talkclimate

[Dak]

the talkorigins of global warming

 

Basically, i've seen the same (crappy) arguments come up time and time again against GW, and have to be refuted, at great length, ad nausium. It's allready been observed that GW deniers have more than a passing similarity to creationists.

 

So, i suggest a talkorigins-esque database of the more common crap and a canned refutation for each argument, that we can link to during discussions, thus saving ourselves time and hopefully allowing for some saner (and less longwinded) threads about GW.

 

thoughts?

[Reaper]

Sounds like a good idea. But, are you going to host it?

 

Although, to be fair, things are a bit less confusing and less irritating around the issue of global warming among the general public then evolution is, simply because it's not quite as "controversial".

Edited June 18, 2008 by Reaper
multiple post merged

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

It's plenty controversial, as far as I'm concerned. I regularly meet people who don't "believe" in global warming and think it's all a fraud.

[swansont]

There is this: http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

[Phi for All]

Perhaps we can start here with a sub-forum of Ecology and the Environment called Global Warming. Dak can put together a sticky similar to the one he did for Philosophy & Religion.

[Dak]

Sounds like a good idea. But, are you going to host it?.

 

tbh, i was thinking something along the lines of what phi said -- either a sub-forum or just a sticky on sfn.

 

otoh, swansont's link kinda covers it allready...

[ecoli]

perhaps we can get a blog to host it

[bascule]

Perhaps we can start here with a sub-forum of Ecology and the Environment called Global Warming.

 

"Climate Change" is a more apt description, especially when we have people showing up here going "Global warming? It's colder than ever where I live!"

 

Also, if you're looking for hosting for something like this, I'd be more than willing to provide it

[freezy]

I highly recommend this list. I have used it quite often.

 

http://gristmill.grist.org/skeptics

[jryan]

Isn't this what you guys use RealClimate.org for already?

[Reaper]

tbh, i was thinking something along the lines of what phi said -- either a sub-forum or just a sticky on sfn.

 

otoh, swansont's link kinda covers it allready...

 

Ah, I see.

 

Yeah, I think we should have a separate subsection that deal with Global Warming and Climate Change in general. Also, I think you should write some of the guidelines for how to debate properly on these subjects, as you did with evolution so long ago...

 

perhaps we can get a blog to host it

 

Can't we just use SFN blogs? But then, who will volunteer to actually write on the subject on a regular basis?

 

 

==============================================

 

 

Also, I think we should do a subsection on Oil Depletion or the use of fossil fuels in general, since this is tied to the topic of global warming and just as controversial; just look at the debates that sparked up around here for example...

Edited June 20, 2008 by Reaper
multiple post merged

[iNow]

I just found this one:

 

http://www.ace.mmu.ac.uk/Resources/gcc/contents.html

[iNow]

An interesting post today talking about a "Crackpot Index" of sorts for global warming deniers.

 

(Chris is also a member here at SFN who sometimes responds to climate change issues and arguments).

 

 

http://chriscolose.wordpress.com/2008/11/03/quantifying-skeptical-arguments/

As somewhat a copycat, I’m taking after the

Crackpot Index

and making it unique to climate change skepticism. It is a similar point system and designed to see who ranks where, and how various claims on the web should be taken. Much like crackpots and golfers, the higher the score, the more shame to your correspondent. Many of the claims themselves are not bad, but when put in the popular context of why AGW is a farce then if you see people using these arguments, please let them know how many points they scored and link them here.

 

 

1) 2 points– letting us know that climate is ... <

more at link

>

[JohnB]

Thanks for that, I needed the chuckle.

[pioneer]

We should not confuse the warming of the earth, through natural cycles, with meaning human intervention. The data shows warming. But other data shows warming has occurred without humans at other times in the earth's history. The only conclusive way to show human intervention is to show the earth never warmed as much, at any point in earth history, when humans were not present. Without that smoking gun, we are extrapolating. There is some level of human subjectivity without that smoking gun.

 

The problem with providing that earlier historical temperature data is the only accurate direct record keeping is within the time range we use to draw the conclusion. Beyond that human record keeping does not have the same accuracy. The local record keeper of long ago bought off the shelf when manufacturing was done by hand.

 

The temperatures for even older geological times is deduced from other types of evidence. I have no problem with this. But on the other hand, why don't we use these indirect techniques to measure modern temperature and throw out all the digital and mercury thermometers, so we can normalize and compare apples to apples?. One technique is more accurate. The other may not be able to compete with the accuracy of 400 year old thermometers if used for daily temperature readings. This normalization of tools might be a way to get the smoking gun. It is good way to get rid of experimental bias high or low, using two different tools.

[iNow]

We should not confuse the warming of the earth, through natural cycles, with meaning human intervention. The data shows warming. But other data shows warming has occurred without humans at other times in the earth's history.

Nobody challenges that, nor is it at all on topic for this thread.

 

It has been conclusively demonstrated by several people in several studies across several research modalities that the present changes we are experiencing cannot be caused by natural cycles or inputs alone.

 

Again, though... not thread relevant.

 

 

The only conclusive way to show human intervention is to show the earth never warmed as much, at any point in earth history, when humans were not present.

Please tell me you're joking. You couldn't be more wrong if you tried.

 

Yes, we can only show that humans have an impact if we can show that the earth never warmed before humans. That's just retarded, dude.

 

 

 

Without that smoking gun, we are extrapolating. There is some level of human subjectivity without that smoking gun.

I don't need to witness a murder to know one was committed.

 

 

The problem with providing that earlier historical temperature data is the only accurate direct record keeping is within the time range we use to draw the conclusion. Beyond that human record keeping does not have the same accuracy. The local record keeper of long ago bought off the shelf when manufacturing was done by hand.

 

The temperatures for even older geological times is deduced from other types of evidence. I have no problem with this. But on the other hand, why don't we use these indirect techniques to measure modern temperature and throw out all the digital and mercury thermometers, so we can normalize and compare apples to apples?. One technique is more accurate. The other may not be able to compete with the accuracy of 400 year old thermometers if used for daily temperature readings. This normalization of tools might be a way to get the smoking gun. It is good way to get rid of experimental bias high or low, using two different tools.

 

You know what's really funny, Pioneer? You're repeating all of the tired old debunked denialist arguments which this very thread has been showing are wrong. That's classic. You're so wrong on so many levels that I can't help but pity you.

[Chris C]

Thanks for the input on my post...I might re-work it though. It was suggested in the comments and elsewhere that I make it more similar to the original crackpot index, just reworded a bit to make it applicable to climate change (see the evolution version for an example).

 

Pioneer-- I pose a question for you. If an arsonist is on trial for setting a fire in the woods, would you declare him innocent on the basis that fires naturally happened before? Something tells me the prosecution is not pulling his name out of a hat; you need to read my posts at

http://chriscolose.wordpress.com/2007/12/18/the-scientific-basis-for-anthropogenic-climate-change/

 

And by the way, the proxies *are* calibrated to the instrumental target just so that they will be comparable.

[Edtharan]

The only conclusive way to show human intervention is to show the earth never warmed as much, at any point in earth history, when humans were not present.

This is incorrect. What we have to show is that without human action, the world at the moment would not be warming.

 

It is not how much warming has taken place, but whether or not warming is occurring, and this can only be shown if we can show that it would not have warmed without out our actions.

 

The way this is being done is by eliminating all known naturally occuring causes of warming.

 

However, as there is current natural causes of warming (and cooling) going on, we have to see if the degree of their effect matches the amount of warming we can see. Currently, all evidence points to the fact that there is not enough natural warming forces that can account for the degree of warming that we are seeing.

[JohnB]

This is incorrect. What we have to show is that without human action, the world at the moment would not be warming.

Edtharan, to match the rest of your post, wouldn't it be better to say "The world would not be warming as much."?

 

Generally I think that this is where the difference between the two sides lives, in the answers to these two questions.

1. How much has the world warmed?

2. How much of the warming is natural and how much is human induced?

 

And by the way, the proxies *are* calibrated to the instrumental target just so that they will be comparable.

They would of course be calibrated for the full period of instrumental records, wouldn't they?

[scalbers]

Even though we can very confidently say that humans are causing present global warming, an important related question is are we too late to prevent the possibility of significant warming in the future? Note the inertia of the atmosphere, oceans, geological carbon storage, and societal changes that must be considered to answer this. A third related question revolves around ocean acidification.