Is Global Warming a Leftist Urban Legend?

[eyeball]

Indeed, I imagine this is also the case for most other posters here. So we've established that people here 1) cannot evaluate the papers on climate science and 2) are not that interested in climate science. So, why then are we having so many discussions on climate science and the validity of specific results from some of the papers on climate science, given that we have neither the expertise to do so nor the interest in doing so?

Obviously there are going to be hundreds of millions of people on the planet who can't evaluate the papers competently because they're not scientists but surely these people can still competently evaluate how many scientists there are who agree AGW is real versus those who don't and act accordingly.

Now however people have been led to believe that the vast majority of scientists and experts are as corrupt and untrustworthy as politicians. The irony is that it's politics that has done this to us.

We are truly buggered now. This is a disaster that will now make it that much harder to act in the face of any disaster that requires any sort of broad-based scientific consensus.

Edited March 14, 2010 by eyeball

[Born Free]

We are truly buggered now. This is a disaster that will now make it that much harder to act in the face of any disaster that requires any sort of broad-based scientific consensus.

...and as the glaciers in Glacier National Park and on Mount Kilimanjaro (for example) slowly dissappear...the nay sayers will go ... DUH! What happened?

[waldo]

The Global Warming people seem to be quieting down lately for some reason.It must hurt when the foundations of their arguments seem to be crumbling around them.

And still they are upset because they "can't account for the lack of global warming".

quiet is your perspective on the debate ending...Global warming is a fact and anthropogenic in nature, other than a handful of scientists it's accepted fact...the debate has shifted to how quickly change is coming, what will the extent of the damage and can change be slowed, stopped or reversed..

please list the crumbling arguements...

wyly, clearly... ironstone has his best argumentum ad ignorantiam parrot game face on... and even better... ironstone is now parroting himself from an earlier MLW thread where he presumed to trot out the same Trenberth quote. Obviously, he didn't take well to the comeuppance he received back then

[Michael Hardner]

... they are upset because they "can't account for the lack of global warming".

Your misquote here illustrates that you didn't understand what was being said, and in fact that the problem lies with the public understanding of science, mostly from hog-callers like the Sun group of newspaper.s.

[Alta4ever]

Global warming is a fact and anthropogenic in nature,

So if Global warming is solely anthropogenic in nature why did global temperatures rise before the industrial revolutions? Why did the earth go though warming and cooling periods before man was on the earth.

If it is in fact solely anthropogenic in nature should then the temperatures of the earth have been static?

Just curious.

Edited March 15, 2010 by Alta4ever

[wyly]

So if Global warming is solely anthropogenic in nature why did global temperatures rise before the industrial revolutions? Why did the earth go though warming and cooling periods before man was on the earth.

If it is in fact solely anthropogenic in nature should then the temperatures of the earth have been static?

Just curious.

just curious where has anyone, anywhere, at anytime stated global warming was "SOLELY" anthropogenic...

[Alta4ever]

just curious where has anyone, anywhere, at anytime stated global warming was "SOLELY" anthropogenic...

You post kinda of insinuated it, I was waiting for this post....just trying having a little fun with you.

[Bonam]

Obviously there are going to be hundreds of millions of people on the planet who can't evaluate the papers competently because they're not scientists but surely these people can still competently evaluate how many scientists there are who agree AGW is real versus those who don't and act accordingly.

Now however people have been led to believe that the vast majority of scientists and experts are as corrupt and untrustworthy as politicians. The irony is that it's politics that has done this to us.

We are truly buggered now. This is a disaster that will now make it that much harder to act in the face of any disaster that requires any sort of broad-based scientific consensus.

This is why people should just act in their own economic self interest rather than worrying about these issues. By simply acting economically rather than worrying about global warming, they will contribute to the economy which will stimulate innovation and technological progress, which is ultimately our only way to address global climate trends.

I guess the summary of my stance is that if people don't understand a certain branch of science, and have no interest in gaining understanding of it, then they should just not bother worrying about it. Debating global warming in the way it is being debated here is no more productive than were we say to debate cancer, with people quoting random doctors on which line of research is more promising to find cures, and treating it as some huge polarized battle rather than a scientific debate. The information is far too complex and is not simply a matter of the number of people agreeing, it must be evaluated on its scientific merits not on its popularity.

If someone cares about global warming enough to make it their #1 agenda on a forum and post constantly about it and spend hours every day mining the internet for quotes about it, they could probably use that time to actually learn quite a bit of climate science and begin to contribute to the science themselves (this is easier than you might think). If they don't care to do that, then why waste time trolling the internet for information that they do not and cannot understand?

[Pliny]

This is why people should just act in their own economic self interest rather than worrying about these issues. By simply acting economically rather than worrying about global warming, they will contribute to the economy which will stimulate innovation and technological progress, which is ultimately our only way to address global climate trends.

This would be good advice but for the worrying politicians and their ever helpful plans to save us all from ourselves.

I guess the summary of my stance is that if people don't understand a certain branch of science, and have no interest in gaining understanding of it, then they should just not bother worrying about it. Debating global warming in the way it is being debated here is no more productive than were we say to debate cancer, with people quoting random doctors on which line of research is more promising to find cures, and treating it as some huge polarized battle rather than a scientific debate. The information is far too complex and is not simply a matter of the number of people agreeing, it must be evaluated on its scientific merits not on its popularity.

If someone cares about global warming enough to make it their #1 agenda on a forum and post constantly about it and spend hours every day mining the internet for quotes about it, they could probably use that time to actually learn quite a bit of climate science and begin to contribute to the science themselves (this is easier than you might think). If they don't care to do that, then why waste time trolling the internet for information that they do not and cannot understand?

Obviously, some posters here are benefiting from the idea of anthropogenic climate change and feel it necessary to refute any challenge by deniers. If you made your living from making buggy whips you certainly would be condemning the intrusion of automobiles on society.

What I am afraid of moreso than climate change itself is politicians that will attempt to reverse climate change - And hardcore activists that feel it is necessary we commit suicide to save the planet.

[eyeball]

Debating global warming in the way it is being debated here is no more productive than were we say to debate cancer...

9 out of 10 doctors say you have cancer and need immediate surgery, the 10th doctor says the other 9 are out to lunch, what would you do?

[waldo]

9 out of 10 doctors say you have cancer and need immediate surgery, the 10th doctor says the other 9 are out to lunch, what would you do?

clearly, with such a predicament, one should seek out the expertise of independent 3rd party TV weathermen!

[wyly]

9 out of 10 doctors say you have cancer and need immediate surgery, the 10th doctor says the other 9 are out to lunch, what would you do?

go into denial and follow the instructions of the tenth? "if you just ignore the tumour growing in the middle of your face it will go away, it's normal"

facial tumours were normal in the MWP...

Edited March 15, 2010 by wyly

[wyly]

clearly, with such a predicament, one should seek out the expertise of independent 3rd party TV weathermen!

there is that option, TV weathermam/Climatologist/Oncologist Anthony Watts Edited March 15, 2010 by wyly

[waldo]

there is that option, TV weathermam/Climatologist/Oncologist Anthony Watts

let us not forget TV weatherman John Coleman... following is a double-dose of the best - bear with an early solo minute or so by Beck (which really is good comedy on it's own) until Coleman joins in. Gold, Jerry... real Gold!

[wyly]

let us not forget TV weatherman John Coleman... following is a double-dose of the best - bear with an early solo minute or so by Beck (which really is good comedy on it's own) until Coleman joins in. Gold, Jerry... real Gold!

Coleman who has no scientific degree of any sort...unlike the real weathermen of the American Meteorological Society who fully back CC and AGW...

I don't who is more stupid in that vid...and it's all about making money according to Beck who wrote a book, oh the Irony!...

[waldo]

clearly... the Harper Conservatives are replying to the OP's question in the affirmative --- Budget deep freeze will lead to end of climate research lab

In its budget last week, the Harper government provided no new money for the Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmosphere Sciences. The foundation is the country's main fund for scientists studying everything from global climate models, to the melting of polar ice and frequency of Arctic storms, to prairie droughts and shrinking Rocky Mountain glaciers.

For many in the research community, the budget decision merely confirmed the view that Prime Minister Stephen Harper and his government remain skeptical of climate-change science and hostile to those who provide evidence that aggressive action must be taken to avert catastrophic global warming.

It's quite clear we have a government that says they believe this is an issue but really don't care about it.

Harper Conservative funding cuts are a part of the strategy... but it gets more overtly devious through Conservative efforts to control the message, to prevent government scientists from commenting on AGW climate change.

Harper Conservatives muzzle climate change scientists

:

A dramatic reduction in Canadian media coverage of climate change science issues is the result of the Harper government introducing new rules in 2007 to control interviews by Environment Canada scientists with journalists, says a newly released federal document.

The document suggests the new communications policy has practically eliminated senior federal scientists from media coverage of climate-change science issues, leaving them frustrated that the government was trying to "muzzle" them.

There is a widespread perception among Canadian media that our scientists have been 'muzzled' by the media relations policy," said the Environment Canada document. "Media coverage of this perception, which originated with a Canwest story in February 2008, is continuing, with at least 47 articles in Canadian newspapers to date

It's definitely a scandal," said Graham Saul, executive director of Climate Action Network Canada. He added that the government was "muzzling scientists; they're putting climate deniers in key oversight positions over research, and they're reducing funding in key areas. . . . It's almost as though they're making a conscious attempt to bury the truth.

Edited March 15, 2010 by waldo

[Alta4ever]

Harper Conservative funding cuts are a part of the strategy... but it gets more overtly devious through Conservative efforts to control the message, to prevent government scientists from commenting on AGW climate change.

Harper Conservatives muzzle climate change scientists

:

Just scientists playing politics for fear of losing their precious research dollars and ultimately a little pay.

[Pliny]

Something more important than the theory of AGW is about to occur, I'm sure of it. Then we can concentrate on that for awhile. Who knows, if it is big enough we may even forget all about AGW theory.

[waldo]

Harper Conservative funding cuts are a part of the strategy... but it gets more overtly devious through Conservative efforts to control the message, to prevent government scientists from commenting on AGW climate change.

Harper Conservatives muzzle climate change scientists

:

Just scientists playing politics for fear of losing their precious research dollars and ultimately a little pay.

of course... Harper Conservatives are all about openness, transparency and access to information

Pliny's global warming!

[Pliny]

Pliny's global warming!

That's exactly how I pictured you!

[waldo]

Pliny's global warming!

That's exactly how I pictured you!

talking to yourself... in all your psychic glory?

When we have something to really worry about, AGW will be a forgotten topic.

Something more important than the theory of AGW is about to occur, I'm sure of it. Then we can concentrate on that for awhile. Who knows, if it is big enough we may even forget all about AGW theory.

[Pliny]

talking to yourself... in all your psychic glory?

The sky is falling! The sky is falling!

I see melting glaciers. Cities swallowed up by the sea! Vast swaths of land masses disappearing! (Hmmmm....I think I can make a buck on this!)

Please Mr. Gummerment, tax us, do sumpthin! We is too stupid to know what to do.

[waldo]

Please Mr. Gummerment, tax us, do sumpthin! We is too stupid to know what to do.

Pliny, you shouldn't be so hard on yourself. Besides, take solace in the Harper Conservative government's response (or lack thereof)... clearly, they've taken the 'stoopid' right out of your hands.

[Shady]

China builds two 500 megawatt coal-fired power plants per week. Canada could cut its CO2 emissions to ZERO and it wouldn't have any effect. It's the eqivalent to taking a eye dropper full of water out of a swimming pool.

Waldo needs to spend his time and energy convincing his fellow comrades in the east, to take some action.

[Smallc]

China builds two 500 megawatt coal-fired power plants per week. Canada could cut its CO2 emissions to ZERO and it wouldn't have any effect. It's the eqivalent to taking a eye dropper full of water out of a swimming pool.

And so that means that we should do nothing, correct?