What do YOU think about Global Warming / Climate Change? (economy, program, state)

[voiceofreazon]

Originally Posted by Spatula City

If you believe in AGW then why did you say that AGW needs to be re-evaluated as a theory? Why are you bringing up the 'pause' as if it somehow challenges AGW?

Since you're apparently part of the AGW 'crowd', are you also saying all of these anti-science things? Doesn't this comment suggest that you're skeptical of the 'concrete link' between man emitting Co2 and the planet warming up? Do you even know what AGW is?

The hypothesis of AGW can be described as follows:
The increased emission of CO2 into the atmosphere (by humans) is causing the Earth to warm at such a rate that it threatens our survival.

I accept the basic science behind the first part of that theory but I take issue with the second. Now the second part is VERY important! Without it, we would not be even discussing this issue on a political forum and it would likely be an academic matter among climate scientists. The second part of that theory is the reason that there are tens of billions of dollars spent annually on the issue, why there is market for carbon trading and why the scientific process has been corrupted by politics, activism, dogma and greed.

I can accept the basic theory that emitting CO2 into the atmosphere causes the planet to warm or at least change the climate. How MUCH it changes and whether or not the effects will be catastrophic or barely noticeable (as they've been for the past 16 years) is a question that I don't believe our current understanding of the climate is able to answer.

So as I've said many a time in these discussions, I don't have a problem with the basic science. My problem is with the alarmism, the dogma and the attacks on skepticism.

If YOU were intellectually honest, you would realize that we aren't discussing the academic issue of whether or not man emitting Co2 warms the planet, we are discussing the claim that this dynamic will lead to the planet warming up so fast that it threatens human survival in the near term unless we act fast and pay more taxes.

So yeah.. when the planet's warming slows for sixteen years, I am not saying that carbon dioxide no longer causes a greenhouse effect, I am saying that we need to re examine this notion that man's emissions of it will lead to our imminent demise.

Originally Posted by Spatula City

You also seem to be neglecting the fact that climatologists are NOT in agreement about what effect AGW will have on the planet, aren't ruling out the existence of possible buffers to warming, don't deny the existence of the pause, etc. But most of them would agree that there are going to be more negatives than positives involved with such rapid warming, mostly because they've already been observed.
It mostly sounds like you're just retreating from your own argument.

"The fourth and final volume of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's giant climate assessment didn't offer any surprises, nor was it expected to since it combined the findings of three earlier reports released in the past 13 months."
"Science has spoken. There is no ambiguity in their message. Leaders must act. Time is not on our side," U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said at the report's launch in Copenhagen.
UN climate report offers stark warnings, hope - AOL.com

Originally Posted by Spatula City

They're not strawmen-- you're just too intellectually dishonest to commit to what you're actually saying, and switch your position every time someone calls you out on it.

No, strawmen arguments and non sequiter tangents about how effects can have more than one cause are not "calling me out" on anything.

Originally Posted by Spatula City

Regardless, I'm not the one accusing NASA climatologists with decades of experience and PhDs of being anti-science.

“I’ve been told that IPCC is above national FOI [Freedom of Information] Acts. One way to cover yourself and all those working in AR5 would be to delete all emails at the end of the process,”writes Phil Jones, a scientist working with the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), in a newly released email.

“Any work we have done in the past is done on the back of the research grants we get – and has to be well hidden,” Jones writes in another newly released email. “I’ve discussed this with the main funder (U.S. Dept of Energy) in the past and they are happy about not releasing the original station data.”

Climategate 2.0: New E-Mails Rock The Global Warming Debate - Forbes

Originally Posted by Spatula City

So now you're saying that humans are warming the planet, but it doesn't matter, because the 'level' of that warming is so insignificant that it might as well not be occurring?

If you don't think that humans are causing 'most' of the warming that is now occurring, then you must think some other cause is primarily responsible.

It's denialism-- you've just dressed it up in a fallacy.

That would require that there IS a significant amount of warming going on, for the past 16 years it's been pretty static. It's not denialism, either, it's skepticism.

Originally Posted by Spatula City

You just keep saying '16 years' over and over, as if I haven't already responded to that.

You were asking what caused past instances of warming-- I was telling you that there were multiple causes. You didn't understand that because you can't seem to handle more than one idea at a time.

I do understand that. I never contested it nor do I understand why you keep insisting on bringing it up as if it proves something.

You said:

AGW is the simplest, best, most likely theory to explain why warming is occurring-- that is the truth. If you have a better theory, then you should call NASA and let them know.

Then when I asked what caused past examples of GREATER warming, you went off on some tangent about how multiple effects have the same cause. So why can't that be true of the "warming" we are witnessing now? Why is AGW the "simplest, best, most likely theory to explain why warming is occurring" now?

Why isn't AGW just another factor in your multiple causes having the same effect?

[T-310]

Originally Posted by sanspeur

The reason for that is that it didn't stop warming 18 years ago....9 of the 10 hottest years have occurred since 2000...How do you explain that away?

It was hotter in 1932. Ask your self the same question.

[T-310]

Tell us about your peer reviewed research about the earth's climate, for starters, or if you don't have that, let's hear about any scientific research of yours that dispels what climate scientists are in agreement on (which, if you don't know, is that the use of fossil fuels is leading to an alarming rise in the earths average temperature).

Scientists say it hasn't warmed in over 18 years. So what alarming rise are you referring to? The one out of your fertile mind?

[T-310]

Originally Posted by TreeBeard

You just confirm that there is no science or rationale that will allow you to question your ingrained position. You attack me rather than address the science and research in the report. Typical response from someone in denial. Your post, like so many other posts challenging the science behind global warming, is sound and fury signifying nothing.

What science is there in a political report such as the one the IPCC craps out at regular intervals screaming doom, death and destruction routinely?

[RC01]

I don't believe in human-accelerated climate change. Rather, I accept the overwhelming scientific evidence in support of it.

[ChrisFromChicago]

Originally Posted by RC01

I don't believe in human-accelerated climate change. Rather, I accept the overwhelming scientific evidence in support of it.

that is really the answer here


You don't "believe" in climate change. Its like believing in hats (John Oliver). You either accept science or you fight back against those liberal evil science (god hating too) people. . .


Next up, do you believe the earth is at the center of the universe!

[voiceofreazon]

Originally Posted by ChrisFromChicago

that is really the answer here


You don't "believe" in climate change. Its like believing in hats (John Oliver). You either accept science or you fight back against those liberal evil science (god hating too) people. . .


Next up, do you believe the earth is at the center of the universe!

Your stance only makes sense if one presumes that science is being conducted in an impartial manner, devoid of any influence from politics, dogma, activism, greed or groupthink.
Hint: It isn't.

Your stance only makes sense if a scientific theory, subject to computer simulations and error prone predictions is on the same par of established fact as tangible things are.
Hint: It isn't.

[Roadking2003]

Originally Posted by ChrisFromChicago

You don't "believe" in climate change.

Try again. That's not what he posted.

[sanspeur]

Originally Posted by T-310

It was hotter in 1932. Ask your self the same question.

Now it's 1932? I thought the dogma you follow says 1934, and I'm sure it was hotter in both those years somewhere, but globally 2005 and 2010 are tied for the record.

[RC01]

Here's explanations for 13 common misconceptions about climate change. Watch if you would like to learn something.