Global warming dials up our risks, UN report says

[Steve]

Yet there isn't the effort to destroy the flat earthers that there is for man made global warming skeptics...

Here is a source for peer reviewed papers skeptical of man made global warming...

http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html

I don't have a real stake in this debate, but I would suspect that the flat earthers are considered innocuous kooks. If you believe that climate change is influenced by us, and leading to some kind of global crisis, it stands to reason that people arguing otherwise, whom you believe to be schills or kooks (or both) would hasten the demise.

Personally, I don't understand the stakes in play. For me, oil is just expensive. When I hear ballen talk about driving an 8mpg truck, I think, "Great if you can afford it." But at that point, it's like seeing a homeless person smoking. The people who tend to drive the crappy, low mileage cars are the people least able to afford the rising costs of gasoline.

I don't understand why it's so important for one side to discredit the other side. As I said before, we have all already made up our minds. If you're on the ballen/billc team, you're there because you ALREADY agree with the platform. You're in the club. There is nothing that anyone can say or do to change your mind, and when the other team makes a point, you just can't wait to google it, or search for that talking point on one of the 10 or so "go to," right wing, opinion sites, where they will give you plenty of ammunition to rebut, or at least cast a shadow of doubt, on the subject.

And the same goes for everyone else. Liberal, conservative, liberatarian, it's all a lens through which you view your topic, and few people are self aware enough to hear a point objectively and consider the merits of a position not endorsed by their respective teams. This thread is not a conversation. No one is listening to anyone else.

 

[ballen0351]

I don't have a real stake in this debate, but I would suspect that the flat earthers are considered innocuous kooks. If you believe that climate change is influenced by us, and leading to some kind of global crisis, it stands to reason that people arguing otherwise, whom you believe to be schills or kooks (or both) would hasten the demise.

Personally, I don't understand the stakes in play. For me, oil is just expensive. When I hear ballen talk about driving an 8mpg truck, I think, "Great if you can afford it." But at that point, it's like seeing a homeless person smoking. The people who tend to drive the crappy, low mileage cars are the people least able to afford the rising costs of gasoline.

I don't understand why it's so important for one side to discredit the other side. As I said before, we have all already made up our minds. If you're on the ballen/billc team, you're there because you ALREADY agree with the platform. You're in the club. There is nothing that anyone can say or do to change your mind, and when the other team makes a point, you just can't wait to google it, or search for that talking point on one of the 10 or so "go to," right wing, opinion sites, where they will give you plenty of ammunition to rebut, or at least cast a shadow of doubt, on the subject.

And the same goes for everyone else. Liberal, conservative, liberatarian, it's all a lens through which you view your topic, and few people are self aware enough to hear a point objectively and consider the merits of a position not endorsed by their respective teams. This thread is not a conversation. No one is listening to anyone else.

So your point about flat earth society fits where in this story you posted? What "team" are you on

 

[Steve]

So your point about flat earth society fits where in this story you posted?

It fits into the part where you are saying that "hundreds" equals "large # of people." I was pointing out that, in the context of a world wide topic like climate change, it means the opposite.

What "team" are you on

I'm on the team that doesn't understand what your goals are in this debate. What are you trying to do? Do you hope to sway anyone's opinion? Are you looking for someone to say, "I was wrong?" What's your angle?

I'm also on the team that prefers to look at the larger issue of "green" from a "money in my pocket" perspective. Keeps it simple for me. There are some "green" initiatives and products that are way cheaper. Others don't make sense. Keeps it more practical, and less dogmatic.

 

[Tgace]

http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspi...-and-misrepresents-important-climate-science/

How credible are the NIPCC reports? Endorsements by prominent scientists, reviews, and citations in peer-reviewed journals appear at the Web site mentioned above. NIPCC reports are produced by scores of scientists from around the world (some 20 countries so far), cite thousands of peer-reviewed studies, and are themselves peer-reviewed. In June 2013, a division of the Chinese Academy of Sciences published a Chinese translation and condensed edition of the 2009 and 2011 volumes.

We know the authors of the IPCC’s reports have financial conflicts of interest, since the government bureaucracies that select them and the UN that oversees and edits the final reports stand to profit from public alarm over the possibility that global warming will be harmful. The authors of the NIPCC series have no such conflicts. The series is funded by three private family foundations without any financial interest in the outcome of the global warming debate. The publisher, The Heartland Institute, neither solicits nor receives any government or corporation funding for the Climate Change Reconsidered series. (It does receive some corporate funding for its other research and educational programs.)

 

[elder999]

http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspi...-and-misrepresents-important-climate-science/

And that's an editorial, from one of the founders of the aforementioned Heartland Institute, Joseph Bast:

Bast was born on January 22, 1958 in the small paper mill town of Kimberly, Wisconsin. His father was a dairy worker and his mother was a stay-at-home mom. He attended a Catholic elementary school and joined the debate team at his high school and won the state debate championship two years in a row.[SUP][3][/SUP] He attended the University of Chicago for eight years but did not complete his degree

Bring us an opposing viewpoint from a climatologist,someone, please?

Or an oceanographer?

Or a geographer?

Anyone?

 

[ballen0351]

It fits into the part where you are saying that "hundreds" equals "large # of people." I was pointing out that, in the context of a world wide topic like climate change, it means the opposite.

I not talking about hundrends of people in general there are hundreds of millions of people that don't believe. I'm speaking in terms of hundreds if not 1000s of scientists in the field. Two totally different things.

I'm on the team that doesn't understand what your goals are in this debate. What are you trying to do? Do you hope to sway anyone's opinion? Are you looking for someone to say, "I was wrong?" What's your angle?

I dont have an angle. This is a discussion forum to express ideas and thoughts. Thats kinda what we do here. You dont need an angle to have a discussion.

I'm also on the team that prefers to look at the larger issue of "green" from a "money in my pocket" perspective. Keeps it simple for me. There are some "green" initiatives and products that are way cheaper. Others don't make sense. Keeps it more practical, and less dogmatic.

i have no problem with that. My problem is with the green gods telling me i need to pay more to fund carbon credits or pay per mile I drive to offset the green energy costs. My problem people like Al Gore telling me to drive a hybrid as he flys in his private jet. Like i said before im all for cleaning up the world for real reasons that we control. Not for reason we dont have control over and never will.

 

[ballen0351]

And that's an editorial, from one of the founders of the aforementioned Heartland Institute, Joseph Bast:




Bring us an opposing viewpoint from a climatologist,someone, please?

Or an oceanographer?

Or a geographer?

Anyone?

So again we attack the messenger not the message.

 

[elder999]

So again we attack the messenger not the message.

No, we say to consider the source: it's sort of like saying, "Hey, this guy's a bricklayer, and a damn good one, but how can he possibly know anything about neurosurgery? Bring me the opinion of a neurosurgeon."

I'll qualify that by saying that there are any number of autodidacts and self-made experts out there who have knowledge and ability that rivals degreed people in their chosen field of study, and sometimes even surpasses it. I see nothing, though, in Joseph Bast's biography to indicate that he is such a person.

Lastly, I have to say that what I did was state some facts-there was no "attack," and that when facts become "attacks," I'd say it's proof of some sort of bias, and real proof of closed-mindedness.

 

[ballen0351]

No, we say to consider the source: it's sort of like saying, "Hey, this guy's a bricklayer, and a damn good one, but how can he possibly know anything about neurosurgery? Bring me the opinion of a neurosurgeon."

I'll qualify that by saying that there are any number of autodidacts and self-made experts out there who have knowledge and ability that rivals degreed people in their chosen field of study, and sometimes even surpasses it. I see nothing, though, in Joseph Bast's biography to indicate that he is such a person, though.

Lastly, I have to say that what I did was state some facts-there was no "attack," and that when facts become "attacks," I'd say it's proof of some sort of bias, and real proof of closed-mindedness.

Its a figure of speech however
Your "facts" were not relevant to the topic who cares what his mom or dad did. Who care that he didn't get a degree. What in the content of the article was wrong or false? You try to discredit the author and pretend to ignore what was written.

 

[billc]

like this guy...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Singer

[h=3]1962: National Weather Center and University of Miami[/h] In 1962, on leave from the university, Singer was named as the first director of meteorological satellite services for the National Weather Satellite Center, now part of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and directed a program for using satellites to forecast the weather.[SUP][20][/SUP] He stayed there until 1964. He told Time magazine in 1969 that he enjoyed moving around. "Each move gave me a completely new perspective," he said. "If I had sat still, I'd probably still be measuring cosmic rays, the subject of my thesis at Princeton. That's what happens to most scientists."[SUP][37][/SUP] When he stepped down as director he received a Department of Commerce Gold Medal Award for Distinguished Federal Service.[SUP][39][/SUP]
In 1964, he became the first dean of the School of Environmental and Planetary Sciences at the University of Miami in 1964, the first school of its kind in the country, dedicated to space-age research.[SUP][40][/SUP] In December 1965, The New York Times reported on a conference Singer hosted in Miami Beach during which five groups of scientists, working independently, presented research identifying what they believed was the remains of a primordial flash that occurred when the universe was born.[4

 

[elder999]

Its a figure of speech however
Your "facts" were not relevant to the topic who cares what his mom or dad did. Who care that he didn't get a degree. What in the content of the article was wrong or false? You try to discredit the author and pretend to ignore what was written.

Oh, and I suppose that if a kindergartner produced an essay titled, "Global Warming is Poo," and you linked a post to it here, and I said, "Hey, waitaminnit! This guy's in kindergarten!!" that'd be an "attack" as well? :lfao:

 

[ballen0351]

Oh, and I suppose that if a kindergartner produced an essay titled, "Global Warming is Poo," and you linked a post to it here, and I said, "Hey, waitaminnit! This guy's in kindergarten!!" that'd be an "attack" as well? :lfao:

Nope it was figure of speech keep avoiding the topic its OK

 

[billc]

And here is a list...including climatologists...

http://www.epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?ContentRecord_id=f80a6386-802a-23ad-40c8-3c63dc2d02cb&FuseAction=Minority.Blogs

[FONT=times new roman,times]USA: Climatologist Robert Durrenberger, past president of the American Association of State Climatologists, and one of the climatologists who gathered at Woods Hole to review the National Climate Program Plan in July, 1979: “Al Gore brought me back to the battle and prompted me to do renewed research in the field of climatology. And because of all the misinformation that Gore and his army have been spreading about climate change I have decided that ‘real’ climatologists should try to help the public understand the nature of the problem.” [/FONT]

 

[elder999]

like this guy...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Singer

Minority opinions are important-Fred Singer's is, at least, a qualified one: he represents a small minority of scientists of the type I spoke of who offer a different opinion. Add to his qualifications that he's now 90 years old, and that he supports a number of questionable theories, like the idea that Mars' moon Phobos is a hollow artificial satellite created by an ancient Martian civilization.....which could be true.

I'd also agree with him that some of the initial effects of global warming will be beneficial-they already have. This season, I expect I'll get two crops of corn, and two of melons, whereas just 15 years ago, the most I could hope for was one....snow today, a little, but no biggie-those crops won't go into the ground until May 12 or so, but winter starts later each year....that beneficial nature will change, however, if the projected models are correct.....and, if they are correct, it's easy enough to see people going to war over water-even without global warming, increasing human consumption will eventually lead to significant water conflict, if it hasn't already...

 

[ballen0351]

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Petition
The Global Warming Petition Project, also known as the Oregon Petition, is a petition to the United States government urging politicians to reject any policies based on concerns over global warming, and in particular the Kyoto Protocol of 1997.[1] It was organized and circulated by Arthur B. Robinson, president of the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine in 1998, and again in 2007.[2][3] Past National Academy of Sciences president Frederick Seitz wrote a cover letter endorsing the petition.[4]

According to Robinson, the petition has over 31,000 signatories. Over 9,000 report to have a Ph.D.,[1][2][3] mostly in engineering.[5] The NIPCC (2009) Report lists 31,478 degreed signatories, including 9,029 with Ph.D.s.[6] The list has been criticized for its lack of verification, with pranksters successfully submitting Charles Darwin, members of the Spice Girls and characters from Star Wars, and getting them briefly included on the list.[7]

 

[Steve]

I dont have an angle. This is a discussion forum to express ideas and thoughts. Thats kinda what we do here. You dont need an angle to have a discussion.

Here's the crux of it, I think. I would say that a discussion would be terrific. I don't think that's what you guys are doing. As I said before, I don't think this thread, or many other threads, meet even the most basic criteria for a discussion.

It COULD be a discussion, but that would require you and others to take a few moments to consider the thread from a different perspective.

I think you've given me an idea for a thread to start.

i have no problem with that. My problem is with the green gods telling me i need to pay more to fund carbon credits or pay per mile I drive to offset the green energy costs. My problem people like Al Gore telling me to drive a hybrid as he flys in his private jet. Like i said before im all for cleaning up the world for real reasons that we control. Not for reason we dont have control over and never will.

I think that you and I actually agree more than we disagree on this topic. Although, I'm more inclined to give people who have to fly a pass on their consumption of JP-8, at least until someone invents a viable, electric jet.

 

[ballen0351]

Here's the crux of it, I think. I would say that a discussion would be terrific. I don't think that's what you guys are doing. As I said before, I don't think this thread, or many other threads, meet even the most basic criteria for a discussion.

So start discussing. I've look at their side it just doesn't make rational sense to me. Natural cyclical rise and fall of temps like has been going on for millions of years

It COULD be a discussion, but that would require you and others to take a few moments to consider the thread from a different perspective.

I think you've given me an idea for a thread to start. I think that you and I actually agree more than we disagree on this topic. Although, I'm more inclined to give people who have to fly a pass on their consumption of JP-8, at least until someone invents a viable, electric jet.

I got no prob with his jet just dont tell me to cut back if you wont. Fly conmercial or something.

 

[K-man]

If we go back a few steps ... I posed a number of questions.

I feel there are four questions.

1. Is there global warming?
2. If there is global warming, is it being contributed to by man made emissions?
3. If man made emissions are causing global warming, can it be reversed?
4. If global warming is not caused by man made emissions, can it be reversed?

The latest evidence, released this week, says yes and yes to the first two questions. Unfortunately, I think the answer to the last two questions is no and no.

The weight of scientific evidence it that global warming is happening. It will be interesting to see what climate change skeptics will say about the latest information.

Immediately two people took off in the wrong direction. There are climate change deniers who say that temperature change is not happening. Those people should all be card carrying members of the Flat Earth Society and you'll probably find them at the annual convention of 'Fairies from the bottom of the Garden'.

So again we attack the messenger not the message.

The message is clear. Singer and his mates are spruiking that Global Warming is not real. The question is ... is mankind a major cause of the warming? (See question 2 above) That is what we could be discussing instead of this radical right BS of total denial. The oil companies and others don't want that research carried out as it is most likely to show that the burning of fossil fuels is the major cause of the increasing global temperature.

Its a figure of speech however
Your "facts" were not relevant to the topic who cares what his mom or dad did. Who care that he didn't get a degree. What in the content of the article was wrong or false? You try to discredit the author and pretend to ignore what was written.

So now we come to the interesting bit that Elder touched on above. What you are saying is that any BS written by anyone is a valid 'fact' even if it is written by someone with no knowledge and no credibility. When we point out the author has no credibility we are attacking the messenger. Perhaps if the messenger was genuine he would give his report to his peers and if they concurred with his paper it might be published to the scientific community in a reputable journal. That way it wouldn't matter if he was the drover's dog. His paper would be validated, not necessarily proof, but at least a paper worthy of consideration.

So why don't these 'scientists' do that? The answer is they are ignoring facts and producing their opinion that cannot stand up to scientific scrutiny.

like this guy...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Singer

Exactly. A guy who in his life was a reputable scientist publishing peer reviewed papers published in reputable journals until 1971. What happened? He sold out to the tobacco companies and started producing misleading information about the harm caused by tobacco products. If he had his colleagues review his papers, and they stood up to scrutiny, he wouldn't be the discredited scientist he is now. Of cause he went on to bigger and better things by accepting funding from the oil companies. But what of his research? It is true that since 1971 he produced two peer reviewed papers, neither of which had anything to do with global warming.

And here is a list...including climatologists...

http://www.epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?ContentRecord_id=f80a6386-802a-23ad-40c8-3c63dc2d02cb&FuseAction=Minority.Blogs

Ah, beautiful! The list!

Did you even bother checking what the list contained? Most of these scientists are credible guys with peer reviewed papers, the exceptions being guys like singer that have never produced a peer reviewed paper on the topic. In particular read the disclaimer. These guys are not necessarily skeptics. They have in the main produced credible documentation to use in the debate.

Preface: The following papers support skeptic arguments against Anthropogenic Climate Change (ACC), Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) or ACC/AGW Alarm [Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming (CAGW) or Dangerous Anthropogenic Global Warming (DAGW)].


ACC/AGW Alarm: (defined), "concern relating to a perceived negative environmental or socio-economic effect of ACC/AGW, usually exaggerated as catastrophic."


Disclaimer: The inclusion of a paper in this list does not imply a specific personal position to any of the authors. While certain authors on the list cannot be labeled skeptics (e.g. Harold Brooks, Roger Pielke Jr., Roger Pielke Sr.) their paper(s) or results from their paper(s) can still support skeptic's arguments against ACC/AGW Alarm. Various papers are mutually exclusive and should be considered independently. This list will be updated and corrected as necessary.

Now there is no way I am going to research all 3000 of these guys but I looked at one from New Zealand first up.

Chris de Freitas, B.A. (Hons), University of Toronto, Canada; M.A. University of Toronto, Canada; Ph.D. Climatology, University of Queensland, Australia (1979); Deputy Dean of Science, University of Auckland, New Zealand; Head of Science and Technology, Tamaki Campus, University of Auckland, New Zealand; Pro Vice Chancellor University of Auckland, New Zealand; Vice President, Meteorological Society of New Zealand; Founding Member, Australia New Zealand Climate Forum; Former Editor, Climate Research Journal; Executive Board, International Society of Biometeorology (1999-2001), Science Communicator Award, New Zealand Association of Scientists (1999, 2001), Expert Reviewer, IPCC (1995, 2001), Associate Professor, School of Environment, University of Auckland, New Zealand

So what is his position?

It is true most climate scientists would agree that rising carbon dioxide in the atmosphere due to fossil fuel use could affect global climate. The basic physics is there to support this view.

...

Climate warming does not confirm that carbon dioxide is causing it. The evidence would have to distinguish between human-caused warming and natural warming. This has not been done.

...

From the results of research to date, it appears the influence of increasing carbon dioxide on global warming is almost indiscernible. Future warming could occur, but there is no evidence to suggest it will amount to much.


One could reasonably argue that lack of evidence, one way or the other, is no reason for complacency. I will concede that.

[URL]http://www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=10886282

And that sums up the whole issue. There is global warming, what is causing the warming is debatable and the relevance of CO2 in the equation is not totally understood. His position is exactly the same as the position I expressed in my opening post.

Let's look at just one more at random, for interest.

Paul C. Knappenberger, B.A. Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia (1986); M.S. Environmental Sciences (Thesis: "Cyclone tracks and wintertime climate in the Mid-Atlantic region of the United States"), University of Virginia (1990); Department of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia (1987-2007); Climate Researcher, Virginia State Climatology Office (1987-2007); Assistant Director, Center for the Study of Science, Cato Institute (2008-Present)

... and his position? Well he is Cato institute which puts him way out to the right but still ...

Instead of laboring to try to uphold a consensus that was tenuous from the outset, and which is now outdated, the IPCC should be striving to produce a summary of the contemporary bank of scientific knowledge. Only with that type of information can responsible decisions pertaining to the development of world’s energy sources be made.

Hey! I can live with that. That provides for rational debate.
:asian:

 

[Makalakumu]

There were actually two zip files of leaked documents in the Climategate leaks. I have both of them. As soon as I found out about this, I went out and got them both so I could see them with my own eyes and make up my own mind about it. I have a BS in Biology, Earth Science, and Physics, so at least I have a basic understanding of the concepts therein, but that's beside the point. I have a question for the people talking about this. How many of you have downloaded these zip files and actually looked at them? Do you think that even matters?

 

[K-man]

There were actually two zip files of leaked documents in the Climategate leaks. I have both of them. As soon as I found out about this, I went out and got them both so I could see them with my own eyes and make up my own mind about it. I have a BS in Biology, Earth Science, and Physics, so at least I have a basic understanding of the concepts therein, but that's beside the point. I have a question for the people talking about this. How many of you have downloaded these zip files and actually looked at them? Do you think that even matters?

I didn't because it seems that only a couple were in anyway controversial, in particular the one talking of a 'trick'. From what I read where the email was explained, I had no further issue. I think it was widely acknowledged that there was questionable logic to fill in a period where the record wasn't clear in Mann's original paper but in the end a number of subsequent papers came to the same conclusion.

The other point is that the emails in question were from 18 years ago until 2009 and with subsequent observations you have to ask how relevant that data in now.

Most of the emails concerned technical and mundane aspects of climate research, such as data analysis and details of scientific conferences. The Guardian's analysis of the emails suggests that the hacker had filtered them. Four scientists were targeted and a concordance plot shows that the words "data", "climate", "paper", "research", "temperature" and "model" were predominant. The controversy has focused on a small number of emails with 'climate sceptic' websites picking out particular phrases, such as one in which Kevin Trenberth said, "The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t". This was actually part of a discussion on the need for better monitoring of the energy flows involved in short-term climate variability, but was grossly mischaracterised by critics.


Many commentators quoted one email in which Phil Jones said he had used "Mike's Nature trick" in a 1999 graph for the World Meteorological Organization "to hide the decline" in proxy temperatures derived from tree ring analyses when measured temperatures were actually rising. This 'decline' referred to the well-discussed tree ring divergence problem, but these two phrases were taken out of context by climate change sceptics, including US Senator Jim Inhofe and former Governor of Alaska Sarah Palin, as though they referred to some decline in measured global temperatures, even though they were written when temperatures were at a record high. John Tierney, writing in the New York Times in November 2009, said that the claims by sceptics of "hoax" or "fraud" were incorrect, but that the graph on the cover of a report for policy makers and journalists did not show these non-experts where proxy measurements changed to measured temperatures. The final analyses from various subsequent inquiries concluded that in this context 'trick' was normal scientific or mathematical jargon for a neat way of handling data, in this case a statistical method used to bring two or more different kinds of data sets together in a legitimate fashion. The EPA notes that in fact, the evidence shows that the research community was fully aware of these issues and that no one was hiding or concealing them.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy

It is a bit like other conspiracy theory ... add 5% truth to 95% bull dust and you have a BS theory that a small proportion of people will accept as the whole truth.

So Maka, if you have time to read a thousand emails and two thousand documents, plus associated research data, in the hope you will find something that the skeptics missed, go for it. Good luck.
:asian: