Climate chg/global warming/climate disruption/carbon...

A Place to respectfully discuss those topics that you should never discuss.
post

Climate chg/global warming/climate disruption/carbon...

Postby Buc2 » Fri Jan 16, 2015 12:35 pm

...pollution/{new name coming soon}. Choose whatever name suits you. The discussion/debate and counter claims continue unabated.

Scientists balk at ‘hottest year’ claims: Ignores Satellites showing 18 Year ‘Pause’ – ‘We are arguing over the significance of hundredths of a degree’ – The ‘Pause’ continues

Climate Depot's Marc Morano: 'Claiming 2014 is the 'hottest year' on record based on hundredths of a degree temperature difference is a fancy way of saying the global warming 'pause' is continuing.'

Climatologist Dr. Roy Spencer: ‘Why 2014 Won’t Be the Warmest Year on Record’ (based on surface data)– ‘We are arguing over the significance of hundredths of a degree’

Climatologist Dr. Pat Michaels debunks 2014 ‘hottest year’ claim: ‘Is 58.46° then distinguishable from 58.45°? In a word, ‘NO.’

No Record Temperatures According To Satellites

Physicist Dr. Lubos Motl analyzes satellite temperature data: ‘Please laugh out loud when someone will be telling you that it was the warmest year’

Climatologist Dr. Roger Pielke Sr.: 'We have found a significant warm bias. Thus, the reported global average surface temperature anomaly is also too warm.'

Climatologist Dr. Judith Curry: 'With 2014 essentially tied with 2005 and 2010 for hottest year, this implies that there has been essentially no trend in warming over the past decade.'

Link...
Image
Don't tread on me
User avatar
Buc2
 
Posts: 6217
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 2:16 pm
Location: America
Has thanked: 666 times
Been thanked: 205 times

Re: Climate chg/global warming/climate disruption/carbon...

Postby The Outsider » Fri Jan 16, 2015 1:25 pm

I'll say the same thing I always say. Maybe Climate Change is real, maybe it isn't. If it is real, maybe it is accelerated by mankind, maybe it isn't. However, the practice of putting less pollutants in to our atmosphere, oceans, and groundwater resivoirs makes sense if every single one of the possible scenarios were true. We are the stewards of our planet, and now that we are beginning to understand the influence our actions can cause it is our duty to act responsibly in regards to the home we have, because we won't be getting a new one for a very, very long time. If ever.
Image
User avatar
The Outsider
 
Posts: 2047
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:02 pm
Location: Gettin' all up in ya
Has thanked: 28 times
Been thanked: 160 times

Re: Climate chg/global warming/climate disruption/carbon...

Postby Mountaineer Buc » Fri Jan 16, 2015 1:28 pm

The Outsider wrote:I'll say the same thing I always say. Maybe Climate Change is real, maybe it isn't. If it is real, maybe it is accelerated by mankind, maybe it isn't. However, the practice of putting less pollutants in to our atmosphere, oceans, and groundwater resivoirs makes sense if every single one of the possible scenarios were true. We are the stewards of our planet, and now that we are beginning to understand the influence our actions can cause it is our duty to act responsibly in regards to the home we have, because we won't be getting a new one for a very, very long time. If ever.


/thread

Precautionary principle, Bitches!
Image
User avatar
Mountaineer Buc
 
Posts: 6976
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:15 pm
Has thanked: 68 times
Been thanked: 414 times

Re: Climate chg/global warming/climate disruption/carbon...

Postby Buc2 » Fri Jan 16, 2015 3:32 pm

unslash thread

Sorry, MB, but lachrym will be in here eventually.
Image
Don't tread on me
User avatar
Buc2
 
Posts: 6217
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 2:16 pm
Location: America
Has thanked: 666 times
Been thanked: 205 times

Re: Climate chg/global warming/climate disruption/carbon...

Postby Noles1724 » Mon Jan 19, 2015 7:12 pm

All I know is that the games yesterday should have had snow not rain
Image
Noles1724
 
Posts: 1233
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:15 pm
Has thanked: 65 times
Been thanked: 46 times

Re: Climate chg/global warming/climate disruption/carbon...

Postby Jonny » Mon Jan 19, 2015 7:27 pm

I fully entertain the possibility of global warming. But that has never prompted me to change my concern and lifestyle. I am quite sure there aren't going to be any significant adverse consequences during my lifetime. Some of us (by choice) are stewards of some of the visible lifeforms on our planet, but not the planet itself. I respect those people who are concerned, but I will usually prefer convenience and vanity ahead of everything else.
Image
User avatar
Jonny
 
Posts: 610
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 6:01 pm
Has thanked: 35 times
Been thanked: 26 times

Re: Climate chg/global warming/climate disruption/carbon...

Postby StillCSG » Mon Jan 19, 2015 9:39 pm

My GREAT GREAT grandkids MIGHT have to worry about climate change......but i doubt it
Image
User avatar
StillCSG
 
Posts: 3698
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 2:54 am
Location: My House
Has thanked: 555 times
Been thanked: 74 times

Re: Climate chg/global warming/climate disruption/carbon...

Postby The Outsider » Mon Jan 19, 2015 10:18 pm

Jonny wrote:I fully entertain the possibility of global warming. But that has never prompted me to change my concern and lifestyle. I am quite sure there aren't going to be any significant adverse consequences during my lifetime. Some of us (by choice) are stewards of some of the visible lifeforms on our planet, but not the planet itself. I respect those people who are concerned, but I will usually prefer convenience and vanity ahead of everything else.



Although I vehemently disagree with your entire philosophy I commend you for not being a bitch and telling it like you see it.
Image
User avatar
The Outsider
 
Posts: 2047
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:02 pm
Location: Gettin' all up in ya
Has thanked: 28 times
Been thanked: 160 times

Re: Climate chg/global warming/climate disruption/carbon...

Postby Buc2 » Fri Jan 23, 2015 9:19 am

MIT CLIMATE SCIENTIST: GLOBAL WARMING BELIEVERS A ‘CULT’

An MIT professor of meteorology is dismissing global-warming alarmists as a discredited “cult” whose members are becoming more hysterical as emerging evidence continues to contradict their beliefs.

During an appearance on this writer’s radio show Monday, MIT Professor emeritus Richard Lindzen discussed the religious nature of the movement.

“As with any cult, once the mythology of the cult begins falling apart, instead of saying, oh, we were wrong, they get more and more fanatical. I think that’s what’s happening here. Think about it,” he said. “You’ve led an unpleasant life, you haven’t led a very virtuous life, but now you’re told, you get absolution if you watch your carbon footprint. It’s salvation!”

Lindzen, 74, has issued calm dismissals of warmist apocalypse, reducing his critics to sputtering rage.

Last week, government agencies including NASA announced that 2014 was the “hottest year” in “recorded history,” as The New York Times put it in an early edition. Last year has since been demoted by the Times to the hottest “since record-keeping began in 1880.”

But that may not be true. Now the same agencies have acknowledged that there’s only a 38 percent chance that 2014 was the hottest year on record. And even if it was, it was only by two-100ths of a degree.

Lindzen scoffs at the public-sector-generated hysteria, which included one warmist blogger breathlessly writing that the heat record had been “shattered.”

“Seventy percent of the earth is oceans, we can’t measure those temperatures very well. They can be off a half a degree, a quarter of a degree. Even two-10ths of a degree of change would be tiny but two-100ths is ludicrous. Anyone who starts crowing about those numbers shows that they’re putting spin on nothing.”

Last week, after scoffing at Vermont socialist Sen. Bernie Sanders’ call for a Senate vote on global warming, Lindzen was subjected to another barrage of diatribes. At his listed MIT phone number, Prof. Lindzen received a typical anonymous call:

“I think people like you should actually be in jail,” the male caller told him, “because you must know where this is all leading now… the people you support and take your money from to make these outrageously anti-human comments (also ‘know’)… In other words, you’re a sociopath!”

Lindzen chuckled when the voicemail was replayed.

This writer asked him if, as has been alleged in some of the warmist blogs, he is taking money from the energy industry.

“Oh, it would be great!” he said with a laugh. “You have all these people, the Gores and so on, making hundreds of millions of dollars on this, Exxon Mobil giving $100 million to Stanford for people who are working on promoting this hysteria. The notion that the fossil-fuel industry cares – they don’t. As long as they can pass the costs on to you, it’s a new profit center.”

Lindzen said he was fortunate to have gained tenure just as the “climate change” movement was beginning, because now non-believers are often ostracized in academia. In his career he has watched the hysteria of the 1970’s over “global cooling” morph into “global warming.”

They use climate to push an agenda. But what do you have left when global warming falls apart? Global normalcy? We have to do something about ‘normalcy?’”

As for CO2, Lindzen said that until recently, periods of greater warmth were referred to as “climate optimum.” Optimum is derived from a Latin word meaning “best.”

“Nobody ever questioned that those were the good periods. All of a sudden you were able to inculcate people with the notion that you have to be afraid of warmth.”

The warmists’ ultimate solution is to reduce the standard of living for most of mankind. That proposition is being resisted most vigorously by nations with developing economies such as China and India, both of which have refused to sign on to any restrictive, Obama-backed climate treaties. Lindzen understands their reluctance.

“Anything you do to impoverish people, and certainly all the planned policies will impoverish people, is actually costing lives. But the environmental movement has never cared about that.”
Image
Don't tread on me
User avatar
Buc2
 
Posts: 6217
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 2:16 pm
Location: America
Has thanked: 666 times
Been thanked: 205 times

Re: Climate chg/global warming/climate disruption/carbon...

Postby A Man's Part » Mon Jan 26, 2015 5:12 pm

I live in the mountains. Temps are usually 20-30 this time of year..

Its 60° degrees out. We have only had 2 days where it has snowed this year.

I was at a bar earlier for lunch. There was a guy in Jorts there complaining about how global warming is not real because of a snow storm about to hit NY.

Not that I think either of those anecdotal factors mean anything with regards to global warming. It was funny to see them together (to me).
User avatar
A Man's Part
 
Posts: 1085
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 12:26 am
Has thanked: 27 times
Been thanked: 54 times

Re: Climate chg/global warming/climate disruption/carbon...

Postby Jonny » Mon Jan 26, 2015 7:17 pm

Btw are many environmentalists also vegan?
Image
User avatar
Jonny
 
Posts: 610
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 6:01 pm
Has thanked: 35 times
Been thanked: 26 times

Re: Climate chg/global warming/climate disruption/carbon...

Postby The Outsider » Mon Jan 26, 2015 7:32 pm

Jonny wrote:Btw are many environmentalists also vegan?



I don't have any numbers on it but I'd guess that the majority aren't. Out of curiosity, why do you ask? It doesn't seem very relevant.
Image
User avatar
The Outsider
 
Posts: 2047
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:02 pm
Location: Gettin' all up in ya
Has thanked: 28 times
Been thanked: 160 times

Re: Climate chg/global warming/climate disruption/carbon...

Postby Jonny » Mon Jan 26, 2015 8:00 pm

The Outsider wrote:
Jonny wrote:Btw are many environmentalists also vegan?



I don't have any numbers on it but I'd guess that the majority aren't. Out of curiosity, why do you ask? It doesn't seem very relevant.


I recently heard an argument that environmentalists who are meat eaters are hypocrites. I did not find much rationality in that argument, because I don't believe there is any moral high ground when it comes to food or environment. It sounded like a weak correlation between people who live in Mexico and people who prefer lime flavored beer. But I wanted to know if there was any overlap between the two groups.
Image
User avatar
Jonny
 
Posts: 610
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 6:01 pm
Has thanked: 35 times
Been thanked: 26 times

Re: Climate chg/global warming/climate disruption/carbon...

Postby A Man's Part » Mon Jan 26, 2015 8:11 pm

Jonny wrote:
The Outsider wrote:
I don't have any numbers on it but I'd guess that the majority aren't. Out of curiosity, why do you ask? It doesn't seem very relevant.


I recently heard an argument that environmentalists who are meat eaters are hypocrites. I did not find much rationality in that argument, because I don't believe there is any moral high ground when it comes to food or environment. It sounded like a weak correlation between people who live in Mexico and people who prefer lime flavored beer. But I wanted to know if there was any overlap between the two groups.


I don't think it holds much weight because responsible hunting is good for the environment. Well, the wildlife portion.

Basically its natural for predators to eat prey. Humans are predators. On top of that.. We have driven away most of the natural predators for animal like deer, elk, etc... So that can lead to overpopulation.
User avatar
A Man's Part
 
Posts: 1085
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 12:26 am
Has thanked: 27 times
Been thanked: 54 times

Re: Climate chg/global warming/climate disruption/carbon...

Postby The Outsider » Mon Jan 26, 2015 8:15 pm

Jonny wrote:I recently heard an argument that environmentalists who are meat eaters are hypocrites. I did not find much rationality in that argument, because I don't believe there is any moral high ground when it comes to food. But I wanted to know if there was any overlap between the two groups.


Ah, okay. I consider myself an environmentalist in the sense that I believe strongly in mankind maintaining our environment in such a way as to minimize our impact on certain vital systems and species.

The idea meat eating environmentalists being hypocrites comes from the decidedly negative impact that large scale livestock farming has on most ecosystems, that being the use of large tracts of land to support a comparitively small amount of livestock along with the impact that the livestock alone have on the environment.

This mindset ignores the idea that there are alternate sources of meat than farm raised livestock. For instance, the vast majority of the meat I consume (not including dining out) I obtain via deer/pig/turkey/duck hunting (rabbit and other fringe species included.) I hunt primarily deer and wild pigs, in the case of deer they are overpopulated due to a lack of natural predators in the southern US and as such are a danger on roadways and a nuisance to farmers. Wild pigs are just a ****ing blight upon the world. They not only present the same problem as deer, but are also dangerous and contribute to waterline and wetland erosion due to the way they feed.

Tl:dr: anyone who thinks meat eating environmentalist is a hypocrite is an idiot who is uneducated in regard to their own cause.
Image
User avatar
The Outsider
 
Posts: 2047
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:02 pm
Location: Gettin' all up in ya
Has thanked: 28 times
Been thanked: 160 times

Re: Climate chg/global warming/climate disruption/carbon...

Postby A Man's Part » Mon Jan 26, 2015 11:30 pm

The Outsider wrote:
Jonny wrote:I recently heard an argument that environmentalists who are meat eaters are hypocrites. I did not find much rationality in that argument, because I don't believe there is any moral high ground when it comes to food. But I wanted to know if there was any overlap between the two groups.


Ah, okay. I consider myself an environmentalist in the sense that I believe strongly in mankind maintaining our environment in such a way as to minimize our impact on certain vital systems and species.

The idea meat eating environmentalists being hypocrites comes from the decidedly negative impact that large scale livestock farming has on most ecosystems, that being the use of large tracts of land to support a comparitively small amount of livestock along with the impact that the livestock alone have on the environment.

This mindset ignores the idea that there are alternate sources of meat than farm raised livestock. For instance, the vast majority of the meat I consume (not including dining out) I obtain via deer/pig/turkey/duck hunting (rabbit and other fringe species included.) I hunt primarily deer and wild pigs, in the case of deer they are overpopulated due to a lack of natural predators in the southern US and as such are a danger on roadways and a nuisance to farmers. Wild pigs are just a ****ing blight upon the world. They not only present the same problem as deer, but are also dangerous and contribute to waterline and wetland erosion due to the way they feed.

Tl:dr: anyone who thinks meat eating environmentalist is a hypocrite is an idiot who is uneducated in regard to their own cause.



You guys have pig hunting in Florida?
User avatar
A Man's Part
 
Posts: 1085
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 12:26 am
Has thanked: 27 times
Been thanked: 54 times

Re: Climate chg/global warming/climate disruption/carbon...

Postby The Outsider » Mon Jan 26, 2015 11:52 pm

A Man's Part wrote:You guys have pig hunting in Florida?


I do my hunting up in Bama, but yeah, there are wild pigs in FL. ****, I've seen some in the middle of an industrial park in Tampa. Right by the airport off of Hillsborough Ave.
Image
User avatar
The Outsider
 
Posts: 2047
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:02 pm
Location: Gettin' all up in ya
Has thanked: 28 times
Been thanked: 160 times

Re: Climate chg/global warming/climate disruption/carbon...

Postby PanteraCanes » Tue Jan 27, 2015 10:44 am

Pigs are invasive species in Florida just like the rest of the US.
User avatar
PanteraCanes
 
Posts: 835
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 12:48 pm
Has thanked: 7 times
Been thanked: 28 times

Re: Climate chg/global warming/climate disruption/carbon...

Postby Mountaineer Buc » Tue Jan 27, 2015 10:49 am

Yup. I saw 2 hogs doing damage to the Six Mile Cyprus Slough Preserve in the middle of Fort Myers damn near 15 years ago.
Image
User avatar
Mountaineer Buc
 
Posts: 6976
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:15 pm
Has thanked: 68 times
Been thanked: 414 times

Re: Climate chg/global warming/climate disruption/carbon...

Postby A Man's Part » Wed Jan 28, 2015 12:23 pm

PanteraCanes wrote:Pigs are invasive species in Florida just like the rest of the US.


Except for.. You know.. Places in the US where there isn't a wild Pig population where there aren't wild pigs..
User avatar
A Man's Part
 
Posts: 1085
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 12:26 am
Has thanked: 27 times
Been thanked: 54 times

Re: Climate chg/global warming/climate disruption/carbon...

Postby PanteraCanes » Wed Jan 28, 2015 1:44 pm

A Man's Part wrote:Except for.. You know.. Places in the US where there isn't a wild Pig population where there aren't wild pigs..


Those aren't real states.
User avatar
PanteraCanes
 
Posts: 835
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 12:48 pm
Has thanked: 7 times
Been thanked: 28 times

Re: Climate chg/global warming/climate disruption/carbon...

Postby Corsair » Tue Feb 03, 2015 10:32 pm

Sorry, Climate Change Deniers: Warming Not “Paused” and Modeling Not Flawed
http://www.iflscience.com/environment/s ... not-flawed

Though 97% of climate scientists agree that human-driven climate change exists, there are still a number of people who deny that claim. The reasons for their dissent are varied, but many claim that the warming of the Earth has actually paused, and apparent increases in global temperature are caused by flawed climate models that overestimate facts. While previous studies have already refuted the idea of “paused” global warming, a new paper in Nature by Jochem Marotzke and Piers Forster of the Max Planck Institute of Meteorology in Hamburg has concluded that most climate models are not flawed, and global temperatures are still very much on the rise.

Since 2000, the Earth’s average surface temperature has increased by 0.06° C; a fraction of what was predicted by the IPCC during the 1990s. This apparent plateau has been used as ammunition by climate deniers who accuse scientists of over-inflating results from climate models. Marotzke and Forster’s new paper analyzes the methodologies of climate models, revealing no inherent flaws in the models, even when they don’t match observations. They also conclude that this century’s slight increase in surface temperature, which deniers are labeling as a “pause,” is actually due to natural climate fluctuations. Many other metrics, including ocean temperature, show that the climate is indeed changing.

“The claim that climate models systematically overestimate global warming caused by rising greenhouse gas concentrations is wrong,” Marotzke said in a press release.

Marotzke and Forster analyzed 114 models by comparing their predictions of annual global surface temperatures in 15 year periods from 1900-2012 against the actual temperature recorded for that year. When these predicted numbers were compared to the actual temperature, they found that the models did a pretty good job. For the most part, the predictions were +/- 0.3° C of the observed temperature. This effectively absolved the models of having fundamental flaws that overestimate the climate's response to atmospheric carbon dioxide.

“On the whole, the simulated trends agree with the observations,” Marotzke continued. “In particular, the observed trends are not skewed in any discernible way compared to the simulations.”

Of course, that doesn’t mean every model is perfect; otherwise they would all match one another as well as observed data. The researchers then compared the models by examining the factors and values that the models considered or assumed, in search of an explanation of why the numbers weren’t aligning. They found that differing models used different degrees of sensitivity to solar radiation and had different assumptions about the amount of heat absorbed by the oceans, which would alter surface temperature predictions. However, even the models that were the most sensitive to carbon dioxide didn’t lead to a prediction that was drastically overestimated, as climate deniers have claimed.

“If excessive sensitivity of the models caused the models to calculate too great a temperature trend over the past 15 years, the models that assume a high sensitivity would calculate a greater temperature trend than the others,” Forster noted.

The researchers concluded that random variations, which cannot be accurately accounted for within computer simulations, are responsible for models and observation not matching up. It is also clear that the climate is definitely warming, with 2014 dubbed as the warmest year on record, and that nine out of the ten hottest years ever have occurred since 2000.
Image
User avatar
Corsair
 
Posts: 4556
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 12:25 am
Has thanked: 140 times
Been thanked: 262 times

Re: Climate chg/global warming/climate disruption/carbon...

Postby acaton » Thu Feb 05, 2015 12:50 pm

Global warming suites me just fine, I hate cold weather.
Image

Short, fat and slow often does the trick...45ACP
User avatar
acaton
 
Posts: 721
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 2:11 pm
Has thanked: 69 times
Been thanked: 21 times

Re: Climate chg/global warming/climate disruption/carbon...

Postby Buc2 » Tue Feb 10, 2015 9:03 am

Image
Don't tread on me
User avatar
Buc2
 
Posts: 6217
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 2:16 pm
Location: America
Has thanked: 666 times
Been thanked: 205 times

Re: Climate chg/global warming/climate disruption/carbon...

Postby Jonny » Tue Feb 10, 2015 11:15 am



I don't usually have a mistrust over scientific community and would take everything at face value if not for this issue becoming a big political point. I still lean on man-made global warming to be a real issue. But when I read that GE almost paid no taxes just for investing in this "green" energy, I have a great degree of skepticism and suspicion of corporatism. Either way, like I said earlier in this thread, I don't care since it most definitely wont affect me during my lifetime.

When I am offered a choice between paper or plastic at any hippie store, I always go plastic.
Image
User avatar
Jonny
 
Posts: 610
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 6:01 pm
Has thanked: 35 times
Been thanked: 26 times

Re: Climate chg/global warming/climate disruption/carbon...

Postby Buc2 » Tue Feb 10, 2015 12:23 pm

Jonny wrote:I don't usually have a mistrust over scientific community and would take everything at face value if not for this issue becoming a big political point. I still lean on man-made global warming to be a real issue. But when I read that GE almost paid no taxes just for investing in this "green" energy, I have a great degree of skepticism and suspicion of corporatism. Either way, like I said earlier in this thread, I don't care since it most definitely wont affect me during my lifetime.

When I am offered a choice between paper or plastic at any hippie store, I always go plastic.


I enjoy the debate because people get so worked up over it.
Image
Don't tread on me
User avatar
Buc2
 
Posts: 6217
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 2:16 pm
Location: America
Has thanked: 666 times
Been thanked: 205 times

Re: Climate chg/global warming/climate disruption/carbon...

Postby Corsair » Sat Feb 14, 2015 2:20 pm

What to Call a Doubter of Climate Change?

The words are hurled around like epithets.

People who reject the findings of climate science are dismissed as “deniers” and “disinformers.” Those who accept the science are attacked as “alarmists” or “warmistas. ” The latter term, evoking the Sandinista revolutionaries of Nicaragua, is perhaps meant to suggest that the science is part of some socialist plot.

In the long-running political battles over climate change, the fight about what to call the various factions has been going on for a long time. Recently, though, the issue has taken a new turn, with a public appeal that has garnered 22,000 signatures and counting.

The petition asks the news media to abandon the most frequently used term for people who question climate science, “skeptic,” and call them “climate deniers” instead.

Climate scientists are among the most vocal critics of using the term “climate skeptic” to describe people who flatly reject their findings. They point out that skepticism is the very foundation of the scientific method. The modern consensus about the risks of climate change, they say, is based on evidence that has piled up over the course of decades and has been subjected to critical scrutiny every step of the way.

Drop into any climate science convention, in fact, and you will hear vigorous debate about the details of the latest studies. While they may disagree over the fine points, those same researchers are virtually unanimous in warning that society is running extraordinary risks by continuing to pump huge quantities of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.

In other words, the climate scientists see themselves as the true skeptics, having arrived at a durable consensus about emissions simply because the evidence of risk has become overwhelming. And in this view, people who reject the evidence are phony skeptics, arguing their case by cherry-picking studies, manipulating data, and refusing to weigh the evidence as a whole.

The petition asking the media to drop the “climate skeptic” label began with Mark B. Boslough, a physicist in New Mexico who grew increasingly annoyed by the term over several years. The phrase is wrong, he said, because “these people do not embrace the scientific method.”

Dr. Boslough is active in a group called the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry, which has long battled pseudoscience in all its forms. Late last year, he wrote a public letter on the issue, and dozens of scientists and science advocates associated with the committee quickly signed it. They include Bill Nye, of “Science Guy" fame, and Lawrence M. Krauss, the physicist and best-selling author.

A climate advocacy organization, Forecast the Facts, picked up on the letter and turned it into a petition. Once the signatures reach 25,000, the group intends to present a formal request to major news organizations to alter their terminology.

All of which raises an obvious question: If not “skeptic,” what should the opponents of climate science be called?

As a first step, it helps to understand why they so vigorously denounce the science. The opposition is coming from a certain faction of the political right. Many of these conservatives understand that since greenhouse emissions are caused by virtually every economic activity of modern society, they are likely to be reduced only by extensive government intervention in the market.

So casting doubt on the science is a way to ward off such regulation. This movement is mainly rooted in ideology, but much of the money to disseminate its writings comes from companies that profit from fossil fuels.

Despite their shared goal of opposing regulation, however, these opponents of climate science are not all of one mind in other respects, and thus no single term really fits them all.

Some make scientifically ludicrous claims, such as denying that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas or rejecting the idea that humans are responsible for its increase in the atmosphere. Others deny that Earth is actually warming, despite overwhelming evidence that it is, including the rapid melting of billions of tons of land ice all over the planet.

Yet the critics of established climate science also include a handful of people with credentials in atmospheric physics, and track records of publishing in the field. They acknowledge the heat-trapping powers of greenhouse gases, and they distance themselves from people who deny such basic points.

“For God’s sake, I can’t be lumped in with that crowd,” said Patrick J. Michaels, a former University of Virginia scientist employed by the libertarian Cato Institute in Washington.

Contrarian scientists like Dr. Michaels tend to argue that the warming will be limited, or will occur so gradually that people will cope with it successfully, or that technology will come along to save the day – or all of the above.

The contrarian scientists like to present these upbeat scenarios as the only plausible outcomes from runaway emissions growth. Mainstream scientists see them as being the low end of a range of possible outcomes that includes an alarming high end, and they say the only way to reduce the risks is to reduce emissions.

The dissenting scientists have been called “lukewarmers” by some, for their view that Earth will warm only a little. That is a term Dr. Michaels embraces. “I think it’s wonderful!” he said. He is working on a book, “The Lukewarmers’ Manifesto.”

When they publish in scientific journals, presenting data and arguments to support their views, these contrarians are practicing science, and perhaps the “skeptic” label is applicable. But not all of them are eager to embrace it.

“As far as I can tell, skepticism involves doubts about a plausible proposition,” another of these scientists, Richard S. Lindzen, told an audience a few years ago. “I think current global warming alarm does not represent a plausible proposition.”

Papers by Dr. Lindzen and others disputing the risks of global warming have fared poorly in the scientific literature, with mainstream scientists pointing out what they see as fatal errors. Nonetheless, these contrarian scientists testify before Congress and make statements inconsistent with the vast bulk of the scientific evidence, claiming near certainty that society is not running any risk worth worrying about.

It is perhaps no surprise that many environmentalists have started to call them deniers.

The scientific dissenters object to that word, claiming it is a deliberate attempt to link them to Holocaust denial. Some academics sharply dispute having any such intention, but others have started using the slightly softer word “denialist” to make the same point without stirring complaints about evoking the Holocaust.

Scientific denialism has crept into other aspects of modern life, of course, manifesting itself as creationism, anti-vaccine ideology and the opposition to genetically modified crops, among other doctrines.

To groups holding such views, “evidence just doesn’t matter any more,” said Riley E. Dunlap, a sociologist at Oklahoma State University. “It becomes possible to create an alternate reality.”

But Dr. Dunlap pointed out that the stakes with most of these issues are not as high as with climate-change denial, for the simple reason that the fate of the planet may hang in the balance.
Image
User avatar
Corsair
 
Posts: 4556
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 12:25 am
Has thanked: 140 times
Been thanked: 262 times

Re: Climate chg/global warming/climate disruption/carbon...

Postby HamBone » Sat Feb 14, 2015 3:09 pm

We all gone die!!!!!
HamBone
 
Posts: 1676
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 11:34 am
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 55 times

Re: Climate chg/global warming/climate disruption/carbon...

Postby Crocaneers » Sat Feb 14, 2015 6:02 pm

Image
Image
User avatar
Crocaneers
 
Posts: 1301
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 12:44 am
Location: Gatorland (at least on the weekends )
Has thanked: 74 times
Been thanked: 148 times

Re: Climate chg/global warming/climate disruption/carbon...

Postby acaton » Mon Feb 16, 2015 12:11 pm

Do I believe in climate change...yes there is mountains of evidence that clearly show that the climate on this planet has been undergoing change for millions of years. My brother screams, Florida will soon be under water due to the polar ice caps melting. I just point out that Florida has been underwater before and just look at the evidence of seafloors existing where small mountains now stand. Is man causing the current warm up (assuming there really is one) I doubt it.

Will the planet cool off if we allow our Gov to tax carbon in order to create yet another redistribution cash machine? I doubt it. I will give Al and SOME Progressives credit for the foresight and understanding in how easy it is to make a ton of cash on something that has been happening for centuries with or without man’s involvement...outstanding!

Whenever one can make two Google searches and find two credible reports that support either side of the debate, perhaps the truth lies elsewhere...or at least near the middle. My guess is taxing carbon wall not solve a damn thing but will make some Gov agencies very powerful, and some individuals above the law.

However:
    Record cold weather is proof of climate change.

    Record snowfall will produce flooding this Spring, proving climate change.

    Excess rain is proof of climate change.

    Not enough of rain is proof of climate change.

    A bad wine year is proof of climate change.

    Polar ice melting in Spring is proof of climate change.

    Polar ice not melting is proof of climate change.

****, one would need to be a chimp to lose a climate change debate considering the climate has been changing for a few hundred million years now.
Image

Short, fat and slow often does the trick...45ACP
User avatar
acaton
 
Posts: 721
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 2:11 pm
Has thanked: 69 times
Been thanked: 21 times

Next

post

Return to Politics and Religion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests