Is Global Warming a Leftist Urban Legend?

[Wilber]

Hmm

[August1991]

Bump.

Let's call it a two year anniversary.

[ironstone]

What bothers me the most in this argument are the tactics used by those on the man made global warming side.Apparently anything goes.

http://www.ottawasun.com/comment/columnists/michael_coren/2010/02/12/12859956.html

[jbg]

What bothers me the most in this argument are the tactics used by those on the man made global warming side.Apparently anything goes.

http://www.ottawasun.com/comment/columnists/michael_coren/2010/02/12/12859956.html

Trying to have a rational discussion with "believers" is almost impossible. A mild discussion around the (U.S.) Thanksgiving table this past November between myself and a high school science teacher turned incredibly ugly very fast.

[Argus]

Because there aren't enough threads on climate change?

Edited February 15, 2010 by Argus

[waldo]

Because there aren't enough threads on climate change?

not too fear - from the Union of Concerned Scientists:

Smoke, Mirrors & Hot Air - How ExxonMobil Uses Big Tobacco’s Tactics to Manufacture Uncertainty on Climate Science

how leftist of them

Edited February 15, 2010 by waldo

[Argus]

not too fear - from the Union of Concerned Scientists:

Smoke, Mirrors & Hot Air - How ExxonMobil Uses Big Tobacco’s Tactics to Manufacture Uncertainty on Climate Science

how leftist of them

Yeah, yeah, we know, we know. You can't rely on people whose self interest, whose profits, require that their side of the story be correct.

Sort of like the head of the IPCC, right? And most of the scientists involved. All of whom, have a very high vested interest, including profits, in ensuring only their side of the story gets accepted.

[waldo]

Yeah, yeah, we know, we know. You can't rely on people whose self interest, whose profits, require that their side of the story be correct.

Sort of like the head of the IPCC, right? And most of the scientists involved. All of whom, have a very high vested interest, including profits, in ensuring only their side of the story gets accepted.

the disinformation campaign is well documented - that ExxonMobil expose from the Union of Concerned Scientists is but one of many. Interesting that you would presume to suggest/infer a "correctness" lies behind the root of that disinformation. Certainly, ExxonMobil (and other like-minded organizations, think-tanks (sorry... right-leaning think tanks , etc.)) have the might... to remove themselves from the shadows and fund their own open/forthright campaigns - in the interests of... uhhh... their "correctness".

just so you're completely aware of what the IPCC actually is:

The IPCC is not, as many people seem to think, a large organization. In fact, it has only 10 full-time staff in its secretariat at the World Meteorological Organization in Geneva, plus a few staff in four technical support units that help the chairs of the three IPCC working groups and the national greenhouse gas inventories group. The actual work of the IPCC is done by unpaid volunteers – thousands of scientists at universities and research institutes around the world who contribute as authors or reviewers to the completion of the IPCC reports. A large fraction of the relevant scientific community is thus involved in the effort. The three working groups are:

Working Group 1 (WG1), which deals with the physical climate science basis, as assessed by the climatologists, including several of the Realclimate authors.

Working Group 2 (WG2), which deals with impacts of climate change on society and ecosystems, as assessed by social scientists, ecologists, etc.

Working Group 3 (WG3) , which deals with mitigation options for limiting global warming, as assessed by energy experts, economists, etc.

Assessment reports are published every six or seven years and writing them takes about three years. Each working group publishes one of the three volumes of each assessment. The focus of the recent allegations is the Fourth Assessment Report (AR4), which was published in 2007. Its three volumes are almost a thousand pages each, in small print. They were written by over 450 lead authors and 800 contributing authors; most were not previous IPCC authors. There are three stages of review involving more than 2,500 expert reviewers who collectively submitted 90,000 review comments on the drafts. These, together with the authors’ responses to them, are all in the public record.

[Keepitsimple]

the disinformation campaign is well documented - that ExxonMobil expose from the Union of Concerned Scientists is but one of many. Interesting that you would presume to suggest/infer a "correctness" lies behind the root of that disinformation. Certainly, ExxonMobil (and other like-minded organizations, think-tanks (sorry... right-leaning think tanks , etc.)) have the might... to remove themselves from the shadows and fund their own open/forthright campaigns - in the interests of... uhhh... their "correctness".

just so you're completely aware of what the IPCC actually is:

Blah, blah, blah, blah.

[William Ashley]

well there goes the credibility of your link poser.

The ice is already in the Ocean. It melting would have ZERO effect on water levels as it is already in the water. Any moron knows this. In fact, it may reduce sea levels as ice is less dense than water.

Dude did you know ICE FLOATS ON WATER.. it would have a very noticeable effect on water levels. freeze water -- ice takes up LESS VOLUME than water (in water.. not air).. ice contracts when frozen.. go to elementary school and get a clue. Once that ice melts it goes into the water increasing the water volume. Reality check...

the artic ocean is connected to both the Atlantic and pacific oceans - it is one really big ocean.

Ice floats - it take up more airspace but once it melts it increases the water volume.

As water warms its density decreases - meaning water molecules are spread further..

you don't have a clue.. but fact is the warmer the oceans get the bigger they get.

The oceans store more than 90 percent of the heat in the Earth’s climate system and act as a temporary buffer against the effects of climate change. The ocean warming and thermal expansion rates are 50 percent larger than previous estimates for the upper 700 meters of oceans, and greater than that for the upper 300 meters.

Ocean temperature increases are profound as they account for 90% of the global temperature sink. It is a big deal.

"pure ice is about 920 kg/m³, and that of sea water about 1025 kg/m³"

Ice has a lattice structure, due to a lower density it can float on water. Less dense things float, that is why air floats on water. If air suddenly became denser than water we would have air under the oceans and a sky of water. It is simple chemistry.. ICE MELT = water level rise

water temperature increase = water level rice - water level rise = heat absorption rate increase - and eventual evaporation rate increase = more rain = climate change. This process is incremental. Here on land we see 1/10th the effects of tempeature increase. so if land temperature increases by 1 degree = water temperatures increase by 9. Water takes up between 70 and 75% of the earths surface area. Oceans are also deeper than our highest mountains. Mount everest is about 8.8 KM high while the pacific ocean is over 10 km deep. There is an immense amount of water in the ocean - and it's increase by even 1 degree is VERY substantial. Luckily there are some advantages to white ice disapearing in the process.. because

Water has lower thermal conductivity than ice about 2 vs 3. Metal on the other hand may have a conductivity level of 30. What does this mean.. water lets less heat in than ice.. meaning that heat gets reflected to the surface levels and air currents. White also reflects heat more while darker ocean colours attract sunlight. What does this mean.. oceans are a sink but they warm the surface levels of the ocean more. Ice attracts less heat but absorbs more of it.

see WWF site for a little more info on this:

http://www.wwf.org.uk/what_we_do/safeguarding_the_natural_world/oceans/oceans_arctic/

Edited February 15, 2010 by William Ashley

[eyeball]

What bothers me the most in this argument are the tactics used by those on the man made global warming side.Apparently anything goes.

http://www.ottawasun.com/comment/columnists/michael_coren/2010/02/12/12859956.html

Anything goes everywhere you go.

While I can't shake the sense we are having a profound effect on the climate I also have to say I really just don't care anymore. It seems clear to me that even if everyone did agree we needed to do something that nothing would get done.

In any case I'm quite convinced the tactics the warming side are accused of using are no different or less venal than the tactics used on the side of anyone with a vested interest in something. Economics, politics, health, national-security, justice...there is not a single thing who's science or data is above suspicion and I suspect many are probably far guiltier than climate science.

I think we're in far greater danger from cynicism and misplaced concreteness than we ever were before not less.

[Argus]

the disinformation campaign is well documented -

By parties alleging things which interfere with their profits. I get it, have always gotten it, that self-interested parties will lie in order to promote their own interests. You don't have to convince me Satan - excuse me, Exxon, would lie about climate science.

Just like you don't have to convince me that the IPCC people can and are making huge profits by promoting their own particular side of the story.

Your problem is you can clearly see the conflict of interest on the part of oil companies, but are utterly incapable of even considering the possibility the same influences are at play on your side.

[eyeball]

Your problem is you can clearly see the conflict of interest on the part of oil companies, but are utterly incapable of even considering the possibility the same influences are at play on your side.

Well there are those of us who do acknowledge and worry about the conflict of interest on the part of climate scientists. I'm more worried that there is no corresponding sense of concern whatsoever over the likelihood that most polluting industries and their associated sciences, who out of a sense of self-interest, are likewise fudging their numbers.

If anything I get the distinct sense that this is not just a non-issue for many AGW skeptics, it's actually acceptable.

[bush_cheney2004]

I'm more worried that there is no corresponding sense of concern whatsoever over the likelihood that most polluting industries and their associated sciences, who out of a sense of self-interest, are likewise fudging their numbers.

That "price" is already factored in...we already know that. Nobody should expect otherwise....now it's time for the scheming "climatologists" to admit the same thing.

[waldo]

That "price" is already factored in...we already know that. Nobody should expect otherwise....now it's time for the scheming "climatologists" to admit the same thing.

bush_cheney, I'm quite worried that all this climaty stuff has co-opted the abilities of your mighty Intelligencia & Make War Dept... dammit, just where the hell are things headed when they all engage in this nonsensical strategic planning related to climate change’s impact on military operations and security. The Great Satan has no time... no need... to embrace this climaty stuff - doesn't anyone in authority read the British tabloids!!! Doesn't anyone follow Shady's indepth analysis?

my gawd, this affects us all - as goes the U.S. so goes the rest of us following in your wake... I believe that's what you've been trying to convey all these years, right? C'mon... bush_cheney... can you pleeeeese bring this forward at your next tea-party - this can't be allowed to carry forward.

just how could this ever happen??? Those, as you say, "scheming climatologists", must be uber clever to have so hood-winked your Defense Department and the U.S. Intelligence Community... it wouldn't surprise me if those Ruskies are behind it all - cold war blow-back... it's a beeatch!

I've posted previously about the recent U.S. Defense Departments "Quadrennial Defense Review" (re: it's authoring of a "Strategic Approach to Climate and Energy")... fresh off of that silliness, we now have the just released Annual Threat Assessment given to the U.S. Senate by the Director of National Intelligence... where we're confronted with this nonsensical position:

We continue to assess that global climate change will have wide-ranging implications for US national security interests over the next 20 years because it will aggravate existing world problems—such as poverty, social tensions, environmental degradation, ineffectual leadership, and weak political institutions—that threaten state stability. (In my classified statement, I discuss the recent UN-sponsored climate change conference in Copenhagen.) Climate change alone is highly unlikely to trigger failure in any state out to 2030, but it will potentially contribute to intra- or, less likely, interstate conflict. Water issues, which have existed before the recent changes in the climate, will continue to be major concern. As climate changes spur more humanitarian emergencies, the demand may significantly tax US military transportation and support force structures, resulting in a strained readiness posture and decreased strategic depth for combat operations. Some recent climate science would indicate that the effects of climate change are accelerating, particularly in the Arctic region and on mountain glaciers that impact critical watersheds

bush_cheney, make it stop! Please... save us one, save us all!!!

[bush_cheney2004]

bush_cheney, make it stop! Please... save us one, save us all!!!

We can sidetrack your sudden fondness for American DoD & CIA veracity with three letters...."W"..."M"..."D".

Any questions?

[waldo]

We can sidetrack your sudden fondness for American DoD & CIA veracity with three letters...."W"..."M"..."D".

Any questions?

are you saying, the mighty merkin Make War Dept & Intelligencia... have been done in by Weapons of Mass Distraction?

[bush_cheney2004]

are you saying, the mighty merkin Make War Dept & Intelligencia... have been done in by Weapons of Mass Distraction?

No...I'm saying that your attempt to bolster faith in global warming climate change with American DoD reviews and planning would really hurt Saddam's feelings, if he were still alive.

[waldo]

No...I'm saying that your attempt to bolster faith in global warming climate change with American DoD reviews and planning would really hurt Saddam's feelings, if he were still alive.

oh, I get it... given a preoccupation with that little ole Bush preemptive thingee over there in the Eyerac, the, as you say, "scheming climatologists" were able to make hay with all that high-flaluting climaty stuff. Accepting to that, it's somewhat disconcerting to see how thinly spread your Make War Dept & Intelligencia must be. Don't you think the Ruskies are in on it? I mean, c'mon... those climatologists are smart guys... as you say, "scheming smart guys", but surely, they couldn't have hoodwinked both DoD and the CIA on their own - could they?

[bush_cheney2004]

.....Accepting to that, it's somewhat disconcerting to see how thinly spread your Make War Dept & Intelligencia must be. Don't you think the Ruskies are in on it? I mean, c'mon... those climatologists are smart guys... as you say, "scheming smart guys", but surely, they couldn't have hoodwinked both DoD and the CIA on their own - could they?

No, you still don't get it. The US government cranks out all kinds of reviews and anlaysis from war colleges to the Rand Corporation. It even has operations plans for the invasion of Canada and the protection of Canada....at the same time!

[waldo]

No, you still don't get it. The US government cranks out all kinds of reviews and anlaysis from war colleges to the Rand Corporation. It even has operations plans for the invasion of Canada and the protection of Canada....at the same time!

ok, that's a relief! I actually thought those DoD and Intelligencia strategic positions to AGW climate change were meaningful. So, where does one find their countering reports - those alternate summary reports where they downplay... even ignore... the need for strategic planning related to climate change’s impact on military operations and security?

[bush_cheney2004]

So, where does one find their countering reports - those alternate summary reports where they downplay... even ignore... the need for strategic planning related to climate change’s impact on military operations and security?

Right here:

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/tech/nextnews/archive/next040227.htm

[bloodyminded]

Right here:

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/tech/nextnews/archive/next040227.htm

From the link you provided:

Our goal is merely to portray a plausible scenario, similar to one which has already occurred in human experience, for which there is reasonable evidence, so that we may further explore potential implications for United States national security."

We'll note well there is no contingency plan of which any of us are aware for an invasion of Icelandic Faeries; or for a vampire takeover a la "Daybreakers."

Only for "plausible scenarios...for which there is reasonable evidence."

Of course, the DoD is run by radical leftwing tree-huggers intent on packing the wallets of all those fat-cat scientists.

[bush_cheney2004]

We'll note well there is no contingency plan of which any of us are aware for an invasion of Icelandic Faeries; or for a vampire takeover a la "Daybreakers."

Nope....just the invasion of Canada to steal your water.

Only for "plausible scenarios...for which there is reasonable evidence."

..and still considered unlikely compared to the impact of false perceptions on geopolitical stability.

Of course, the DoD is run by radical leftwing tree-huggers intent on packing the wallets of all those fat-cat scientists.

True.....DoD Commander in Chief is none other than President Barack Hussein Obama.

[bloodyminded]

Nope....just the invasion of Canada to steal your water.

A war between Canada and the US is not a ridiculous impossibility in the long term. A vampire invasion is.

You are aware of the difference, of course, regardless of what you say here.

..and still considered unlikely compared to the impact of false perceptions on geopolitical stability.

Considered unlikely by yourself. Not by those who write of "plausible scenarios...of which there is reasonable evidence."

True.....DoD Commander in Chief is none other than President Barack Hussein Obama.

This contingency direction predates Obama. You do remember that delicate little aristocratic elitist named Bush, yes?

Edited February 16, 2010 by bloodyminded