Aliens Caused Global Warming - Scientific Consensus

[FLVOL_79]

Someones been watching too much Highlander 2.

 

[BartW]

Is questioning the predicted severity of GW effects (e.g. questioning the temperature projections that have shown to be poor predictors of the last 15 year) the same as questioning whether or not:

GW is AGW - anthropologic (caused by man's activity)?

Likewise is questioning the scientific validity of plans to combat GW such as those in the Kyoto Protocol or any number of carbon cap/ carbon trading plans the same as questioning whether or not:

GW is AGW.

More simply: Am I a denier if I believe GW is occurring to some extent and man has a role but I question the predictions of the severity of outcomes and the validity of proposed solutions?

No, all those things are not the same. I’ll address them point by point

1) The past 15 years have been 15 of the hottest years on record. The “pause” is an artifact of cherrypicking your data set (surface temperatures) and starting point (1998 – a hot El Nino year).

Focusing on surface temperatures ignores the fact that the oceans continue to warm and acidify, ice continues to melt, and sea levels continue to rise unabated. In fact these processes are happening faster than predicted.

Despite the "pause" or "slowdown", surface temperatures over the past 15 years remain within IPCC predictions

2) There is no doubt over whether it’s caused by man. “Natural cycles” would have Earth cooling right now. We have spectroscopic proof that the rise in greenhouse gases is causing more heat to be trapped. We have isotopic proof that the increased level of CO2 is from the combustion of fossil fuels (also, duh…). Ipso facto we’re causing global warming.

3) Questioning the strategy to combat climate change is fair, but I’m not sure how you could question the ‘scientific validity’ of a carbon tax or cap-and-trade. One way or another we need to curb emissions. Unless you support the geoengineering option, but that opens a whole new can of worms.

4) People are flinging the term ‘denier’ around rather loosely. I’m not calling all the skeptics denialists. Some people are just legitimately ill-informed. Denialism isn’t a position so much as it is a style of debate.

Denialism is the employment of rhetorical tactics to give the appearance of argument or legitimate debate, when in actuality there is none. These false arguments are used when one has few or no facts to support one’s viewpoint against a scientific consensus or against overwhelming evidence to the contrary. They are effective in distracting from actual useful debate using emotionally appealing, but ultimately empty and illogical assertions.

5 general tactics are used by denialists to sow confusion. They are conspiracy, selectivity (cherry-picking), fake experts, impossible expectations (also known as moving goalposts), and general fallacies of logic.

Denialism is rather formulaic and easy to spot. The Galileo gambit especially is a dead giveaway. Anyhow, we digress from the topic. If you'd like to discuss any of these issues in detail I suggest we take this over to the global warming thread.

If anyone wants to discuss the details of Crichton's lecture, I suggest first reading the link I provided in my rebuttal above.

 

[FLVOL_79]

No, all those things are not the same. I’ll address them point by point

1) The past 15 years have been 15 of the hottest years on record. The “pause” is an artifact of cherrypicking your data set (surface temperatures) and starting point (1998 – a hot El Nino year).

Focusing on surface temperatures ignores the fact that the oceans continue to warm and acidify, ice continues to melt, and sea levels continue to rise unabated. In fact these processes are happening faster than predicted.

Despite the "pause" or "slowdown", surface temperatures over the past 15 years remain within IPCC predictions

2) There is no doubt over whether it’s caused by man. “Natural cycles” would have Earth cooling right now. We have spectroscopic proof that the rise in greenhouse gases is causing more heat to be trapped. We have isotopic proof that the increased level of CO2 is from the combustion of fossil fuels (also, duh…). Ipso facto we’re causing global warming.

3) Questioning the strategy to combat climate change is fair, but I’m not sure how you could question the ‘scientific validity’ of a carbon tax or cap-and-trade. One way or another we need to curb emissions. Unless you support the geoengineering option, but that opens a whole new can of worms.

4) People are flinging the term ‘denier’ around rather loosely. I’m not calling all the skeptics denialists. Some people are just legitimately ill-informed. Denialism isn’t a position so much as it is a style of debate.



Denialism is rather formulaic and easy to spot. The Galileo gambit especially is a dead giveaway. Anyhow, we digress from the topic. If you'd like to discuss any of these issues in detail I suggest we take this over to the global warming thread.

If anyone wants to discuss the details of Crichton's lecture, I suggest first reading the link I provided in my rebuttal above.

Obviously you are talking about your ideals right? lol:

 

[lawgator1]

 

[volinbham]

No, all those things are not the same. I’ll address them point by point

1) The past 15 years have been 15 of the hottest years on record. The “pause” is an artifact of cherrypicking your data set (surface temperatures) and starting point (1998 – a hot El Nino year).

Focusing on surface temperatures ignores the fact that the oceans continue to warm and acidify, ice continues to melt, and sea levels continue to rise unabated. In fact these processes are happening faster than predicted.

Despite the "pause" or "slowdown", surface temperatures over the past 15 years remain within IPCC predictions

2) There is no doubt over whether it’s caused by man. “Natural cycles” would have Earth cooling right now. We have spectroscopic proof that the rise in greenhouse gases is causing more heat to be trapped. We have isotopic proof that the increased level of CO2 is from the combustion of fossil fuels (also, duh…). Ipso facto we’re causing global warming.

3) Questioning the strategy to combat climate change is fair, but I’m not sure how you could question the ‘scientific validity’ of a carbon tax or cap-and-trade. One way or another we need to curb emissions. Unless you support the geoengineering option, but that opens a whole new can of worms.

4) People are flinging the term ‘denier’ around rather loosely. I’m not calling all the skeptics denialists. Some people are just legitimately ill-informed. Denialism isn’t a position so much as it is a style of debate.



Denialism is rather formulaic and easy to spot. The Galileo gambit especially is a dead giveaway. Anyhow, we digress from the topic. If you'd like to discuss any of these issues in detail I suggest we take this over to the global warming thread.

If anyone wants to discuss the details of Crichton's lecture, I suggest first reading the link I provided in my rebuttal above.

On the temperature predictions I'm referring to what predicted surface temperatures were supposed to be (as modeled in the "hockey stick") and what has been observed. We don't have to see things get suddenly cooler to question whether the predictive models are accurate with regard to amount of GW occurring. To be fair there has been cherry picking in the data as well.

I'm also referring to Al Gore style predictions; predictions that tornadoes, hurricanes etc are going to just get more severe, etc. New York underwater. There is plenty passed off as the effects of GW that simply are not scientific consensus yet they get bundled into the whole deal so questioning them makes you a heretic.

I'm not questioning man's effect.

My problem with the solutions are 2 fold: 1) they are not done with real cost/benefit analysis so they are simplistic in only looking at a) potential impact on GHGas levels and b) have implementation problems of not everyone playing nice - eg. Kyoto exemptions doomed any real impact.
2) the solutions are also often agenda laden - several are redistribution schemes and social justice schemes more so than purely scientific schemes.

To summarize - there are degrees of certainty for the larger problem.

We are most certain that:

GW is occurring and man plays a role. This is the primary domain of climate scientists.

We increasingly lose certainty when we start to "predict" the outcomes to life and land and short term weather. Here we see other specialties chiming in - biologists, geologist, sociologists, etc.

Here we also see more doomsday predictions of impact.

We rarely see science (not published? not funded?) about any positive effects of a warmer planet. Clearly there are some. There will be some winners.

We also increasingly lose certainty when we talk about specific fixes to a massively complex system. Sure cutting carbon use sounds like a winner but how much can be cut and what will the real effect be. To hear some of the "legitimate scientists" we are already too far gone.

Additionally we don't see the cost/benefit analysis. What is the financial impact and connected health and mental health impact on decimating the coal industry? Too bad for you?

Strategies always involve trade offs so for this to be legit science we have to objectively consider the trade offs; not be hell bent on reducing GHGases regardless of the consequences.

Those decisions require facts and when one side demonizes another as "deniers" they have given up on looking at the matter scientifically and have moved to political decision making (see how I brought it back to the thread topic )

 

[lawgator1]

Here's some REAL and TRUE science:

 

[FLVOL69]

Here's some REAL and TRUE science:

Gotta love those Uf students !

 

[lawgator1]

Gotta love those Uf students !

Yup.

Every single answer is right.

 

[BigOrangeTrain]

BartW - I'm guessing you see the distinction between whether or not GW is AGW and predictive models about the consequences

Likewise, the distinction between is GW actually AGW and the merit and scientific validity of any number of proposals to curb GGases?

Watch out. Next thing you know, you will be a scientific denialist and conspiracy theory nut case.

 

[BartW]

On the temperature predictions I'm referring to what predicted surface temperatures were supposed to be (as modeled in the "hockey stick") and what has been observed. We don't have to see things get suddenly cooler to question whether the predictive models are accurate with regard to amount of GW occurring. To be fair there has been cherry picking in the data as well.

I'm also referring to Al Gore style predictions; predictions that tornadoes, hurricanes etc are going to just get more severe, etc. New York underwater. There is plenty passed off as the effects of GW that simply are not scientific consensus yet they get bundled into the whole deal so questioning them makes you a heretic.

I'm not questioning man's effect.

My problem with the solutions are 2 fold: 1) they are not done with real cost/benefit analysis so they are simplistic in only looking at a) potential impact on GHGas levels and b) have implementation problems of not everyone playing nice - eg. Kyoto exemptions doomed any real impact.
2) the solutions are also often agenda laden - several are redistribution schemes and social justice schemes more so than purely scientific schemes.

To summarize - there are degrees of certainty for the larger problem.

We are most certain that:

GW is occurring and man plays a role. This is the primary domain of climate scientists.

We increasingly lose certainty when we start to "predict" the outcomes to life and land and short term weather. Here we see other specialties chiming in - biologists, geologist, sociologists, etc.

Here we also see more doomsday predictions of impact.

We rarely see science (not published? not funded?) about any positive effects of a warmer planet. Clearly there are some. There will be some winners.

We also increasingly lose certainty when we talk about specific fixes to a massively complex system. Sure cutting carbon use sounds like a winner but how much can be cut and what will the real effect be. To hear some of the "legitimate scientists" we are already too far gone.

Additionally we don't see the cost/benefit analysis. What is the financial impact and connected health and mental health impact on decimating the coal industry? Too bad for you?

Strategies always involve trade offs so for this to be legit science we have to objectively consider the trade offs; not be hell bent on reducing GHGases regardless of the consequences.

Those decisions require facts and when one side demonizes another as "deniers" they have given up on looking at the matter scientifically and have moved to political decision making (see how I brought it back to the thread topic )

Bham, I think you’ll find the answer to many of your questions in AR5. There is actually quite a bit of work done precisely on this cost/benefit analysis. And there is in fact research done on the benefits of a warmer planet (for example, the short-term increase in primary productivity).

What, specifically, is your beef with the hockey stick? What solutions do you feel are purely redistribution schemes, and why? What “alarmist” predictions do you feel have been grossly exaggerated?

I’m sure some liberal talking heads occasionally get the facts wrong (libs have their own science denialists – notably GMO opponents, animal rights extremists, homeopathics & homebirthers, anti-vaxxers, and to an extent nuclear energy opponents) but on the whole their representation of this issue is much more accurate than what you get from Faux News. The anecdotal “alarmist” predictions pale in comparison to the vast amount of blatant falsehoods echoed by industry-funded thinktanks and the denial blogosphere.

Again, if you want the bare unpoliticized facts you’ll have to look at the scientific literature. Read AR5 as it’s released. Scientists don’t have an agenda; they are simply reporting the facts. Thermometers aren’t democrats or republicans.

 

[82_VOL_83]

After this winter in OH I don't give a shiite about global warming. Bring it on.

 

[BartW]

Obviously you are talking about your ideals right? lol:

Wut? I'm not the one comparing myself to Galileo...

Galileo gambit

And a very relevant page under the 'see also':

Science was wrong before

 

[82_VOL_83]

Time for a merge.....Bart came in and f'd up a perfectly good aliens thread.

 

[Grand Vol]

Time for a merge.....Bart came in and f'd up a perfectly good aliens thread.

No kidding. Why Bart can't accept it's aliens and nobody knows what the world will be like 100 years from now after the aliens show up and turn off the heat I just don't know.

 

[82_VOL_83]

No kidding. Why Bart can't accept it's aliens and nobody knows what the world will be like 100 years from now after the aliens show up and turn off the heat I just don't know.

1) I don't care
2) My kids don't care (unless a medical miracle occurs)
3) My grandkids don't care (unless a medical miracle occurs)

After that, just think of all the new ocean front property.

 

[Grand Vol]

1) I don't care
2) My kids don't care (unless a medical miracle occurs)
3) My grandkids don't care (unless a medical miracle occurs)

After that, just think of all the new ocean front property.

I think you would care if aliens showed up and said "fooled you!" and reset the global thermometer.

 

[BartW]

Time for a merge.....Bart came in and f'd up a perfectly good aliens thread.

Sorry guys

I thought OP was serious

 

[volinbham]

Bham, I think you’ll find the answer to many of your questions in AR5. There is actually quite a bit of work done precisely on this cost/benefit analysis. And there is in fact research done on the benefits of a warmer planet (for example, the short-term increase in primary productivity).

What, specifically, is your beef with the hockey stick? What solutions do you feel are purely redistribution schemes, and why? What “alarmist” predictions do you feel have been grossly exaggerated?

I’m sure some liberal talking heads occasionally get the facts wrong (libs have their own science denialists – notably GMO opponents, animal rights extremists, homeopathics & homebirthers, anti-vaxxers, and to an extent nuclear energy opponents) but on the whole their representation of this issue is much more accurate than what you get from Faux News. The anecdotal “alarmist” predictions pale in comparison to the vast amount of blatant falsehoods echoed by industry-funded thinktanks and the denial blogosphere.

Again, if you want the bare unpoliticized facts you’ll have to look at the scientific literature. Read AR5 as it’s released. Scientists don’t have an agenda; they are simply reporting the facts. Thermometers aren’t democrats or republicans.

Okay the Faux News reference and "scientists don't have an agenda" comments make me question your objectivity and grasp on reality.

Also your view of "anecdotal alarmist" vs blatant falsehoods balance - how exactly did you reach the conclusion that the balance is so skewed towards the "deniers"? Seems all part of the same set of talking points.

I'll take a look at AR5 but are your really suggesting that IPCC is politics free? Are the scientists who've bowed out or criticized it simply wrong on the science or do they have a point when they suggest there are signs of agenda.

Just one quick example

He has been widely criticised by green campaigners after he claimed that the much shorter ‘summary for policymakers’ – hammered out in all-night sessions between scientists and government officials over a week-long meeting in Yokohama, Japan – was overly ‘alarmist’.
In his view, the summary focused on ‘scare stories’ and suggestions the world faced ‘the four horsemen of the apocalypse’.
He said he did not want his name associated with it because he felt ‘uncomfortable’ with the way the summary exaggerated the economic impact of global warming.


Read more: Green 'smear campaign' against professor who dared to disown 'sexed up' UN climate dossier | Mail Online
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

Or this from Lovelock

ames Lovelock (photo above), the British inventor, NASA scientist, author, and originator of the Gaia Hypothesis, mocked sustainable development as “meaningless drivel,” and said the UN makes “a mess” of everything it gets involved with. In 2006, Lovelock, one of the world’s most famous environmentalist gurus, asserted that due to global warming “billions of us will die and the few breeding pairs of people that survive will be in the Arctic where the climate remains tolerable.” He now says his predictions were “alarmist,” and he criticizes his former comrades for having turned environmentalism into a “green religion.” Lovelock also endorses nuclear power and expanded development of natural gas through hydraulic fracturing, or “fracking.” But his ultimate heresy is his withering rejection of so-called “renewable energy,” especially wind power, as a viable

Bottomline, there's money in them thar alarmist hills. Ask Al Gore who is now worth more than the evil Vulture Capitalist Mitt Romney. AG has gotten rich on exaggeration.

No exaggeration here?

When co-anchor Katie Couric asked Al Gore on the May 24, 2006 Today show “What do you see happening in 15 to 20 years if nothing changes?…Even Manhattan would be in deep water”, he replied: “Yes, in fact the World Trade Center Memorial site would be underwater.”


Earlier, in January 11, 2006 on the same show, Obama Science Czar John Holdren’s prediction was even more terrifying than Gore’s: “There is an even greater threat that scientists can only speculate about. As global temperatures rise, they may cause the massive West Antarctic Ice Sheet to slip more rapidly. Then we’ll be facing a sea-level rise not of one to three feet in a century, but of 10 or 20 feet in a much shorter time. The Supreme Court would be flooded. You could tie your boat to the Washington Monument. Storm surges would make the Capitol unusable.”

or this?

Al's Journal : Statement on Hurricane Sandy

If you are going to throw the "scientists have no agenda" card then you have to credit scientists who counter the alarmist predictions. Sadly, they are usually attacked as "being funded by Big Oil". True but if you recognize that money can corrupt science you cannot deny the money (grants, funding, "publication", other government support, speaking tours, etc.) that fuels findings of the most dire consequences. No one is a better exemplar of how lucrative selling dire consequences can be than Al Gore.

 

[volinbham]

BartW - let me get at this another way.

Do you believe the following are settled science:

1. The rate of global temperature increase assuming we take no actions that we are not taking now. IOW - are the IPCC or Hansen projections settled science.

2. The theory that the Hansen projections and IPCC projections didn't over estimate temperature rise because that temperature rise occurred in the sea and not in air temperature.

3. The impact of projected temperature increases on short-term weather; storms in particular.

4. The impact of projected temperature increases on society (e.g. the predicted wars, famines, etc.)

5. The impact of projected temperature increases on wildlife

Just to name a few.

 

[n_huffhines]

Scientists don’t have an agenda;

Please tell me you're not serious.

 

[BartW]

BartW - let me get at this another way.

Do you believe the following are settled science:

1. The rate of global temperature increase assuming we take no actions that we are not taking now. IOW - are the IPCC or Hansen projections settled science.

2. The theory that the Hansen projections and IPCC projections didn't over estimate temperature rise because that temperature rise occurred in the sea and not in air temperature.

3. The impact of projected temperature increases on short-term weather; storms in particular.

4. The impact of projected temperature increases on society (e.g. the predicted wars, famines, etc.)

5. The impact of projected temperature increases on wildlife

Just to name a few.

First off, none of Lovelock, Tol, or Gore are climate scientists. We covered Lovelock in the official thread. That's a pretty gnarly spin on the Tol article, but to be expected from the daily mail. Gore's first statement is stupid (sea level will rise ~1m by 2100) but your linked statement is more-or-less accurate, though Gore still said it in a profoundly stupid way.

In response to your questions:

1) There are a range of projections based on different growth projections. I'm not sure why you specify Hansen's predictions (the science has come a long way since 1988...) but they've been good so far.

2) It's not just a guess, it's a measurement. And surface temperatures are still within the range of IPCC projections.

3) While no single weather event can be attributed specifically to climate change, it does affect weather patterns and in general warmer waters breed bigger tropical storms.

4) This is getting away from the physical science, but yes. Drought is certainly a major cause of famine and political unrest.

5) Specifically what? Ocean acidification is a big problem. Climates are changing faster than species can migrate or adapt (especially in the tropics where many species have narrow niches). We are presently witnessing the sixth mass extinction in Earth's history.

Your wording ("settled science") suggests you're going to take this down the same fallacious path as Crichton. Before you do take a look at the links in my response to '79. Science is always evolving and refining itself, but that doesn't mean it isn't a useful predictor. In fact the defining characteristic of science is its predictive power. Can the IPCC give you lotto numbers for 2100? No. But we have more than enough data to warrant action.

 

[BartW]

Please tell me you're not serious.

What do you think our agenda is?

 

[BigOrangeTrain]

Please tell me you're not serious.

Trust me, he is very serious.

 

[BartW]

Bottomline, there's money in them thar alarmist hills. Ask Al Gore who is now worth more than the evil Vulture Capitalist Mitt Romney. AG has gotten rich on exaggeration.

By the way, can you explain this? Al Gore got rich off of Apple and Google and his TV station. Whar's the big bucks in them thar alarmist hills? Do you think it compares to the big bucks in the Marcellus shale?

 

[n_huffhines]

What do you think our agenda is?

Funding.

"Our"? You're a paid scientist?