Well the odds were stacked in his favour to get one of them right.
Ya like the environmental community does not have a long ugly history of false claims?
Also to promote this cartoon while the overhyped threat of global warming falls by the wayside seems a bit weird. Me thinks you need a new gig.
"Also to promote this cartoon while the overhyped threat of global warming falls by the wayside seems a bit weird. Me thinks you need a new gig." - Ray.
"The combined global land and ocean surface temperature was the warmest on record for both April (2010) and for the period from January-April (2010), according to NOAA. Additionally, last monthâs average ocean surface temperature was the warmest on record for any April, and the global land surface temperature was the third warmest on record."
The threat of global warming in the eyes of the public falls somewhere below jock itch. Get over it, you have lost the debate.
Furthur claims simply paints yourself as one of those weird bearded dudes in a sheet proclaiming the end is nigh.
Best to move on...say Alar, oh wait been there done that.
Well, looks like Ray is right. Because the general public doesn't accept 'global warming', then the debate is over and it simply doesn't exist.
Or.... and here's a suggestion for you Ray. Just because the general public doesn't believe in something, does not make it go away. AGW is not tinkerbell. It will exist whether people accept it or not. Would you like to debate that based on science, rather than ignorance (or is that all you are armed with?).
Ray's been watching too many Roadrunner cartons Mandas, he's run over the edge of the cliff and thinks if he doesn't look down, he won't plummet.
NASA GISTEMP has January - April 2010 as the warmest on record too:
Not looking good for Ray. I wonder if Ray is his surname and Rong his first name?.
DW post 3, has Trenberth found his missing heat yet?
You gonna stump up for some deep ocean monitoring equipment Crakar?. Unless someone does it'll remain unanswered.
People have whole heartedly responded to threats in the past, wars, floods, disease etc. Convince them of imminent harm and you will see action. Global warming has failed to do that, if fact it's become a bit of a joke.
DW, you don't seem to give the general public much credit for recognizing the scam of awg. They have and it was your lack of convincing science that led to that failure.
The cartoon speaks to that failure.
Its warm! great, that is so much better than cold.
While I don't know you personally, Ray, the argumentation style used suggests to me what I've seen so often in debating with AGW deniers. Its unlikely, for example that you read extensively or are practiced in logical thinking. The appeal to popular opinion as evidence against AGW is a dead giveaway that your primary source of information on this is most likely Fox News or a similarly unsophisticated resource. Maybe you heard it from your local pulpit; I admit I can only speculate, but I cannot help but wonder.
On that note, one thing I have never been able to track down is any specific polling information suggesting a correlation between global warming denial and Christian fundamentalism. The ideological overlap seems intuitive enough but I'm not aware of any of it being verified. (Our dear Crakar, an avowed atheist obviously would not fit the generalization.)
Paula Kirby, the ex-Christian author of this WP editorial linked below, suggests that any link between religious dogmatism and global warming denial stems from "childish modes of thinking", by which she means a simplistic faith in God solving our problems:
I can sympathize with her at the personal and intellectual levels--as an ex-believer myself and as one who is dismayed at the overwrought confidence in AGW skepticism that someone such as yourself can display, Ray.
I would also add slightly to Kirby's wording. AGW denial is not just, like religious dogmatism, indicative of "childish modes of thought", but a gullibility for childish *arguments* for a preferred position. Its not just that religious zealots/global warming deniers are ideologically overlapped, but that they will believe the *dumbest* things that allegedly vindicate their preferred position.
And while the appeal to popular opinion might not be the biggest fallacy committed in defense of AGW denial, it ranks competitively.
Skip, you wasted five paragraphs saying nothing except this in the sixth.
"And while the appeal to popular opinion might not be the biggest fallacy committed in defense of AGW denial, it ranks competitively."
How would you then rate the over hyped consensus or, in other words, popular opinion among scientists? Is that not a fallacy committed against science?
Hint, a consensus is meaningless to science. A majority consensus among voters however is huge and will define the direction if any we take addressing climate change.
Hint, a consensus is meaningless to science.
Uh huh. You need to believe that don't you?
Ray, you're parroting something from Michael Crichton/American Enterprise Institute . . . can't think of other possible sources offhand.
Ray, do you disbelieve in macro-evolution? Do you believe that Genesis is literal truth?
I am genuinely curious. It would be an incremental answer to my rhetorical question.
A majority consensus among voters however is huge and will define the direction if any we take addressing climate change.
No argument here. But it has nothing to do with the truth or falsity of anthropogenic global warming. Nothing. I'm not even clear from anything you've written yet that you even understand that simple fact, although perhaps you do.
I see you are arguing with a brick wall again - except that in this case the brick wall appears both more flexible and more intelligent.
Mind you, Ray isn't even sure of his own position. He consistently denies that climate change is occuring, but at post 10 he states:
"...Its warm! great, that is so much better than cold..."
which obviously shows he accepts the climate is warming but thinks it is a good thing. So here's a challenge for you Ray - tell us what you really think is occuring, then back it up with some sort of evidence. Perhaps then we can have a rational debate with you rather than just this dogmatic position based on some sort of preconceived worldview.
Mind you, even though Ray may think that warmer is better, I am pretty confident there would be a LOT of species in the world who would disagree, and a little thought on the effects on various ecosystems and the flow-on effects on human activities such as agriculture and fisheries might change Ray's mind on climate change being a good thing (assuming of course that he is capable of such thought).
Correct! it has nothing to do with the truth or falsity of awg. Neither the questionable opinion of a large number of climate scientists nor the public's rejection qualify as fact.
But the public votes and polititions are well versed in that reality.
Perhaps had you adhered to fact instead incrementally shriller demonizing of those scientist or anyone who dissagree with the awg theory and rhetorical BS when confronted with a legitimate questions (see above)it would have worked out better for you.
"Hint, a consensus is meaningless to science." - Rong Ray
Ray, you have to stop getting your information from the cartoon network, the universe is not an observer based reality like Roadrunner and Wily Coyote cartoons. The world is not how you would like it to be, and certainly science isn't the way you would like to imagine.
Consensus is indeed important in scientific circles, if we didn't have that progress would not eventuate, humans would still be living in caves squabbling, via grunts, over how to start fires. Maybe that still happens in your neck of the woods?.
Look at Bohr's model of the atom for instance, there seems to be a great deal of consensus over that, and it lead to the development on the atomic bomb. Do you still think consensus is meaningless? - don't answer, that's rhetorical.
"Mind you, even though Ray may think that warmer is better, I am pretty confident there would be a LOT of species in the world who would disagree" - Mandas
Yup, it looks like Rong Ray is in the early stages of denial, he hasn't yet developed the full blown affliction that affects Crakar v. 25,. Yes, he neglects to mention that previous sustained global warming events have initiated Mass Extinction Events, such as the Paleocene- Eocene Thermal Maximum.
"But the public votes and polititions are well versed in that reality." - Rong Ray
Do CO2 molecules, shortwave & longwave radiation care what humans think?, or do you expect it will have no effect upon them?.
I did not post the cartoon, take that point up with Cody.
Blood letting was also approved by a "state of the art" medical consensus. How does that and many other examples fit into your point?
Climate science is in it's infancy, the public has obviously not bought into disasterous panic and has in fact refused to be even bled. Are you willing to call all of us rong?
Carefull, you risk painting yourself a fool.
Let me be the first to reply and state that, yes, I am willing to call of you deniers 'rong'.
I will risk being painted as a fool - but am very confident that it will not be me who is shown up as holding dogmatic beliefs which are in complete contradiction to every piece of information available.
I think this statement in post #16 sums up Ray's position succinctly:
"....Correct! it has nothing to do with the truth or falsity of awg. Neither the questionable opinion of a large number of climate scientists nor the public's rejection qualify as fact...."
So looks like Ray thinks that the opinions of the scientifically illiterate general population (especially those who watch that greatest of oxymorons - Fox News) hold much greater sway than those of people who spend years of study, decades of research and have to defend their work against the criticism of their peers.
Nothing like holding a fundamentalist position based on lack of evidence is there Ray?
mandas, "So looks like Ray thinks that the opinions of the scientifically illiterate general population (especially those who watch that greatest of oxymorons - Fox News) hold much greater sway than those of people who spend years of study, decades of research and have to defend their work against the criticism of their peers."
Well yes actually and that will continue unless we abandon democracy.
Do you have a problem with that?
Well golly gee Ray - yes I do have a problem with it.
Science is not a matter of democracy. It is not the theory with the most votes that is true (I seem to recall some sort of discussion on consensus going on here abouts. What was your opinion then Ray?? It appears to have changed somewhat, so maybe I was wrong about you not being flexible).
Science is about the theory with the evidence behind it. You know, where people who know what they are talking about conduct research and study to find out the truth. And you cannot overturn that by conducting a poll amongst the ignorant general population. Just because Billy-bob, Cletus and Ray don't believe something doesn't make it so.
You can carry on all you like about what people with no little education and a complete lack of any scientific knowledge think. And it wouldn't matter if every single person on Earth voted against climate change - it will still be a fact.
Well, um. mandas. Trust me, government works best from the bottom up. Your approach has not really worked out that great in the past.
The political consensus of an elite few?....sorry no, trust the masses.
Tell me Ray, are you illiterate? Are you incapable of reading what people write, or do you just refuse to read other's posts before you put your fingers on the keyboard to respond?
Just to sort this out, let's try something shall we.
Firstly, go back, read what skip and I are saying about this issue. Then come back and make a sensible, considered reponse that actually bears some resemblance to the original position. It's not all that hard (although it appears to be a common disease afflicting many from the flat earth society).
Remember - read first. Then make sure you understand what is being said. Then consider it - do some research if you are completely ignorant on the subject. Then, and only then, should you respond.
I began writing the cheque but then i found this so i tore it up.
Wanna see something funny? This is from Wikipedia:
"....Dr Roy Spencer is a proponent of intelligent design as the mechanism for the origin of species. On the subject, Spencer wrote in 2005, "Twenty years ago, as a PhD scientist, I intensely studied the evolution versus intelligent design controversy for about two years. And finally, despite my previous acceptance of evolutionary theory as 'fact,' I came to the realization that intelligent design, as a theory of origins, is no more religious, and no less scientific, than evolutionism. . . . In the scientific community, I am not alone. There are many fine books out there on the subject. Curiously, most of the books are written by scientists who lost faith in evolution as adults, after they learned how to apply the analytical tools they were taught in college." In The Evoloution Crisis, a compilation of five scientists who reject evolution, Spencer states "He further states "I finally became convinced that the theory of creation actually had a much better scientific basis than the theory of evolution, for the creation model was actually better able to explain the physical and biological complexity in the world... Science has startled us with its many discoveries and advances, but it has hit a brick wall in its attempt to rid itself of the need for a creator and designer...."
And here is something just as funny from Desmogblog, that font of all things ethical and truthful regarding climate change:
"...Spencer is listed as a "scientific advisor" for an organization called the "Interfaith Stewardship Alliance" (ISA). According to their website, the ISA is "a coalition of religious leaders, clergy, theologians, scientists, academics, and other policy experts committed to bringing a proper and balanced Biblical view of stewardship to the critical issues of environment and development. In July 2006, Spencer co-authored an ISA report refuting the work of another religious organization called the Evangelical Climate Initiative. The ISA report was titled A Call to Truth, Prudence and Protection of the Poor: an Evangelical Response to Global Warming. Along with the report was a letter of endorsement signed by numerous representatives of various organizations, including 6 that have received a total of $2.32 million in donations from ExxonMobil over the last three years...'
Talk about hilarious! I wonder who the next source will be, Kirk Cameron?
Keep going Ray wont be too long before Mandas stops debating you, Skip on the other hand......is like a terrier that wont let go, his bark is much worse than his bite (complement Skip, dont get upset).
I am probably wasting my time here but Mandas said
"Mind you, even though Ray may think that warmer is better, I am pretty confident there would be a LOT of species in the world who would disagree"
Seeing how you are an expert on this sort of thing can you tell me which species will be directly effected by temp changes? For example the past 100 years has seen a 0.5C temp increase, what species have been effected by this and how?
Lets see if you are more flexible and intelligent.
"which obviously shows he accepts the climate is warming but thinks it is a good thing. So here's a challenge for you Ray - tell us what you really think is occuring, then back it up with some sort of evidence. Perhaps then we can have a rational debate with you rather than just this dogmatic position based on some sort of preconceived worldview."
1, Perhaps you can explain your dogmatic view that CO2 causes the temps to rise even though temps have not risen now for many years. If you are going to blame the weather thats fine but i will require you to explain how this -ve feed back works and why it is more powerful than CO2. Also i would appreciate an explanation as to how all the model makers failed to include/anticipate this -ve feed back.
2, Why is it that your dogmatic view enables you to take Trenberth at his word that he has lost over 50% of his predicted heat yet you will launch a tirade of abuse at Spencer (see post 26) and his studies which suggest Trenberth is wrong.
3, Is it because of your dogmatic view that you accept statements from the IPCC which claim future generations of children in the NTH Hemisphere will never experience snow but when the NH experiences its snowiest decade on record you would rather blame the weather than question the IPCC?
4, Is it because of your dogmatic view that you accept the CSIRO model predictions of future drought occuring in the Murray Darling Basin even though real world rain fall gauges show the 100 year trend in that area is going up?
5, Is it because of your dogmatic view that you accept the notion the oceans are turning to acid when in fact from 1751 to 1994 the ocean PH level dropped from 8.2 to 8.1?
I could go on and on but i think this will do for now.
"DW, Wanna see something funny?" - Mandas.
Yup, well aware of Dr Roy Spencer's shennanigans, he should be featured in a television series "When good scientists go feral" or something like that.
"Well yes actually and that will continue unless we abandon democracy." - Rong Ray
Like changing the topic much?.
Crakar v.25 what's with the sock puppet?.
"Carefull, you risk painting yourself a fool." - Rong Ray
No such compunction from you eh Ray?.
"5, Is it because of your dogmatic view that you accept the notion the oceans are turning to acid when in fact from 1751 to 1994 the ocean PH level dropped from 8.2 to 8.1?" - Crakarv.25
Yeah, but Reduction in Oceanic Alkalinity doesn't have the same ring to it.
Sock puppet reasoning.
"I see you are arguing with a brick wall again - except that in this case the brick wall appears both more flexible and more intelligent."
Obviously Mandas had not read my post (28) before post (27). What is funny is that i wrote that post without reading what Mandas had said. You can get a very good understanding of how one thinks even though you have never met them.
Is this a good example of a narrative Skip?
Read post 28 section 2, then go and read the previous by Mandas. Now that is funny.
You're kidding right? You really want me to tell you which species will be affected by temperature change? Rather than list just about every species on the planet here, how about you provide me with a list of species that WONT be affected by temperature increases.
But I am sure that answer will not be sufficient for you. How about I provide you with just one species my wife is writing on at the moment - sea tutles (Yes, she is an animal scientist. Two scientists in one family!! amazing). I am not sure if you are capable of doing any research yourself, so here are just a couple of studies to start you off.
Any more stupid questions?
Oh, and to answer your other questions:
1 - Temperatures HAVE increased over the past decade, so your question is meaningless.
2 - I don't take Trenberth at his word, but Spencer is a moron and only someone with absolutely no grasp of either reality or science would provide a link to Spencerâs website on a science blog. I wouldnât trust anyone who believed in creationism to tell me the time of day, let alone provide a rational debate on climate change (or anything for that matter).
3 - I don't accept that children in the NH will never experience snow. So once again your question is meaningless.
4 - Not sure why something predicted to occur in the future is in any way related to something that occurred in the past under different conditions. You do know the climate is changing, right? And you might wish to go away and have a look at the BOM information on the region here:
5 - Ummmmmm, you do know that a drop in pH means something is becoming more acidic, right??? Are you completely clueless with regard to science? I mean, this is JUNIOR high school stuff.
Now how about you go away as well and do a modicum of research on the subject. And no - blog posts are not research, you need to actually read and understand some science. It would appear that you have a similar lack of science education as that other moron who posts here regularly, crakar. But as I keep telling members of the flat earth society, science is fun!! (and you get an education at the same time)
Thanks for the honest reply DW.
For "Brick Wall":
Potential Costs of Acclimatization to a Warmer Climate: Growth of a Reef Coral with Heat Tolerant vs. Sensitive Symbiont Types Jones, A. & Berkelmans, R. (2010) PLOS ONE, Volume: 5
Abstract: One of the principle ways in which reef building corals are likely to cope with a warmer climate is by changing to more thermally tolerant endosymbiotic algae (zooxanthellae) genotypes. It is highly likely that hosting a more heat-tolerant algal genotype will be accompanied by tradeoffs in the physiology of the coral. To better understand one of these tradeoffs, growth was investigated in the Indo-Pacific reef-building coral Acropora millepora in both the laboratory and the field. In the Keppel Islands in the southern Great Barrier Reef this species naturally harbors nrDNA ITS1 thermally sensitive type C2 or thermally tolerant type D zooxanthellae of the genus Symbiodinium and can change dominant type following bleaching. We show that under controlled conditions, corals with type D symbionts grow 29% slower than those with type C2 symbionts. In the field, type D colonies grew 38% slower than C2 colonies. These results demonstrate the magnitude of trade-offs likely to be experienced by this species as they acclimatize to warmer conditions by changing to more thermally tolerant type D zooxanthellae. Irrespective of symbiont genotype, corals were affected to an even greater degree by the stress of a bleaching event which reduced growth by more than 50% for up to 18 months compared to pre-bleaching rates. The processes of symbiont change and acute thermal stress are likely to act in concert on coral growth as reefs acclimatize to more stressful warmer conditions, further compromising their regeneration capacity following climate change
Phenological trends in southern Spain: A response to climate change
Garcia-Mozo H, Mestre A & Galan C. (2010) AGRICULTURAL AND FOREST METEOROLOGY Volume: 150
Abstract: Analyses performed at six sites in southern Spain from 1986 to the present have focused on vegetative and overall reproductive phenology in Olea europaea L, and Vitis vinifera L and in various species of Quercus spp. and Poaceae. Early results suggest that trends in flowering patterns derived from field phenological observations were similar to trends in aerobiological data for most study species, and indicate a trend towards earlier foliation, flowering and fruit ripening. This advance is more evident in arboreal than in herbaceous species. Statistical analysis showed temperature increase was the major factor affecting earlier foliation, flowering and fruit ripening, as well as prompting delayed leaf fall. Herbaceous species were more affected than trees by changes in rainfall records.
Local impact of temperature and precipitation on West Nile virus infection in Culex species mosquitoes in northeast Illinois, USA. Ruiz, M.O. et al. (2010) PARASITES & VECTORS Volume: 3
Abstract: Background: Models of the effects of environmental factors on West Nile virus disease risk have yielded conflicting outcomes. The role of precipitation has been especially difficult to discern from existing studies, due in part to habitat and behavior characteristics of specific vector species and because of differences in the temporal and spatial scales of the published studies. We used spatial and statistical modeling techniques to analyze and forecast fine scale spatial (2000 m grid) and temporal (weekly) patterns of West Nile virus mosquito infection relative to changing weather conditions in the urban landscape of the greater Chicago, Illinois, region for the years from 2004 to 2008.
Results: Increased air temperature was the strongest temporal predictor of increased infection in Culex pipiens and Culex restuans mosquitoes, with cumulative high temperature differences being a key factor distinguishing years with higher mosquito infection and higher human illness rates from those with lower rates. Drier conditions in the spring followed by wetter conditions just prior to an increase in infection were factors in some but not all years. Overall, 80% of the weekly variation in mosquito infection was explained by prior weather conditions. Spatially, lower precipitation was the most important variable predicting stronger mosquito infection; precipitation and temperature alone could explain the pattern of spatial variability better than could other environmental variables (79% explained in the best model). Variables related to impervious surfaces and elevation differences were of modest importance in the spatial model.
Conclusion: Finely grained temporal and spatial patterns of precipitation and air temperature have a consistent and significant impact on the timing and location of increased mosquito infection in the northeastern Illinois study area. The use of local weather data at multiple monitoring locations and the integration of mosquito infection data from numerous sources across several years are important to the strength of the models presented. The other spatial environmental factors that tended to be important, including impervious surfaces and elevation measures, would mediate the effect of rainfall on soils and in urban catch basins. Changes in weather patterns with global climate change make it especially important to improve our ability to predict how inter-related local weather and environmental factors affect vectors and vector-borne disease risk.
More for "Brick Wall":
Summer freezing resistance decreased in high-elevation plants exposed to experimental warming in the central Chilean Andes. Sierra-Almeida, A & Cavieres, L.A. (2010) Oecologia, Volume: 163
Abstract: Alpine habitats have been proposed as particularly sensitive to climate change. Shorter snow cover could expose high-elevation plants to very low temperatures, increasing their risk of suffering damage by freezing, hence decreasing their population viability. In addition, a longer and warmer growing season could affect the hardening process on these species. Thus, understanding the ability of these species to withstand freezing events under warmer conditions is essential for predicting how alpine species may respond to future climate changes. Here we assessed the freezing resistance of 11 species from the central Chilean Andes by determining their low temperature damage (LT50) and freezing point (FP) after experimental warming in the field. Plants were exposed during two growing seasons to a passive increase in the air temperature using open top chambers (OTCs). OTCs increased by ca. 3 K the mean air and soil daytime temperatures, but had smaller effects on freezing temperatures. Leaf temperature of the different species was on average 5.5 K warmer inside OTCs at midday. While LT50 of control plants ranged from -9.9 to -22.4, that of warmed plants ranged from -7.4 to -17.3A degrees C. Overall, high-Andean species growing inside OTCs increased their LT50 ca. 4 K, indicating that warming decreased their ability to survive severe freezing events. Moreover, plants inside OTCs increased the FP ca. 2 K in some studied species, indicating that warming altered processes of ice crystal formation. Resistance of very low temperatures is a key feature of high-elevation species; our results suggest that current climate warming trends will seriously threaten the survival of high-elevation plants by decreasing their ability to withstand severe freezing events.
Climate change and a poleward shift in the distribution of the Pacific white-sided dolphin in the northeastern Pacific. Salvadeo, C. J. et al. (2010) Endangered Species Research Volume: 11
Abstract: Increasing water temperatures due to global warming mean that specific isotherms are shifting polewards. This may cause the poleward shifts in the range limits of species that are only found in specific thermal habitats. Such range shifts have been recorded in a number of plant and animal species. In the last 3 decades, we observed a decline in the presence of Pacific white-sided dolphin Lagenorhynchus obliquidens in the southwest Gulf of California (GOC), which is considered the southern boundary of their distribution. Considering that the thermal environment is physiologically important to animals, we believe that this poleward shift in the usual geographic range of the Pacific white-sided dolphin is due to long-term changes in the local climate. To obtain the conceptual framework needed to discuss such a hypothesis, we summarize and analyze current knowledge about Pacific white-sided dolphins in the southwest GOC, and sea surface temperature variability at a regional scale.
Hey Chris, see this one?:
"An international team of scientists has discovered that climate change played a major role in causing mass extinction of mammals in the late quaternary era, 50,000 years ago."
And this one?
"Geologists led by Brown University have determined the east African rift lake has experienced unprecedented warming during the last century, and its surface waters are the warmest on record. That finding is important, the scientists write in the journal Nature Geoscience, because the warm surface waters likely will affect fish stocks upon which millions of people in the region depend."
"Our data show a consistent relationship between lake surface temperature and productivity (such as fish stocks)," said Jessica Tierney, a Brown graduate student who this spring earned her Ph.D. and is the paper's lead author. "As the lake gets warmer, we expect productivity to decline, and we expect that it will affect the [fishing] industry."
"Climate Threatens Trout and Salmon"
"Trout and salmon are among the world's most familiar freshwater fishes, but numbers have fallen over recent decades -- in some areas, dramatically. Pollution, habitat loss and over-fishing have all been blamed in the past, but new evidence from Cardiff University shows that climate change could be a major factor, putting both species at risk."
"The scientists studied populations of young salmon and trout in the River Wye in Wales, traditionally one of the UK's best angling rivers. Professor Steve Ormerod and colleagues from the Cardiff School of Biosciences found salmon numbers fell by 50% and trout numbers by 67% between 1985 and 2004 -- even though the river itself became cleaner.
The fish were hit hardest following hot, dry summers such as 1990, 2000 and 2003. The results suggest that warmer water and lower river levels combine to affect both species. As both trout and salmon favour cool water, they face potentially major problems if climate warming continues as expected in the next two to three decades."
Not finished yet:
"For many lizards, global climate change is a matter of life and death. After decades of surveying Sceloporus lizard populations in Mexico, an international research team has found that rising temperatures have driven 12 percent of the country's lizard populations to extinction. An extinction model based on this discovery also forecasts a grim future for these ecologically important critters, predicting that a full 20 percent of all lizard species could be extinct by the year 2080".
Being extinct because it's warmed too much qualifies as being affected by rising temperatures, right?.
And the most horrible extinction of all! The Funds which paid the rent on these wild eyed doom sayer's pulpit.
Thanks for the note Brick Wall, I have heard all this trash in various forms before....now that Copenhagen and cap and trade have failed this is entertainment.
And the most horrible extinction of all! The Funds which paid the rent on these wild eyed doom sayer's pulpit.
Observe how the denier with a stroke of the keyboard can convince himself that his blindness is wisdom and his ignorance earned bliss.
Not only is a scientific consensus "meaningless" but the work of science in general.
So, Ray: I am still genuinely curious about whether you
(1) Disbelieve in macro-evolution
(2) Believe God created the earth in six days.
You also seem to have found a soul mate in our veteran Crakar. Do you endorse his comments, in general?
PS DW and Chris thanks for the research abstracts. I wish refuting ignorance was not so depressing.
Skip, is this your name? a nick name given to you by others perhaps or instructions?
You seem to have very little to say.
And so apparently does science and do scientists--that is, according to you.
Who, in your view, Ray, has "much" to say?
So I'm still really curious--do you doubt evolution, take Genesis literally? (I don't if you care to know.)
"PS DW and Chris thanks for the research abstracts. I wish refuting ignorance was not so depressing." - Skip.
No worries mate, plenty more available. And you'll move on past the depression, once you accept you're responding to idjits who rely on pure imagination rather than scientific fact. Look at Rong Ray for instance, he entertains the ridiculous notion that consensus isn't important in science, one of those zombie arguments that the deniers repeatedly resurrect, doomed to wander the Earth in search of a brain.
I don't expect to convince a single one of the idjits, but for every one of them idjits there may be numerous rational watchers interested in finding out the truth. I know for a fact, that I have convinced rational people, but idjits?, not a single one, not surprisingly.
As I read elsewhere, it is the responsibility of every person who understands the science of Anthropogenic Global Warming to debunk the nonsense peddled by the professional liars working for vested interests, and their little cheerleading squad, or echo chamber if you will. The idjits might be willing to gamble, but me, I think the science should best inform our actions.
For Crakar v.25:
"The seas and oceans, which absorb almost a third of the greenhouse gas emissions in the atmosphere, are rapidly becoming more acidic due to increases in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere from burning fossil fuels. Carbon dioxide produces carbonic acid when it dissolves in seawater and up to now, the oceans have buffered the effects of global warming by absorbing almost a third of the carbon dioxide emitted from human fossil fuel use. Today the oceans are more acidic than they have ever been for at least 20 million years."
I am going to say that this has been one of the best takedowns of a denialist that I have ever had the good fortune to witness. Once might even say, the 'wall has been torn down.'
But, I await the predictable response!!!
Did i miss the "plight of the poley bear" or did you forget to add that link?
Maybe you lot cant read or is it merely due to your heightened awareness that your pet theory is falling apart at the seams you simply read what you want to.
i said "Seeing how you are an expert on this sort of thing can you tell me which species will be directly effected by temp changes? For example the past 100 years has seen a 0.5C temp increase, what species have been effected by this and how?"
English translation: the temps have gone up by 0.5C in 100 hundred years, please show me how THIS rise has effected animals etc.
The response, well did i expect anything different
Post 36, i am sure your wife is a very good scientist but i would have thought things like plastic bags and fishing line posed a greater threat to the turtles than anything else. I looked at your two links and my suspicions were comfirmed. One talks about IF the temps rise they will all be girls and the other claims the nesting period has slipped by 10 days (shock horror) due to an increase in water temp.
All the studies predict futures based on the thought of what the temps will be, which is not the question i asked. I am not interested in crystal ball predictions i asked for Mandas to show what has actually happened and to some extent he has done this but the rest are not.
"we predict, IF temps get hotter by blah, blah, blah"
Let me ask you all a question or two, in regards to ocean ph levels, 7000 years ago it was about 8.1 exactly where it is today in between times it rose as high as 8.3 and as low as 7.9 whilst temps fluctuated. I dont know off hand how much temps changed, would it be safe to say by at least + or - 1 degree?
You lot talk as if life is some fragile little thing that needs to be wrapped up in cotton wool but we know life exists in the deepest of oceans, we know life exists in the coldest driest deserts it even thrives on the fuel rods in the heart of a nuclear reactor.
If as you say small changes in temp or ph can/will in we predict scenarios wipe out thousands of species then how did it survive for so long?
As an aside many many years ago CO2 was about 8000ppm or so does this mean the oceans were starved of CO2? If so would that make the ocean ph very much more alkali, which of course make it just as corrosive as acid. What effects would this have had on marine life?
Skip / DW / Chris
I just had a look at post #28, and I saw this question (maybe I am missing something, can you help me out here?):
".....Seeing how you are an expert on this sort of thing can you tell me which species will be directly effected by temp changes?..." (thick as a brick)
Now, maybe my grammar is as poor as some other well known personalities around here (fancy not having a grasp of science OR language; I wonder how he survives from day to day). Anyway, I looked up the phrase "...WILL BE..." and shock of shocks, it is FUTURE TENSE. In other words, things that have not yet occurred but are predicted or likely to occur.
On the other hand, the phrase "...HAS BEEN...." refers to something that occurred in the past. Lucky then, that when someone asked us to provide information on what "...WILL BE...", we referred to things that will happen or are likely to happen in the future, just like the grammar of the question.
I must admit, that we DID give some information on past and current events, and that didn't really answer the question that was asked. Mea culpa!!
I won't go on about 'effected' vs 'affected' (ie a non-word vs a verb), but hopefully you guys will understand my point and help me out here.
The global warming hype bubble has destroyed Kevin Rudd's leadership as Copengagggen collapsed. If you ride on a bubble you fall when it burts. Poooof...gone AGW..gone.
Hi DW. No I didn't - I just took five relevant hits from the first two pages of a search of ISI WoS on the term "temperature change species" not particularly rigourous but then I didn't want to waste too much time answering the question: "which species will be directly effected by temp changes? For example the past 100 years has seen a 0.5C temp increase, what species have been effected by this and how?"
I'm sure there's better papers out there that answer the question a bit more closely, but then that's the point isn't it? It's not hard to find the answer to such questions (there were roughly 14,500 hits for that search term - though that included the likes of "Thermal ramping rate influences evolutionary potential and species differences for upper thermal limits in Drosophila").
As regards the paper you linked to I find it hard to be sure that we are correct in claiming the exact reason for changes that occured 50,000 years ago. At least compared to finding reasons for changes that are occurring now (e.g. (on a species level) the dolphin and mosquito papers I quote above, or (on a more macro scale) the Spanish phenology paper), or finding mechanisms for how recent changes have their effect (e.g. the coral paper) or will have an effect (the Chilean mountain plants). On that note I find the experimental evidence that warming directly affects a plants ability to resist extreme cold (coupled with the greater chance of experiencing said cold due to a loss of an insulating blanket of snow) fascinating.
As an entomologist with an interest in phenology my main concern is with trophic asynchrony as demonstrated by this paper: Trophic level asynchrony in rates of phenological change for marine, freshwater and terrestrial environments, Thackery et al. (2010) Global Change Biology
Oh crakar "Maybe you lot cant read...the temps have gone up by 0.5C in 100 hundred years, please show me how THIS rise has effected animals etc"
Post #38 (corals) "We show that under controlled conditions, corals with type D symbionts grow 29% slower than those with type C2 symbionts. In the field, type D colonies grew 38% slower than C2 colonies...Irrespective of symbiont genotype, corals were affected to an even greater degree by the stress of a bleaching event which reduced growth by more than 50% for up to 18 months compared to pre-bleaching rates."
Post #38 (Spanish Oaks etc.) "Statistical analysis showed temperature increase was the major factor affecting earlier foliation, flowering and fruit ripening, as well as prompting delayed leaf fall. "
Post #38 (mosquitoes) "Increased air temperature was the strongest temporal predictor of increased infection in Culex pipiens and Culex restuans mosquitoes, with cumulative high temperature differences being a key factor distinguishing years with higher mosquito infection and higher human illness rates from those with lower rates... Overall, 80% of the weekly variation in mosquito infection was explained by prior weather conditions. Spatially, lower precipitation was the most important variable predicting stronger mosquito infection; precipitation and temperature alone could explain the pattern of spatial variability better than could other environmental variables"
Post #39 (dolphins): "In the last 3 decades, we observed a decline in the presence of Pacific white-sided dolphin Lagenorhynchus obliquidens in the southwest Gulf of California"
Now, who did you say can't read?
"As regards the paper you linked to I find it hard to be sure that we are correct in claiming the exact reason for changes that occured 50,000 years ago" - Chris S
Hey, not my research paper. When dealing with the distant past there's always going to be a great deal of uncertainty, much like the future eh?. No doubt why the cause of the mammalian die off has been hotly contested for over a century.
The link between climate change and extinction is not exactly an isolated occurrence in Earth's history.
"The global warming hype bubble has destroyed Kevin Rudd's leadership as Copengagggen collapsed. If you ride on a bubble you fall when it burts. Poooof...gone AGW..gone." -J Kloss
Yeah, I can just imagine:
- Foreman CO2 molecule - "Hey boys pack it up!, no more warming the Earth mmmmkay?"
- worker CO2 molecule 1 - "Errr boss, where we gonna go?, Venus?"
- worker molecule 2 - "Nah, my cousin Jimmy, he's on Venus he says it's waaay too crowded there, CO2 molecules everywhere. Real hot too."
"Today the oceans are more acidic than they have ever been for at least 20 million years."
What part of that did you not understand Crakar?.
I think you're missing my point slightly, I'll try & word it a bit better...
When dealing with 'ancient' history (i.e. anything before the Enlightenment) there is a huge degree of uncertainty - from the cause of extinctions of prehistoric animals to the precise etymology of Viking Vinland - that means there is plenty of room for (mis)interpretation.
In comparison, in the modern era, with measurements both supporting & leading theory there is much more certainty. Not only can we measure the response of species to a changing environment* we can, through lab & field experiments like the Chilean study I quoted above, determine the mechanisms that drive said responses.
*note the careful use of the word environment here. No researcher worth his or her salt expects temperature to be the sole cause of any change - changes in precipitation, land use, chemical load etc. etc. all have their own impacts. The challenge is to determine the relative impacts of many variables & working out the most important, to requote the mosquito paper "precipitation and temperature alone could explain the pattern of spatial variability better than could other environmental variables" these researchers didn't look at just temp & rainfall, they tested a whole suite of variables before publishing their findings.
Chris, absolutely, I don't disagree with that. Your previous post seemed to imply that such uncertainty in the past, rendered study "not useful", that's not an opinion I share.
Some time ago i promised Coby i would not swear again and if i do then i will never post here again, so i need to be careful here.
Mandas, did you giggle like a child when you wrote post 53? You call yourself a scientist but i doubt you are. I have worked with many REAL scientists over the years so i think i know one when i see one and any man that follows goats and the like around picking up their shit is not a scientist.
But hey, dont take my word for it just have a look at what you wrote in post 27. Spencer has completed a study which among other things casts doubt on Trenberths missing heat problem. A REAL scientist would look at the data if he was to attempt a rebuttle, but not you. No you simply laugh at his religious beliefs, is this the work of a REAL scientist?
No Mandas you are NOT a scientist, you are not even a scientists boot lace. If by chance you are indeed a scientist whether it be by deception or clerical error then you are a complete and utter fucken embarassment to the whole field of science.......ooops i just swore well it was fun while it lasted.
".......Investigations by Dawson and Ellis (1994) on open plains in far western New South Wales demonstrated that domestic sheep (Ovis aries) and red kangaroos (Macropus rufus) had considerable dietary overlap (87%) with grasses being the major component for both species. The diet of feral goats (Capra hircus) at Fowlers Gap Research Station (approximately 250 km north of the study area) was studied by Dawson and Ellis (1996). Fowlers Gap lies approximately 250 km north of the study site and has a diverse topography, the western portion includes part of the Barrier Ranges, whereas flood plains occur in the east. Goats have a broad diet with a preference for browsing, taxa consumed included Acacia aneura (Mulga), Alectryon oleifolius (Rosewood), Canthium oleifolium (Wild Lemon), Casuarina pauper (Belah) and Myoporum platycarpum (Sugarwood), eucalypts were not eaten.
Scats were collected at the time of the vegetation survey. At this time, there was standing water in many of the clay former lake beds. Grazing animals, especially kangaroos, were observed near standing water. Kangaroo scats were recorded in all transects where scats had been collected. Goats were the second most widespread of the animal species noted in the area....."
Interesting paper on the dietary habits of animals in western NSW, based on a survey of plants and an analysis of animal scats.
Giggle - I laughed my f***ing head off!!!!!
I'm guessing crakar didn't read my post #56. I mean he'd hardly likely to be trying to change the subject (did anyone mention Gish?) after been shown to be wrong would he? crakar's much too much of a man to not fess up so I guess he's missed one of my posts again - funny that.
Greetings from Seattle guys. Heading off to New York with my mom in couple of days but will try to keep up with the forum when I return.
You appear to be a little confused there, because you seem to be expected crakar to actually read any of the things we post. He doesn't - because he knows deep down that if he read any science he might discover that his worldview is based on completely false assumptions. He is much happier reading morons like Jo Nova, Anthony Watts and Roy Spencer, then cutting and pasting things that he doesn't understand as if they were truth.
I think he shows his had perfectly at post #62, were he categorically states that anyone who picks up and examines shit is definitely not a scientist. He obviously has a completely warped view of what scientists actually do. I am not sure about your work, but I and a lot of my colleagues spend an awful lot of time out in the field in the dirt picking up shit (although we call them scats) and examining them. And despite the categorical statements from the peanut gallery, I happen to think that they are all pretty damn good scientists.
But that's just my opinion - what would I know?
Scats, zombie denier arguments, they both smell the same don't they?.
I guess crakar is off reading all the references I gave him both here & on the "Falsifying theories" thread...
I stumbled across this link on Deltoid and it reminded me of crakar's quip about the "plight of the poley bear" @ #52 above. Slides 11-21 are very interesting in this respect.
Actually, it seems that quite a few of crakar's recent assertions appear to come from Monkton presentations (c.f. for example his "IPCC predictions for 2010" in the Falsifying theories thread -and see slides 38 & 39 of JP Abraham's presentation, or the "Pachauri just a railroad engineer" assertion crakar has made on a couple of occassions - see slide 37). If you're still around crakar I'd highly recommend you spending 83 minutes of your time listening to JP Abraham's detailed deconstruction of Monckton's screed, I'd be interested in what you (and others) think of it.
How da ya like this?
I'd like everyone's opinion on this statement:
"...But my challenge to those opposite, if they have any
skerrick of commitment on the question of climate
change, is to answer this: how is it that, in the 21st century,
you could support this Leader of the Opposition,
who says that the world was hotter in Jesusâ time? How
could you actually hold to a belief, in defiance of total
science around the world, that somehow in the last
2000 years the world has become cooler, not warmer?
How could you stand behind a leader who says that the
industrial revolution, in effect, did not happen? The
core divide between us is that this Leader of the Opposition
does not believe in climate change. He has said it
is âabsolute crapâ. He has rejected the science and he
now tells us that it was hotter in the time of Jesus of
Nazareth than it is today. I would say to the Leader of
the Opposition: that view is positively weird."
This was spoken in the Australian Parliament on Thursday 13th May 2010, by The Australian Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd.
(it's in The Hansard)
I found it on Jo Nova's site and thought I'd post it here to get opinions from both sides.
(my own personal view is that is proves Kevin Rudd will say whatever he thinks the non-thinking voter will swallow.)
I'd like opinions on how a statement like this ends up as a "main stream" view in a national parliament, and what you guys think of the Prime Minister's "science".
I think it fits quite well with the cartoon above.
So Kevin Rudd calls Tony Abbott on his moronic views on climate change, and you think there is something wrong with Kevin Rudd?
To quote another well known Australian political figure, "Please explain".
umm... Mandas, I am flabbergasted!
Did you not read what K Rudd said??
Please read it again, (or perhaps for the first time) and tell me what you think.
How scientific is what he's saying?
Are you saying the same thing?
i.e. Are you saying that the earth's climate has never been warmer than it is now?
Are you saying that to acknowledge that the earth's climate HAS in fact been warmer than it is now is to "deny" the industrial revolution??
Because that's what K Rudd said!
It is his usual emotive rubbish!
Whilst I don't agree with the way Tony Abbott and the Liberals are handling the issue, you MUST acknowledge the utter "wrongness" of the above quote.
In my view the Opposition should be actively and openly campaigning against the AGW movement with the REAL environmental issue of POLLUTION reduction, through the development of renewable energy sources.
As I have written here many times before, I simply do not buy the argument that mankind's emissions of Carbon is causing the climate of the earth to change.
That IS what this debate is about after all isn't it?
No-one is "denying" climate change.
No-one is "denying" global warming. (or cooling)
I look forward to your reply on all these points.
"As I have written here many times before, I simply do not buy the argument that mankind's emissions of Carbon is causing the climate of the earth to change." - Michael.
Its not an argument that the enhanced Greenhouse Effect is causing the Earth to warm, it'
s all the evidence. Your opinion is very poorly informed.
Are you saying that the earth's climate has never been warmer than it is now?
Are you saying that to acknowledge that the earth's climate HAS in fact been warmer than it is now is to "deny" the industrial revolution??
Because that's what K Rudd said!
No, it isn't. He quite clearly restricted his statement to the last 2000 years.
You're flabbergasted? About what? I have read the quote over and over again, and I still keep wondering where the flawed science is. Maybe its just me (naaaa - its every climate scientist in the world), but I don't think the world has cooled over the last 2,000 years. But maybe you have some evidence to the contrary - if you do, how about you post it?
But then again, you do show your hand with this last part of your post:
".....As I have written here many times before, I simply do not buy the argument that mankind's emissions of Carbon is causing the climate of the earth to change.
That IS what this debate is about after all isn't it?
No-one is "denying" climate change.
No-one is "denying" global warming. (or cooling)..."
So, you don't buy into the argument that climate change is anthropogenic, but you appear to be saying that you DO accept that the climate is changing. Is that correct?
If so, how about you tell us all what IS causing it to change. And no - just saying it is a 'natural cycle' or something like that will not wash. You need to tell us all what is causing it, because even 'natural' events are caused by something. And if you think the PM was wrong with his criticism of our fundy opposition leader, could you also present the evidence for the higher temperature of the world 2,000 years ago. (Hint - if you want any credibility on this issue, you need to actually read some science papers, and not cut and paste opinions from other websites).
Hi Mandas. (this my own personal opinion)
YES! As I have written here many, many times before, I DO strongly believe that the earth does indeed have a climate and that the climate of the earth, as a whole, changes constantly, over varying periods of time.
Are you denying that this is the case?
Are you saying that the ONLY thing that can change the climate, as a whole, is mankinds industry?
Are you denying that the earth's climate is a complex system that is influenced by many different actions and reactions?
(I don't really think you believe all these things. I just want you to answer each point)
What flabbergasted me about what you wrote is that you couldn't see what I see in that quote.
In my view, what Tony Abbott had said was figurative rather than literal.
I believe he was talking about the "change of climate" in general. I DON'T believe he was speaking scientifically.
I don't believe it should be READ scientifically.
Here's a link that took about 3 seconds to find:
Do you agree with this quote from the same link?
(from the emminent "Tas van Ommen, principal research scientist with the Australian Antarctic Division, which collects climate data from ice cores,")
"He cited the 2007 report of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which found that available data from climate records was too sparse to make clear statements beyond about 1000 years ago."
(I note that he is not citing his own research, but citing the IPCC)
I guess this may be the very basis for our disagreement.
If it is true that it's only possible to ascertain the history of the earth's climate up to about 1000 years ago, then I would wholeheartedly become an AGW believer, and I can understand your sense of urgency.
However, I believe it IS possible to examine history to get a reasonably accurate picture of climate change.
Do you agree or disagree on this?
Do you agree or disagree with Tas van Omen?
You wrote that I "showed my hand" as if it was some kind of mistake I made. I wrote those words on purpose, I assure you. I aspire to be clear!
I believe strongly that K Rudd will say whatever he thinks the gullible voter will hear. I believe strongly that the AGW debate is political rather than scientific.
(I have written that on numerous occasions here)
Just as I imagine you believe the "deniers" are funded by "big oil", I beieve the "believers" are being fooled by capitalists disguised as socialists.
ETSs and Cap 'n' Trades are gonna make a LOT of money for those involved without actually reducing or limiting humanity's carbon output. The corporations to whom we would all pay "credits" will profit handsomely.
Do you agree or disagree?
Just a quick note to international viewers who may not realise...
The local time of my last post was at around 10:30 pm on a Monday night.
It is not 5:30am, and I have NOT been sitting up all night drinking red wine and reading this blog!
I'm gonna hop into bed now.
Goodnight you guyzz.... zzzzzzzzzzzzz (makes snoring sound)
Michael, you missed the rest of the quote from Tas: "Dr van Ommen said the confidence that global warming was linked to greenhouse gas emissions was based on multiple lines of evidence.
"It is based on our knowledge of physics, our measurement of carbon dioxide and our understanding through climate models as well as the increase in temperatures," he said."
You also display a common misunderstanding when you ask "Are you saying that the ONLY thing that can change the climate, as a whole, is mankinds industry?"
This is ample demonstration of a fundamental misunderstanding - no-one (sane) is stating that the ONLY thing that can change the climate is man, that's just stupid, there are many drivers of climate, of which CO2 is a major one - see here for example: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/ipcc2007/fig614.png
Looking for Tas van Ommen on google also turned up this link which the good doctor provided a photo for: http://news.mongabay.com/2005/0909-niwa_csiro.html
Selected quote: ""We can see human fingerprints all over atmospheric methane emissions for at least the last 2,000 years. Humans have been an integral part of Earth's carbon cycle for much longer than we thought...The study is important because methane increases have had the second highest impact on climate change over the past 250 years behind carbon dioxide, accounting for about 20 percent of the warming from all greenhouse gas increases"
(The quote is from James White, Dr. van Ommen is listed as a co-author)
Wow - I hope your house didn't burn down with all the strawmen you were constructing there. I'm actually wondering if it is even worthwhile responding, but I will give it a shot to fill in a little time.
".....As I have written here many, many times before, I DO strongly believe that the earth does indeed have a climate and that the climate of the earth, as a whole, changes constantly, over varying periods of time.
Are you denying that this is the case?..."
Ummmmmm no, not denying it at all - I am pretty sure the Earth has a climate. Wait - I will go outside and check. Yep - there certainly appears to be a climate!!! And yep - I amm pretty confident it does change sometimes.
"....Are you saying that the ONLY thing that can change the climate, as a whole, is mankinds industry?..."
Nope - can't remember EVER saying this. I know changes in insolation (inter alia) do change the climate. But then again, one thing I absolutely DON'T deny (unlike some others apparently), that man CAN change the climate.
"...Are you denying that the earth's climate is a complex system that is influenced by many different actions and reactions?..."
Of course not - but then, you only have to read some of my posts here to know what I think on that issue.
"....In my view, what Tony Abbott had said was figurative rather than literal.
I believe he was talking about the "change of climate" in general. I DON'T believe he was speaking scientifically.
I don't believe it should be READ scientifically...."
Nonsense. You said nothing of the sort, and neither did Tony Abbott. He (and you) were quite clearly expressing an opinion based on your views on the science of climate change. What is even worse, is that Tony Abbott expressed it in front of impressionable primary school students. According to the article, he said this:
"....The Opposition Leader urged year 5 and 6 students at Trinity Gardens Primary School in Adelaide to be sceptical about the human contribution to climate change, saying it was an open question....During a question-and-answer session on Friday, Mr Abbott said that it was warmer ''at the time of Julius Caesar and Jesus of Nazareth'' than now..."
That is quite clearly non-scientific and wrong on both counts. It is NOT an open scientific question - the human contribution to climate change is an unequivocal fact, and not a matter of debate. The extent of the change may be unresolved, but the fact that the climate is changing because of human influences is not open to debate scientifically. And it was NOT warmer 2,000 years ago, and Tony Abbott is showing his true fundy colours by suggesting it was. He has no evidence to support his view, and there is plenty of evidence to show he is wrong. But then again, what would you expect from a fundamentalist?
"....I guess this may be the very basis for our disagreement...."
Nope - the basis for our disagreement is that I accept the evidence and science which shows our climate is changing because of human influences, whereas you accept the views of bloggers and politicians with no science training whatsoever.
"....If it is true that it's only possible to ascertain the history of the earth's climate up to about 1000 years ago, then I would wholeheartedly become an AGW believer, and I can understand your sense of urgency.
However, I believe it IS possible to examine history to get a reasonably accurate picture of climate change.
Do you agree or disagree on this?..."
WTF are you talking about? We do have a reasonably accurate picture of the climate over millions of years, and I have no idea why the fact that the climate has changed in response to various influences over that time in any way changes the fact that it is changing as a result of human influence now. In any case, you lied when you said you would become an AGW believer - you and I both know you wouldn't do that under any circumstances short of you being drowned under metres of sea level rise (which isn't predicted to occur in your lifetime, so you are safe in your denialism).
'....Just as I imagine you believe the "deniers" are funded by "big oil", I beieve the "believers" are being fooled by capitalists disguised as socialists...."
Nope - some deniers ARE funded by big oil, but then again, some are just ignorant people with no scientific knowledge who are fooled by propagandists. Then some are just the sort of people who deny 'inconvenient truths', as is normal human nature. And not sure where you get the idiotic view that 'believers' are people who are fooled by socialists. A hell of a lot of 'believers' are scientists who have studied the issue for decades and can recognise obvious facts and evidence when it stares them in the face (unlike some apparently). Other 'believers' like myself USED to be sceptics, but the more I read the more it became obvious that I was wrong. Maybe if you actually read some science instead of morons like Jo Nova you might discover the truth as well.
"....ETSs and Cap 'n' Trades are gonna make a LOT of money for those involved without actually reducing or limiting humanity's carbon output. The corporations to whom we would all pay "credits" will profit handsomely.
Do you agree or disagree?..."
Probably - but so what? People will make money off anything - a lot of people got rich from the financial crisis. And a lot of people are getting rich from exploiting fossil fuels and polluting the environment and changing the climate in the process. How about you show equal concern for their profiteering that you obviously show for people who might profit from clean energy technologies.
I've said it to you before and I'll say it again - when you come on here you display an embarrassing lack of understanding of climate science. That's not your fault, that's fine, so did I once (and am still learning), so did Mandas - it simply means that you need to do more reading (of actual SCIENCE, peer-reviewed papers in top class journals, not blogs etc) The things you think are up for debate are simply not, they've been suspected, hypothesised about, studied and confirmed decades ago. Do you think the points you contend are in error, with regard's to Earth's climate drivers, have just "not been thought of" by career scientists? Honestly, you're getting your information from less than ideal sources.
I have suggested this to you before and I really mean it - you should read, cover-to-cover, a comprehensive text such as the soon-to-be-released "Principles of Planetary Climate" (Ray Pierrehumbert) to get a thorough understanding of the nature of climate questions. Heck, even the first chapter alone would give you a fantastic overview of the history and context of what you're talking about. Because frankly, and I don't mean this at all to be rude, you're clearly demonstrating to those with a bit of background in the area that you have no real grasp of the types of questions you need to ask and the deep history of research that lies behind all planetary climate science, not just Earth's. These questions are largely thermodynamic in nature and have very little (on longer timescales) to do with meteorology. The history of life on this planet is inextricably linked with global climate change (Google "banded iron formations" for an early example) and indeed it is only due to the fact that we have life here that: (a) the average surface conditions can exist in a semi-stable state that is away from chemical and thermodynamic equilibrium and, (b) that the average global surface temp isn't around -15 deg C. This is all easily calculable.
You have been inadvertantly mislead and I strongly suggest some further reading. The political debate here in Oz is pathetic on this issue (as it is world-wide, by and large) and people who really "get" the urgency of the situation are hugely frustrated at not having their voices heard and more than mildly worried about the future implications of this decade or two. It is no exaggeration to say these are crucial years. I'm happy to engage you in private email on the matter if you wish but I just wanted to make it clear from a lurker's perspective that you are not quite "getting" what Mandas et al are saying to you and are incorrctly caught up in the view that there is still some 'debate' to be had re CO2 causing dangerous warming. There is not.
Unfortunately that book's not due out until June and the preview copy that was on the web for perusal/editing has been removed :-(
(and no, Crackar, I have nothing to do with JoNova's pathetic anti-science site, so there must be another "MattB, Matt Bennett" etc somewhere in the ether... )
You have been inadvertantly mislead and I strongly suggest some further reading. The political debate here in Oz is pathetic on this issue (as it is world-wide, by and large) and people who really "get" the urgency of the situation are hugely frustrated at not having their voices heard and more than mildly worried about the future implications of this decade or two.
OK you guys, ok!...
Chris, Mandas and Matt, I thank you sincerely for responding the way you have.
It is now clear to me that I need to do more reading.
I thank you all for writing reasonably, and not being abusive or ridiculing.
I appreciate that very much.
Matt, I WILL get "Principles of Planetary Climate" and read it. (it's June now. Can't be too long...)
I will say that at this stage at least, I don't agree with all you guys have said, but I am willing to admit that you've convinced me that I need to learn more.
I've said for many years now that any day you learn something new is a good day!
I am about to turn 42. I am a self employed electrical contractor, with a staff of 3.
(In case you don't know; in the "trades" world, the electrician is the most technical, mathmatical, and intellectual.) I guess that makes me somewhat of a smartarse! (Smartass!)....
as well as the "top" of the tradies, but the "bottom" of the intellectuals... :(
(sob! sniff! SNOOOORT! loud blowing of nose through hanky)
However! This is a topic that facinates me and I DO want to learn more.
The political aspect of the whole debate fascinates me the most though. How is it that the opposing political views can quite comfortably align themselves with the opposing "scientific" views?
Again, thank you boys!
I guess I'll ReadYaSoon!
Michael: I must say how refreshing it is to converse with someone who listens. I'm afraid you'll find many commentators on "warmist" sites are very weary of the wilful ignorance displayed by commentators who profess to disbelieve the science (ably exploited by bloggers such as JoNova). To find someone who is able to recognise the need for further education is nice - after all, none here fully understand the whole issue though some are more widely read than others.
Make no mistake, climate science is hard - a heady amalgm of physics, chemistry, mathematics & statistics with a sprinkling of ecology, social science & economics also needed in order to understand the impacts. I won't patronise you by pointing you in the direction of my preferred texts but I will caution you to question and doublecheck everything you are told (particularly on blogs) - Google scholar is your friend in this regard, as is a library card.
You are right - the politics of the issue are fascinating, I find it interesting that the extremes on both ends of political ideology are reluctant to accept scientific evidence as a basis for policy decisions (see for example Lysenkoism & McCarthyism).
Good luck in your quest for knowledge & I look forward to further conversation (oh, and happy birthday for the near future!)
Thank you for your comments in post #82 - it is very refreshing to read that someone admits they need to understand more about a subject before forming an opinion - as indeed we all do.
If you really want to know more about climte change, or any science subject for that matter, you should read science papers rather than just the opinions of bloggers - although admittedly there are several excellent sites with informed opinions being expressed. Of course you can get some information here, but another good climate science site is here:
The beauty of a good site is that they provide the links to the original data source or paper, as well as give an opinion, so you can check their facts.
But the best approach is to go to google scholar:
You use it just like normal google, but it will give you links to science journals and papers. A lot of them require a subscription to access the full paper, but many are free and give good information. Even the abstract to the paper (which is always free) often gives enough clues to start your science education, and can give hints etc for additional reading.
Good luck - science is fun!
I will echo the others hear in welcoming your wonderful response as a breath of fresh air in a debate that rarely seems to allow for such moments of self doubt. Like Mandas, I too was very skeptical coming into the early "noughties" and made a conscious effort to study, in detail, a lot of stuff outside my area of expertise and much of it I still don't have a firm grip on. As Chris said, it is a domain fraught with details that need to be absorbed across many disciplines. There are still many areas of that need fleshing out, but the basic premise is as close to 100% confirmed as these things can be.
I still have a copy on my hard drive and would be happy to email you the first chapter of Ray's book if you don't want to bother buying it. I'm at a loss to explain why Chris thinks it is patronising to offer you a place to start, but you are obviously open to it so I'll be happy to assist. I don't see how this differs materially from Mandas providing you a clickable link... The book is but one of many that people could point you to but I chose it because it is right up to date (June 2010), has a logical flow, lays out a good synopsis in the first chapter and it sticks to pure science. It is a textbook, not a piece of political advocacy. So, if that's patronising, so be it, though I'm still scratching my head over that one. I'll chalk it up to the old "mis-read intent" of non face-to-face communication.
If you can get a hold of it, there was also an awesome summary of the latest research into the fluctuations of ice ages laid out over about five pages in last week's New Scientist magazine. Great diagrams made it very clear how the Milankovitch orbital cycles tie it all together.
Best of luck and thanks for your response.
"...will echo the others HERE...." that should read :-)
I don't know Matt - 'echo' and 'hear' seem appropriate together.
Yeah Mandas, had suspected a Freudian tinge to the slip-up but was too busy this morning to wax lyrical on it's implications :-) I am just pleased that Michael, unlike some others we could name, did 'hear' what you've been saying. So refreshing I nearly choked on my NutriGrain...
trying to catch up on the forum after the NY trip . . .
Yes Chris I mixed a gin-and-OJ and watched the entire slide show on Monckton. It is simply stunning to me that this guy has credibility with anyone. I mean, what do relatively smart deniers say about this clown?
It was also so resonant how the narrator (forget his name now--and no gin involved this time) identified all the same frustrations I've had when trying to sift through Monckton's rubbish--no citations, mis-citations, etc. The guy is a first order *hack*.
What it still needs is a slicker, quicker, cleaner presentation. Maybe highlight the most heinous errors up front and have a for-further-investigation link, or whatever. My experience is that your average denier has an attention span defined by Fox News story cycles.
Good choice for laser engraver
Good choice for laser cutter
Jinan K-Ring Tech Co., Ltd. is located in Jinan. We specialize in reaching, producing and selling CO2 Laser Engraving Machines, Co2 Laser Cutting Machines, woodworking series CNC Routers, CNC engraving machines and CNC Cutting machines. Jinan K-Ring Tech CO., Ltd has made great development in heavy industry and gained wide supports from famous universities and technology institutes. Jinan K-Ring Tech products are widely used in advertisement industry, packing and printing industry, craftwork and gift industry, mould manufacturing industry, garment industry and leather industry. Jinan K-Ring Tech has established itself as the industry pioneer in supplying the most complete line of quality laser engraver, laser engraving machine, laser cutting machine, CNC Router and CNC Engraving machines. The business objective of K-Ring Tech is to provide the market with the most reliable products, with the best price, and supported by impeccable service.
Jinan K-Ring Tech
1)Laser Engraver KR40B/KR400/KR530
2)Laser engraving machine KR450/KR640/KR960
3)Laser cutting machine KR1290/KR1212/KR1410
4)Laser cutter KR1610/KR1218/KR1325
5)CNC Router KR3030/KR6090/KR1212/KR1215/KR1218/KR1325
6)Woodworking machine KR1325B/KR1325A/KR2030
Okay, the above is spam, but it is so not your usual viagra, WOW gold or porn spam that I just have to leave it!
crakar: Seeing as you made no comment on my posts (e.g. #56 above) then you must agree with me (that 0.5 degC of temperature change HAS affected the ecosystem).
See how it works? Thanks crakar!
(For context - posts 41 & 42 here: http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2006/06/sea-level-in-arctic-is-fa… )