Amen to that!

Let's start with the fundamental scientific idea that there is no way to prove a theory. A scientific theory can never be proven, no matter how much supporting evidence there is - it always stays a theory. It can only be falsified - i.e. evidence is produced that demonstrably shows (excuse the tautology) the theory does not fit the observable facts.

Proofs are for mathematicians, detectives, and printers, not science.

So, the idea that we should not do anything to change our CO2 emissions until there is sufficient evidence to prove that they are the primary (or just a major) cause of the current global warming is itself non-scientific thinking.

And, as I've said before, since we do not understand the way the climate works, we can afford to assume that we can blithely carry on as we are even less than we can afford to introduce carbon taxes and dramatically scale back coal and oil consumption. Driving through fog, do you put your foot down and trust the road doesn't bend, or slow down and put your lights on?

We have no idea of the extent of the current climate trends in terms of their likely effects, extent or timescale. We have some scientists telling us nothing bad will happen, and others saying things will change, in some cases for the worst. Some scientists say man's activity has no causal impact, others that it is the main cause.

We will never know who is right, but surely it is nothing but prudent to dramatically increase the amount of effort and funding we put into finding evidence to fill in some of the gaps of our knowledge. And that, given the potential stakes, we do it ten years ago?

Thanks for admitting that the man produced global warming theory is nowhere near "proof". You're right, some scientists say that man is causing the relatively short-term global warming that has been measured recently. My point is, almost without exception, these folks have a political rather than SCIENTIFIC axe to grind. They are extrapolating a small amount of data using an unproven theory and then using that as "fact" in order to champion their attempts to attack our economic system.

What if, as an example, IQ measurements were made of a few people of a various "ethnic group" (I don't care which one, take your pick) and for whatever reason, the results were far below the average. Would it be scientifically valid to then proclaim that all people in that same ethnic group were stupid? Would this small sample of data justify "fact" if a computer model, based on that small set of data, was produced to bolster that "evidence"?

But this is EXACTLY what is being done in the name of global warming. The burden of proof is on those (like myself) who claim that the entire theory is bogus, rather on those who have not and cannot produce meaningful scientific evidence.

The earth is cleaner now than it was 100 years ago. The water and air is cleaner than it was 50 years ago. Pollution levels are not increasing, they are falling and much of that improvement is due to technology which has resulted BECAUSE of our economic system, not in spite of it.

Global temperature fluctuations can be explained by a number of factors, each of which are perfectly "natural" in origin. The concept that man, which represents just one species of animal on earth, can somehow influence this vast ecosystem, which has been tremendously dynamic from the beginning of the planet, strikes me as supremely arrogant.

And no, I don't think that we put entire industries out of business and attack entire economies because something "might" happen. We might get hit by a meteor one day too. We have exactly as much control over that event than we do over the earth "heating".

I think that it's just as likely that the earth might cool significantly in 100 years as it will that it will heat uncontrollably. The earth is dynamic. It's never been static. The fact that man now has the technology to measure that dynamic behavior does not mean that we're causing it.

The earth is cleaner now than it was 100 years ago. The water and air is cleaner than it was 50 years ago. Pollution levels are not increasing, they are falling and much of that improvement is due to technology which has resulted BECAUSE of our economic system, not in spite of it.


Wouldn't this be due to the *world's* economy, since we are talking global warming in a global economy?

And isn't this ignoring the role of government regulation in the cleanup effort?

Just a couple of sticking points.

Meanwhile, the arguments tend to go away from global warming to the causes of global warming. That some scientists are biased one way or the other isn't hard to see. Corporations hire their scientists, and I guess other scientists are going after grants or something.

My question is, where's the biggest money? Follow that and you'll find the greatest bias.

This is very true for every type of pollution EXCEPT carbon dioxide, emissions of which have increased over the last 50 years. You are correct to say that other pollutants - such as mercury, or acid rain precursors, or CFCs etc have gone down, but then reductions only occurred because there was directly OBSERVABLE environmental damage. Mercury in the water supply will kill people very quickly. Acid rain will kill of plants and trees fairly quickly. CFC's attack the ozone layer, which was far less obvious (until some scientists in the antarctic noticed by accident that solar radiation was increasing there).

My point is that there is an obvious political case for reducing pollutants that cause local pollution that people feel affects their everyday life. So if all the trees start dying around you, or crop yields seem lower, then there will be greater political will to push through legislation to 'fix' the problem.

However global warming (again IF it is happening) is on a much greater timescale and would lead to increased storms, extreme weather conditions, flooding etc. However, unlike most other examples of pollution, by the time it starts becoming seriously noticeable, it is far too late to do anything about it.

So, I'm not going to debate the evidence. Both sides have some points which are valid and some which are not. However, it is worth pointing out that, the US aside, a large number of governments especially within Europe, consider global warming to be potentially a very serious problem and something that needs to be sorted out. It strikes me that most governments would have access to similar scientific findings, so it is merely interpretation that differs. I find it very hard to believe that (for example) the UK would bother trying to reduce it's carbon dioxide emissions (which it is) unless there were some good arguments in favour of doing so.

I thought that this was interesting. Seems that some scientists are arguing that mankind is indeed warming the planet, but that this is a good thing in that we've possibly averted an ice age. William Ruddiman, former chairman of the University of Virginia environmental sciences department, says that without this warming, we'd be 2º C cooler today and one-third the way to another ice age. It's published in something called Quaternary Research Reviews.

greening earth society

I don't believe Julian is making an admission here. It is you, lordhelmut, who is under a misapprehension of how science is done. You are suggesting incorrectly that if "truth" is somehow accessed, that we would know that we have accessed that "truth". This is simply not the case. Experimental science, in particular systems science like global warming, is largely inductive. The act of logical induction implies that there is never "certainty" but merely high degrees of confidence. By requiring "proof" in a formal sense, you are holding experimental science to an impossible standard. This is a form of radical Cartesian skepticism where one doubts everything in order to be "right". If you're applying this standard to one aspect of science, then you should be applying this standard to all science (even perhaps to all things).


There is a field of study known as statistical sampling. One can make relevant predictions based upon a sampled subset if and only if certain conditions are met. The argument which you are making demonstrates an incomplete knowledge of this field. If you wish to argue against data gathering methods and associated generalizations based on this data, then you'll need to become informed as to how it's done and why its considered good methodology: only then could you make an argument against such usage.


I don't know what the above is supposed to demonstrate. Are you suggesting that because people polluted in the past and subsequently people cleaned up that pollution, we can do the same for global warming? If so, then I agree. Though, this argument seems to defeat your position.


Apart from employing both poisoning the well and ad hominem fallacies, I agree that there are a number of factors associated with global warming. However, warming trends are not magical. There are real, measurable things which contribute to global warming: in particular, a major contributor to warming is gas mixture in the atmosphere. Again, if you wish to argue that the actions of industry is not a component (or an even not an important component) to global warming, then you will need to offer a reasonable alternative. Just because the world has warmed in the past without humans, does not necessarily say anything about what's happening now.


Well, most folks are not suggesting entire industries should be put out of business. You are employing a fallacy of misleading vividness. And the meteor thing is a red herring fallacy.


I don't know what to say here. How did you come to the conclusion that it's just as likely to have global cooling?

I was thinking the same thing when I was scraping the ice off my car this morning. Global warming is not a bad thing compared to an ice age.

In any event, we don't have much say as a species in any event, contrary to well meaning but seriously misguided "green" type people.

I'm not asking for an impossible level of proof. I'm asking for a reasonable level and that's not yet been provided. Inductive? You aren't even close. Speculative is more like it. Temperature data has been collected over the past several handful of years and that data has been plopped into unproven computer models that are designed to model a largely unknown phenomena and large conclusions are being waved around as a result. You claim that I don't understand science?

Let me ask you, would you support the introduction of a drug that was tested on 50 people, using a variety of test methodologies, resulting in a variety of results, to treat a disease of which the mechanism was largely not understood? Would that represent good "science" in your book?




Statistical sampling is one of the most misapplied areas of science today. Please explain the sample set that you would consider statistically significant with respect to the earth's climate and which distribution you used to approximate the behavior of the climate? Was it Gaussian? Poisson? Chi-squared? some other?

I know a little bit about statistics. Just enough to know that what most people call statistics isn't.

The earth is 5,000,000,000 years old. Our knowledge of the climate during that span is highly limited. Our knowledge of the climate over the past 10,000 years, or 0.0002% of the earth's history is almost unmeasurable. Our knowledge of the climate over the past 100 years, or 0.000002% is just a little over nothing. Our best data is over the past 30 years or so and that represents a whopping 0.0000006% of the lifetime of the earth.

In your view, how statistically significant is a sample size of 0.0000006% on ANY statistical distribution that you can name?

Hint, it's close to zero and that's the confidence that I have in wild eyed claims coming from the environmental community. They are junk science by any statistical, mathematic, or true scientific perspective.

By the way, my name is "lordhelmet". I'm sure you knew that though.

Surface temperature data has been reliably collected for the past 100 years. Upper atmospheric temperature data has been reliably collected for the past 35 years. Temperature changes due to gas mixture (i.e. greenhouse gases) has been studied for at least the last 100 years however, as it applies to atmospheric models, is about a 30 year phenomenon. I have no problem with skepticism, however skepticism does not mean discounting reasonable explanations and predictions based on measured data. If you believe that global warming is speculation, then you have an equally large burden of proof to disprove it. If, by your own admission, the modelling is inadequate for global warming, then you must also admit that the modelling is inadequate against global warming. Simply discounting something based on incomplete modelling is inadequate.


If this is your view of global warming, then I highly suggest you study it more. What has been measured is a global warming trend at an unprecedented rate of change. Whether or not the warming is anthropogenic is still contested.


I am not an atmospheric scientist nor am I statistician. I do understand the fundamentals of statistical sampling. I also understand that it can be misapplied. If you believe it has been misapplied, then please show me how. Merely claiming that the can be misapplied, does not mean it has been misapplied.


So basically you're saying that any time one wishes to make a prediction about any Earth science, it will always be great doubt because the Earth is 5 billion years old and science about the Earth very much less (~100 years old). You must have great doubts about the theories of plate tectonics, seismology, mineral formation and so on. That's fine, but I would say your position is at the margins. The Flat Earth Society may want you as a member .


Calling atmospheric science dealing with global warming as "wild-eyed" and "claims" does nothing to further your position. It demonstrates an unreasonable and, dare I say, political bias against anything which contravenes your ideology.


Sorry, it was an honest misspelling. Didn't mean to upset you.

I don't have an equal burden to disprove a hypothesis that has been proposed with little to no backing evidence. The burden of proof is on those floating such an unscientifically based theory. Where is it?

I don't question that temperature readings over the past several years indicate the earth is getting warmer. What I question is the hypothesis, based on statistically insignificant data and a lack of understanding of the mechanics of climate change, that MAN is causing that change!

I'll give you 100 years. That's NOTHING in geological time. It's a mere blip. Noise. That's not a TREND by any statistical definition of the word!!

What you're asking me to accept is a theory that impacts our economy in a severe way and is based on the most minimal of data recording climate attributes such as temperature and then extrapolated WITHOUT ANY EVIDENCE by models that can't tell me reliably if it's going to rain on Thursday, let alone what it's going to be doing in 50 years?

It seems to me that the problem with the environmental movement is that they've already accepted the premise that man is causing "global warming". They aren't even questioning that basic premise. All of their work is designed to confirm what they already believe. If you already decided the earth is flat, there are lots of ways that you can test that hypothesis. Put a bowling ball on a section of flat ground and see if it moves. It doesn't? SEE! It's self evident that the earth is flat.

The same thing, motivated by politics, has happened with respect to global warming. Anyone who questions the basic premise is attacked politically. Just look at what happens in this forum. Global warming has become a faith, just like a religion. And like religion, it doesn't require any emperical proof to back it up.

Perhaps the fall of religion in our society has resulted in a vaccum that is filled by alternative religions such as environmentalism and humanism? It sure seems so.

What? How is this even relevant to the discussion? Based on the popularity of Mel Gibson's The Passion and LeHay's and Jenkins' Left Behind series, I don't see where there's been a "fall of religion in our society."

Just a couple of weeks ago Newsweek had an article on the nation's 25 most influential evangelists.

Your sentence might as well read, "the fall of science in our society has resulted in a vacuum that is filled by alternatives such as religion." I'm talking about Christianity in particular and the way I revised your sentence is a lot more accurate than the original.

What I should have written is: if you believe that global warming is speculation, then you have an equally large burden of proof to demonstrate that it is speculation.


This is a fair criticism and one which is still in debate. But, finding fault is not really the issue here. Global warming will affect the global economy and most likely negatively. More importantly, a rapid rate of change in temperature levels (independent of global warming) will negatively affect the global economy.


Um. The point I was making is that using geological timescales as a way of deflating Earth sciences leads you into radical skeptical framework. Specifically, if you're going to use this dubious geological timescale argument to deflate global warming, then you must also accept that you are deflating all other Earth sciences which involve such timescales. If you're prepared to take this position, then that's fine. But, it does put you at the radical margins of accepted scientific thought.


No, what I'm asking you to do evaluate the theory on its own merits independently of ideological and political bias. The validity of global warming is independent of its economic effects.


It seems to me that the problem with the anti-environmental movement is they want to "poison the well" by calling folks studying the environment as unscientific because they happen to advocate a theory in conflict with anti-environmentalists. If you'll note my signature, I am aware of the pitfalls of confirmation bias. This is why there is peer review and debate within science. A large number of experts agree with the data. This could mean that all these experts are conspiring to fool us non-experts or it could mean that the evidence is very convincing. Of course, consensus is not causal (it is correlative); it does indicate a higher likelihood that the theory is correct from the perspective of non-experts. But, it is important to note that the experts in the field will evaluate the evidence and not the consensus. The burden of proof is on you (the anti-global warming advocates) to demonstrate what is accepted by the scientific statis quo as incorrect. You need to demonstrate this not by name calling or by using solipsistic discourse; you must demonstrate this within the framework of science.


If you believe I have been attacking you for your politics, I apologize. I don't believe I have been. And while I am sure that some take global warming on faith, I don't believe the atmospheric science community has. If you believe this is not the case, then please demonstrate it to me. I would like to know how you conclude this.


Um... Fall of religion? I don't accept this premise, but to debate it would bring us way off topic.

In what way does insisting on statistically significant evidence put me at the "radical margins of accepted scientific thought"?? What other area of "earth science" pretends to be able to predict what's going to take place within 50 years?

They sure nailed down that earthquake prediction modeling, not to mention Tsunami prediction, haven't they? Let's just try to see how valid they are on the easy ones first. What's their prediction for snow/rainfall levels in my state of Michigan over the next 12 months? How about the next 7 days? Think that these "atmospheric scientists" can get it more right than the "Farmer's Almanac"? I doubt it. How about great lake levels? Scientists were putting out studies a few years ago that just about had them drying up by now. Guess what? Hasn't happened. Same thing was true with "acid rain" 20 years ago. I remember reading many scientific "studies" during my engineering education that predicted that the majority of lakes would be "dead" due to S02 industrial emissions by now. Also, how do you address the fact that science is compartmentalized. You have atmospheric scientists with their axe to grind, earth scientists, oceanographers, astronomers, etc. The earth is a comprehensive and integrated system that doesn't care about who's department grant funding is at issue. How do atmospheric scientists, for example, reconcile their greenhouse theories with the fact that the sun has grown hotter of the past few decades (and correlates with the earth's warming)? How do the astronomers and meteorologists reconcile their specialties?

The earth sciences are still too new on the "observation" side of science to take anything more than baby steps on the "predictive" side. That implies an understanding that frankly does not yet exist.

You claim that a global warming most likely will impact the economy negatively and that an increase in the rate of change WILL change the economy negatively.

Yeah? How? Say's who? What economic model are you using to validate that claim? What evidence do you have to back it up?



That simply isn't the case. The Kyoto treaty was political, not scientific. And, how can I evaluate a theory on it's own basis when there is scant evidence to back it up? If there is compelling evidence that (1) man is dominant factor controlling climate change and (2) global warming is a bad thing in any event, please a link to it. I've looked and all it is a hodge podge of raw data with some conclusions that are thin at best.



Now those who insist on scientific methodology and statistically correct methods combined with proven and mature models are "anti environment"?? This is EXACTLY the type of political rhetoric that is undermining science today! Refer to my original post and Crichton's essay. He hit the nail exactly on the head. The "experts in the field" aren't in a position to critically examine the evidence precisely because the have a conflict of interest. They've already divided the world into the "believers", and the "anti-environmentalist movement", in other words, the 'bad guys". With so much emotion and intellectual credibility invested into the global warming theory, how can I expect any of the "experts" to proclaim it all a bunch of hogwash?

The experts agree with the data? All that means is they've checked each other's thermometers and concur. How can they all agree that an unproven model of an under-understood phenomena are correct? Did they all purchase the same Ouija board or something?

Again, the burden of proof is on you, my friend, not me. Those who put forth a theory so far reaching as "man made global warming" better have their ducks in a row before you start impacting the global economy. They don't. If they did, the evidence would speak for itself and the "experts" wouldn't have to invent bogeymen like "the anti-environmental movement".

Insisting on significant evidence does not put you at the radical margins. What puts at the margins is your argument that timescales deflate the evidence. Read over your original argument again and then apply that to, say, plate tectonics. It would work there as well. Indeed any earth science that proposes geologic timescales where measurements have only been occurring for orders of magnitude smaller intervals (that is, ~50, 100, 200, 1000 years) would fall under this "axe". I am asking if you're prepared for its implications because, by using this argument, you are denying any and all earth science.


You are making assertions about science and disciplines of science that are simply not true. You are also falling into inductive fallacy by implying, since some predictions were inaccurate, that all predictions must be inaccurate. Moreover, you're using confirmation bias to boost your position. That is, you're cherry-picking specific examples to make your position seem stronger in the absence of contravening examples.


These are valid criticisms of the discipline of science -- ones which I have thought about in my studies on the philosophy of science.

I will admit that I am no expert on global warming, but I do recall reading about the Sun's warming trend being insufficient to explain what we're seeing with Earth temperature rises. These are precisely the types of questions to be asked and many of which have been answered.


Maybe that's true and maybe it isn't true. Apparently, the atmospheric science community believes they can conclude some things based on the models they do have. You may disagree with the conclusions, but to do so without justification (or rather with only ideological justification) is inadequate.


If you were to read my earlier posts, you will see that I've already addressed this question.


First, I was not talking about the Kyoto treaty; I was talking about the theory of global warming. Would you agree or disagree that this theory is independent of any actions taken or not taken? Second, if you believe that global warming is a "hodge podge of raw data", then I would like to know how you gathered your data. This assertion flies in the face of what I understand about global warming.


I think you missed the symmetry in my statement. By calling all atmospheric scientists "environmentalists" and suggesting that environmentalists are somehow bad or at least unable to think clearly, I was returning the favor by using the term "anti-environment" . It apparently worked all too well as you seem quite upset. If you believe that all atmospheric science is somehow tainted by political motivation to the point of it being an outright lie, then I suppose there would be no amount of evidence to convince you of the theory. You're choosing the route of conspiracy theorists to justify your skepticism.


It could mean that there is a cabal of atmospheric scientists proclaiming this theory and somehow interpreting or modifying the evidence in such a way to convince others so that others don't evaluate the evidence but just follow along. Yes, it could mean that. Or it could mean that there is good, convincing evidence that global warming is real and that experts in the field are convinced by it. I suppose I believe the latter to be the most likely explanation.

~~~~~~~~~~ quote codes don't work ~~~~~~~~`

lordhelmet
Again, the burden of proof is on you, my friend, not me. Those who put forth a theory so far reaching as "man made global warming" better have their ducks in a row before you start impacting the global economy. They don't. If they did, the evidence would speak for itself and the "experts" wouldn't have to invent bogeymen like "the anti-environmental movement".

reply
Of course, the burden of proof is on atmospheric scientists to prove global warming. That's what they've been doing and that's what a large number of them believe they have done. There is no boogey man. There is measurable, falsifiable and predictive and testable evidence. And quite to the contrary, it is you who has suggested that there is a conspiracy of atmospheric scientists bent on their agenda. It is you who has suggested that the evidence cannot speak for itself as it is tainted by their politics. It is you who has defined standards of measurement so high that no earth science could ever meet them.

It seems to me that the problem with the environmental movement is that they've already accepted the premise that man is causing "global warming". They aren't even questioning that basic premise. All of their work is designed to confirm what they already believe.

Think you have a point here, but I also have to add that "all their work" is using quite a broad brush. As a result of environmentalists and ecologists, many forward-looking innovations have come to industry, both for greater efficiencies and cleaner alternatives. My most recent observation of this was with the soft drink industry tightening up their water leaks. Hey, it's good for water conservation *and* good for industry. The point is that industry in itself is incapable of identifying its own waste. However, industry is smart enough to listen when environmentalists and ecologists talk.

On the other hand, environmentalists and ecologists don't get heard unless they put their arguments into forms that will get accepted by industry. In other words, moving away from fossil fuels has to make sense in business, else nothing gets done.

The great question right now is how to get industry to listen when most scientists are in agreement that global warming is going on, just not in agreement on how this is happening. From this layperson's point of view, it is obvious that industry is a major contributor to this change. Hey, get yourself a good view of a city at night and just watch it breath. That's a lot of energy getting used! It happens 24x7 each and every year, and the breathing keeps on growing.

Fine. But how do you get from fossil fuels to alternatives that are environmentally friendly? That's the big challenge, and industry does realize that what it does now is not sustainable for future generations. The alternatives often aren't efficient enough to pick up the slack, meaning that even if it can be done, it's just too expensive.

Anyway, looks to me like it's a big waste of brain power to argue global warming. That's accepted, and what is also accepted is that we have to figure out better ways of doing things.

If it's a religion, it's a darn good one. Sure beats pie in the sky.

The "untested drug" with regard to the global warming issue is the Carbon dioxide that is being pumped in ever-increasing amounts into the atmosphere NOT the global warming theory, which is based on the SCIENTIFIC FACT that Carbon dioxide and other gases trap heat.





Considering the concept of Global Warming is based on the SCIENTIFIC FACT that Carbon dioxide traps heat, on what basis do you claim the "ENTIRE THEORY" to be "BOGUS"?

I ask again Lord Helmet: if reducing fossil fuel use as a result of a conscious policy will "impact the global economy", what's going to happen when the oil runs out? Won't the Global economy collapse? If not why not? Please answer the question.

Also:



I fail to see the evidence of "Scientific Fact" on Global warming here.

Now, it has been suggested that Global warming is the result of industry. While I would not completely rule this out I have to ask this:


source

According to these statistics, global warming is worse today then 100 years ago. Yet, 100 years ago, everyone burned coal for heat and power, cars had no emission standards at all, and neither did industry. Every city in the nation used to be blanketed in heavy smog, and coal residue.

These days, there are more cars, and more industry by the emissions standards have dramatically reduced to pollution generated, yet according the the numbers above, the hots years were in the 90s, the decade that saw the most emission controls in the century as well as the clean air act.

My own city of St. Louis used to have a smog problem. I guess some think we still do because we still have all the signs for air quality warnings and the like. However, in the past 5 years I have actually seen smog less then a dozen times and I work in the city five days a week.

Carbon Dioxide is also expelled by every living thing on the planet. Our pollution has grown by leaps and bounds in the last 100 years, so is not the carbon dioxide emissions from people and animals also a problem?

I also wonder if the science of global warming takes into account the fact that the increased population leads to increased housing and buildings. Structures radiate heat as well.

Assume global warming is in fact a problem for a moment, what part is played by people simply living and the structures they live and work in.

Now, the "Scientific Fact" seems to be that no one clearly knows why global warming is happening. So, how do you address a problem if you do not know the cause?

Firstly, there is not a link between global warming and smog. Smog is caused by particulate matter and oxides of nitrogen or sulphur, which are all emitted when large amounts of coal is burnt. We have cleaned up coal combustion and moved onto cleaner sources of energy, such as gasoline or natural gas.

However, these still emit large amount of carbon dioxide when burnt, which is believed to be the main cause of global warming.

Secondly, the reason that the 90s saw the greatest cuts in CO2 emission in the 20th century is partly because warming had reached higher levels. One would expect to see a lag of several years between a reduction in CO2 emission and a reduction of CO2 in the atmosphere, for the same reason that the hole in the ozone layer is still growing, despite the West having phased out the use of CFCs some time ago.

Carbon dioxide emissions from people and animals is part of the carbon cycle. Plants absorb carbon dioxide and energy from the sun, make it into food, which animals then eat and break it down to release the energy. As the food is broken down, it is expelled as CO2. Coal, oil and gas are stores of carbon that took millions of years to build up and are being converted back into CO2 very quickly.

There is very little debate on whether global warming is occuring, there is also little debate outside the US over whether it is caused by man's combustion of fossil fuels (although there should probably be more debate on that). The main debate, is does it matter?.

CO2 is a natural component of our atmosphere and is absolutely essential for the creation of oxygen.

It's generation is also a natural part of our environment. The activity of man contributes some, for sure. But it's a stretch to attribute our small emissions as the primary factor causing the planet to warm up. You just have no baseline. There is no model yet developed that would be able to calculate the earth's temperature if man ceased to generate any CO2 beyond what we exhale.

The earth was mostly covered by ice as recently as 10,000 years ago. It warmed to its current temperature. That's a huge change in a short period of time geologically speaking. That dramatic change was not influenced one iota by man.

Projecting that change indicates a planet that will continue to warm, with or without man.

1. Show that man is the reason the earth is warming and that the natural trend that began 10,000 years ago is not the primary factor.

2. Show that the earth warming is a "bad" thing for human kind.

When is the oil going to run out? Not in our lifetime. I suspect that in 500 years when it starts running out (if it even does then), we'll be well down the road of developing alternative energy sources.

This is exactly the phenomena referred to in Crichton's essay which was using "consensus" to end debate on a very debatable topic.

No, the main debate is whether man is causing the earth to heat up beyond what it's intent on doing all by itself. The fact that people "outside of the US" have accepted this means absolutely and positively nothing. They could all very well be wrong.

As I have pointed out in multiple posts, there is just no statistically valid evidence, backed up by a verified understanding of how our climate, as a system, to make such a broad ranging conclusion.

If there is, then please help me find it. Right now, there is just a lot of wild speculation going on with cause-effect being determined seemingly at random.

Okay, lordhelmet, there is also wide "consensus" in the physics community that General Relativity is correct. Does this mean that there is cabal of physicists ending debate on this subject? How about the double helix form of DNA? Or the inflationary model of the Big Bang? Or superconductivity? Or perhaps you are one of those who thinks Idaho does not exist? People like Ptarmigan are using "consensus" not as the justification for their beliefs but as shorthand for their belief in the authority of experts in a given field of study. While it is possible that they are being mislead, it is unlikely. It is incumbent upon you (the radical skeptic) to demonstrate that this belief is misplaced.


The main debate with global warming is:

1. Is the average temperature of the Earth rising?
2. What is the rate of change of temperature?
3. Is there historical precedent for this change?
4. What are the causes of this change? Is this change in temperature mostly anthropogenic?
5. Whether or not it is anthropogenic, can/should we do something about it?


How do you come to this conclusion?


There are numerous books, essays and articles on this subject written be people of expertise. However, based on your previous posts, I'd have to conclude that you've already written off this evidence as a conspiracy of "environmentalists".

Just to add some more information to the debate:

NASA: 2005 Could Be Warmest Year Recorded



I don't think NASA is a hotbed of environmental extremists (or people who follow the alleged "religion" of environmentalism) and Hansen seems pretty sure in his statement.

Over geologic periods of time, it's clear that factors other than human technology are overwhelmingly important. But I don't expect to live for thousands or millions of years, so I can't wait for that.

There is, at least, some evidence (many would say lots of evidence) that greenhouse gases have contributed to global warming at least on a short-term level.

Even if it could be proved that the warming trend of the last few decades (and it's difficult to deny that this has been happening) was 100% caused by natural factors, surely it's true that reducing human production of greenhouse gases would help the situation. How to do that is open to debate, of course.

I can remember when there was opposition to phasing out chlorofluorocarbons because it would cause economic hardship. Then the hole in the ozone layer kept getting bigger and bigger, until it was clear that something had to be done.

I'm getting a feeling of deja vu all over again.

Where is Hansen's evidence? A "strong warming trend"? Primarily the result of "greenhouse gasses"?

That's a big conclusion based on a very small set of data. How does Hansen make such a radical conclusion? Peer pressure or data? Did he conduct a rigorous review of the data and test methodology and then establish a baseline of what the planet's temperature would be without man's influence? How could he? Those models do not exist!

Also, the entire CFC issue was overblown. The hole in the ozone was shown not to be as bad as originally thought. This was (yet) another example of discovering a phenomena through remote sensing and then failing to establish a baseline in order to determine whether the issue was natural or man made. Of course, since the Ozone hole has been measured smaller recently, the environmentalists types are claiming it's because of CFC reductions. Real rigorous cause-effect analysis there huh?

The ability to see and measure the level of ozone in the atmosphere is relatively recent and the result of man made satellite technology.

What did the "ozone hole" look like in 1950? 1900? 1700? How about 100 BC?

If these measurements cannot be made, then how in Sam Hill can such a theory be put out there and verified? Entire industries had to change in reaction to this unfounded theory that "man" had somehow, from the mere puffs of deoderant spray, ruined the ozone layer at the south pole. Ozone is a naturally occuring gas and it is largely created as a result of lightning.

Nasa? Yes, it's now largely filled with "environmental" types these days and the ozone hole is another example of politically motivated "research" that is designed to send off alarm bells in order to maintain or increase funding for more "research", sensing satellites, etc. As the line in the movie "The Right Stuff" said well, "no bucks, no Buck Rogers".

Man creating an "ozone hole" is similar to the "global warming" hoax. A massive media campaign was waged on behalf of this newly discovered "problem", huge and costly changes to industry were mandated, and those skeptical of the politically correct conclusion were branded as "industry dupes" or "reactionary right wingers".

In other words, the evidence to back up the claim was far less important than the PR campaign (i.e., politics) used to hammer home the dubious conclusion. Frankly, science has been completely corrupted by this tactic in these two, and many other areas. Every time a grant hungry researcher conducts a "study", the results are touted by the media as "the truth" and the burden of proof falls on those who question the often dubious results.

This situation is exactly 180 degrees out of phase in my opinion.

Hi. Got some links for that? Not arguing with you (just yet) but I'd like to have a look at your sources.

Umm - so again, the entire Western world, US included signed the Montreal Protocol, agreeing to stop the use of CFCs, agreeing to make smuggling CFCs a crime and to generally phase out their use in all products that used CFCs, DESPITE this being a major expense for the producers of anything using cooling systems (such as fridges and air conditioner units).

And according to you, they did all this on the basis of dodgy and unfounded science?

I realise that my generally philosophy of 'believe the experts' has flaws, however you seem to be arguing that the governments of the Western world signed a treaty to reduce ozone destruction in some sort of feverish panic and that they were wrong. I am inclined to believe that they knew what they were doing...call me naive...

Thank you Dr Pangloss! Now read this:

http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/...we_did_it.shtml

Well, as for oil...

No one knows how much oil there is left. The only people who would be in a position to tell are the oil companies and after the Shell debacle a few months ago, they are being pretty coy about telling investors how much oil they have left in their reserves.

(Shell had essentially been misleading it's investors by labelling potential oil reserves as proven oil reserves in it's accounts, so implying that the company had access to more oil than strictly true)

However the oil we use now is much lower quality than the oil we were using 50 years ago and requires more refining. What is more likely is that rather than run out of oil, we will simply move onto natural gas when natural gas becomes cheaper to utilise than oil (Exxon has started selling liquified natural gas as a replacement for oil already). Eventually natural gas will become too expensive to pump out and then we will probably move back to using coal (of which we have over 300 years worth of supplies left).

With any luck we will have found cleaner / renewable energy sources by then, however it is worth remembering that technological progress is always ASSUMED, it is never GUARANTEED.

Yes, where is the evidence that something or someone called "Hansen" exists? What does "strong" mean in reference to a "warming trend"? In fact, how can we claim anything as "warm" which has anthropocentric meaning? What is this stuff called "greenhouse gases"? What are these things called "gases"?


How can you even use the word "conclusion"? It implies that there is something called a "premise" and another thing called "evidence". I don't think either of these words have been proven to be meaningful. Where is the evidence that the language you are using is not culturally and socially constructed in such a way to force you into this line of thought (in preference to any other)?

What is this thing called a "planet"? I hear about it but what baseline measurement do we use to justify its existence? Do we refer to other "planets" as a baseline for its existence? There seems to be no model for this. We just assume that there is a "planet".


Of course, what is this "ozone" stuff? It's supposed to composed of O3 and it's supposed to have been measured. But, how was this measurement done? Have we looked at other atmospheres of other "planets" to determine a baseline of what's normal? How do we know that oxygen exists?


How do we even know that the techniques of measuring this "ozone hole" are correct? What does it mean to "measure"? How can we state anything about ozone in the absence of other "planetary bodies"? In fact, how can we determine that this thing called "industry" exists? Perhaps, it is just a linguistic turn of phrase manufactured by environmentalists or the media.


What is this "opinion" thing? And who's making this opinion? Perhaps, you don't exist. Perhaps, I don't exist. And what are these terms "I" and "you". Maybe, they're just concepts designed create an artificial distinction between different states of my mind or is that your mind? And what is this "mind" thing...

Lord Helmet, you would do well to read THIS balanced piece which recently appeared in New Scientist.

In 1863 the Congress established the National Academy of Science in 1916 the Academy organized the National Research Council. When the current president came into office he refered the conclusion of the IPCC regarding human induced climate change to the National Academies. In 2001 the NRC issue a report basically endorsing the IPCC report. For skeptics of climate change this is a good place to begin to evaluate the status of the science.

If you want just the summary go to:
NRC Summary of Climate Change

If you want to read the whole thing, go to:
Index of NRC Climate Change Review

Let's just look at the first paragraph....

"Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise. Temperatures are, in fact, rising. The changes observed over the last several decades are likely mostly due to human activities, but we cannot rule out that some significant part of these changes is also a reflection of natural variability. Human-induced warming and associated sea level rises are expected to continue through the 21st century. Secondary effects are suggested by computer model simulations and basic physical reasoning. These include increases in rainfall rates and increased susceptibility of semi-arid regions to drought. The impacts of these changes will be critically dependent on the magnitude of the warming and the rate with which it occurs."

The first sentence is presented as a matter of fact. Then, it's completely undermined in the third sentence to "we cannot rule out that some significant part of these changes is also a reflection of natural variability".

So there you have it. The conclusion is that man is causing the temperature rise, but then again, maybe we aren't.

This is my point exactly. These studies are eating up billions of research dollars as a result of a premise that is FAR from proven.

The fact of the matter is that atmospheric science is a very immature discipline. Models that explain the dynamics of our earth's climate are crude to say the least. The same people who can't tell us with certainty whether it will rain on Friday are claiming to predict the earth's climate 30 or 50 years out? It's absurd. The mere fact of collecting temperature information is a recent phenomena. And it represents a mere blink of an eye in geological time; hardly a statistically significant sample set. Furthermore, these models fail to explain the temperature spike that occurred during medieval times; hardly something that could be blamed on factories and SUV's.

The global warming hoax is an example of science that has been subverted by politics and the quest for research dollars. Scientists have attempted to squelch any voices that are critical of the haphazard way that these major conclusions have been formulated and other natural factors (such as the sun, volcanic activity, and the thermodynamic effects of our mass of cooling matter called the earth) are hardly understood by themselves, let alone how these variable interact in a complete system called our climate.

Just because someone has a ph.D. after their name and claims to be an "expert" does not make them right. Science that does not stand up to rigorous examination and instead tries to shout down dissenters (as is common practice at the free speech havens called "universities" when conservatives attempt to speak there) is not science. It's politics. It's fraudulent. It's pseudoscience.

Apparently, there is no level of proof that will satisfy you. You consider this whole thing to be a hoax, a conspiracy of atmospheric scientists who want nothing more than to pad their accounts with government research dollars. That's fine, I suppose.

In return, I consider your existence to be a hoax. There is no proof that you exist. Even if you were to come to my door and show me that you are a real person (and not just a username), I will continue to doubt your existence because you could be lying. You could show me genetic evidence of your existence with DNA samples of both yourself and from your parents, but I would still doubt it as these could be fabricated. I doubt that you are who you think you are. You could show me your birth certificate, social security card, driver's license, bank records and tax records. You could show me how your signature has remained unchanged since childhood. Nonetheless, all this information could be faked and thus I must doubt your existence because such things are possible. Oh, well...nice debating with