You keep living in your world that operates according to how things are typically done. Meanwhile the AGW theme will continue to gain traction. If it so full of holes, it shouldn't be that difficult for the current administration to march a couple of renowned scientist to the proverbial podium and let the spill the beans on the whole thing. The utter absence of that effort and the unwillingness or inability of naysayers to present facts to dispute it will persistently be a problem. Whether their assertions bear out or not, the message already resonates and it resonates very loudly with those under 30. If the GOP continues to take the approach that they are going to sit on their thumbs and wait until someone proves it to their satisfaction....THEY WILL LOSE THIS POLITICAL FIGHT ...and they will lose governships, congressional seats, the WH and eventually the SCOTUS because of it. To not have a counter narrative stronger than "nuh uh,...prove it" is political malpractice.
Gee, you are a really smart guy. You showed me. All I can come up with is "nuh uh". Thanks for educating me.
Would anybody here bet their entire paycheck on or with what a weatherman (meteorologist) predicts for tomorrow? If no, then why should we as tax payers be forced to bet on what scientists say about global warming? The large amount of money they ask for from the tax payers to put toward climate control is about as stupid as anything I’ve ever heard.
Stampede, you keep saying that no scientists are addressing the fallacies of AGW, but your claims are false themselves. The problem isn't the lack of people poking holes in the hypothesis. The problems is that the government and the experts they pay are suppressing the facts. 4th_floor has already given you a list of people who are refuting AGW quite well. Your statements seem to be saying that the important thing is that Republicans win elections so they need to get on board with addressing the concerns that people have over AGW. The Republican Party can go jump in a lake as far as I'm concerned. Most of them already toe the line on AGW anyway. The real issue is truth not votes.
Here is a big reason why I don't believe in the AGW hypothesis. Data. Notice there are 3 regions on this graph. All blue is data from temperature proxies. It is the only way to estimate temperature before the 19th century. The second is where red and blue lines overlap. This is where HadCRUT used the same proxies plus direct measurement data to formulate their global temperature assessment. The third region just includes the red HadCRUT line. It starts in 1960 where red and blue lines diverge. Once the "scientists" noticed that the proxy data didn't match up with their direct measurements they quickly removed it from their calculation. The proxies indicated that global temperature wasn't increasing but decreasing. It didn't fit their narrative so it wasn't used in their calculation anymore. Their wasn't any effort to try to understand why there was a divergence or what it meant for understanding global climate going back 100s and 1000s of years. The red line kept going up so they kept publishing it. That doesn't even get into the problems with the data used to produce the red curve. There was even more manipulation using direct measurements to get the trend they wanted but this post is long enough. Bottom line, AGW believers aren't scientists they are myth builders. The solution is to expose the myth which it has been for anyone curious not confess allegiance to the myth.
Statalyzer, it depends on what you mean as accurate. It is more accurate for each individual measurement of course. However, no longer using proxies causes 2 major problems for understanding global climate. First, there is no way to compare today's temperature measurement to anything before the mid-19th century. We can only look at 150 years which really tells us nothing about AGW because the hypothesis is built on the assertion that climate change is caused due to the Industrial Revolution. But direct measurements weren't possible before the Industrial Revolution. Therefore, there is no way to compare back to the baseline. There is no way to do a t-test or whatever statistical calculation you want to do to prove humans are the cause of 20th century warming. Second, the measurements taken in the 19th century were not necessarily all that accurate either. More accurate than proxies but not all that reliable. But even more problematic with the direct measurements is the geographical sampling. For most of the time frame shown by the red curve the geographic extent of measurements is very spotty. It is better now, but there are still areas of the world that are under represented or not represented at all. Today, coverage isn't even at the highest point. Climate scientists in their quest for higher temperatures stop using data sources or whole regions that show temperatures decreasing.
This is most likely a stupid question, or has been answered, but if I recall, Earth has been through more than one ice age. (6-7?) What melted the ice ages? What caused them? Humans didn't even exist. Would it be wrong to assume that we tiny ant humans can't control the weather? Have we ever been able to have an impact on climate, hurricanes, volcanic eruptions, ocean tides, rain, sun rise and sun set, the list goes on. Am I stupid for saying, yes the planet is probably warming, as it has for millions of years, and then it will cycle through an ice age. Meanwhile, I will do my best to be a good steward of the land while across the globe thousands of Indians are peeing, pooping, and washing their dirty clothes in the Ganges.
Yes you are right. Weatherman are much more accurate. What was I thinking. According to some scientist from a few years back, life existence would not be on earth by the year 2017. Craziness everywhere either the Dems. It’s like our planet is the boogie man.
Hard to say, but whatever prehistoric creature it was, I'm sure it was a cisgendered, heterosexual male that was white in appearance.
4th, I apologize if that came off as petty or snarky. Monahorn, All the right people are/were in power the Republican led house could have and the Senate currently can call repeated committee hearings to refute AGW. They can get anyone they want to come in and testify...but they don't. They sit on their thumbs and let the entire story be told by the left. I personally think AGW is a thing and we need to take appropriate steps BUT I'm completely willing to hear evidence to the contrary...BUT I hear nothing. They have the mic...they need to use it.
I think there are two main "facts" of which I am aware: 1) The climate has been volatile from the earliest times we can measure 2) CO2 levels are higher in parts per million than they have been in the past 400,000 years (Graphic: The relentless rise of carbon dioxide – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet). I don't think either of those two "facts" are in dispute. My question; is the CO2 level variable out of all the other variables (volcanic activity, sun spots, cows belching etc), the most significant factor and if so, is there a peer approved study that "proves" a direct causal relationship to the weather patterns present today?
The measurable facts (CO2, etc) are not in question. That human activities produce CO2 is also not in question. The final question you asked is the correct one, and the one all the alarmists hope to keep buried and out of the general discussion. i look at the solar activity levels and have not found a singe reason to think those are not the primary driving factor in global temperature variation. It simply doesn't take a large percentage change in solar activity to significantly impact our planet.
It seems whenever someone mentions what you just said, the stock answer is, "All the more reason to lower our emission." You can't defeat them. The CO2 levels are the key fact and that fact alone appears to be enough. My problem with the climate change "believers" (is that how we should describe people; believers or not?) is the reliance upon international "agreements" that bypass our Constitutional requirement of Congressional approval. And when I hear we will send tax dollars to provide a living to UN "experts" and politicians from developing countries (i.e. corrupt), both of whom are unaccountable to anyone, then I become highly suspicious that it is in fact a wealth transfer scheme and an attempt to subordinate ourselves to international law. I believe Trump was 100% correct to pull us out of the "agreement." Who here believes China would comply? And now, I'll give AOC some credit; her kind of pulvarizing moral tone is probably unheard of in China. She can make politicians squirm but in China, I don't see the internal mechanism available to make them do the right thing.
Two things BOStampede. First, Republicans are closet progressives. Their opposition to the Democrats seems to be mocked much of the time. Either that or they are simple cowards about everything. Probably a bit of both. Second, you don't need politicians to teach about the truth of the world. If you care about the issue, study it on your own. There is a lot of information out there that laymen can understand as long as you have a basic understanding of measurement taking and statistics. The government is your teacher they attempt to be your master.
China views politicians like AOC the way the Soviet Union viewed politicians like Ted Kennedy and Ron Dellums. She's a useful idiot.
Those are facts. Another fact is the total concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is 400 ppm or 0.04%. I would describe this concentration as miniscule. Based on my calculations, the difference between 0.04% CO2 and 0.03% CO2 regarding global temperature is too small to accurately measure with existing instruments.
It does seem miniscule. If the odds of winning a bet were 100% - 0.04% then I'd take that bet all day long. But what if I put 0.04% of arsenic into your beer? I don't know why that much or little matters in our atmosphere. I just know that the level is apparently not in dispute. Somebody thinks it matters. Others do not. But the advantage to those that do is that the measurement stands alone in history and apparently there is some ability to measure the greenhouse effect. And then it goes from there...
The earth is somewhere between 5.8 and 6.3 billion years old. Not an opinion, a polical position or a point of debate, a measurable fact. A debate of that aging is active, stimulating, and utterly meaningless to this question. Pick a number. But, based upon a longevity of 5.8 B, anything less than 50,000 YEARS of accurate, geographically uniform data, renders things s conversation semi-informed mental masturbation. Causality is a derivative thereof.
I see you're a real friendly chap. You don't deserve a response and I know how I wish to respond but I will ask this: What do you know? Do you support AOC? Do you support the President signing international agreements thereby bypassing the Constitutional requirement that treaties must be ratified by Congress?
4th_floor, I would like to hear more about the calculations you mention here. I know that in general analytical techniques have resolution into the 10s of ppm depending on the chemical makeup and ease of separation of the sample components. 300-400 ppm doesn't sound like outside the realm of measurability, but would like to learn more.
You misunderstand because I stated it poorly. You can easily detect ppm levels of CO2 in the atmosphere. However, the detection of a global temperature increase caused due to 100 ppm increase in CO2 concentration is very likely below detection. My calculations indicate that a 100 ppm increase in CO2 concentration would result in less than 0.1 C increase in temperature. A modern temperature instrument installed and calibrated properly would be hard-pressed detect this increase in a closed system. However, if the calibrated scale of the instrument is small enough, you could detect it. However, when you are trying to detect such a small increase in temperature for the entire globe, the error in measurements will likely be high. To measure global temperatures, either you are depending on satellite data - which is detecting the temperature remotely, or you are depending on multiple instruments. It's hard to find agreement on the error in satellite temperature measurement. The AGW alarmists hate satellite data and say it is inaccurate. Since it is an indirect measurement, the error would likely be average to poor. The direct measurements also have a large error because you are measuring temperature at points around the globe with different instruments installed and calibrated differently. Since 2% of scale is regarded as a poor measurement error, let's cut that in half to 1%, just for grins. Since the scale should be at least 60 C differential, the measurement error would be +/- 0.6 C, which is much greater than the 0.1 C increase expected. Even if you had a total measurement error worldwide of 0.5%, the measurement error would be +/- 0.3 C. So I doubt anyone can accurately detect such a small rise in temperature globally.
