Climate Change Skepticism

[jdobbin]

You might have a point if Steve Milloy was the only person taking this position. He is not. There are many skeptics who look at the problems from different angles.

And that is why some people can argue that there is no reason to do anything about air pollution. It really is an issue of aesthetics.

[stevoh]

In the last couple weeks I have taken the time to go through a lot of material written by climate change sceptics and, much to my surprise, I found that the scientific arguments are sound and the responses to those arguments by the global warming establishment have ranged from inadequate to nonsensical. Before I started my research I had assumed that the 'scientific consensus' was basically right and that CO2 was causing the planet to warm and the only real issue to discuss was how we were going to spread the pain of carbon emission cuts. I am no longer convinced that there is any connection between the CO2 level rises and the apparent warming trend that we have seen over the last few years.

First off, great! Nice, good to see someone go in with an open mind and see what the science says, and not what various political bodies who are trying to influence policy one way or the other have to say.

However, I have a couple of questions. Firstly, why read only the information that skeptics have provided? Two weeks of that type of research, just like two weeks of reading one opinion on anything, will change your mind. Your research should be equally balanced between those that are sceptical of Global Warming science, and those who support it.

So, junkscience is a fine start to represent the "skeptic" side of the argument.

What websites did you look at that support human influence global warming? How did you establish that the information here was not valid, but the information from junk science was?

Now to address one specific point, surrounding the antarctic ice increase, which is occuring. I am going to look into this more, but what I remember about this is that the ice is not increasing due to colder temperatures, but due to heavier snowfall. The snow layer compresses over time and produces more ice. I will get back to you on that one.

[Riverwind]

And that is why some people can argue that there is no reason to do anything about air pollution. It really is an issue of aesthetics.

You are getting tiresome. I provided links to 10+ different scientists with published works that are looking at GW in different ways using different data and you are obsessing about one guy's opinion on other topics. I only linked to his site because it is a good overview of the mechanics of GW and the issues involved. Nothing on the page is factually wrong even if you disagree with the opinion that he expresses along side the facts.

Why don't you address the science. The belief that human produced CO2 causes GW is a *hypothesis* - not a fact. It is a hypothisis that has been accepted as plausible by many in the scientific community because:

1) Various temperature measurements show the earth is warming;

2) Computer models suggest that CO2 could theoretically cause warming to occur;

3) No alternate explaination exists;

Some sceptics tackle the first point and point out that the warming is:

1) Nothing unusual when compared to climates in the past;

2) Not really happening because the measurement techniques are flawed;

3) Not statistically significant because the time periods are too short;

Other skeptics go after 2) and point out that:

1) There is huge variability among the different models;

2) The models are not able to take into account important factors such as cloud cover;

3) The models have done a poor job of predicting what has happened over the last 10 years;

Others tackle 3) by showing:

1) There is a link between cosmic rays and cloud cover;

2) Global warming is occurring on Mars;

3) Similar warmings have occurred in the past without CO2;

Collectively all of these different sceptics have shown that the CO2 hypothesis is not a plausible as the GW activists would like us to believe.

More importantly, GW advocates have never proven the link between CO2 and warming and it is unlikely that they ever will.

[jdobbin]

You are getting tiresome.

Really. You pointed out what you thought was a great website. Well, that great website says pollution and toxins are not really dangerous.

There is nothing factually wrong with what he says on that subject either except that there are many countering scientific studies on the subject. Likewise, there are countering studies to the ones you point out on global warming.

Edited December 7, 2007 by jdobbin

[Riverwind]

However, I have a couple of questions. Firstly, why read only the information that skeptics have provided? Two weeks of that type of research, just like two weeks of reading one opinion on anything, will change your mind. Your research should be equally balanced between those that are sceptical of Global Warming science, and those who support it.

I looked at both sides of the arguments but my approach was to look at sceptic arguement and then go find sources that refuted their arguments. I also tried to check their facts from other sources. For example, if someone made a claim based on ice core data I went looking for an independent site that had the same data and tried to verify that they were not misrepresenting the data.

I also read parts of the IPCC reports here: http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/wg1-report.html

Now to address one specific point, surrounding the antarctic ice increase, which is occuring. I am going to look into this more, but what I remember about this is that the ice is not increasing due to colder temperatures, but due to heavier snowfall. The snow layer compresses over time and produces more ice. I will get back to you on that one.

Numerous sources suggest that warming has not occurred in the southern hemisphere in the last 25 years. Edited December 7, 2007 by Riverwind

[jbg]

Numerous sources suggest that warming has not occurred in the southern hemisphere in the last 25 years.

And where I live, the NYC area, certainly hasn't warmed in my 50 years of life.

[ScottSA]

And where I live, the NYC area, certainly hasn't warmed in my 50 years of life.

Don't lie. I saw that movie about the day after. It was hot. No, I mean cold. Everything was buried under snow. Wait a second...

[White Doors]

It is on his website but here is quick link.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_J._Milloy

So, I guess nothing needs to be done about it. It is an aesthetic problem.

He was inferring that it was over-hyped. Not that there was NO problem.

But dobbin, how come you refuse to play the ball?

come on, if global warming is a scientific fact, surely it would be easy for you to play the ball?

[jdobbin]

He was inferring that it was over-hyped. Not that there was NO problem.

But dobbin, how come you refuse to play the ball?

come on, if global warming is a scientific fact, surely it would be easy for you to play the ball?

Milloy's personal website goes much further than that on pollution and toxins.

Milloy is also the one who says there are no scientific facts. There are only theories. And you can't act on theories.

I am simply quoting back from Junkscience's creator. I don't know how the right wing can play up Milloy's global warming viewpoint and then shy away from what he says about air pollution. It is quite selective what facts they are prepared to accept in science.

[White Doors]

Milloy's personal website goes much further than that on pollution and toxins.

Milloy is also the one who says there are no scientific facts. There are only theories. And you can't act on theories.

I am simply quoting back from Junkscience's creator. I don't know how the right wing can play up Milloy's global warming viewpoint and then shy away from what he says about air pollution. It is quite selective what facts they are prepared to accept in science.

So you are refusing to play the ball eh?

[jdobbin]

So you are refusing to play the ball eh?

Why should I accept only select areas you say are credible from those that you say aren't credible. They all come from the same website.

Edited December 7, 2007 by jdobbin

[Riverwind]

Why should I accept only select areas you say are credible from those that you say aren't credible. They all come from the same website.

I provided many different links to many different websites, however, you are fixated on this one. More importantly, if you wish critique the discussion of GW on that website then you should do it by addressing the points made about GW. Instead you refuse to discuss the substance of the GW claims and engage in some sort of smear campaign. Your actions are typical of many fanatics from the GW camp and are one of the reasons why I feel everyone should take the climate-change-is-armageddon claims with a grain of salt.

Here is an example of top officials from the IPCC engaging in unprofessional non-scientific behavoir which is more typical of a religious zealot:

My concerns go beyond the actions of Dr. Trenberth and his colleagues to how he and other IPCC officials responded to my concerns. I did caution Dr. Trenberth before the media event and provided him a summary of the current understanding within the hurricane research community. I was disappointed when the IPCC leadership dismissed my concerns when I brought up the misrepresentation of climate science while invoking the authority of the IPCC. Specifically, the IPCC leadership said that Dr. Trenberth was speaking as an individual even though he was introduced in the press conference as an IPCC lead auth or; I was told that that the media was exaggerating or misrepresenting his words, even though the audio from the press conference and interview tells a different story (available on the web directly); and that Dr. Trenberth was accurately reflecting conclusions from the TAR, even though it is quite clear that the TAR stated that there was no connection between global warming and hurricane activity. The IPCC leadership saw nothing to be concerned with in Dr. Trenberth's unfounded pronouncements to the media, despite his supposedly impartial important role that he must undertake as a Lead Author on the upcoming AR4.

http://www.lavoisier.com.au/papers/articles/landsea.html

The source of that claim is:

Christopher Landsea received his doctoral degree in atmospheric science from Colorado State University. A research meteorologist at the Atlantic Oceanic and Meteorological Laboratory of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, he was chair of the American Meteorological Society's committee on tropical meteorology and tropical cyclones and a recipient of the American Meteorological Society's Banner I. Miller Award for the "best contribution to the science of hurricane and tropical weather forecasting." He is a frequent contributor to leading journals, including Science, Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, Journal of Climate, and Nature.

Are you going to start smearing Christopher Landsea too? Edited December 7, 2007 by Riverwind

[White Doors]

you are a stubborn one mr dobbin

No one is asking you to accept it we are asking that you refute it.

Edited December 7, 2007 by White Doors

[jdobbin]

I provided many different links to many different websites, however, you are fixated on this one. More importantly, if you wish critique the discussion of GW on that website then you should do it by addressing the points made about GW. Instead you refuse to discuss the substance of the GW claims and engage in some sort of smear campaign. Your actions are typical of many fanatics from the GW camp and are one of the reasons why I feel every should take the climate-change-is-armageddon claims with a grain of salt.

I've never made the claim that global warming is Armageddon. I've said that there are more scientists whose research leans towards emissions as a cause for global warming.

You then said Milloy's site was balanced. It isn't.

You first post David Evan's work. Evans supports more research on the subject. He believes there is a 20% probability that it is emissions that are responsible for global warmng.

This is one of just hundreds of responses to Evans.

http://julesandjames.blogspot.com/2007/05/...g-with-all.html

Then you post McKitrick's work which had a flaw pointed out by Tim Lambert in 2004.

More of that here:

http://crookedtimber.org/2004/08/25/mckitrick-mucks-it-up

I have not criticized Landsea. I happen to believe he had a valid point.

I'm afraid that while I sometimes see some valid points by scientists on global warming that question the science, I have not seen enough from the skeptics to change course.

And I'd appreciate if you stop personalizing.

Edited December 7, 2007 by jdobbin

[jdobbin]

you are a stubborn one mr dobbin

No one is asking you to accept it we are asking that you refute it.

Done.

[Riverwind]

This is one of just hundreds of responses to Evans.

My response:

and then continues with a string of tenuous arguments as to how it is possible that other factors could be behind most of the recent warming of the Earth.

Where is the explaination why these arguments are tenous? This is simply unsubstatiated opinion - not a rebuttle.

Clouds may have a significant effect to enhance or offset warming. We know the climate has varied plenty in the past (indeed this is generally one of the septics' favourite talking points), so it seems implausible that they are a very strong stabilising force.

Again unsubstantiated BS. The IPCC acknowledges that solar and orbital variations played a significant role in past climate changes so it makes no sense to dismiss the effects of clouds because of past variations in climate.

Almost all models, using a wide range of physical parameterisations, suggest a significant positive amplification, giving the typical range of 2-4.5C for sensitivity. All analyses of observational evidence also point towards a value of close to 3C (exactly how close is still subject to some debate).

The models used to date do a poor job of simulating clouds in the environment and this is a deficiency which is acknowledged by the creators of the models. Yet this guy thinks that these models provide the final word on the effect of clouds on climate change? It makes no sense.

So, until David and the rest can come up with some plausible arguments as to why CO2 actually has no effect, backed up by a sensible climate model which supports this claim, I'll continue to believe that it does in fact have a significant effect which will (with high probability) lead to continued warming.

There is no experimental evidence that proves the link between CO2 and warming. All we have is a theoretical model. Yet this guy is acting like the CO2 hypothesis is a proven fact and the onus is one others to prove otherwise. That is simply dishonest.

One thing people have to keep in mind: there is no real data that demonstrates a causal link between CO2 increases and temperature rises. However, there is real data that suggests that their is no link between the two or that temperature rises cause increases in CO2 levels. The evidence the GW advocates use is based entirely on computer models which could be completely wrong. Skeptics are right to question the validity of computer models.

Edited December 7, 2007 by Riverwind

[jdobbin]

One thing people have to keep in mind: there is no real data that demonstrates a causal link between CO2 increases and temperature rises. However, there is real data that suggests that their is no link between the two or that temperature rises cause increases in CO2 levels. The evidence the GW advocates use is based entirely on computer models which could be completely wrong. Skeptics are right to question the validity of computer models.

I have no problem with the skeptics looking at computer models and other evidence. I just don't think they have made a stronger case than others on emissions.

[Riverwind]

I have no problem with the skeptics looking at computer models and other evidence. I just don't think they have made a stronger case than others on emissions.

The argument for the CO2 hypothesis goes like this: We believe that CO2 is the only explanation for the current temperature rise because the computer models that we built show this to be true.

The skeptics response is:

Your computer models do not model rather important details like cloud cover and do not produce results that are consistent with the empirical data available.

This debate would be a dry academic discussion if the GW advocates were not advocating spending trillions of dollars try to fix a problem that might not exist.

Edited December 7, 2007 by Riverwind

[jdobbin]

The argument for the CO2 hypothesis goes like this: We believe that CO2 is the only explanation for the current temperature rise because the computer models that we built show this to be true.

The skeptics response is:

Your computer models do not model rather important details like cloud cover and do not produce results that are consistent with the empirical data available.

This debate would be a dry academic discussion if the GW advocates were not advocating spending trillions of dollars try to fix a problem that might not exist.

Unfortunately, you often don't get a silver bullet answer to a question.

Even on smoking, you still have skeptics that say it is not harmful. Ditto on air pollution. That is why Milloy's website is so successful. They can be skeptical of evolution and then make the case for creationism as a science to be taught in schools.

All science becomes theoretical and therefore, no attempt should be made to do anything about it.

[White Doors]

believes there is a 20% probability that it is emissions that are responsible for emissions

I would go further and say that there is a 100% probability that emissions are responsible for emissions.

[stevoh]

I looked at both sides of the arguments but my approach was to look at sceptic arguement and then go find sources that refuted their arguments. I also tried to check their facts from other sources. For example, if someone made a claim based on ice core data I went looking for an independent site that had the same data and tried to verify that they were not misrepresenting the data.

The problem with that approach is still exposure to only the areas of the science that are deemed flawed and easily exposed by sceptics. For example, there is a good summary in one of your links of the temperature "fingerprint" of global warming that was expected to appear in the atmosphere. A signature that has not appeared. However, what is not mentioned when viewing this information is that there are more than 10 of these "global warming fingerprints". Global average temperatures, ocean temperatures, atmospheric limit changes, arctic glacier melt, etc. How have these been addressed, if at all?

It would be the tendancy of any skeptic website to point out the information that is flawed, and avoid the information that appears accurate. So, even if the information you have read is correct, you have a decidedly incomplete picture.

Just to point out, I am not 100% sure that global warming is occuring either. But it just makes sense that basing your research soley on the information and links of skeptics is just as flawed as ignoring them entirely.

[jbg]

I would go further and say that there is a 100% probability that emissions are responsible for emissions.

I wonder if that probability correlates to the believers in global warming being unable to put together an English sentence.

[jdobbin]

Just to point out, I am not 100% sure that global warming is occuring either. But it just makes sense that basing your research soley on the information and links of skeptics is just as flawed as ignoring them entirely.

The right wing is staking out the position that science is theoretical and because of that they argue nothing should be done about emissions.

[jbg]

The right wing is staking out the position that science is theoretical and because of that they argue nothing should be done about emissions.

How about focusing on truly harmful emissions?

[Wilber]

The right wing is staking out the position that science is theoretical and because of that they argue nothing should be done about emissions.

I think it would be more accurate to say that because science is theoretical one shouldn't jump to the conclusion that the sky is falling. I don't think anyone is saying that nothing should be done about emissions but what kind of emissions should we be most concerned about? CO2 because of its alleged effect on global warning or pollution emissions which have a greater effect on our health. Sometimes they work against each other. One example: we take diesels which are more fuel efficient, much cleaner than they used to be and produce over 20% less CO2 than a comparable gasoline engine then saddle them with very strict emission standards which cause them to burn more fuel to burn off remaining particulates thereby producing more CO2.

Our current Premier spent a weekend with Arney, had an epiphany and declared that BC's emissions would be reduced by 30%. The most aggressive reduction on the continent despite the fact most of our electricity is hydro electric and produces no CO2 at all. The number came right out of the air. Absolutely no research done, no plan, not even one jotted down on the back of an envelope or napkin and he doesn't have a clue how it will be done. Exactly the opposite of the thorough planning California did when it set its targets. Now he has gone out and hired a bunch of alleged experts to figure out how, so he won't look like an idiot and god knows what this farce is going to cost us. That kind of mindless, herd like behavior is what worries this skeptic more than anything.