A global warming debate: a rare head to head between AGW and 'denier' scientists

[reallife]

Re: A global warming debate: a rare head to head between AGW and 'denier' scientists

.....



Imagine Einstein saying that debating relativity is a waste of time (in his day, obviously). Impersonal debate is the opposite of a waste of time, it is urgent. If the science is so obvious that debate is a waste of time, then the AGW supporters need to be bringing in the doubters with cause and effect science, not alienating them with arrogance.

Do you really think Einstein would have sanctioned a 'debate' about relativity with lay persons such as the typical iTuliper or economist? Not trying to be offensive, but when did debate with the scientifically illiterate become relevant to the global warming issue.

Global warming is occuring and whether it is due to natural phenomena or due to human induced causes is not very important. There isn't much that can be done about it. Humans, being human, will continue to burn as much carbon as they are able to get their hands on. Any attempt to mitigate human contributions to global warming are doomed to failure. Human contributions to global warming, notwithstanding, the planet will continue to warm for the next few hundred or, at the very most, a few thousand years. We are near the end of the current interglacial period and the next glaciation is around the corner. All it takes is for it to snow in July a couple years in a row.....;)

[jneal3]

Re: A global warming debate: a rare head to head between AGW and 'denier' scientists

Do you really think Einstein would have sanctioned a 'debate' about relativity with lay persons such as the typical iTuliper or economist?

Debate? Maybe not. Explain himself to the degree necessary to get consensus? Absolutely. Think 'thought experiments' - elevator, train at speed of light, etc.

Not trying to be offensive, but when did debate with the scientifically illiterate become relevant to the global warming issue.

I'm warming my hands on that one....;)

If there's one thing I've learned as a scientist, trying to determine who is/is not 'scientifically illiterate' is a minefield I don't enter; I expend a lot of energy treating differing opinions with respect, especially if there is a building consensus that there's a problem (again, not intelligent design vs evolution here...)

Global warming is occuring and whether it is due to natural phenomena or due to human induced causes is not very important.

Seems like whether it's due to human induced causes is the core of the disagreement...not as much arguing over whether there's warming, though there appears to be growing disagreement there too.

There isn't much that can be done about it.

Hey, give the scientists a chance.;) If the AGW smoking gun suddenly appears, I'll be all over reasoned responses to it.

Human contributions to global warming, notwithstanding, the planet will continue to warm for the next few hundred or, at the very most, a few thousand years. We are near the end of the current interglacial period and the next glaciation is around the corner. All it takes is for it to snow in July a couple years in a row.....;)

All the more reason to rethink dedicating 3% of world GDP to the problem, don't you think?

[jneal3]

Re: A global warming debate: a rare head to head between AGW and 'denier' scientists

This quote seems reasonable enough to me to share, but onto the soapbox first: the one conclusion I've drawn as a newbie to the possibility of holes in the AGW theory is, the one source for enlightenment you can't depend on is the angry bashers of AGW-questioners. The quality of their responses usually just demostrates that they don't understand the details of either side of the issue, which is chum in the water to an independent mind. When the AGW questioners start off their responses with calling the other side a knuckle-dragging moron, I'll know the pendulum has swung....

http://royalsociety.org/page.asp?id=4688&tip=1

....
So now we come to the modern climate problem. We know that it is capable of remarkable changes without human intervention. We also know that it has elements with very long memory times (the ocean, the ice caps, and some land processes including the biota). There is the possibility of solar fluctuations about which we know very little. The instrumental record only goes back about 300 years (being very generous) and global coverage is only really available following World War II. In many cases, we have no direct evidence for the spatial structures of natural variations and so find it almost impossible to compare observed changes with those known not influenced by human activities.

Many scientists therefore rely upon numerical models of the climate system to calculate (1) the nature of natural variability with no human interference, and compare it to (2) the variability seen when human effects are included. This approach is a very sensible one, but the ability to test (calibrate) the models, which can be extraordinarily complex, for realism in both categories (1) and (2) is limited by the same observational data base already describe. At bottom, it is very difficult to determine the realism by which the models deal with either (1) or (2).

Thus at bottom, it is very difficult to separate human induced change from natural change, certainly not with the confidence we all seek. In these circumstances, it is essential to remember that the inability to prove human-induced change is not the same thing as a demonstration of its absence. It is probably true that most scientists would assign a very high probability that human-induced change is already strongly present in the climate system, while at the same time agreeing that clear-cut proof is not now available and may not be available for a long-time to come, if ever. Public policy has to be made on the basis of probabilities, not firm proof.

Thus, I think I can explain to my 10-year-old daughter (who started me down this rathole in the first place, thanks very much) that AGW is now and may never be 'proven', but prudence dictates that we go with likelihoods when dealing with the future of the environment, while maintaining an open mind when it comes to new data/theories.

Back to work.

[c1ue]

Re: A global warming debate: a rare head to head between AGW and 'denier' scientists

All the more reason to rethink dedicating 3% of world GDP to the problem, don't you think?

This is exactly the crux of the issue.

If AGW were merely a theory, then that is one thing.

I don't go out of my way to debate the 9/11 Hoaxers, the Holocaust deniers, etc etc.

But AGW is being used to justify a huge tax on society.

In my thinking this places the burden of proof on the AGW side, and the objections continuously being raised indicate that this burden of proof is not very heavy.

Secondly even a cursory examination of the threads of AGW show a disturbing pattern of agenda vs. true scientific inquiry. I regularly post examples of AGW proponents deliberately obstructing open scientific inquiry as well as examples of AGW proponents exaggerating trends and presenting misleading evidence.

There are major efforts underway to examine, for example, the temperature recording stations in the US and the world. The numbers of stations have dropped dramatically.

You can see for yourself: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/station_data/

For California, note how the stations have almost all been dropped except for Santa Maria and San Francisco.

Distance		Station Name		Lat	Lon	ID	Pop.	Years
37 km (*)		Lemoore/Reeves Nas		36.3 N	120.0 W	425747020030	rural area	1961 - 2003
63 km (*)		Fresno/Air Te		36.8 N	119.7 W	425723890000	756,000	1887 - 2007
64 km (*)		Hanford 1s		36.3 N	119.7 W	425747020010	31,000	1899 - 2007
91 km (*)		Merced Municipal Ap		37.3 N	120.5 W	425724810010	56,000	1898 - 2007
94 km (*)		Paso Robles/Municipal Arpt		35.7 N	120.6 W	425723900020	rural area	1952 - 2004
94 km (*)		Visalia Usa		36.3 N	119.3 W	425747020020	76,000	1888 - 1980
99 km (*)		Paso Robles		35.6 N	120.7 W	425723900010	rural area	1894 - 2007
103 km (*)		Castle/Afb		37.4 N	120.6 W	425724810020	rural area	1949 - 1970
116 km (*)		Salinas/Faa Airport		36.7 N	121.6 W	425724910020	109,000	1948 - 2004
117 km (*)		Lemon Cove		36.4 N	119.0 W	425723890010	rural area	1895 - 2007
132 km (*)		Wasco		35.6 N	119.3 W	425723840010	12,000	1899 - 2007
134 km (*)		San Luis Obispo Poly		35.3 N	120.7 W	425723940020	42,000	1887 - 2007
135 km (*)		San Luis Obispo Usa		35.3 N	120.7 W	425723940010	42,000	1895 - 1927
139 km (*)		Monterey/Naf		36.6 N	121.9 W	425724910010	32,000	1945 - 1969
156 km (*)		Yosemite Park Headquarters		37.8 N	119.6 W	425724810030	rural area	1906 - 2006
161 km (*)		Santa Cruz		37.0 N	122.0 W	425724910040	50,000	1880 - 2007
164 km (*)		Bakersfield/M		35.4 N	119.0 W	425723840000	543,000	1947 - 2004
169 km (*)		Los Gatos Usa		37.2 N	122.0 W	425745090010	6,253,000	1891 - 1980
174 km (*)		San Jose Usa		37.4 N	121.9 W	425745090020	6,253,000	1880 - 1976
176 km (*)		Santa Maria/P		34.9 N	120.5 W	425723940000	62,000	1947 - 2009
178 km (*)		Stockton/Metr		37.9 N	121.2 W	425724920000	211,000	1948 - 2004
185 km (*)		Livermore		37.7 N	121.8 W	425745090040	57,000	1880 - 2007
186 km (*)		Moffet Field/Nas		37.4 N	122.0 W	425745090030	6,253,000	1945 - 1994
190 km (*)		Vandenberg Af		34.8 N	120.5 W	425746040000	rural area	1951 - 1970
193 km (*)		Independence		36.8 N	118.2 W	425724800010	rural area	1933 - 2007
200 km (*)		Bishop/Arpt		37.4 N	118.4 W	425724800020	rural area	1948 - 2004
201 km (*)		Lodi		38.1 N	121.3 W	425724920010	52,000	1882 - 2007
209 km (*)		Electra Ph		38.3 N	120.7 W	425745010010	rural area	1905 - 1994
215 km (*)		Tejon Rancho		35.0 N	118.8 W	425723830030	rural area	1898 - 2007
218 km (*)		Oakland/Metro		37.7 N	122.2 W	425724930000	6,253,000	1948 - 1981
222 km (*)		San Francisco		37.6 N	122.4 W	425724940002	6,253,000	1880 - 2009
225 km (*)		Alameda/Nas		37.7 N	122.3 W	425745060010	6,253,000	1945 - 1996

Other projects are checking the specific data sets for specific stations, uncovering this gem:



One problem: this station was closed in 1995. The circled data was extrapolated by a program!

Still other efforts are examining the urbanization/siting of remaining temperature stations: (This map represents 82% coverage of the 1000+ GISS surface stations)

http://www.surfacestations.org/

surface station 071409.bmp

surface station legend.bmp

Again, seems like a lot of discrepancies given that 'the debate is over'

[jneal3]

Re: A global warming debate: a rare head to head between AGW and 'denier' scientists

Assuming no one else has already, I'll also make the observation that it takes some real guts and diligence to engage in this debate, more than I can muster, particulary from the AGW-questioner side, c1ue especially, since your position goes against the current scientific consesus; good work and keep them honest, if not humble.

[we_are_toast]

Re: A global warming debate: a rare head to head between AGW and 'denier' scientists

I don't go out of my way to debate the 9/11 Hoaxers, the Holocaust deniers, etc etc.

But AGW is being used to justify a huge tax on society.

I think this about sums it up, I don't care about it if it isn't going to cost me money, but I'll claim anything to stop them from costing me anything.

[c1ue]

Re: A global warming debate: a rare head to head between AGW and 'denier' scientists

I think this about sums it up, I don't care about it if it isn't going to cost me money, but I'll claim anything to stop them from costing me anything.

Indeed.

To flip this around:

I don't care it its true, but I'll claim anything to stop the 'deniers' from questioning AGW.

[doom&gloom]

Re: A global warming debate: a rare head to head between AGW and 'denier' scientists

I have always subscribed to "follow the money" myself. When the entire
AGW 'industry' is built around a particular belief system, and is funded by
a government staffed with people of a similar belief system, how can you
NOT get data that is skewed towards that belief system?

When AlGore makes his money off books, films with obvious errors, speechs
and investments in AGW related enterprises, how can you not consider
such a spokesman biased?

When governments around the world are dying to raise more tax money,
how convenient that there should be AGW as a means to yet again fleece
the people? Certainly our own government could EASILY accomplish the
idea of reduced carbon emissions without all the complexities of a crap n'
tax system by enacting a simple carbon tax and dedicating that money
solely to energy system buildout that is not oil-based. But such a simple
system would keep the guys at Goldman as well as the AlGores of the
world from profiting off the plebes along the way. And transparency, even
after all the big promises of the Messiah Obama during the election season,
CLEARLY is not forthcoming from this government.

As an anti-AGW supporter, I am utterly amazed at how such 'science' has
failed to predict the current cooling cycle we are in, and how the debate
has now had to be re-framed as 'climate change' v. 'glowball warming' to
cover their asses.

Furthermore, I am amazed that our political leaders would wish to commit
economic suicide by even thinking of implementing a policy that would tie
both America's hands behind our back as we battle in the world of global
production while others such as China remain unfettered. That some think
this is somehow 'noble' of us shows how deluded some of us have become.

The Earth has been thru MANY warming and cooling cycles over the life of
the planet. For most of that time man was not there to induce 'carbon' into
the atmosphere, and we did not have cows farting up the place as we do
today. Yet the climate 'changed' nonetheless.

How many times has 'science' believed it had all the answers, only to be
proven wrong yet again. And here we have some of the most complex
modeling that can be done on a planetary scale using data that is of
limited lifespan, sometimes dubious in nature at best, and we are willing
to toss away everything for these 'results'?

Right now there is NO denying the planet is presently cooling. And there
will come a time when the planet will be warming again. Whatever the
current trend is, someone will find a way to spin it as 'climate change'
if that is what they believe in.

Follow the money, in the end, it leads you to the real answers.

[reallife]

Re: A global warming debate: a rare head to head between AGW and 'denier' scientists

Science or opinion? You decide.....:confused: