it is necessary to remove chaotic year-to year-variability (aka: weather) by smoothing out the data. Looking at CRU's graph below, you can see the result of that smoothing in black.

'Antarctic ice is growing'--Well, probably not, but even if it were, we are not off the hook

http://grist.org/climate-energy/antarctic-ice-is-growing/

(Part of the How to Talk to a Global Warming Skeptic guide) Objection: The Antarctic ice sheets are actually growing, which wouldn't be happening if global warming were real. Answer: There are two distinct problems with this argument. First, any argument that tries to use a regional phenomenon to disprove a global trend is dead in the water. Anthropogenic global warming theory does not predict uniform warming throughout the globe. We need to assess the balance of the evidence.

'What about mid-century cooling?'--No one said CO2 is the only climate influence

http://grist.org/climate-energy/what-about-mid-century-cooling/

(Part of the How to Talk to a Global Warming Skeptic guide) Objection: There was global cooling in the '40s, '50s, and '60s, even while human greenhouse-gas emissions were rising. Clearly, temperature is not being driven by CO2.

'There is no consensus'--If this is not consensus, what would consensus look like?

http://grist.org/climate-energy/there-is-no-consensus/

(Part of the How to Talk to a Global Warming Skeptic guide) Objection: Climate is complicated and there are lots of competing theories and unsolved mysteries. Until this is all worked out, one can't claim there is consensus on global warming theory. Until there is, we should not take any action. This is similar to the "global warming is a hoax" article, but at least here we can narrow down just what the consensus is about. Answer: Sure there are plenty of unsolved problems and active debates in climate science. But if you look at the research papers coming out these days, the debates are about things like why model predictions of outgoing longwave radiation at the top of the atmosphere in tropical latitudes differ from satellite readings, or how the size of ice crystals in cirrus clouds affect the amount of incoming shortwave reflected back into space, or precisely how much stratospheric cooling can be attributed to ozone depletion rather than an enhanced greenhouse effect. No one in the climate science community is debating whether or not changes in atmospheric CO2 concentrations alter the greenhouse effect, or if the current warming trend is outside of the range of natural variability, or if sea levels have risen over the last century. This is where there is a consensus.

'Consensus is collusion'--Is climate science maturing, or should we reach for our tinfoil hats?

http://grist.org/climate-energy/consensus-is-collusion/

(Part of the How to Talk to a Global Warming Skeptic guide) Objection: More and more, climate models share all the same assumptions -- so of course they all agree! And every year, fewer scientists dare speak out against the findings of the IPCC, thanks to the pressure to conform.

'Global warming is a hoax'--I wish James Inhofe were just a hoax ...

http://grist.org/climate-energy/global-warming-is-a-hoax/

(Part of the How to Talk to a Global Warming Skeptic guide) Objection: Global warming is a hoax perpetrated by environmental extremists and liberals who want an excuse for more big government (and/or world government via the U.N.). This is a common line, regardless of how ridiculous it is, so it should not go unanswered. Answer: Here is a list of organizations that accept anthropogenic global warming as real and scientifically well-supported:

'Climate models are unproven'--Actually, GCM's have many confirmed successes under their belts

http://grist.org/climate-energy/climate-models-are-unproven/

(Part of the How to Talk to a Global Warming Skeptic guide) Objection: Why should we trust a bunch of contrived computer models that have never had a prediction confirmed? Talk to me in 100 years. Answer: Given the absence of a few duplicate planets and some large time machines, we can't test a 100-year temperature projection. Does that mean the models can't be validated without waiting 100 years? No.

'We can't even predict the weather next week'--But weather is not climate

http://grist.org/climate-energy/we-cant-even-predict-the-weather-next-week/

(Part of the How to Talk to a Global Warming Skeptic guide) Objection: Scientists can't even predict the weather next week, so why should we believe what some climate model tells us about 100 years from now? Answer: Climate and weather are very different things, and the level of predictability is comparably different.

'The Medieval Warm Period was just as warm as today'--Repeating this point does not make it true

http://grist.org/climate-energy/the-medieval-warm-period-was-just-as-warm-as-today/

(Part of the How to Talk to a Global Warming Skeptic guide) Objection: It was just as warm in the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) as it is today. In fact, Greenland was green and they were growing grapes in England! Answer: There is no good evidence that the MWP was a globally warm period comparable to today. Regionally, there may have been places that exhibited notable warmth -- Europe, for example -- but all global proxy reconstructions agree it is warmer now, and the temperature is rising faster now, than at any time in the last one or even two thousand years.

'Volcanoes emit more CO2 than humans'--Not even close ...

http://grist.org/climate-energy/volcanoes-emit-more-co2-than-humans/

(Part of the How to Talk to a Global Warming Skeptic guide) Objection: One decent-sized volcanic eruption puts more CO2 in the atmosphere than a decade of human emissions. It's ridiculous to think reducing human CO2 emissions will have any effect. Answer: Not only is this false, it couldn't possibly be true given the CO2 record from any of the dozens of sampling stations around the globe. If it were true that individual volcanic eruptions dominated human emissions and were causing the rise in CO2 concentrations, then these CO2 records would be full of spikes -- one for each eruption. Instead, such records show a smooth and regular trend. (image from Global Warming Art)

'Climate scientists dodge the subject of water vapor'--No, they really don't

http://grist.org/climate-energy/climate-scientists-dodge-the-subject-of-water-vapor/

(Part of the How to Talk to a Global Warming Skeptic guide) Objection: Climate scientists never talk about water vapor -- the strongest greenhouse gas -- because it undermines their CO2 theory. Answer: Not a single climate model or climate textbook fails to discuss the role water vapor plays in the greenhouse effect. It is the strongest greenhouse gas, contributing 36% to 66% to the overall effect for vapor alone, 66% to 85% when you include clouds. It is however, not considered a climate "forcing," because the amount of H2O in the air basically varies as a function of temperature.

Water vapor is indeed a powerful greenhouse gas, but there is plenty of room for CO2 to play a role

http://grist.org/climate-energy/water-vapor-accounts-for-almost-all-of-the-greenhouse-effect/

(Part of the How to Talk to a Global Warming Skeptic guide) Objection: H2O accounts for 95% of the greenhouse effect; CO2 is insignificant. Answer: According to the scientific literature and climate experts, CO2 contributes anywhere from 9% to 30% to the overall greenhouse effect. The 95% number does not appear to come from any scientific source, though it gets tossed around a lot.

'It's the sun, stupid'--Very bright, yes, but not getting brighter

http://grist.org/climate-energy/its-the-sun-stupid/

(Part of the How to Talk to a Global Warming Skeptic guide) Objection: The sun is the source of warmth on earth. Any increase in temperature is likely due to changes in solar radiation. Answer: It's true that the earth is warmed, for all practical purposes, entirely by solar radiation, so if the temperature is going up or down, the sun is a reasonable place to seek the cause.

The problem is not how high the temperature may go, but how fast it is changing

http://grist.org/climate-energy/whats-wrong-with-warmer-weather/

(Part of the How to Talk to a Global Warming Skeptic guide) Objection: The earth has had much warmer climates in the past. What's so special about the current climate? Anyway, it seems like a generally warmer world will be better. Answer: I don't know if there is a meaningful way to define an "optimum" average temperature for planet earth. Surely it is better now for all of us than it was 20,000 years ago when so much land was trapped beneath ice sheets. Perhaps any point between the recent climate and the extreme one we may be heading for, with tropical forests inside the arctic circle, is as good as any other. Maybe it's even better with no ice caps anywhere. It doesn't matter. The critical issue is not what the temperature is, or may be, or will be. The critical issue is how fast it is moving.

'Glaciers have always grown and receded'--A few glaciers melting does not mean global warming

http://grist.org/climate-energy/glaciers-have-always-grown-and-receded/

(Part of the How to Talk to a Global Warming Skeptic guide) Objection: A few glaciers receding today is not proof of global warming. Glaciers have grown and receded differently in many times and places.

'Antarctic sea ice is increasing'--Yes, but ...

http://grist.org/climate-energy/antarctic-sea-ice-is-increasing/

(Part of the How to Talk to a Global Warming Skeptic guide) Objection: Sure, sea ice is shrinking in the Arctic, but it is growing in the Antarctic. Sounds like natural fluctuations that balance out in the end. Answer: Overall, it is true that sea ice in the Antarctic is increasing. Around the peninsula, where there is a lot of warming [PDF], the ice is retreating. This is the area of the recent and dramatic Larsen B and Ross ice shelf breakups. But the rest of the continent has not shown any clear warming or cooling and sea ice has increased over the last decade or so. This is not actually a big surprise.

Maybe if some people didn't question science based on ignorance then people wouldn't have to waste so much effort trying to explain complex things to lazy simple people. If you want to be skeptical, educate yourself and don't just repeat stupid arguments that biased sources make up. If you don't want to learn the basics and be relevant, excuse yourself because baseless claims unaware of facts make your posts useless.

It's like when the same people questioned BLS models YET NEVER CARED TO READ THE PUBLISHED METHODOLOGY! Oh well. Science, tech, and life goes on and will leave the conspiracy theorists in their tin-foil hats mumbling about chemtrails.

**herbivor** · 12-31-2012, 11:18 AM

Originally posted by rwh11385 View Post

More: http://grist.org/series/skeptics/
HOW TO TALK TO A CLIMATE SKEPTIC: RESPONSES TO THE MOST COMMON SKEPTICAL ARGUMENTS ON GLOBAL WARMING

Since deniers distract and drag down science, here's a helpful reference guide so we can move on and actually discuss sustainability.

Here's all arguments repeated in the thread:

'There is no evidence' -- Yes, there is

http://grist.org/climate-energy/there-is-no-evidence/

(Part of the How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic guide) Objection: Despite what the computer models tell us, there is actually no evidence of significant global warming. Answer: Global warming is not an output of computer models; it is a conclusion based on observations of a great many global indicators. By far the most straightforward evidence is the actual surface temperature record. While there are places -- in England, for example -- that have records going back several centuries, the two major global temperature analyses can only go back around 150 years due to their requirements for both quantity and distribution of temperature recording stations. These are the two most reputable globally and seasonally averaged temperature trend analyses:

There is no proof in science, but there are mountains of evidence

http://grist.org/climate-energy/there-is-no-proof-that-co2-is-causing-global-warming/

(Part of the How to Talk to a Global Warming Skeptic guide) Objection: Correlation is not proof of causation. There is no proof that CO2 is the cause of current warming. Answer: There is no "proof" in science -- that is a property of mathematics. In science, what matters is the balance of evidence, and theories that can explain that evidence. Where possible, scientists make predictions and design experiments to confirm, modify, or contradict their theories, and must modify these theories as new information comes in.

'The scientists aren't even sure' -- No scientist ever is

http://grist.org/climate-energy/the-scientists-arent-even-sure/

(Part of the How to Talk to a Global Warming Skeptic guide) Objection: Even the scientists don't know that the climate is changing more than normal and if it's our fault or not. If you read what they write it is full of "probably," "likely," "evidence of" and all kinds of qualifiers. If they don't know for sure, why should we worry yet?

'Global warming is part of a natural cycle'--This idea is one short step above appealing to magic

http://grist.org/climate-energy/current-global-warming-is-just-part-of-a-natural-cycle/

(Part of the How to Talk to a Global Warming Skeptic guide) Objection: Current warming is just part of a natural cycle. Answer: While it is undoubtedly true that there are natural cycles and variations in global climate, those who insist that current warming is purely natural -- or even mostly natural -- have two challenges. First, they need to identify the mechanism behind this alleged natural cycle. Absent a forcing of some sort, there will be no change in global energy balance. The balance is changing, so natural or otherwise, we need to find this mysterious cause. Second, they need to come up with an explanation for why a 35% increase in the second most important greenhouse gas does not affect the global temperature. Theory predicts temperature will rise given an enhanced greenhouse effect, so how or why is it not happening?

'Global warming stopped in 1998'--Only if you flagrantly cherry pick

http://grist.org/climate-energy/global-warming-stopped-in-1998/

(Part of the How to Talk to a Global Warming Skeptic guide) Objection: Global temperatures have been trending down since 1998. Global warming is over. Answer: At the time, 1998 was a record high year in both the CRU and the NASA GISS analyses. In fact, it blew away the previous record by .2 degrees C. (That previous record went all the way back to 1997, by the way!) According to NASA, it was elevated far above the trend line because 1998 was the year of the strongest El Nino of the century. Choosing that year as a starting point is a classic cherry pick and demonstrates why it is necessary to remove chaotic year-to year-variability (aka: weather) by smoothing out the data. Looking at CRU's graph below, you can see the result of that smoothing in black.

'Antarctic ice is growing'--Well, probably not, but even if it were, we are not off the hook

http://grist.org/climate-energy/antarctic-ice-is-growing/

(Part of the How to Talk to a Global Warming Skeptic guide) Objection: The Antarctic ice sheets are actually growing, which wouldn't be happening if global warming were real. Answer: There are two distinct problems with this argument. First, any argument that tries to use a regional phenomenon to disprove a global trend is dead in the water. Anthropogenic global warming theory does not predict uniform warming throughout the globe. We need to assess the balance of the evidence.

'What about mid-century cooling?'--No one said CO2 is the only climate influence

http://grist.org/climate-energy/what-about-mid-century-cooling/

(Part of the How to Talk to a Global Warming Skeptic guide) Objection: There was global cooling in the '40s, '50s, and '60s, even while human greenhouse-gas emissions were rising. Clearly, temperature is not being driven by CO2.

'There is no consensus'--If this is not consensus, what would consensus look like?

http://grist.org/climate-energy/there-is-no-consensus/

(Part of the How to Talk to a Global Warming Skeptic guide) Objection: Climate is complicated and there are lots of competing theories and unsolved mysteries. Until this is all worked out, one can't claim there is consensus on global warming theory. Until there is, we should not take any action. This is similar to the "global warming is a hoax" article, but at least here we can narrow down just what the consensus is about. Answer: Sure there are plenty of unsolved problems and active debates in climate science. But if you look at the research papers coming out these days, the debates are about things like why model predictions of outgoing longwave radiation at the top of the atmosphere in tropical latitudes differ from satellite readings, or how the size of ice crystals in cirrus clouds affect the amount of incoming shortwave reflected back into space, or precisely how much stratospheric cooling can be attributed to ozone depletion rather than an enhanced greenhouse effect. No one in the climate science community is debating whether or not changes in atmospheric CO2 concentrations alter the greenhouse effect, or if the current warming trend is outside of the range of natural variability, or if sea levels have risen over the last century. This is where there is a consensus.

'Consensus is collusion'--Is climate science maturing, or should we reach for our tinfoil hats?

http://grist.org/climate-energy/consensus-is-collusion/

(Part of the How to Talk to a Global Warming Skeptic guide) Objection: More and more, climate models share all the same assumptions -- so of course they all agree! And every year, fewer scientists dare speak out against the findings of the IPCC, thanks to the pressure to conform.

'Global warming is a hoax'--I wish James Inhofe were just a hoax ...

http://grist.org/climate-energy/global-warming-is-a-hoax/

(Part of the How to Talk to a Global Warming Skeptic guide) Objection: Global warming is a hoax perpetrated by environmental extremists and liberals who want an excuse for more big government (and/or world government via the U.N.). This is a common line, regardless of how ridiculous it is, so it should not go unanswered. Answer: Here is a list of organizations that accept anthropogenic global warming as real and scientifically well-supported:

'Climate models are unproven'--Actually, GCM's have many confirmed successes under their belts

http://grist.org/climate-energy/climate-models-are-unproven/

(Part of the How to Talk to a Global Warming Skeptic guide) Objection: Why should we trust a bunch of contrived computer models that have never had a prediction confirmed? Talk to me in 100 years. Answer: Given the absence of a few duplicate planets and some large time machines, we can't test a 100-year temperature projection. Does that mean the models can't be validated without waiting 100 years? No.

'We can't even predict the weather next week'--But weather is not climate

http://grist.org/climate-energy/we-cant-even-predict-the-weather-next-week/

(Part of the How to Talk to a Global Warming Skeptic guide) Objection: Scientists can't even predict the weather next week, so why should we believe what some climate model tells us about 100 years from now? Answer: Climate and weather are very different things, and the level of predictability is comparably different.

'The Medieval Warm Period was just as warm as today'--Repeating this point does not make it true

http://grist.org/climate-energy/the-medieval-warm-period-was-just-as-warm-as-today/

(Part of the How to Talk to a Global Warming Skeptic guide) Objection: It was just as warm in the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) as it is today. In fact, Greenland was green and they were growing grapes in England! Answer: There is no good evidence that the MWP was a globally warm period comparable to today. Regionally, there may have been places that exhibited notable warmth -- Europe, for example -- but all global proxy reconstructions agree it is warmer now, and the temperature is rising faster now, than at any time in the last one or even two thousand years.

'Volcanoes emit more CO2 than humans'--Not even close ...

http://grist.org/climate-energy/volcanoes-emit-more-co2-than-humans/

(Part of the How to Talk to a Global Warming Skeptic guide) Objection: One decent-sized volcanic eruption puts more CO2 in the atmosphere than a decade of human emissions. It's ridiculous to think reducing human CO2 emissions will have any effect. Answer: Not only is this false, it couldn't possibly be true given the CO2 record from any of the dozens of sampling stations around the globe. If it were true that individual volcanic eruptions dominated human emissions and were causing the rise in CO2 concentrations, then these CO2 records would be full of spikes -- one for each eruption. Instead, such records show a smooth and regular trend. (image from Global Warming Art)

'Climate scientists dodge the subject of water vapor'--No, they really don't

http://grist.org/climate-energy/climate-scientists-dodge-the-subject-of-water-vapor/

(Part of the How to Talk to a Global Warming Skeptic guide) Objection: Climate scientists never talk about water vapor -- the strongest greenhouse gas -- because it undermines their CO2 theory. Answer: Not a single climate model or climate textbook fails to discuss the role water vapor plays in the greenhouse effect. It is the strongest greenhouse gas, contributing 36% to 66% to the overall effect for vapor alone, 66% to 85% when you include clouds. It is however, not considered a climate "forcing," because the amount of H2O in the air basically varies as a function of temperature.

Water vapor is indeed a powerful greenhouse gas, but there is plenty of room for CO2 to play a role

http://grist.org/climate-energy/water-vapor-accounts-for-almost-all-of-the-greenhouse-effect/

(Part of the How to Talk to a Global Warming Skeptic guide) Objection: H2O accounts for 95% of the greenhouse effect; CO2 is insignificant. Answer: According to the scientific literature and climate experts, CO2 contributes anywhere from 9% to 30% to the overall greenhouse effect. The 95% number does not appear to come from any scientific source, though it gets tossed around a lot.

'It's the sun, stupid'--Very bright, yes, but not getting brighter

http://grist.org/climate-energy/its-the-sun-stupid/

(Part of the How to Talk to a Global Warming Skeptic guide) Objection: The sun is the source of warmth on earth. Any increase in temperature is likely due to changes in solar radiation. Answer: It's true that the earth is warmed, for all practical purposes, entirely by solar radiation, so if the temperature is going up or down, the sun is a reasonable place to seek the cause.

The problem is not how high the temperature may go, but how fast it is changing

http://grist.org/climate-energy/whats-wrong-with-warmer-weather/

(Part of the How to Talk to a Global Warming Skeptic guide) Objection: The earth has had much warmer climates in the past. What's so special about the current climate? Anyway, it seems like a generally warmer world will be better. Answer: I don't know if there is a meaningful way to define an "optimum" average temperature for planet earth. Surely it is better now for all of us than it was 20,000 years ago when so much land was trapped beneath ice sheets. Perhaps any point between the recent climate and the extreme one we may be heading for, with tropical forests inside the arctic circle, is as good as any other. Maybe it's even better with no ice caps anywhere. It doesn't matter. The critical issue is not what the temperature is, or may be, or will be. The critical issue is how fast it is moving.

'Glaciers have always grown and receded'--A few glaciers melting does not mean global warming

http://grist.org/climate-energy/glaciers-have-always-grown-and-receded/

(Part of the How to Talk to a Global Warming Skeptic guide) Objection: A few glaciers receding today is not proof of global warming. Glaciers have grown and receded differently in many times and places.

'Antarctic sea ice is increasing'--Yes, but ...

http://grist.org/climate-energy/antarctic-sea-ice-is-increasing/

(Part of the How to Talk to a Global Warming Skeptic guide) Objection: Sure, sea ice is shrinking in the Arctic, but it is growing in the Antarctic. Sounds like natural fluctuations that balance out in the end. Answer: Overall, it is true that sea ice in the Antarctic is increasing. Around the peninsula, where there is a lot of warming [PDF], the ice is retreating. This is the area of the recent and dramatic Larsen B and Ross ice shelf breakups. But the rest of the continent has not shown any clear warming or cooling and sea ice has increased over the last decade or so. This is not actually a big surprise.

Maybe if some people didn't question science based on ignorance then people wouldn't have to waste so much effort trying to explain complex things to lazy simple people. If you want to be skeptical, educate yourself and don't just repeat stupid arguments that biased sources make up. If you don't want to learn the basics and be relevant, excuse yourself because baseless claims unaware of facts make your posts useless.

It's like when the same people questioned BLS models YET NEVER CARED TO READ THE PUBLISHED METHODOLOGY! Oh well. Science, tech, and life goes on and will leave the conspiracy theorists in their tin-foil hats mumbling about chemtrails.

I linked similar info way earlier in the debate and the answer from the deniers was that it was leftist propaganda. In fact, anything I presented from any scientific organization or sites that directly linked science articles was considered "corrupt" because in their view, any scientist that takes a position that AGW exists is making wild claims to continue funding their own research. In other words, when arguing with deniers, it doesn't matter how sound or logical the science is, because the science is part of the conspiracy. So really, we are not arguing with logical people here. We are arguing with people that have highly active amygdalas (the area of the brain associated with the fear response). And that part of the brain tends to trump the parts associated with reason and logic. In short, deniers are mentally disabled, and we should stop arguing with retards, because that's just not nice.

**rwh11385** · 12-31-2012, 11:39 AM

Originally posted by herbivor View Post

I linked similar info way earlier in the debate and the answer from the deniers was that it was leftist propaganda. In fact, anything I presented from any scientific organization or sites that directly linked science articles was considered "corrupt" because in their view, any scientist that takes a position that AGW exists is making wild claims to continue funding their own research. In other words, when arguing with deniers, it doesn't matter how sound or logical the science is, because the science is part of the conspiracy. So really, we are not arguing with logical people here. We are arguing with people that have highly active amygdalas (the area of the brain associated with the fear response). And that part of the brain tends to trump the parts associated with reason and logic. In short, deniers are mentally disabled, and we should stop arguing with retards, because that's just not nice.

True - it's just funny that it's all been said before and gwb wants someone "to have an original thought". An independent thinker or someone open-minded would be able to understand how humidity works or how GHG impact temperature before criticizing the science.

But they don't begin with the concepts and facts and then developing it into a conclusion but rather they have an assumption in mind and search for arguments to support it - ultimately the opposite of science.

**gwb72tii** · 12-31-2012, 12:25 PM

Originally posted by rwh11385 View Post

Nothing is funnier than a financial advisor talking about intellectual integrity though.

wow, i must be getting under your skin rwh for even you to make this comment.
our team must be doing something right to be in business for over 27 years where every client relationship is based on a handshake and a promise from us, every client is free to fire us at any time, and yet they continue to trust us. must be our lack of integrity.

unlike economists that don't have to be correct, as economists never reach conclusions, they just charge for their opinions.

but back to global warming
as my avatar says, "comrade, be quiet. the science is settled"

**Kershaw** · 12-31-2012, 12:29 PM

i think you missed responding to 20 urls disproving your talking points. just so you dont miss them again, i've conveniently reposted them for you.

Originally posted by rwh11385 View Post

'There is no evidence' -- Yes, there is

http://grist.org/climate-energy/there-is-no-evidence/

(Part of the How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic guide) Objection: Despite what the computer models tell us, there is actually no evidence of significant global warming. Answer: Global warming is not an output of computer models; it is a conclusion based on observations of a great many global indicators. By far the most straightforward evidence is the actual surface temperature record. While there are places -- in England, for example -- that have records going back several centuries, the two major global temperature analyses can only go back around 150 years due to their requirements for both quantity and distribution of temperature recording stations. These are the two most reputable globally and seasonally averaged temperature trend analyses:

There is no proof in science, but there are mountains of evidence

http://grist.org/climate-energy/there-is-no-proof-that-co2-is-causing-global-warming/

(Part of the How to Talk to a Global Warming Skeptic guide) Objection: Correlation is not proof of causation. There is no proof that CO2 is the cause of current warming. Answer: There is no "proof" in science -- that is a property of mathematics. In science, what matters is the balance of evidence, and theories that can explain that evidence. Where possible, scientists make predictions and design experiments to confirm, modify, or contradict their theories, and must modify these theories as new information comes in.

'The scientists aren't even sure' -- No scientist ever is

http://grist.org/climate-energy/the-scientists-arent-even-sure/

(Part of the How to Talk to a Global Warming Skeptic guide) Objection: Even the scientists don't know that the climate is changing more than normal and if it's our fault or not. If you read what they write it is full of "probably," "likely," "evidence of" and all kinds of qualifiers. If they don't know for sure, why should we worry yet?

'Global warming is part of a natural cycle'--This idea is one short step above appealing to magic

http://grist.org/climate-energy/current-global-warming-is-just-part-of-a-natural-cycle/

(Part of the How to Talk to a Global Warming Skeptic guide) Objection: Current warming is just part of a natural cycle. Answer: While it is undoubtedly true that there are natural cycles and variations in global climate, those who insist that current warming is purely natural -- or even mostly natural -- have two challenges. First, they need to identify the mechanism behind this alleged natural cycle. Absent a forcing of some sort, there will be no change in global energy balance. The balance is changing, so natural or otherwise, we need to find this mysterious cause. Second, they need to come up with an explanation for why a 35% increase in the second most important greenhouse gas does not affect the global temperature. Theory predicts temperature will rise given an enhanced greenhouse effect, so how or why is it not happening?

'Global warming stopped in 1998'--Only if you flagrantly cherry pick

http://grist.org/climate-energy/global-warming-stopped-in-1998/

(Part of the How to Talk to a Global Warming Skeptic guide) Objection: Global temperatures have been trending down since 1998. Global warming is over. Answer: At the time, 1998 was a record high year in both the CRU and the NASA GISS analyses. In fact, it blew away the previous record by .2 degrees C. (That previous record went all the way back to 1997, by the way!) According to NASA, it was elevated far above the trend line because 1998 was the year of the strongest El Nino of the century. Choosing that year as a starting point is a classic cherry pick and demonstrates why it is necessary to remove chaotic year-to year-variability (aka: weather) by smoothing out the data. Looking at CRU's graph below, you can see the result of that smoothing in black.

'Antarctic ice is growing'--Well, probably not, but even if it were, we are not off the hook

http://grist.org/climate-energy/antarctic-ice-is-growing/

(Part of the How to Talk to a Global Warming Skeptic guide) Objection: The Antarctic ice sheets are actually growing, which wouldn't be happening if global warming were real. Answer: There are two distinct problems with this argument. First, any argument that tries to use a regional phenomenon to disprove a global trend is dead in the water. Anthropogenic global warming theory does not predict uniform warming throughout the globe. We need to assess the balance of the evidence.

'What about mid-century cooling?'--No one said CO2 is the only climate influence

http://grist.org/climate-energy/what-about-mid-century-cooling/

(Part of the How to Talk to a Global Warming Skeptic guide) Objection: There was global cooling in the '40s, '50s, and '60s, even while human greenhouse-gas emissions were rising. Clearly, temperature is not being driven by CO2.

'There is no consensus'--If this is not consensus, what would consensus look like?

http://grist.org/climate-energy/there-is-no-consensus/

(Part of the How to Talk to a Global Warming Skeptic guide) Objection: Climate is complicated and there are lots of competing theories and unsolved mysteries. Until this is all worked out, one can't claim there is consensus on global warming theory. Until there is, we should not take any action. This is similar to the "global warming is a hoax" article, but at least here we can narrow down just what the consensus is about. Answer: Sure there are plenty of unsolved problems and active debates in climate science. But if you look at the research papers coming out these days, the debates are about things like why model predictions of outgoing longwave radiation at the top of the atmosphere in tropical latitudes differ from satellite readings, or how the size of ice crystals in cirrus clouds affect the amount of incoming shortwave reflected back into space, or precisely how much stratospheric cooling can be attributed to ozone depletion rather than an enhanced greenhouse effect. No one in the climate science community is debating whether or not changes in atmospheric CO2 concentrations alter the greenhouse effect, or if the current warming trend is outside of the range of natural variability, or if sea levels have risen over the last century. This is where there is a consensus.

'Consensus is collusion'--Is climate science maturing, or should we reach for our tinfoil hats?

http://grist.org/climate-energy/consensus-is-collusion/

(Part of the How to Talk to a Global Warming Skeptic guide) Objection: More and more, climate models share all the same assumptions -- so of course they all agree! And every year, fewer scientists dare speak out against the findings of the IPCC, thanks to the pressure to conform.

'Global warming is a hoax'--I wish James Inhofe were just a hoax ...

http://grist.org/climate-energy/global-warming-is-a-hoax/

(Part of the How to Talk to a Global Warming Skeptic guide) Objection: Global warming is a hoax perpetrated by environmental extremists and liberals who want an excuse for more big government (and/or world government via the U.N.). This is a common line, regardless of how ridiculous it is, so it should not go unanswered. Answer: Here is a list of organizations that accept anthropogenic global warming as real and scientifically well-supported:

'Climate models are unproven'--Actually, GCM's have many confirmed successes under their belts

http://grist.org/climate-energy/climate-models-are-unproven/

(Part of the How to Talk to a Global Warming Skeptic guide) Objection: Why should we trust a bunch of contrived computer models that have never had a prediction confirmed? Talk to me in 100 years. Answer: Given the absence of a few duplicate planets and some large time machines, we can't test a 100-year temperature projection. Does that mean the models can't be validated without waiting 100 years? No.

'We can't even predict the weather next week'--But weather is not climate

http://grist.org/climate-energy/we-cant-even-predict-the-weather-next-week/

(Part of the How to Talk to a Global Warming Skeptic guide) Objection: Scientists can't even predict the weather next week, so why should we believe what some climate model tells us about 100 years from now? Answer: Climate and weather are very different things, and the level of predictability is comparably different.

'The Medieval Warm Period was just as warm as today'--Repeating this point does not make it true

http://grist.org/climate-energy/the-medieval-warm-period-was-just-as-warm-as-today/

(Part of the How to Talk to a Global Warming Skeptic guide) Objection: It was just as warm in the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) as it is today. In fact, Greenland was green and they were growing grapes in England! Answer: There is no good evidence that the MWP was a globally warm period comparable to today. Regionally, there may have been places that exhibited notable warmth -- Europe, for example -- but all global proxy reconstructions agree it is warmer now, and the temperature is rising faster now, than at any time in the last one or even two thousand years.

'Volcanoes emit more CO2 than humans'--Not even close ...

http://grist.org/climate-energy/volcanoes-emit-more-co2-than-humans/

(Part of the How to Talk to a Global Warming Skeptic guide) Objection: One decent-sized volcanic eruption puts more CO2 in the atmosphere than a decade of human emissions. It's ridiculous to think reducing human CO2 emissions will have any effect. Answer: Not only is this false, it couldn't possibly be true given the CO2 record from any of the dozens of sampling stations around the globe. If it were true that individual volcanic eruptions dominated human emissions and were causing the rise in CO2 concentrations, then these CO2 records would be full of spikes -- one for each eruption. Instead, such records show a smooth and regular trend. (image from Global Warming Art)

'Climate scientists dodge the subject of water vapor'--No, they really don't

http://grist.org/climate-energy/climate-scientists-dodge-the-subject-of-water-vapor/

(Part of the How to Talk to a Global Warming Skeptic guide) Objection: Climate scientists never talk about water vapor -- the strongest greenhouse gas -- because it undermines their CO2 theory. Answer: Not a single climate model or climate textbook fails to discuss the role water vapor plays in the greenhouse effect. It is the strongest greenhouse gas, contributing 36% to 66% to the overall effect for vapor alone, 66% to 85% when you include clouds. It is however, not considered a climate "forcing," because the amount of H2O in the air basically varies as a function of temperature.

Water vapor is indeed a powerful greenhouse gas, but there is plenty of room for CO2 to play a role

http://grist.org/climate-energy/water-vapor-accounts-for-almost-all-of-the-greenhouse-effect/

(Part of the How to Talk to a Global Warming Skeptic guide) Objection: H2O accounts for 95% of the greenhouse effect; CO2 is insignificant. Answer: According to the scientific literature and climate experts, CO2 contributes anywhere from 9% to 30% to the overall greenhouse effect. The 95% number does not appear to come from any scientific source, though it gets tossed around a lot.

'It's the sun, stupid'--Very bright, yes, but not getting brighter

http://grist.org/climate-energy/its-the-sun-stupid/

(Part of the How to Talk to a Global Warming Skeptic guide) Objection: The sun is the source of warmth on earth. Any increase in temperature is likely due to changes in solar radiation. Answer: It's true that the earth is warmed, for all practical purposes, entirely by solar radiation, so if the temperature is going up or down, the sun is a reasonable place to seek the cause.

The problem is not how high the temperature may go, but how fast it is changing

http://grist.org/climate-energy/whats-wrong-with-warmer-weather/

(Part of the How to Talk to a Global Warming Skeptic guide) Objection: The earth has had much warmer climates in the past. What's so special about the current climate? Anyway, it seems like a generally warmer world will be better. Answer: I don't know if there is a meaningful way to define an "optimum" average temperature for planet earth. Surely it is better now for all of us than it was 20,000 years ago when so much land was trapped beneath ice sheets. Perhaps any point between the recent climate and the extreme one we may be heading for, with tropical forests inside the arctic circle, is as good as any other. Maybe it's even better with no ice caps anywhere. It doesn't matter. The critical issue is not what the temperature is, or may be, or will be. The critical issue is how fast it is moving.

'Glaciers have always grown and receded'--A few glaciers melting does not mean global warming

http://grist.org/climate-energy/glaciers-have-always-grown-and-receded/

(Part of the How to Talk to a Global Warming Skeptic guide) Objection: A few glaciers receding today is not proof of global warming. Glaciers have grown and receded differently in many times and places.

'Antarctic sea ice is increasing'--Yes, but ...

http://grist.org/climate-energy/antarctic-sea-ice-is-increasing/

(Part of the How to Talk to a Global Warming Skeptic guide) Objection: Sure, sea ice is shrinking in the Arctic, but it is growing in the Antarctic. Sounds like natural fluctuations that balance out in the end. Answer: Overall, it is true that sea ice in the Antarctic is increasing. Around the peninsula, where there is a lot of warming [PDF], the ice is retreating. This is the area of the recent and dramatic Larsen B and Ross ice shelf breakups. But the rest of the continent has not shown any clear warming or cooling and sea ice has increased over the last decade or so. This is not actually a big surprise.

**cale** · 12-31-2012, 01:19 PM

Originally posted by gwb72tii View Post

but back to global warming
as my avatar says, "comrade, be quiet. the science is settled"

Who's told you arguments and criticisms cannot be made? You bring weak arguments to the table, but quite often it's explained to you why they're so weak. Not simply being told the people involved are questionable, the science you bring here constantly gets refuted. What more do you want? You get a response, it doesn't fit with your beliefs therefore you dismiss it. Your claims in post #1241 that no warming has occurred in the past few decades is a perfect example of this. You received numerous responses to your misrepresented science, yet refused to acknowledge them because you were more focused on the credibility of the individuals while we were focusing on the science they misinterpret. That's exactly what you condemn us for doing despite the actual occurrences showing that it is you who ignores the data.

**rwh11385** · 12-31-2012, 01:23 PM

Originally posted by gwb72tii View Post

wow, i must be getting under your skin rwh for even you to make this comment.
our team must be doing something right to be in business for over 27 years where every client relationship is based on a handshake and a promise from us, every client is free to fire us at any time, and yet they continue to trust us. must be our lack of integrity.

unlike economists that don't have to be correct, as economists never reach conclusions, they just charge for their opinions.

but back to global warming
as my avatar says, "comrade, be quiet. the science is settled"

George, you are a worthless troll and have always been. You mislead people with biased views and do your clients disservice by basing their investments on your skewed sense of reality instead of truth and honesty. A professional would be capable of separating personal beliefs and analysis of facts. Through your posts you have proven the absolute inability to do that.

So wait, are you saying you have to be correct, unlike economists? That's troubling, since you don't seem to be doing so well this year with your assertions (Kinda like Achuthan). You have said that people pay you for your opinion, yet now you villainize the concept? Hypocrite. Maybe the problem is that you fundamentally don't understand the basis of economics and science, and only choose to use it when it suits your case. [Hussman, AGW Skeptics] Wouldn't it be better to be more than a puppet?

Why don't you get back to global warming and all those questions you didn't think you were here to answer and the discussions where you changed the subject rather than responding. Because alluding to Communism like in your avatar is stupidity, as most of your posts in this thread have been.

**gwb72tii** · 12-31-2012, 01:34 PM

got up on the wrong side of the bed today rwh?
the lefty who claims to be unbiased?
the guy who claimed the 90's were terrible for investing in stocks?
the guy who criticized me for charging for opinions, yet earns a living doing exactly the same thing?
the guy who thinks the bailout of gm was good and the chevy volt is awesome?

i take your opinions for what they are worth LOL.

Announcement

Global Warming is over.

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment