Is Global Warming a Leftist Urban Legend?

[capricorn]

LOL

You've just been waldo-ized.

[jbg]

if the PDO is what you're holding up as "proof"... let's be clear... are you suggesting that the PDO, by definition an oscillating temperature pattern, is responsible for the accepted long-term warming trend... you do accept the long-term warming trend, right? Notwithstanding the PDOs oscillating pattern, one would expect you should be able to show a PDO warming trend coincident with long-term temperature trending, right? You should be able to show that, right?

Not sure what point you want to make here.

equally, there's just something about it's name... that there 'Pacific' reference... as a climate phenomena found primarily in the North Pacific. Perhaps you could extend upon just how that 'locality' translates into a global affect, one particularly targeted towards your initial post on this subject (i.e. the references to glacier retreats, Arctic ice extent/volume, Greenland ice-sheet loss, projected ice=free NW Passage, etc.).

The Pacific Ocean is the world's largest ocean. Also, being West of the North American land masses, it has a direct impact on much of the Americas' weather, and an indirect impact through teleconnections over a much broader area.

Next.

actually... you've touted the PDO previously in other more 'technically oriented' climate change related threads... you failed to substantiate your earlier PDO related claim as well. Perhaps rather than send this thread on a tangent, why not take this point up within one of those other threads. Let's leave this thread for the purposes of honing in on the political right/Conservative/Republican failings - hey?

I am not on the political right. I am not a Conservative (not being Canadian). I am a Democrat, not a Republican. Hey?

[Pliny]

conservatives by nature are extremely self-centered they do not like change that may force them out of their comfort zone... they are not progressive thinkers that worry about unborn generations...they live in the here and now and anything that may disrupt their style of life or may hinder their profit margin is to be resisted at all costs...

This is as self-righteous and self-centred as you can get?

Conservatives do worry about unborn generations enslaved by progressive thinkers who wish to run every aspect of their lives and wishing to relieve them of their profits for their own selfish interests.

and it's normal behaviour for that segment of the population but they have no business running a government because they are scientifically stupid and have zero vision for the future...

Scientifically stupid with zero vision for the future. Yuk! Yuk! Who would want to live in your vision for the future. Is it the one where man is one with nature?

[Bonam]

And one could also argue, Hazel Eyes, that your view shows how humans are tremendously self-centred and filled with hubris. - As if in the grand scheme of things, humans matter at all.

Oh, and what is this "grand scheme" of things? What matters in this scheme?

Edited September 14, 2010 by Bonam

[waldo]

if the PDO is what you're holding up as "proof"... let's be clear... are you suggesting that the PDO, by definition an oscillating temperature pattern, is responsible for the accepted long-term warming trend... you do accept the long-term warming trend, right? Notwithstanding the PDOs oscillating pattern, one would expect you should be able to show a PDO warming trend coincident with long-term temperature trending, right? You should be able to show that, right?

Not sure what point you want to make here.

the point was... you were offering up the PDO as the causal link to global warming... to the global warming impacts mentioned... you were speaking of 30 year cyclical reversals as the causal link for the highlight points Hazeleyes mentioned... glacier retreats, Arctic ice extent/volume, Greenland ice-sheet loss, projected ice-free Northwest Passage. The point was... if you're going to offer up the PDO as the causal link to global warming/impacts, you better be able to step up and substantiate that by providing a like association, a like long-term trend, between the PDO index and global temperature anomolies. Otherwise... all you've proposed is that a, by definition, oscillating temperature pattern (the PDO), a pattern that does not hold within it a long-term warming trend, is the "proof you spoke of" for global warming/impacts. Show the long-term trend correlation... you can show that correlation between the PDO index and global temperature anomolies - right?

equally, there's just something about it's name... that there 'Pacific' reference... as a climate phenomena found primarily in the North Pacific. Perhaps you could extend upon just how that 'locality' translates into a global affect, one particularly targeted towards your initial post on this subject (i.e. the references to glacier retreats, Arctic ice extent/volume, Greenland ice-sheet loss, projected ice=free NW Passage, etc.).

The Pacific Ocean is the world's largest ocean. Also, being West of the North American land masses, it has a direct impact on much of the Americas' weather, and an indirect impact through teleconnections over a much broader area.

Next.

next? you're quite funny... you're wanting to take a localized phenomenon, the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, a phenomenon centered principally in the North Pacific, and suggest it's significant enough to bring forward global temperature impacts... that it's the cause for global warming, that it will result in, as you stated, 30 year cyclical reversals of global warming impacts; specifically those mentioned by Hazeleyes (i.e. glacier retreats, Arctic ice extent/volume, Greenland ice-sheet loss, projected ice-free Northwest Passage). Teleconnections??? Oh, please... let us have some of that D'Aleo wisdom you so freely dispense - we can have some real fun then, hey?

actually... you've touted the PDO previously in other more 'technically oriented' climate change related threads... you failed to substantiate your earlier PDO related claim as well. Perhaps rather than send this thread on a tangent, why not take this point up within one of those other threads. Let's leave this thread for the purposes of honing in on the political right/Conservative/Republican failings - hey?

I am not on the political right. I am not a Conservative (not being Canadian). I am a Democrat, not a Republican. Hey?

bully for you! Given my suggestion that this thread be left to hone in on the failings of the political right/Conservative/Republicans (vis-a-vis, the 'war on (climatic) science'), your failings will fit right in - hey?

[The_Squid]

Global warming, much like cancer caused from smoking fags, is a completely fictional concept.

Industry-paid shills "Independant scientists" have debunked both theories in the same exact way. Misinformation campaigns to brainwash inform the weak-minded public.

Industry's Anti-Global Warming Misinformation Campaign Reminiscent of Big Tobacco's Strategy

[Saipan]

please take your Conservative war on science to the (new) appropriate thread - thanks!

Where is the global warm up?

We want it NOW!

I'm friggin' tired of cutting more firewood every year.

Btw, what's "Conservative war on science"?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2IlHgbOWj4o

[RNG]

Please look at the following graphs. If I were more into IT perhaps I could have embedded them here like I can on another board I visit. But look at it. It plainly shows that temp spikes precede CO2 spikes. Explain that one to me. Yes, the globe is warming. But I don't think it is CO2. If anything, it is water vapor. And it probably is due to mankind. All the irrigation, all the human beings breathing and peeing, all the domesticated animals, way more than "natural" numbers of critters on the earth breathing out water vapor and peeing. Not good.

CO2 is in PPM concentrations and a poor absorber of IR. Water vapor is in whole percentage numbers and is a very efficient absorber.

No current climate model I am aware of includes water vapor.

Al Gore is making millions on a hoax.

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/last_400k_yrs.html

Edited September 29, 2010 by RNG

[wyly]

Please look at the following graphs. If I were more into IT perhaps I could have embedded them here like I can on another board I visit. But look at it. It plainly shows that temp spikes precede CO2 spikes. Explain that one to me. Yes, the globe is warming. But I don't think it is CO2. If anything, it is water vapor. And it probably is due to mankind. All the irrigation, all the human beings breathing and peeing, all the domesticated animals, way more than "natural" numbers of critters on the earth breathing out water vapor and peeing. Not good.

you're a chem expert and you can't answer that question? I'm not impressed...

and since you've continued this illogical reasoning from another thread I feel I can follow you here with the questions you refused to answer on the other thread...

- a mixture of gases has it's own unique properties according to the percentage of each gas in the makeup of the mixture??? true or false

-if you change the ratio of the gases in the mixture you change it's properties???true or false

Al Gore is making millions on a hoax.

.. ya it's all a huge conspiracy concocted by big Al and his girlfriend Margret Thatcher, it's incredible how these two put together this conspiracy of hundreds of thousands of scientists around the globe over the last 40 years and no one was the wiser

[RNG]

you're a chem expert and you can't answer that question? I'm not impressed...

and since you've continued this illogical reasoning from another thread I feel I can follow you here with the questions you refused to answer on the other thread...

- a mixture of gases has it's own unique properties according to the percentage of each gas in the makeup of the mixture??? true or false

-if you change the ratio of the gases in the mixture you change it's properties???true or false

.. ya it's all a huge conspiracy concocted by big Al and his girlfriend Margret Thatcher, it's incredible how these two put together this conspiracy of hundreds of thousands of scientists around the globe over the last 40 years and no one was the wiser

Actually there is a "law" in chemistry that states that gasses in a mixture retain their individual properties. Irregarless, CO2 is present in PPM quantities and is a poor IR absorber. Water vapor is present in whole percentage quantities and is a very efficient absorber of IR. And what about the timeline in the graphs? Nice dodge.

[RNG]

you're a chem expert and you can't answer that question? I'm not impressed...

and since you've continued this illogical reasoning from another thread I feel I can follow you here with the questions you refused to answer on the other thread...

- a mixture of gases has it's own unique properties according to the percentage of each gas in the makeup of the mixture??? true or false

-if you change the ratio of the gases in the mixture you change it's properties???true or false

.. ya it's all a huge conspiracy concocted by big Al and his girlfriend Margret Thatcher, it's incredible how these two put together this conspiracy of hundreds of thousands of scientists around the globe over the last 40 years and no one was the wiser

FTR, I don't put any blame on Margret Thatcher. I have a lot of respect for that lady. But Algore and Suzuki (David, that is, I like the cars) are media whores getting rich on the dumbness of Joe Average.

[Michael Hardner]

FTR, I don't put any blame on Margret Thatcher. I have a lot of respect for that lady. But Algore and Suzuki (David, that is, I like the cars) are media whores getting rich on the dumbness of Joe Average.

That being what it may be, there are always mavens of government who make a few dollars on the side from policies that they're privy to. This goes for defense, as well as many other departments.

The question is, when are we going to declare AGW an accepted fact, and start discussing what can be done about it ? And by "what can be done", I include "accepting it".

[bloodyminded]

That being what it may be, there are always mavens of government who make a few dollars on the side from policies that they're privy to. This goes for defense, as well as many other departments.

The question is, when are we going to declare AGW an accepted fact, and start discussing what can be done about it ? And by "what can be done", I include "accepting it".

Well said. Of course people are going to make money from it; I'm struggling fruitlessly right now to think of something--anything!--from which somebody doesn't profit financially.

Even outright fraud is not evidence of a subject's intrinsically fraudulent nature.

If anyone knows this, capitalists, of all people, should!

[TimG]

The question is, when are we going to declare AGW an accepted fact, and start discussing what can be done about it ? And by "what can be done", I include "accepting it".

Ther trouble with this debate is people who wish to advocate a specific policy choices have hijacked the science and try to claim that the science dictates what policies should be adopted.

i.e. even if one accepts the claim that humans are changing the climate it does not automatically follow that policies focused on reducing CO2 emissions are the most effective way to deal with the stated problem.

If you would like to have a rational discussion on this topic you must start by acknowledging that the people claiming that AGW is "hoax" and those claiming it is a "fact" are two sides of the same ideological coin and both are abusing science in order to achieve their political aims.

[Saipan]

The question is, when are we going to declare AGW an accepted fact, and start discussing what can be done about it ? And by "what can be done", I include "accepting it".

We can try the same thing they did during Medieval warm up 1000 years ago, same temp as today, and Holocene Maximum, much warmer than now, between 4,000 and 6,000 years ago. Simply stop driving SUVs.

[Michael Hardner]

Ther trouble with this debate is people who wish to advocate a specific policy choices have hijacked the science and try to claim that the science dictates what policies should be adopted.

They are using the science to push policies, sure. But that's par for the course.

i.e. even if one accepts the claim that humans are changing the climate it does not automatically follow that policies focused on reducing CO2 emissions are the most effective way to deal with the stated problem.

Agreed. But debating whether or not humans are causing GW is a distraction and prevents us from moving to this stage of the debate.

If you would like to have a rational discussion on this topic you must start by acknowledging that the people claiming that AGW is "hoax" and those claiming it is a "fact" are two sides of the same ideological coin and both are abusing science in order to achieve their political aims.

Well... yes and no.... "hoax" is just crazy conspiracy stuff... "fact" is an opinion, but when it's based on science is far less crazy...

I would say that collectively, we should characterize it as a "likelihood", in that it's more than 50% likely that it's happening, and then move on to how to deal with it.

[Michael Hardner]

We can try the same thing they did during Medieval warm up 1000 years ago, same temp as today, and Holocene Maximum, much warmer than now, between 4,000 and 6,000 years ago. Simply stop driving SUVs.

Not sure what this means. The anachronism was fun, though.

[TimG]

Well... yes and no.... "hoax" is just crazy conspiracy stuff... "fact" is an opinion, but when it's based on science is far less crazy

The devil is really in the details. For example, science has shows there is zero evidence linking natural events like hurricanes, heat waves or snow storms to climate change yet that does not stop advocates from claiming the link is a fact. In this case, describing that claim as a hoax is the more rational position. If advocates are going to lie about what the science says they have no right to complain when people claim they are perpetrating a hoax.

I would say that collectively, we should characterize it as a "likelihood", in that it's more than 50% likely that it's happening, and then move on to how to deal with it.

Why do we need to "deal with it" at all? It is not enough to demonstrate that climate change is happening. One most demonstrate that cost of "doing something" is less than the cost of any climate change. Once we get into that debate there are no facts and simply opinions. Edited September 29, 2010 by TimG

[Saipan]

Not sure what this means.

It simply means it was warmer in the past. Long before any industry.

[Michael Hardner]

It simply means it was warmer in the past. Long before any industry.

It was also warmer when the earth was formed. The existence of a Medieval Warming Period doesn't really have much effect on the AGW theory.

They don't know why it happened, and we're still dealing with CO2 increases correlated with temperature increases of late.

[TimG]

It was also warmer when the earth was formed. The existence of a Medieval Warming Period doesn't really have much effect on the AGW theory.

But it has huge effect on the policy discussion because large variations in climate in the recent past make the argument that AGW is a threat much less plausible.

[Michael Hardner]

But it has huge effect on the policy discussion because large variations in climate in the recent past make the argument that AGW is a threat much less plausible.

I see... well, maybe.. we can't really interview people to determine what the effect was on the human world, though we have some evidence.

[Saipan]

The existence of a Medieval Warming Period doesn't really have much effect on the AGW theory.

And vice versa, cause AGW is just opinion. Medieval Warm period and Holocenem Maximum are facts.

[Michael Hardner]

And vice versa, cause AGW is just opinion. Medieval Warm period and Holocenem Maximum are facts.

Sorry - I thought we had already progress past that to policy discussion.

If we're discussing whether AGW is real or not, you have to go back and look at the posts on here. It's real, and even Lindzen, the highest profile skeptic, puts the human factor of warming at 30%. Can human cause be proven absolutely ? No. But that's pretty much impossible.

[TimG]

I see... well, maybe.. we can't really interview people to determine what the effect was on the human world, though we have some evidence.

The evidence is not the issue - the issue is how much weight do we give to the evidence. If the MWP was warmer than today the evidence suggesting that the current warming is a concern will be given a lot less weight. This, in turn, affects the type of policies that people will accept. That is why the people pushing the IPCC political agenda aggressively defend the hockey stick while claiming it 'does not matter'. If it really did not matter they would not insist on abusing science to defend it.