Another nail in the coffin of the human made global warming myth

[cypress]

People want to discredit global warming because of the potential economic impacts of mitigation. Proper science comes from criticism of beliefs,, but it is only useful is proper evidence is supplied. To date I have still not come across one skeptic who has been able to provide evidence that natural phenomena is causing the modern warming.

Plus, this goes beyond people's love of the environment and the outdoors,, being proper custodians of the planet is essential to our very survival..

 

Controversial ideas require uncertainty in order for two sides to keep an argument going. Skeptics have identified natural causes for all but 0.2-0.4 degrees of warming. Even if 100% of the unaccounted for energy rise is caused indirectly by humans, behavior change is not a particularly good idea.

[ydoaPs]

Controversial ideas require uncertainty in order for two sides to keep an argument going.

Or blatant denial of reality.

[swansont]

Controversial ideas require uncertainty in order for two sides to keep an argument going.

 

The uncertainty here is largely manufactured.

 

Skeptics have identified natural causes for all but 0.2-0.4 degrees of warming.

 

You have a credible source for this claim, I trust.

[cypress]

Or blatant denial of reality.

 

Reality is easy to support and describe. If AGW was reality it would be clear and there would be no controversy. No, AGW is a difficult and complex idea without clear support.

 

The uncertainty here is largely manufactured.

 

An opinion of yours no doubt.

 

You have a credible source for this claim, I trust.

 

Do you doubt it? Before I go through the trouble of putting together an argument, please tell me the number you think is credible and also define what it means to be credible because if you reject my material out of hand, it would be a waste of time for me to hunt it up, right?

[swansont]

Reality is easy to support and describe. If AGW was reality it would be clear and there would be no controversy. No, AGW is a difficult and complex idea without clear support.

 

Baloney. There are few concepts in science that do not have their detractors. You don't have to search outside of this forum to find those who doubt relativity or quantum mechanics. When you have an ideological or other influence, it's not hard to find examples of manufactured controversy. A fine and bountiful example is creationism.

 

 

An opinion of yours no doubt.

 

No, there are many examples of manufactured controversy, like "it stopped warming in 1998" and "it snowed here today and I can build an igloo"

 

http://www.grist.org/article/series/skeptics/

http://www.astronomynotes.com/solarsys/s11b.htm

http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

 

 

Do you doubt it? Before I go through the trouble of putting together an argument, please tell me the number you think is credible and also define what it means to be credible because if you reject my material out of hand, it would be a waste of time for me to hunt it up, right?

 

Well, you really don't have much choice; this is a science site and its expected of you. I wouldn't think you'd want people to think you posted controversial material just to stir things up, with no intention of engaging in honest, civil debate. There's a word for that.

[cypress]

Baloney. There are few concepts in science that do not have their detractors. You don't have to search outside of this forum to find those who doubt relativity or quantum mechanics. When you have an ideological or other influence, it's not hard to find examples of manufactured controversy. A fine and bountiful example is creationism.

 

Yet all of these examples include a fair degree of uncertainty. Topics that are uncertain enjoy detractors. Those with political, moral and religious influences are all the more.

 

 

 

 

No, there are many examples of manufactured controversy, like "it stopped warming in 1998" and "it snowed here today and I can build an igloo"

 

http://www.grist.org/article/series/skeptics/

http://www.astronomynotes.com/solarsys/s11b.htm

http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

 

Cherry picking a few manufactured issues does not make the entire issue manufactured. One can play this game of both sides of this issue. I can easily provide a list of manufactured alarmist claims too.

 

Well, you really don't have much choice; this is a science site and its expected of you. I wouldn't think you'd want people to think you posted controversial material just to stir things up, with no intention of engaging in honest, civil debate. There's a word for that.

 

I think I have a range of choices. The previous poster said the he has not seen any evidence that should cause someone to be skeptical. I provided a rationale some skeptics use to support their position so my only obligation is to show that skeptics make this argument since this was my only claim. You asked me to support that the skeptics are correct in their claim; something beyond my response and I wanted to be sure I was not wasting my time. Looks like I made the right choice not to go off on a wild goose chase.

[ydoaPs]

Yet all of these examples include a fair degree of uncertainty. Topics that are uncertain enjoy detractors. Those with political, moral and religious influences are all the more.

You're saying that the most accurately and extensively tested theories we have are full of uncertainty? o.O

[cypress]

You're saying that the most accurately and extensively tested theories we have are full of uncertainty? o.O

 

No I am not saying the most accurately and extensively tested theories are full of uncertainty. Relativity, QM and host of others though include enough uncertainty to allow for detractors with solid arguments. Do you have anything relative to the topic to contribute?

[skippy]

We can all agree that there is roughly 90% certainty of the existence of anthropogenic warming. If 90% of the worlds best doctors told me that I have cancer because of smoking, I would tend to believe them. However this situation is different because uncertainty is much easier to manufacture than certainty, especially because there are enormous profits at stake..

 

If anybody wants to tell me right now (with evidence) that natural phenomena is causing modern warming and sea level rise then I am all ears.. However, I know I will just be given poor criticisms of well accepted methods of climate and palaoclimate science, and nothing concrete to base any inference of natural modern warming on.

 

 

 

 

[cypress]

As I said before there are several researchers who claim to show that much of the modern warming (1800-2003) is natural and also due to cyclical oscillations. If you start a new thread, I will walk you through it. If you are looking for evidence to explain the full extent of modern warming including uncertainties then I will take a pass as it would be a fools game to try to explain everything. In the new thread, please make your expectations clear so we don't get into a shouting mach over what you asked for.

[ydoaPs]

No I am not saying the most accurately and extensively tested theories are full of uncertainty. Relativity, QM and host of others though include enough uncertainty to allow for detractors with solid arguments. Do you have anything relative to the topic to contribute?

This neglects the fact that the detractors have no solid arguments.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

This neglects the fact that the detractors have no solid arguments.

 

And believe me, we've seen aaaallll of them.

[cypress]

This neglects the fact that the detractors have no solid arguments.

 

It would be more accurate to describe this as your opinion rather than fact. Surely the detractors believe they have good arguments. Can I assume you still have nothing to contribute to the topic of this thread?

[ydoaPs]

It would be more accurate to describe this as your opinion rather than fact.

No, it wouldn't.

[iNow]

You have a credible source for this claim, I trust.

Anyone besides me notice how 10 posts later cypress still hasn't addressed this? What's that you say? Yes, I see the obfuscation, too.

[swansont]

No I am not saying the most accurately and extensively tested theories are full of uncertainty. Relativity, QM and host of others though include enough uncertainty to allow for detractors with solid arguments. Do you have anything relative to the topic to contribute?

 

That's just it, though. They aren't solid arguments, they are crappy arguments which are demonstrably wrong. These people aren't doing science, they are doing ideology and dressing it up to look like science.

 

 

Cherry picking a few manufactured issues does not make the entire issue manufactured. One can play this game of both sides of this issue. I can easily provide a list of manufactured alarmist claims too.

 

I didn't say entirely manufactured, I said largely. And those lists are long.

 

 

I think I have a range of choices. The previous poster said the he has not seen any evidence that should cause someone to be skeptical. I provided a rationale some skeptics use to support their position so my only obligation is to show that skeptics make this argument since this was my only claim. You asked me to support that the skeptics are correct in their claim; something beyond my response and I wanted to be sure I was not wasting my time. Looks like I made the right choice not to go off on a wild goose chase.

 

No, you said that "Skeptics have identified natural causes for all but 0.2-0.4 degrees of warming." Coloring yourself as a skeptic doesn't change anything. I'm a skeptic, too. Skeptics don't accept something unless there is good evidence for it. Surely, as a skeptic, you didn't just simply take their word that the evidence existed, and insisted on seeing it for yourself. I'm asking to see that evidence.

[cypress]

As I said before there are several researchers who claim to show that much of the modern warming (1800-2003) is natural and also due to cyclical oscillations. If you start a new thread, I will walk you through it. If you are looking for evidence to explain the full extent of modern warming including uncertainties then I will take a pass as it would be a fools game to try to explain everything. In the new thread, please make your expectations clear so we don't get into a shouting mach over what you asked for.

[swansont]

New thread started

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/51175-natural-global-warming/

 

Now answer the damn question

[Phi for All]

It would be more accurate to describe this as your opinion rather than fact. Surely the detractors believe they have good arguments. Can I assume you still have nothing to contribute to the topic of this thread?

It's not enough to believe your argument is good, that's why science (and this science forum)[/color] requires evidence. That's why you're being asked to provide evidence to back up your argument, and because you can't you're being challenged repeatedly.

 

The evidence for AGW has been presented, and detractors only present a shaky argument for natural cycles, none of which are backed up by a fraction of the evidence that AGW has. You have to do better if you hope to completely dismiss the efforts of so many experts, and speak with such certainty that their methods and results are in question.

 

I'm not saying it can't be done, I'm just saying that you aren't even coming close to doling it. Simple denial is worthless.

[cypress]

It's not enough to believe your argument is good, that's why science (and this science forum)[/color] requires evidence. That's why you're being asked to provide evidence to back up your argument, and because you can't you're being challenged repeatedly.

 

I think you have underestimated my ability to support an argument and you have clearly misinterpreted the argument I did make. No matter. The poster that I made my argument to was interested in going further than my argument and I am happy also to support not only that skeptics have presented evidence but also that the evidence is worthy of consideration. I asked the poster to start a new thread since it represented a topic change. swanson beat him to it.

 

The evidence for AGW has been presented, and detractors only present a shaky argument for natural cycles, none of which are backed up by a fraction of the evidence that AGW has.

 

I'm not so sure of that. How does one objectively rank quantity and quality of evidence. It is a tough thing to do. As far as I can see the only "evidence" that has ever been presented by AGW proponents is a bunch of GCM's that spit out a rendition of the garbage they plug into them. I see a fair amount of evidence that the Earth's climate changes over time and that it ebbs and flows around some longer term averages that seem to shift abruptly from time to time. I see evidence that the globe has been warming in spurts and fits since the Little Ice Age ended in the 1700's up to about 2003. After that, we don't have enough data to describe where it is going and we can't say with any degree of certainty what caused it. The warming is not out of the too much ordinary given history. Perhaps it is a couple tenths of a degree higher than past empirical correlations, its hard to say.

 

You have to do better if you hope to completely dismiss the efforts of so many experts, and speak with such certainty that their methods and results are in question.

 

I have no intention of dismissing any expert completely. A poster asked a question and I answered it. Perhaps you read more certainty into my posts than intended.

 

I'm not saying it can't be done, I'm just saying that you aren't even coming close to doling it.

 

I am encouraged then because it was not my intent with these posts. I am saving that for other threads.

 

Simple denial is worthless.

 

It is used so often by all sides, yours included, I am going to have to disagree. It seems like a very good coping tool.

Edited August 8, 2010 by cypress

[Phi for All]

I think you have underestimated my ability to support an argument and you have clearly misinterpreted the argument I did make.

!

Moderator Note

It is clear, from repeated requests by other posters, that you have not supported your arguments and overestimate your ability to do so in this instance. Do not misinterpret this: you are required to give supporting evidence when it is requested, or drop your line of argument in order to comply with the rules of this forum.

[cypress]

I guess you missed the part where I said there has been a new thread started that includes a discussion on the supporting information. It's ok it happens to the best of us.

[ydoaPs]

cypress, it's generally not a good idea to troll the staff.

[Phi for All]

I guess you missed the part where I said there has been a new thread started that includes a discussion on the supporting information. It's ok it happens to the best of us.

No, I merely missed where your supporting information, even in the new thread, does a credible job of supporting your argument. And I think most people who frequent this forum know how shaky your arguments are from the condescending tone you take to make it seem more valid. It's a common crutch that many lean on in times of shaky footing.

 

You have that snooty, "Appeal to Ridicule" tone in your posts that suggests Your Eminence may not, in fact, be wearing any clothes at all.

[skippy]

As I said before there are several researchers who claim to show that much of the modern warming (1800-2003) is natural and also due to cyclical oscillations. If you start a new thread, I will walk you through it. If you are looking for evidence to explain the full extent of modern warming including uncertainties then I will take a pass as it would be a fools game to try to explain everything. In the new thread, please make your expectations clear so we don't get into a shouting mach over what you asked for.

 

Be so kind as to briefly 'walk me through' how cyclical oscillations (I think you are referring to Milankovich cycles) coincide with the trends of modern warming?? I tend to believe that organisations such as the IPCC and NASA would not have taken these factors into account when presenting their findings. If you are referring to oceanographic cycles such as ENSO, Indian Ocean Dipole, Southern Annular Mode, Meridional Overturning Circulation (thermohaline circulation), Im sorry but they have already been reconciled and taken into account aswell. These cycles are also being affected by warming. I also find it hard to believe that the recent rapid warming and acidifying of the planet's oceans is occurring due to natural phenomena.

Like I said before, I am all ears. Please be so kind as to give me some brief dot points as so what natural phenomena is causing this warming if not GHG's. That is all I ask.

 

 

I'm not so sure of that. How does one objectively rank quantity and quality of evidence. It is a tough thing to do. As far as I can see the only "evidence" that has ever been presented by AGW proponents is a bunch of GCM's that spit out a rendition of the garbage they plug into them. I see a fair amount of evidence that the Earth's climate changes over time and that it ebbs and flows around some longer term averages that seem to shift abruptly from time to time. I see evidence that the globe has been warming in spurts and fits since the Little Ice Age ended in the 1700's up to about 2003. After that, we don't have enough data to describe where it is going and we can't say with any degree of certainty what caused it. The warming is not out of the too much ordinary given history. Perhaps it is a couple tenths of a degree higher than past empirical correlations, its hard to say.

 

 

So you are denying the credibility of well-accepted palaoclimate proxy methods? Its funny how the same methodologies used to reconstruct past climates (foraminifera/deep sea sediments, Isotopic fractionation, Ice core proxies, dendroclimatology etc) which have always been accepted as relaible sources of palaoclimatic evidence are suddenly 'unreliable' when there are huge profits at stake.

 

The skeptic's arguments continue to get weaker and weaker every time I look at forums such as this.