Aliens cause global warming

[Pangloss]

iNow, as far as I can tell none of those points are relevent in any way. Like me saying I can't argue with you because you have a lower case I in front of your name. You're ignoring the substance of my point and casting my argument in a negative light rather than responding to it on point. And you get away with it -- completely unchallenged -- because you're on the PC side. So be it, but I'm certainly not going to respond to it.

[SkepticLance]

iNow said

 

"Please show me specifically where I've switched to a less rational argument due to a threat to my world view. I would like to correct faults in my approach."

 

Nicely worded. A bit like the razor blade inside the chocolate cake. Might be hidden in something sweet, but it still cuts! (Just joking).

 

I was, in fact, speaking generally. However, you came close to the description when you refused to accept the evidence I posted - not because it was wrong, but because it was inconvenient to your argument. I do hope you now appreciate that what I said about warming rates was actually correct.

 

 

To bombus

 

I think you have ended up in a piece of circular logic. You believe fervently that habitat loss is the major cause of extinctions. You therefore say that, if something goes extinct as a result of a change in its environment, such as the introduction of a predator, it must be habitat loss, and you define that change as habitat loss to make it so.

 

When I first read about habitat loss being a minor cause of extinction, I was surprised also, since I too had been exposed to the opposite propaganda. However, what I did (and any good scientist will do) was slip the information into a mental file labelled "to be tested". Over the several years that followed, I expanded my reading to include extinction examples, and ran a mental test on each : 'was this habitat loss?"

 

I discovered over time that, in fact, very few - if any - could be described as habitat loss. Thus, I did what any good scientist will do, and changed my world picture to accept the idea that habitat loss was only a minor cause of extinction.

 

I have been doing this ever since. Whenever I read about an extinction - I say "is this habitat loss?" Almost invariably, the answer is no. As you know, I even went to the extent of posting a thread on the subject, and found that, even the selected extinction examples that people were posting to prove habitat loss caused extinction, normally had other causes.

 

I should also add that no-one - not Lomborg and not me - are suggesting this principle be used as an excuse to permit habitat loss. I will enthusiastically argue that forests:mad: , rain forests, wetlands, lakes and other relatively unspoiled habitats have their own value, separately from preserving particular species from extinction. The conservation of special habitats is worth doing in its own right. We are NOT in any way trying to justify their destruction.

[bombus]

To bombus

 

I think you have ended up in a piece of circular logic. You believe fervently that habitat loss is the major cause of extinctions. You therefore say that, if something goes extinct as a result of a change in its environment, such as the introduction of a predator, it must be habitat loss, and you define that change as habitat loss to make it so.

 

When I first read about habitat loss being a minor cause of extinction, I was surprised also, since I too had been exposed to the opposite propaganda. However, what I did (and any good scientist will do) was slip the information into a mental file labelled "to be tested". Over the several years that followed, I expanded my reading to include extinction examples, and ran a mental test on each : 'was this habitat loss?"

 

I discovered over time that, in fact, very few - if any - could be described as habitat loss. Thus, I did what any good scientist will do, and changed my world picture to accept the idea that habitat loss was only a minor cause of extinction.

 

I have been doing this ever since. Whenever I read about an extinction - I say "is this habitat loss?" Almost invariably, the answer is no. As you know, I even went to the extent of posting a thread on the subject, and found that, even the selected extinction examples that people were posting to prove habitat loss caused extinction, normally had other causes.

 

I should also add that no-one - not Lomborg and not me - are suggesting this principle be used as an excuse to permit habitat loss. I will enthusiastically argue that forests:mad: , rain forests, wetlands, lakes and other relatively unspoiled habitats have their own value, separately from preserving particular species from extinction. The conservation of special habitats is worth doing in its own right. We are NOT in any way trying to justify their destruction.

 

The trouble with your (and Lomborg's) approach, is that you are using an arbitrary and unmeasurable definition of habitat loss to come up with conclusions. It doesn't matter how scrupulous your science is from that point, it is based on very, very loose foundations!

 

You end up excluding so many cases of habitat 'loss' ('change', call it what you will) that the statistics become meaningless, and you can end up saying that habitat loss is a minor cause of extinction.

 

Most conservationists who actually work in the field around the world know this to be nonsense. It's actually impossible that it can be a minor cause of extinctions, because species are dependent on their habitats. It's uncanny that you can't seem to understand this? How could Panda's survive without their bamboo forests? How could mountain Gorillas survive without their habitats? How could tigers survive without thier forests?

 

Also, as I keep pointing out, habitat loss would have caused many more extinctions if it wasn't for concentrated and concerted conservation effort, so the conclusion that habitat loss is not a major factor in extinction is TOTALLY AND UTTERLY WRONG!

 

Lomborg is using statistical tricks to come up with his conclusions, and only those experienced enough can spot his 'sleight of hand'. So while not falsifying scientific work, and indeed using peer reviewed work to back up his claims, it is the way in which they are being used that ends up in him basically being scientifically fraudulent.

 

I can't understand why you would rather take the word of a capitalist statitician who has an interest in denying environmental problems (as addressing them would affect business profits), rather than the 99% of scientists who know him to be full of you know what!

[SkepticLance]

To bombus

 

The term 'habitat loss' is very vague. This is inevitable, because of the context. If you want a scientifically exact definition, you are going to be disappointed. However, the English word 'loss' means something is gone. If I say that I have lost something, I mean it is totally gone. If I lose a page from a book, I do not say the book is lost. I say the book is lost only if the whole book is lost.

 

In the same way, to say a habitat is lost when only a small change has occurred is simply incorrect.

 

You said ;

 

" How could Panda's survive without their bamboo forests? How could mountain Gorillas survive without their habitats? How could tigers survive without thier forests?"

 

These are genuine examples of habitat loss, since you are talking about the loss of the entire habitat. The reason the loss of a forest does not result in the extinction of the tiger is simply that there are other forests. That is why habitat loss rarely, by itself, leads to extinction.

 

I agree that if ALL forests in the world were lost, the tiger would go extinct. You may care to ask yourself how probable that is. Therefore, how likely that habitat loss leads to to extinction.

 

You also said

 

"I can't understand why you would rather take the word of a capitalist statitician who has an interest in denying environmental problems"

 

If you read the preamble to Lomborg's book, you will see that he began his researches in an attempt to prove the greenies correct. Lomborg was even a member of Greenpeace. He became a sceptic of environmental dogma only as a result of his research results, and only reluctantly.

 

And as I pointed out, I did not take his word. I did not reject his findings - just treated them as tentatively possible, and did further reading, which confirmed that Lomborg was mostly right.

[swansont]

I was, in fact, speaking generally. However, you came close to the description when you refused to accept the evidence I posted - not because it was wrong, but because it was inconvenient to your argument. I do hope you now appreciate that what I said about warming rates was actually correct.

 

Asking for the source of the data represented on a graph is not refusing to accept the data. It's asking from where the data came. When Pangloss referenced some data, iNow analyzed it! How can that possibly be characterized as "refusing to accept the data?"

 

What was being challenged was your linear projection based solely on the past behavior with no scientific justification, as we can all recall:

 

Hi Lance - Do you have a citation to support this?

 

Also, I have two IMPORTANT questions:

1) Over what years was this per decade warming average calculated?

2) Can you explain why your comment mysteriously ignores the fact that the increase is not linear, but is increasing more quickly with time?

 

 

This has some pretty significant ramifications on your projection of future increase. Thanks.

[SkepticLance]

To Swansont

 

I do not for a moment think that iNow was being a good scientist with his demands for more evidence of a very basic datum. He was simply trying to be difficult since my data was getting in the way of his argument. That behaviour does not need excusing. You knew, even if iNow did not, that my data was correct. Yet you said nothing in support. Perhaps you should be trying to excuse your own failure to support good science.

[Reaper]

To Swansont

 

I do not for a moment think that iNow was being a good scientist with his demands for more evidence of a very basic datum. He was simply trying to be difficult since my data was getting in the way of his argument. That behaviour does not need excusing. You knew, even if iNow did not, that my data was correct. Yet you said nothing in support. Perhaps you should be trying to excuse your own failure to support good science.

 

Say what?! He was asking for a source, as well as a description of it. What actually ended up happening was that you were doing was cherry picking data. The data you presented does NOT support your argument.

 

And, it takes more than one little data point to support, you need a great deal of it. More along the lines of what we provided.

 

If you read the preamble to Lomborg's book, you will see that he began his researches in an attempt to prove the greenies correct. Lomborg was even a member of Greenpeace. He became a sceptic of environmental dogma only as a result of his research results, and only reluctantly.

 

Oh really? According to Greenpeace, there is no record of him ever having joined or have been part of it. On the contrary, he has a Ph.D in political science and works mostly on economic theories.

 

You can see it right here on wikipedia, for those interested: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lomborg

[Dak]

He was simply trying to be difficult since my data was getting in the way of his argument.

 

your data was not getting in the way of his argument by dint of not existing. Your methodology was flawed, as has been explained to you (the whole linear-extrapolation from non-linear trend thing). It's a simple fact lance: your claim that current and future warming will follow a linear trend is scientifically unsupported.

 

feel free to provide a citation stating otherwize if you can find one.

[swansont]

To Swansont

 

I do not for a moment think that iNow was being a good scientist with his demands for more evidence of a very basic datum. He was simply trying to be difficult since my data was getting in the way of his argument. That behaviour does not need excusing. You knew, even if iNow did not, that my data was correct. Yet you said nothing in support. Perhaps you should be trying to excuse your own failure to support good science.

 

You looked back three decades. Why stop there? Let's look back 50 years, and break it up into 2 sections.

 

If we look at the graph that you cited, (using the five-year average curve to smooth things out and avoid the potential bias of choosing a particular starting year) it's pretty obvious that there is a slope change. Let's start when solar variations pretty much flattened out. From 1955-1980, the increase is about 0.2 ºC, I'll even spot you 0.05 ºC that might be there from a decrease in solar — let's call it 0.25ºC when we subtract that out. About 0.1 ºC per decade. From 1980-2005, the increase is about 0.4 ºC, or 0.16 ºC per decade, which is in the range that you've quoted. (If we change the cutoff to 1976 the slope difference gets larger.)

 

How, exactly, you can justify a linear extrapolation of temperature, and deem it "good science"?

[SkepticLance]

Swansont

 

One definition of good science is standing up for the truth. I stated that over the last 30 years, warming was 0.15 to 0.2 C per decade, which was and is true. You knew it. Yet you stayed silent while iNow tried to play his silly games denying that fact.

 

Had you been a good scientist, and showed the reverence such scientists have for the truth, you would have said to iNow that he should accept the figure as it was right. OK, it was too much to hope for.

 

Your argument about slope change on the graph is a red herring. I never said the warming was totally linear. I said that, if we ignored the minor fluctuations, it was close to linear, which is true.

 

This silly matter was generated by a debater who tried to discredit real and correct data with demands for extra references, after I had already provided suitable references. The kinds of references I provided are very similar to numerous other references provided by debaters on this forum, which have been accepted without demur. The only reason they were not accepted on this occasion was because they were not convenient to iNow, and who thus tried to be difficult. You and others know damn well that on this point (amount of warming per decade) I was right. So stop arguing.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

iNow never denied your data. He simply asked where it came from.

[iNow]

iNow said

 

"Please show me specifically where I've switched to a less rational argument due to a threat to my world view. I would like to correct faults in my approach."

 

Nicely worded. A bit like the razor blade inside the chocolate cake. Might be hidden in something sweet, but it still cuts! (Just joking).

 

I was, in fact, speaking generally.

 

In other words, you are unable to apply your generalization to me in this thread.

 

 

 

 

Yet you stayed silent while iNow tried to play his silly games denying that fact.

 

<...>

 

This silly matter was generated by a debater who tried to discredit real and correct data with demands for extra references, after I had already provided suitable references.

Leaving your ad hominems completely out of the picture for a moment... I did not deny anything, so that's a strawman. I asked for a citation, six times in fact, which you hadn't shared.

 

Also, to suggest I was demanding "extra" references and that you'd "already provided suitable references" is a blatant misreprsentation, one easily countered by simply reviewing this thread.

 

Then, when Pangloss shared the IPCC reference, I showed how it clearly contradicted your conclusion about future warming.

[swansont]

Your argument about slope change on the graph is a red herring. I never said the warming was totally linear. I said that, if we ignored the minor fluctuations, it was close to linear, which is true.

 

This silly matter was generated by a debater who tried to discredit real and correct data with demands for extra references, after I had already provided suitable references. The kinds of references I provided are very similar to numerous other references provided by debaters on this forum, which have been accepted without demur. The only reason they were not accepted on this occasion was because they were not convenient to iNow, and who thus tried to be difficult. You and others know damn well that on this point (amount of warming per decade) I was right. So stop arguing.

 

I fear you are completely missing the point. Thie disagreement was not over the linear-fit to the increase over the last several decades. Any function is going to look linear if you look at a short enough data set. The objection is using that linear fit as a basis for projecting a future linear increase, when the longer-term trend is clearly not linear!

[jryan]

I am going to jump in here with some questions that still remain unanswered for me, the layman. Hopefully someone can answer my questions without disparaging me for asking them.

 

1) How are historical temperature measurements accurate enough that they are used in direct correlation to current satellite data? I ask this because I often hear claims of "greatest heating trend in X thousand years".... how are we this accurate? I have seen studies of just the last 150 years with standard errors too high to make that claim.

 

2) About half of the last 1000 years has been spent falling into, and then pulling out of a little ice age. Shouldn't we expect there to be a warming trend? Why is this one different? Or, I guess the better question is: How do we know this one is different?

 

3) I am aware that the recent poor reviews of the Mann "Hockey Stick" study, and the correction of NASA climate data were both admitted to, and who's importance was diminished, by the climatology community as a whole... but the issue that I wonder about is what changes do these discoveries make in tandem? And are we supposed to just assume that these are the only faulty studies?

 

4) It was reported recently that ice cores were pulled up in Greenland that date back about 200,000 years that contain a layer of 200,000 year old ferns, butterflies and pollen, a time period that current models say was about 5 degrees C warmer than today. If the current estimate is 3 degrees C in 150 years.. then why am I hearing reports from people like Al Gore that the Greenland glaciers will melt away completely in 50 years? They were apparently there 200,000 years ago when the Earth was warmer than even current models are predicting. Why is it different today?

 

5) I have been checking historic CO2 level charts for a while now and see that at the beginning of the Tertiary period the CO2 levels were 2000ppm. Why didn't that lead to catastrophic global warming?

 

6) Life on Earth depends on CO2 as much as it does oxygen. The trouble is we have seen a drop in CO2 levels on Earth over the last 65 million years (as stated before: from 2000ppm to 280ppm pre-industry). Are we assuming that the 280ppm of preindustrial modern Earth is the equilibrium level? If so, why?

 

7) My understanding from the Early 1980s science (yeah, I was reading about climate then too ) was that we were due for another ice age... and that the precursor of that was going to be a warming trend (as shown in the geologic record), though at the time the exact reason why warming leads to cooling was unknown. Research today believes that warming leads to a flood of fresh water into the North Atlantic, which breaks the Atlantic conveyor of warm water from the south up to the North Atlantic. I like this hypothesis because it also explains why at equal latitudes, land is still colder the further you get from the ocean (central Siberia, the Upper mid-west Americas). So can I still assume that the final effect of anthropogenic global warming would be the hastening of an ice age? Or would it be the prevention of one?

 

Those are my questions for now... I was always taught by my professors that science is harnessed skepticism, so I prefer to ask questions rather than assume someone else knows better.

[swansont]

#5. AFAIK the temperatures back then were much higher than they are now.

 

#6 Equilibrium isn't the proper concept to apply, since the earth is a dynamic system. The introduction and loss rates change with time, for a variety of reasons.

 

Here are some summaries that address at least parts of some of the other questions.

 

#2 http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-change-little-ice-age-medieval-warm-period.htm

http://www.skepticalscience.com/coming-out-of-ice-age.htm

 

#3 http://www.skepticalscience.com/broken-hockey-stick.htm

 

#7 http://www.skepticalscience.com/ice-age-predictions-in-1970s.htm

[jryan]

In order...

 

 

#2 - I have seen this graph numerous times (though I have noticed that many studies and reports no longer overlay the graphs). The thing about that evidence that is always a sticking point for me is that CO2 doesn't appear to be a driver of temperature any more than temperature is a driver of CO2 (since warming oceans release more CO2). I know this is usually explained as a feedback loop... but it seems that more often than not the temperature plumets before the CO2.... which cools the ocean and allows it to reabsorb the CO2. IT just seems odd that CO2 can be such a driver of global temperature rise while CO2 decreases are then dependant on global cooling.

 

On the ice age... the skepticalscience.com article is not particularly convincing. Or at least it doesn't explain it's conclusion all that well. The linked abstract says that the conclusion of the volcanic study was that the activity of the 1925-1960 may have introduced a 70 year "ocillation" in global surface temperatures.... has that word changed meaning since I last used it?

 

Also note the drastic split in the global temperature graph right at around year 2000.... what is that about? I would assume that the range in modeled global temperature would narrow as we reach the modern era.... but we have the introduction of a wide split (solid red drops precipitously, while red dotted line keeps climbing)... are they just not explaining that chart well?

 

#3 - I have a problem with this graph too.... how is it that supposed consistent proxy data can be so varied for historic data modeling, but so much more correlated in the period when temperature is being directly measured? My understanding is that tree rings, ice cores, and other proxy data is supposed to remain fairly constant over time, and is therefor fairly reliable.... but from that chart they only seem to agree when the actual primary measure is already known... this too fails to make me flush with confidence.

 

#5 - They were.. but that was also the period of the greatest expansion of life on Earth... so ecologically speaking, I still fail to see the oncoming disaster. It may mean that humans need to move further inland.... but apparently life on Earth deals just fine with CO2 concentrations five times the current level... possibly better. It is certainly a spark for the growth of flora.

 

#6 - Well, if it isn;t a proper concept, then what exactly are we discussing here? How can there be an improper increase in CO2 without there being an alternative proper amount? When I say equilibrium, I guess I am talking more about a mean level. Obviously variation happens (the temperature has gone up 5 degrees since I got up this morning... that doesn't mean I will be cooked well done by midnight ) but we are talking about abnormalities when we talk about anthropogenic CO2 and global warming.... what is normal? I haven't seen anything to actually say convincingly what normal WOULD be.

 

Al Gore said we should reduce CO2 to 150ppm.... this is what really scares me right now... the notion that we may actually attempt something that foolhardy.

 

#7 - I remember it beinga bigger deal than that site claims... but my laymans interest and study in climate predates any episode of 24 by a decade and a half.

 

And finally... I find the existence of a website geared specifically to targeting skeptics to be rather odd.

 

His layman view is obviously geared specifically at debunking the skeptics... and in my estimation, from the links, he doesn't to a terribly great job of it.

[swansont]

I can't comment on a lot of the specifics; it goes past my level of expertise.

 

 

#5 - They were.. but that was also the period of the greatest expansion of life on Earth... so ecologically speaking, I still fail to see the oncoming disaster. It may mean that humans need to move further inland.... but apparently life on Earth deals just fine with CO2 concentrations five times the current level... possibly better. It is certainly a spark for the growth of flora.

 

Life on earth may deal just fine with varying conditions, but that does not mean that human life will. Conditions present millions of years ago have no bearing on what present life is well-adapted to.

 

#6 - Well, if it isn;t a proper concept, then what exactly are we discussing here? How can there be an improper increase in CO2 without there being an alternative proper amount? When I say equilibrium, I guess I am talking more about a mean level. Obviously variation happens (the temperature has gone up 5 degrees since I got up this morning... that doesn't mean I will be cooked well done by midnight ) but we are talking about abnormalities when we talk about anthropogenic CO2 and global warming.... what is normal? I haven't seen anything to actually say convincingly what normal WOULD be.

 

I hope you can see that mean level and equilibrium are two very different concepts. Anthropogenic means it was made by humans, usually in the context of being made in ways that other animals don't produce, e.g. burning fossil fuels.

 

 

And finally... I find the existence of a website geared specifically to targeting skeptics to be rather odd.

 

His layman view is obviously geared specifically at debunking the skeptics... and in my estimation, from the links, he doesn't to a terribly great job of it.

 

Websites and blogs geared toward debunking bad and/or politicized science abound. Creationism/ID, "alternative" medicine (e.g. homeopathy), other topics within medicine (e.g. HIV/AIDS and mercury-autism), various flavors of non-mainstream physics (e.g. anti-relativity, anti-QM), etc. Some people are bothered by seeing fallacious or otherwise unsound arguments go unchallenged.

[jryan]

Websites and blogs geared toward debunking bad and/or politicized science abound. Creationism/ID, "alternative" medicine (e.g. homeopathy), other topics within medicine (e.g. HIV/AIDS and mercury-autism), various flavors of non-mainstream physics (e.g. anti-relativity, anti-QM), etc. Some people are bothered by seeing fallacious or otherwise unsound arguments go unchallenged.

 

Aint that the truth... of course which side is voicing "fallacious or otherwise unsound arguments" is not always so certain.

 

I hope you can see that mean level and equilibrium are two very different concepts. Anthropogenic means it was made by humans, usually in the context of being made in ways that other animals don't produce, e.g. burning fossil fuels.

 

Yes, I know that. The fossile fuels were also part of the above ground environment at one point as well. The simple notion of "fossile fuel" means that it has been part of the environment at one point or another.

 

Life on earth may deal just fine with varying conditions, but that does not mean that human life will. Conditions present millions of years ago have no bearing on what present life is well-adapted to.

 

That doesn't mean it won't either. Nobody seems to consider that the converse of the argument may also be true. To maintain the human footprint of today and protect the human species (ie. stable coastlines) would require that we would shepard the Earth in stasis in a manner that it will be unwilling to accept quietly, and we may very well be unable to manage sanely. Too often the cure proves worse than the disease.

 

Of course, then there is the strange collision between two camps, both wanting to reduce the use of fossile fuel... one saying that at the current rate of use we will expend the fuel in 50-80 years... the other saying that at the current output we will burn the planet in 150 years.... it seems to me that we can kill two birds with one stone focusing on fossile fuel as a limited resource, and let the climate sort itself out.

[Reaper]

Aint that the truth... of course which side is voicing "fallacious or otherwise unsound arguments" is not always so certain.

 

Well, for starters, you can look at this site: http://www.logicalfallacies.info/

 

Typically, the side that we are usually debunking normally uses logical fallacies to back themselves up, most notably ad hominems, strawman, and appeal to ignorance.

 

Also, they typically lack scientific data and observation to back their claims up.

 

Of course, its one thing to know what they are, and another thing to know how actually use it correctly, and as such I recommend Carl Sagan's baloney detection here: http://users.tpg.com.au/users/tps-seti/baloney.html

This link provides a guide to being able to tell sound arguments from B.S. Being a skeptic does not necessarily mean denying everything.

 

 

Yes, I know that. The fossile fuels were also part of the above ground environment at one point as well. The simple notion of "fossile fuel" means that it has been part of the environment at one point or another.

 

That may be, but those fossil fuels are re-introducing carbon that has been locked up for millions of years, and because of that it is throwing off the current balance of CO2. The current biosphere today isn't necessarily well adapted to those kind of levels, and it is uncertain if human life could adapt.

 

Also, these sort of changes usually happen over thousands of years, and over that time period life is much more able to adapt. We on the other hand are changing the climate in a matter of decades, and that is what the big worry is.

 

 

That doesn't mean it won't either. Nobody seems to consider that the converse of the argument may also be true. To maintain the human footprint of today and protect the human species (ie. stable coastlines) would require that we would shepard the Earth in stasis in a manner that it will be unwilling to accept quietly, and we may very well be unable to manage sanely. Too often the cure proves worse than the disease.

 

Well, we aren't exactly trying to keep everything in stasis though. Current conservation efforts are aimed at maintaining biodiversity, and anthropogenic global warming is kinda making that a lot more difficult. And, healthy ecologies correlate very strongly with healthy economies and better human health. You can read more about that here: http://www.undp.org/biodiversity/biodiversitycd/bioImport.htm

 

 

Of course, then there is the strange collision between two camps, both wanting to reduce the use of fossile fuel... one saying that at the current rate of use we will expend the fuel in 50-80 years... the other saying that at the current output we will burn the planet in 150 years.... it seems to me that we can kill two birds with one stone focusing on fossile fuel as a limited resource, and let the climate sort itself out.

 

I agree absolutely. We are currently trying to reduce the use of fossil fuels not only because of the damage it is causing, but also because they are running out very quickly as it is not a renewable resource. But, of course, there are others who do not want us to get rid of our dependence on oil.

[swansont]

That doesn't mean it won't either. Nobody seems to consider that the converse of the argument may also be true. To maintain the human footprint of today and protect the human species (ie. stable coastlines) would require that we would shepard the Earth in stasis in a manner that it will be unwilling to accept quietly, and we may very well be unable to manage sanely. Too often the cure proves worse than the disease.

 

But that is a shifting of the burden of proof. We know what the current climate entails.

 

Of course, then there is the strange collision between two camps, both wanting to reduce the use of fossile fuel... one saying that at the current rate of use we will expend the fuel in 50-80 years... the other saying that at the current output we will burn the planet in 150 years.... it seems to me that we can kill two birds with one stone focusing on fossile fuel as a limited resource, and let the climate sort itself out.

 

That's political, but one might hope that the weight of two valid arguments (assuming for the moment that both are valid) that say "reduce fossil fuel use" would spur more action than just one.

[Reaper]

1) How are historical temperature measurements accurate enough that they are used in direct correlation to current satellite data? I ask this because I often hear claims of "greatest heating trend in X thousand years".... how are we this accurate? I have seen studies of just the last 150 years with standard errors too high to make that claim.

 

The data comes from various places, such as ice cores, rocks, fossils, tree rings, historical records etc. Typically, there is no one place on where we get the data. Here's a list of them

 

 

4) It was reported recently that ice cores were pulled up in Greenland that date back about 200,000 years that contain a layer of 200,000 year old ferns, butterflies and pollen, a time period that current models say was about 5 degrees C warmer than today. If the current estimate is 3 degrees C in 150 years.. then why am I hearing reports from people like Al Gore that the Greenland glaciers will melt away completely in 50 years? They were apparently there 200,000 years ago when the Earth was warmer than even current models are predicting. Why is it different today?

 

Well, just because there is pollen and ferns and all that other stuff in there doesn't mean that there were also glaciers at that time period. Typically what may happen is that some of the ferns, pollen, etc. either may have drifted too far up north through wind or other causes, or that they may have been all dead but not yet decomposed when it started to freeze over. Another thing to keep in mind is that glaciers usually are moving, from high altitude to low altitude (where it is much more temperate BTW) so it may have been likely that they were probably beginning to flow over that particular area.

 

And, can you cite where you got that info?

[SkepticLance]

A small insert here. jryan says I am not doing a very good job on behalf of sceptics, and that is probably correct. I tend to get bogged down, such as on the silly objections of iNow, who refused to accept the kind of references that are normally accepted by the people on this forum.

 

It would be nice to see another, more competent sceptic, able to rise above the less than competent replies of swansont et al. I do not think that referring to the events of thousands of years ago will do it, since the issues are more recent.

 

What happened, of course, is a simple piece of psychology, that is well researched and well proven. When you get a group of people together who share a view, and discuss it often, that view gets more and more extreme. This is simple human nature, and psychologists know it well.

 

In this case, we got a bunch of people together about 20 years ago, who saw the world warming over the previous 10 years, due to human release of CO2. They wondered how harmful that trend might be and talked about it. Years later, that talk has escalated into a firm belief that the world is heading into imminent catastrophe. They totally fail to understand that the strength of their belief is based in their own psychology, and not in climate science.

 

This is a psychological feed-back mechanism at work. Since it has become global, it is immense in its power. It is now very difficult to see how much of the disaster predictions are science and how much pure politics and human psychology.

[Dak]

so, in short, GW science is a mass shared delusion? or, as all science basicaly boils down to 'lots of people discussing something they believe over time', all of science is prone to being overinflated?

 

this is why you're a denyer and not a sceptic, dispite your protestations to the contrary: because you'll grab at any rationalisation of your assumption that GW science is wrong no matter how ludicrous, will completely ignore anyone's critisism of your arguments (i.e., they're demonstratably fundamentally flawed), and your arguments are peppered with inconsistancies, logical fallicies and factual errors.

 

and, panglos, this is why SL gets 'picked on' whilst others dont.

[iNow]

I tend to get bogged down, such as on the silly objections of iNow, who refused to accept the kind of references that are normally accepted by the people on this forum.

 

It would be nice to see another, more competent sceptic, able to rise above the less than competent replies of swansont et al.

 

Repeating yourself does not add any validity to your claim, and would you please stop with the ad homs?

 

Let's see how much longer you choose to skirt the issue of your conclusions not holding up to scrutiny, and how long you continue trying to distract attention from it by throwing feces.

 

 

Well, trends are linear, so in the next century... HEY!!! LOOK OVER THERE!!! A terradactyl !!!

[Pangloss]

so, in short, GW science is a mass shared delusion? or, as all science basicaly boils down to 'lots of people discussing something they believe over time', all of science is prone to being overinflated?

 

this is why you're a denyer and not a sceptic, dispite your protestations to the contrary: because you'll grab at any rationalisation of your assumption that GW science is wrong no matter how ludicrous, will completely ignore anyone's critisism of your arguments (i.e., they're demonstratably fundamentally flawed), and your arguments are peppered with inconsistancies, logical fallicies and factual errors.

 

and, panglos, this is why SL gets 'picked on' whilst others dont.

 

Nonsense, he didn't say that it was a "mass shared delusion", you put those words in his mouth. There's a huge difference between that and political correctness. And he's not a "denier" -- you're just labelling him one for your convenience. His many statements on GW directly contradict this, so you're just calling him a liar in a pretty way.

 

Because what he said above is what I've been saying all along, that just because one member doesn't prove a point doesn't mean that point cannot be made. You people dance about like you've actually accomplished science, and even make that claim directly, when in fact what you've done is win a political debate, which is a completely different thing.

 

That is a valid point, even if he is 100% wrong about its application, and you should acknowledge that and find the common ground we all agree on, instead of consistently browbeating and chastising and otherwise ostracizing this member for having such a politically incorrect opinion about something you're no more capable of PROVING than he is.