Climate Change Questions...

[Gankfest]

I'm a 32 year old Computer Scientist with some questions about Climate Change(Global Warming). Over the years I've read many stances and positions on Climate Change, and have lost touch with the controversy over the years. I got tired of hearing every view point, and wanted to wait until a formal scientific consensus was made until a single **** was given! Seeing that this might not happen anytime soon, and as the controversy moves on; it seems to be more of a cluster **** then originally planned. Not knowing anything about Environmental Science; makes it difficult to jump into the controversy, and understand the informal current 2014 scientific consensus!

 

Questions:

 

1) What exactly is the current informal scientific consensus on Global Warming? I seriously looked this up, and it's more confusing than 10 - 15 years ago! Scientific Opinion on Climate Change.

 

2) Is it possible in theory, to prevent the Ice Age; by inducing man made Climate Change without killing the entire planet in the process?

 

3) Relating to this Article, how much does man made Green House gases being emitted into the Environment effect the natural process of Global Warming? Example, If it takes 100k years for the Ice Age to happen; then how much of the 100k years are we shaving off by Deforestation and Fossil Fuels? Is it really that big of a deal in the science community?

 

4) I figure with all the evidence to date, Climate Change and Global Warming is dependent on many variables; rather than just one specific thing like Green House Gases. If this is true, then it's most probable that majority of the view points are of equal validity. Meaning that each stance is either: right about certain points, wrong about other points, or unknown variables still exist. Which leaves me wondering which points should I pick and chose from which argument, if any at all...?

 

4a) Relating to question 4, what is hindering the science community from making a formal consensus? Is it a gap in technology, the evidence isn't there yet, the evidence is there, but making direct links is problematic, too many known/unknown factors, etc...?

 

5) Are we even close to an Ice Age, or an environmental disaster to where I should even care about these questions today?

 

If there is a recent video or article at NASA, or a credible research institute answering these questions. Then please feel free to link them, as I have no problem watching/reading the work of others... I just couldn't find anything that really answered my questions. Preferably a video, as I find the Environmental Sciences to be on the dry side, but whatever is handy.

 

Thank You!

Edited February 16, 2014 by Gankfest

[iNow]

What exactly is the current scientific consensus on Global Warming?

 

 

Is it possible in at least theory, to prevent the Ice Age, by inducing man made Climate Change without killing the entire planet in the process?

The planet will be fine. The challenge really is the speed of the change. Not many organisms can "adapt" or evolve quickly enough to keep pace with the way their habitats are changing. Even humans will struggle due to shifting weather, increased drought, decreased availability of drinking water, flooding and ruin of coastal lands, extreme storms, etc. I'm not sure what you mean by "prevent an ice age," but our actions right now are having a real effect on the oceans, ocean currents, and consequently the planet as a whole.

 

 

how much does man made Green House gases being emitted into the Environment effect the natural process of Global Warming?

 

Example, If it takes 100k years for the Ice Age to happen; then how much of the 100k years are we shaving off by Deforestation and Fossil Fuels? Is it really that big of a deal in the science community?

Here's a summary that lays it out quite clearly, along with references:

 

https://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-positives-negatives-intermediate.htm

The best way to put this in perspective is to compare the positives of global warming to the negatives (note - this list is by no means comprehensive - please feel free to suggest additional papers in the comments below):...<continue reading>

 

Here also is a visual summary of the key impacts:

 

 

 

4) I figure with all the evidence to date, Climate Change and Global Warming is dependent on many variables; rather than just one specific thing like Green House Gases. If this is true, then it's most probable that majority of the view points are of equal validity.

No, it's not. "Both sides" are not equally valid any more than people who think unicorn farts cause erections in leprechauns have equal validity with people who accept that heat is a major challenge as semiconductors continue to get smaller and try to get below the 22nm range.

 

what is hindering the science community from making a formal consensus?

Nothing. They already have. All the denial comes from corporate interests and ideological refusal to accept the mountains of conclusive and plain evidence before us. See also: http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus

 

Are we even close to an Ice Age, or an environmental disaster to where I should even care about these questions today?

Many of my points above already address this, but here it is presented in another way: http://climate.nasa.gov/effects

 

If there is a recent video or article at NASA, or a credible research institute answering these questions.

I think two of my sources above were from NASA, and you requested a video, but I'll do even better than that... Here's 10: http://sustainabilityhub.com/sustainability/climate/

[swansont]

Scientifically speaking, there is no controversy, and there is a consensus: the planet is warming, and it is the result of anthropogenic contributions. The details are in how much warming there will be and what will happen as a result. Any appearance of a controversy is the result of a political agenda from people who don't want AGW to be true.

 

I'm not aware of any reputable predictions of an ice age. AFAIK, it's a moot issue.

[Implicate Order]

Marvellous summary iNow. Thanks greatly

[iNow]

Welcome. Here's a bonus one similar to the first, but more recent:

 

[Gankfest]

 

The planet will be fine. The challenge really is the speed of the change. Not many organisms can "adapt" or evolve quickly enough to keep pace with the way their habitats are changing. Even humans will struggle due to shifting weather, increased drought, decreased availability of drinking water, flooding and ruin of coastal lands, extreme storms, etc.

 

Is there any chance that the shifting climate can cause droughts big enough to create food or water shortages; which can lead to civil unrest among nations in the next 10 - 30 years?

 

I'm not looking for a factual answer, rather an educated guess. My friend is most likely a functioning paranoid delusional schizophrenic who believes Glenn Beck is our lord and savior. In all honesty, I've been trying to get him to trust doctors, modern medicine, and science for 10 years now. His family has issues with vaccines in the past and other medical issues. They're very narrow minded Christians when it comes to science and modern medicine. He pretty much has the mindset of a 12 year old, and has this belief that GMO foods are killing people along with Vaccines, NWO, Alex Jones stuff, George Soros, Spooky People, etc...

 

He lacks the ability to decipher rational factual science from pseudoscience. I've finally made a breakthrough in the past couple of years, pretty much explaining that if NASA says it's true... It's 99.9% true! That scientific studies go through the hands of a lot of scientists and doctors; to cover stuff up like secret killer Adjuvants in Vaccines. Personally, I've been looking up <Insert Ridiculous Claim Here> about Vaccines and GMO's for the past week in a half; I can't keep up with his questions anymore. I'm trying to present the credible evidence, and the fallacies in pseudoscience. At the same time I'm being objective weighing the evidence of both sides, and then giving him my opinion of what I think to be true and why. I know a lot about science, but I don't know everything. Luckily, he knows enough about computing to relate information in the relation of computers. Honestly it has been a fun experience, because I'm learning so much about things I haven't thought about it awhile.

 

I thought I would add that in there, as that is the real reason why I'm here today. Also, Global Warming/Astrology/Environment was something I used to be into when I was a kid, and I had that wonder of where the science is now feeling when he asked. I figure he is going to ask some ridiculous questions that I might ask here, so I'm just saying something so I don't feel like a troll. Anyway he is a good person at heart, and one of the most loyal friend I've known, so I just don't want people to think he's a bad guy... Just a little confused.

 

I want to say when I said *** Given, I didn't mean I don't care about the environment, but I gave up caring about the argument on Global Warming as it was a huge controversy. I just had other interests in science, and I figured I would let NASA and other science societies do what they do best anyway.

 

 

 

I'm not sure what you mean by "prevent an ice age," but our actions right now are having a real effect on the oceans, ocean currents, and consequently the planet as a whole.

 

I might have this mixed up. From what you have presented so far, which is informative btw. It seems like I have a miss conception of the Ice Age being related to Global Warming, which isn't the case. I guess my question would be is there a way to lower Green House gases by introducing another gas into the atmosphere, or some other man made control system? Pretty much without using a cleaner renewable energy source.

 

 

No, it's not. "Both sides" are not equally valid any more than people who think unicorn farts cause erections in leprechauns have equal validity with people who accept that heat is a major challenge as semiconductors continue to get smaller and try to get below the 22nm range.

 

I meant the viewpoints of these scientific communities. Rather than the viewpoint of pseudoscience vs. Greatness! I was under the impression that the societies agreed on the same concept of Global Warming(Green House Effect), but had small discrepancies in the actual science of it. I guess I read the wiki page wrong and another website wrong.. The article answers the question, thank you!

 

I skimmed though your sources and straight to the point and informative. I'm going to take a closer look tomorrow, and get back with questions if any. I just want to say thanks for the time, and sorry if I was a little in-depth on my motives!

 

 

people who don;t want AGW to be true.

 

Is this what Al Gore talked about in his book, or whatever he won the Nobel Peace Prize for?

Edited February 16, 2014 by Gankfest

[iNow]

Is there any chance that the shifting climate can cause droughts big enough to create food or water shortages; which can lead to civil unrest among nations in the next 10 - 30 years?

 

I'm not looking for a factual answer, rather an educated guess.

We don't have to guess, though. Nor must we wait 2 to 3 decades. It's already happening, and is quickly increasing in frequency... From people fleeing drought to people seeking arable crop lands to people migrating away from coastal lands sinking into the rising sea.

 

http://www.unhcr.org/pages/49e4a5096.html

http://education.nationalgeographic.com/education/encyclopedia/climate-refugee/?ar_a=1

http://ourworld.unu.edu/en/environmental-migrants-more-than-numbers

 

 

I figure he is going to ask some ridiculous questions that I might ask here, so I'm just saying something so I don't feel like a troll.

No worries. None of us knows everything and we all have things we still must learn or correct in our thinking about the universe, and all of us will sometimes ask stupid questions. What matters more is how we ask those questions, how we react to the answers, and what metrics we use to determine whether or not the replies we receive or the site we are reading is valid, true, and trustworthy.

 

 

It seems like I have a miss conception of the Ice Age being related to Global Warming, which isn't the case.

There is a slight risk there, but it's a much longer term problem... A bit like focusing on how you'll acquire your prescriptions when you're 85 years old instead of focusing on the heart attack or cancer you have right now. Basically, it's more important that we focus on the effects of global warming over the next 100 years than about the chance of another ice age 10,000 years from now.

 

More at the following: http://www.skepticalscience.com/heading-into-new-little-ice-age.htm

 

I guess my question would be is there a way to lower Green House gases by introducing another gas into the atmosphere, or some other man made control system? Pretty much without using a cleaner renewable energy source.

We're exploring it, but the technology is still very limited and will take a very long time to scale up to the size we need to handle the ever growing human population that is burning ever more coal and oil to support our ever modernizing lifestyles. With that said, you can look up terms like "carbon sequestration" and "atmospheric scrubbers" and other similar things like those summarized at this wiki link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_removal

 

Again, though... I'm not personally confident they can scale adequately with the magnitude of the problem, especially if we do nothing/little to curb current emissions. We'll see.

 

I was under the impression that the societies agreed on the same concept of Global Warming(Green House Effect), but had small discrepancies in the actual science of it.

The are small disagreements about the magnitude and velocity of the warming, and potentially the impacts on civilization, but the core agreement about the average annual temperature trend, the cause of that trend, and the risk it creates for us is there.

 

Also, you're not alone in being somewhat confused. There's been a massive disinformation campaign intended to confuse these issues, much like tobacco companies tried to put into question the science underlying cigarettes and their tendency to causing cancer a few decades ago. If you're interested, you can look up the phrase "wedge strategy climate change" or watch talks like this:

 

 

 

I just want to say thanks for the time, and sorry if I was a little in-depth on my motives!

No problem. I'm glad you found it useful. I cannot fault someone for trying to educate themselves and correct their misunderstandings. Quite the opposite, actually. I applaud it. Cheers. Edited February 16, 2014 by iNow

[Gankfest]

I read all the info, watched the videos, and crunched the numbers, the science and math seem to check out. The video that goes into depth of how much carbon is in the oil reserves and underneath the earth sold me on the math. I figured if NASA is saying it, and the math looks good; it's most likely true. It's a bigger problem than I expected it to be, and it's cool to see how the science has grown with Climate Models and Computing. Also I have full confidence in NASA, and the 97% of people who agree with the consensus; as they're some of the smartest people in the world.

 

The problem isn't how I trust the information, but how do I debunk the information he is giving me? I guess he is with the side that Global Warming is a natural occurrence whether humans exist or not, and that man made Global Warming is a myth made up by Sheeple at NASA! Seriously...

 

He sent me these articles here:

 

http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html

http://www.populartechnology.net/2013/05/97-study-falsely-classifies-scientists.html

 

Which I don't know enough about Climate Change and Global Warming to discredit the information, along with the time to do it... One of the articles has a ridiculous amount of info; about something I don't really know anything about, so I guess I don't even know how to examine it.

 

Then there are these articles:

 

http://www.cfact.org/2014/01/28/morano-debates-nye-on-warming-watch-now/

 

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/04/global-warming-slowdown-the-view-from-space/

 

http://opinion.financialpost.com/2013/09/16/ipcc-models-getting-mushy/

 

http://www.lordmoncktonfoundation.com/

 

http://tamino.wordpress.com/climate-data-links/

 

http://wattsupwiththat.com/climategate/

 

http://www.nipccreport.org/reports/2011/2011report.html

http://www.cfact.org/tag/climate-science/

 

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/06/still-epic-fail-73-climate-models-vs-measurements-running-5-year-means/

 

Anyway... The reason why I could debunk his claims so easily when it comes to issues like Vaccines, GMO, Fluoridation, Salt, and other things, because I understand a lot about Physics, Chemistry, and Biology. Which makes it easier to read and understand the information. The other day he links me some info Dr. Mercola(Our lord and Savior in medicine) has sent us from above, and I know where to go in the medical journals and chemistry books to point out flaws in his claims.

 

I also watched this discussion which was great...

 

 

Anyway, I'm putting this issue in my top 3 things to care about in life!

 

1. Financial Markets

2. Global Warming

3. Zombies

Edited February 16, 2014 by Gankfest

[iNow]

The problem isn't how I trust the information, but how do I debunk the information he is giving me? I guess he is with the side that Global Warming is a natural occurrence whether humans exist or not...

Here's the question you must ask your friend. If it's natural, then what is the cause? Just saying "it's natural" doesn't magically end the discussion. Even if it's natural, there will be a reason for it. If your friend cannot cite those reasons, then his argument is a total cop-out and frankly rests on a mountain of bullshit. It's really that simple.

 

The problem for him, you see, is when we look at known natural climate forcing agents none can account for either the magnitude nor the rate of the current change. We know it's not the sun (in fact, average temps should be decreasing slightly right now based on what the sun is doing). We know it's not volcanos (they release a lot of CO2, but we're not seeing any massive increase in activity... plus, they release dark ash clouds so temps tend to decrease slightly immediately after eruption). We know it's not pretty much any "natural" system that has resulted in past ice ages or climate shifts.

 

So, tell your friend that just saying "it's natural" doesn't explain anything. If it's natural, then what precisely does he think is the natural cause? Then, with each argument he brings up you can usually debunk them one by one (since we know it's not natural and people who know more about this topic than all three of us combined have looked into natural explanations and ruled them out).

 

Here are two quick references regarding exactly this point:

 

http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-natural-cycle.htm

http://www.skepticalscience.com/how-we-know-recent-warming-is-not-natural.html

 

Then, there's also this for people who prefer a quick visual:

 

 

 

Anyway, most the sources he cites are known frauds and charlatans (wattsupwiththat, lord mockton, etc.). You'll always find a few cranks out there who disagree with reality. The problem is they keep repeating themselves even when they've been shown wrong. That lack of integrity should be enough to turn anybody away, and it's unfortunate that so many people like your friend choose to accept their assertions as gospel.

 

Anyway, I'm putting this issue in my top 3 things to care about in life!

 

1. Financial Markets

2. Global Warming

3. Zombies

You forgot bacon. Your list is invalid!

[Gankfest]

I get what you're saying, and I've been reading through the science site you linked. I don't really care at this point. I guess the argument always breaks down into the same Quackery. That just about every scientist in the world is lying about something; and the Democrats are covering it up. No matter how much I try to prove where exactly places like the CDC, NASA, NIH, NOAA get their funding and how it's distributed to research institutions. No matter how much evidence I produce, it's either a worldwide conspiracy... He pretty much thinks that NASA scientists are scared to lose their jobs if they don't support Obama's Global Warming. Which is the same reason why every scientist lie about everything. So, according to his logic: we can't know anything; because everyone is lying. He doesn't get the logic fail, and the conversation deteriorates from there into Spooky people like Bill Gates and George Soros; who are evil people funding and killing the world. Anything past that is me being a Sheeple, Retarded, and blind to the truth...

 

Anyway back to rationality...

 

So with the given information, what's NASA's take on what needs to be done today to curb the problem? How do they feel the problem is being handled through world legislation. Are we going to be fine, or is politics messing up a real way to fix the problem? I just remember the Solar Company fail awhile back, and wonder if that was the US way of trying to curb Global Warming, and if it was... How many failed policies will continue. I'm also looking at it as a worst case scenario, and if nothing is done. The population will die off, and 10,000 people are hiding out in a seed bank.

 

 

 

You forgot bacon. Your list is invalid!

 

1. Financial Markets
2. Global Warming
3. Bacon Flavored Zombies

Edited February 17, 2014 by Gankfest

[Gankfest]

http://www.glennbeck.com/content/blog/stu/please-don%E2%80%99t-print-this-blog/

 

Trying to take this article and figure out exactly what happened. I guess why is the modeling data so much better and accurate now; than it was in the 80's; which is what I think the argument is. Since people predicted what would happen, but then this happened instead. Why should we believe science now. What was the scientific consensus back then on the modeling data? How is it so much different now.

 

I guess I'm having a hard time finding scientific information rather than media bulls**t

Edited February 18, 2014 by Gankfest

[Essay]

I guess I'm having a hard time finding scientific information rather than media bulls**t

 

Last Fall, I got a copy of a book from 1991, which summarized the "state of the art" back then ...regarding climate science. They are cautious in their statements, as scientists should be; but I thought the predictions would be fun to compare with today. I copied a few quotes relating to many issues that come up in the news ...especially the "growth of ice in Antarctica" and the "variability of greenhouse warming."

 

From: Oxford Monographs on Geology and Geophysics no.16; Paleoclimatology; Crowley & North; 1991.

 

re: a natural "cooling phase" or "plateau in heating"

 

14.1.2 Implications of Historical Climate Fluctuations for Detection and Modulation of a Greenhouse Warming

"The amount of potential variance due to these natural fluctuations appears to be enough to modulate the course of any unidirectional warming due to CO2 forcing (at least in the early stages of a warming). This conclusion is obviously open to debate. We include it here not because it may be right but because it may help focus the discussion as to the relative importance of volcanos, the sun, CO2, and stochastic processes in determining the evolution of climate on decadal to centennial time scales." -p.257

....

re: a region affected differently

 

14.2.1 Regional Responses to a Greenhouse Warming

"Although the East Antarctic Ice Sheet could grow during the initial stages of a greenhouse warming, it is possible that melting could occur if CO2 values reached very high levels. Since CO2 doubling studies indicate winter warming around coastal Antarctica of 8-14 C degrees (cf. Fig. 2.12), much higher CO2 levels could tilt the mass balance of the ice sheet from accumulation to ablation." -p.258

===

 

I think the entire 21st century will qualify as the early stages of a global warming event, as they are speaking of it here. In the news, when they talk about "Antarctica gaining ice," they mean EAST Antarctica (as predicted by global warming theory, back in the early 1990s). West Antarctica is still warming and losing ice ...in response to greenhouse warming.

===

 

So....

Of the four major [most general or basic] predictions (for the early stage of a global greenhouse event):

1.) Polar latitudes will warm faster (and more) than lower latitudes.

2.) Arctic sea ice will decline ...seriously (and possibly disappear seasonally or totally).

3.) East Antarctica may gain ice as the hydrological cycle is ramped up by greenhouse heating.

4.) A disruption to the thermohaline circulation in the Atlantic may occur.

 

[The first is widely known, but I don’t know the source; and the last three are from that 1991 Oxford monograph on climate, quoted above.]

 

Check the “yes box” for the first three; although we may consider #2 as a failure, since the ice is declining faster than the specific ice-projection models predicted.

 

Numbers 1 & 3 might seem contradictory at first glance (warming, yet more ice in some places?), but their specified scenario is becoming reality, now, 20 to 25 years later.

 

If #4 also happens within the next decade or so, to what extent must the circulation be disrupted, for everyone to agree that this prediction has also been met?

 

~

[Gankfest]

I know we have some renewable energy sources like Solar, wind, and hydro. How realistic is it to get every country on board, and really start fixing the problem. When I look at politics today, I see stuff like "We got to pass it, before we can see what's in it." then I turn off the T.V.! Are we going to be able to fix this, or are we F**ked. I guess I just want to know what scientists say what's being done, and if it's even making an impact. For me, just looking at the surface data and reading into it, seems like the real deal and it comes down to a little basic math:

 

If Human CO2 output has a relationship with fossil fuels and human population growth. Then if human population grows exponentially; then they all will grow exponentially. Which is the underlying problem I see, which is somewhat what Bill was trying to say here:

 

 

First thing Bill says it's the RATES that matter. I figure he's talking about the exponential curve of human population; which we have, or are going to hit soon(Idr this info. ). Once this happens the Fossil Fuel usage and the CO2 output will grow exponentially as well. Causing a faster rate of warming and rising temperatures. Which then creates a chain reaction; that leads to even more gases being released through the Earth's crust. Along with the polar ice melting releasing even more CO2.

 

From what I know about renewable energy, and how countries like China and Russia don't care... It just doesn't like good for us! That's my honest assessment, not like it really matters. It's only a matter of time before the world ends in <Insert Number Here>. Either way, I want to enjoy my time! I could be wrong too, as I might be wrong with the facts.

 

Also notice how Bill rocks a Bowtie well...

Edited February 19, 2014 by Gankfest

[iNow]

I know you're already convinced, but I forgot to include this other great resource for you and anyone else referencing this thread:

 

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

HOW TO TALK TO A CLIMATE SKEPTIC: RESPONSES TO THE MOST COMMON SKEPTICAL ARGUMENTS ON GLOBAL WARMING

Below is a complete listing of the articles in How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic, a series by Coby Beck containing responses to the most common skeptical arguments on global warming. There are four separate taxonomies; arguments are divided by:

• Stages of Denial,
• Scientific Topics,
• Types of Argument, and
• Levels of Sophistication.

Individual articles will appear under multiple headings and may even appear in multiple subcategories in the same heading.

 

[overtone]

 

 

First thing Bill says it's the RATES that matter. I figure he's talking about the exponential curve of human population;

He's talking about the rate of climate change - much of the harm from AGW is not from the total increase in the average global atmospheric temperature, say, but the suddenness of the onset of the increase. Nothing has time to adjust.

 

 

 

.. Of the four major [most general or basic] predictions (for the early stage of a global greenhouse event)

One of the observations I've found most persuasive to skeptics at the tiny end of the information funnel - regular people in the Sixth District of Minnesota, say, where every bar and gas station and public arena is playing Fox News on the public TV - is that greenhouse gas warming most strongly affects the nighttime temperature drop in the cold seasons, and no other warming cause accounts for that disproportionate effect.

 

That's something people can, and do, easily notice for themselves in the northern latitudes and drier climate zones. And personal experience is the only avenue of persuasion for that crowd.

[Gankfest]

Ya... I figured out and linked Morano to Exxon. Roy Spencer was part of the Cornwall Alliance...

 

 

So, Idk... Not like I'm going to argue every turd on the internet... I try to inform people, but people believe what they want to believe anyway... Nothing I can do about that. I go on Climate Depot, and where ever else and do some trolling; gotta do my part in the fight against miss information. I was already doing that anyway on Alex Jones sites and some other places.

 

Looking at this EPA page:

 

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/future.html

 

Best case scenario is 450 ppm, which scientists suggest that isn't safe. I guess only time will tell the fate of humanity like it matters anyway... If we were to parish to Global Warming it's only evolution running its course. From what I read: stupidity, greed, <Insert Fail Here> isn't calculated in the future CO2 emissions models.

 

How can we account for disasters like...

 

 

 

 

j/k, but not really... : D

Edited February 28, 2014 by Gankfest

[iNow]

I get frustrated when I think how much progress we could have actually made by now if our focus were on mitigating the problem instead of battling back the lies and denial.

[John Cuthber]

I get frustrated when I think how much progress we could have actually made by now if our focus were on mitigating the problem instead of battling back the lies and denial.

I'd like to click the "up arrow" on that quite a lot of times.

It would be less annoying it that were the only cartload of tripe coming at us from some quarters.

Here's a few "coincidences"

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/post/texas-gop-rejects-critical-thinking-skills-really/2012/07/08/gJQAHNpFXW_blog.html

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2013/11/01/only-tea-party-members-believe-climate-change-is-not-happening-new-pew-poll-finds/

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tag/republican-tax-cuts

 

Now, I accept that some people would say that's "partisan", but my belief is that it's simply an observation. The Right wing (They call them Tories in the UK, but the ideas are the same) are planning to trash the world so that they can maintain their privileged lifestyle.

 

Someone will probably complain that my assertion is off topic.

I disagree.

I think the right wing are the essential reason why the OP says "Not knowing anything about Environmental Science; makes it difficult to jump into the controversy, and understand the informal current 2014 scientific consensus!"

Nope, your lack of understanding of the subject doesn't make it difficult to jump into the discussion.

What makes it difficult is outright dishonesty by the right wing which parallels that by the tobacco industry.

[Johnny Electriglide]

The artificial controversy is just an excuse for business as usual until we cross the terminal tipping point where, accounting for momentum in the system, it will be too late to stop the "natural methane turnover reaction".

Looking at data from PETM which was only a 30% ELE, the rate of CO2 output is about 7 times higher(and methane turnover is only at the beginning), and the warming is 40 times faster.

If we are lucky, we have only until 2023 to reduce ALL HGHGs 90% of 2000 levels. After that, nothing will stop the process. Just like we blew it with overpopulation discovered in the 60s and the crash by 2050 mathematically impossible to stop since last century--1998 in my calcs.. So miserable survivors face increasing heat and malevolent weather, until 2300 to 2500 when thermal maximum is reached, and the current ELE completes with a 85-90% extinction rate.

Remember, that CH4 is 23 times more potent a greenhouse gas(for 15 years until co2/H2O breakdown and still more AGW. and it will be increasing exponentially after the population crash, especially, but even now, it has been reported since 2009. My family reduced their eco-footprint to 1/20th the US average, but everyone in the world would have to do it within 9 years, which to me, is logistically impossible. So, because of human greed, stupidity, overbreeding, and selfishness with inability or morals to see and think ahead of the consequences of their actions, those of us who do and can live sustainably with the morals of the great native Americans, will be the minority pulled down with the miserable rest of humanity.... extinction. Unless somehow someone can stay frozen and wake up and survive several million years later. Unlikely...

Edited March 1, 2014 by Johnny Electriglide

[Swedgen]

I know you're already convinced, but I forgot to include this other great resource for you and anyone else referencing this thread:

 

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

HOW TO TALK TO A CLIMATE SKEPTIC: RESPONSES TO THE MOST COMMON SKEPTICAL ARGUMENTS ON GLOBAL WARMING

 

There's another good site too:

 

www.realclimate.org

[vampares]

The Glen Beck perspective is important. People are erratic and value job security. With less disease, healthcare costs paradoxically go up. As demand for pulp goes down, deforestation increases to supplant the lost income which resulted from our supply and demand economy. We'd arrive at terms like "shock treatment" and "panic logging" in hindsight.

[Schneibster]

 

There's another good site too:

 

www.realclimate.org

 

And another one:

 

http://www.desmogblog.com

[hypervalent_iodine]

!

Moderator Note

Johnny Electriglide,

 

I have hidden your recent post in this thread as it violates rules pertaining to plagiarism and copyright infringement. If you are going to quote the work of other people, please provide more context and attribute it to them properly.

[Tim the plumber]

So there are 1,400 peer reviewed articles showing global warming a year are there?

Nope, not nearly that many.

If you have read this and ever post this graph again you are lying and know it.

[swansont]

 

So there are 1,400 peer reviewed articles showing global warming a year are there?

Um, no.

 

Nope, not nearly that many.

You're right. But since nobody has claimed or even implied that there are 1400 per year, this is moot.

 

13950 articles/22 years = 634 per year

 

 

If you have read this and ever post this graph again you are lying and know it.

Post your evidence to the contrary.