Is Global Warming Unstoppable?

At a complete loss huh?

If it makes you feel any better my wife looks like a cross between the secret agent from the TV show Chuck and Carrie Underwood.

Alric, if you need someone to talk to I'm here. I understand it can probably be pretty rough when your entire world comes crashing down. Your heroes aren't even climatologists, your heroes hid the decline, and you found out that your favorite blogs can't debunk anything.

Seriously if you need to talk I'm here for you.

 

Ufourya,

"You seem to want to cast all AGW skeptics in the negative light of self-interest or greed. I think you'll find plenty who are just as interested in the environment as are you. They just want to attack the real problems, not the imaginary ones."

I don't cast all AGW skeptics in a negative light, only deniers who reveal over and over their bias's. I would love to see some deniers who care as much about the environment as I do, but I haven't met one yet.

You haven't answered my "intuitive" query from a few posts back.

 

And you don't think that your bias towards the environment influences your choice if you believe in AGW or not? Your livelihood depends upon people wanting to help reduce their energy consumption. You strongly believe in taxing the population for "the greater good" as you call it. You are just as biased, just in the opposite direction.

(And just to say Ufourya from having to read back, what "intuitive" query?)

 

There are times in earth's history when there was no ice at the poles at all. Everyone knows that. It isn't evidence against AGW. Only a simpleton would think so.

 

I truly love that I tore everything you wrote to shreds and the best you can do is reply with an ad hominem.

Let me re-paste the take home message for you:

The strike against you: your post shows that great warming is not unique in human history. (Not that anyone really doubted it, with the MWP, etc.) Humans existed 125,000 years ago, and during that time period we had much greater warming than we are experiencing now. This shows that such great warming can occur without anthropogenic influences.

In short, you pasted an article that basically said relatively recently we have experienced warming well in excess of what we saw from 1980-2000ish and it is not unique. There is no way that the article helps your AGW argument. It only hurts it. You guys have really got to start reading articles before you paste them in. You can't just Google your way through a debate. lol.

 

The very posting that you quote is a response to your 'intuitive' query comment. I really don't feel obligated to respond to your queries sentence by sentence. You do need to be allowed a venting from time to time without having every single point refuted. So, enjoy.

You will find, by examining my many comments, that (when on topic) I have maintained the thrust of my argument. That argument is that the 'CO2 is the major culprit in AGW' has no empirical scientific basis. That hypothesis has its basis in computer modeling, which while interesting, proves nothing.

To say, the earth is warming and man emits more and more Co2 into the atmosphere as this warming is taking place, does not constitute proof of CAUSATION. It has become a belief construct.

I have linked many times to papers and posts from Roger Pielke, Sr., who is an ardent environmentalist and many of his papers revolve around the way in which man changes his environment. Yet, as a scientist he does not see CO2 as the most significant factor and has been castigated for this view. He points out repeatedly that there is no scientific evidence that a few more degrees of warming will result in the global catastrophes of drought, flood, parching, sea level rises of tens of meters, or any of the other wild and unsubstantiated charges. I have linked to other scientists who are no less environmentally concerned than are you.

In my view, your concerns for the environment, while admirable, are misplaced. You and millions of others have hitched to the wrong wagon. The globe and its inhabitants have plenty of problems. We should be focusing on the real ones rather than the umproven ones.

At the risk of going off topic again, I would direct your attention to the COP15 recently adjourned. The speeches there receiving the rousing, cheering responses were delivered by Marxists trashing capitalism. It was a political more than an environmental exercise. The people demonstrating outside the venue are even farther left than the ones inside. You ascribe a bias to me and others. I freely admit that I am a conservative and espoise conservative principles. I believe in the freedom of the individual. Totalitarianism in all its guises repulses me. Indeed, my parents fled Germany when Hitler came to power. They instilled in me a great love of this country, the country that accepted an immigrant family and afforded freedoms only dreamed of in other places. So I am biased, and rightly so.

In a very real sense we are all environmentalists. No conservative desires filthy air, undrinkable water, poisons in food, etc. We enjoy nature as much as the next person. But we seem to be able to spot a political scam wrapped in an environmental cloak more easily than our lefty neighbors.

So, in all the time you've 'spent with' me here on PC you failed to realize that this 'denier' (as you insist on calling me) cares as much about the environment as do you. For all you know, I may care more.

 

"I have linked many times to papers and posts from Roger Pielke, Sr., who is an ardent environmentalist and many of his papers revolve around the way in which man changes his environment. Yet, as a scientist he does not see CO2 as the most significant factor and has been castigated for this view."

This is also incorrect. Pielke tends to publish one thing and say another or to write in a style that might be easily misquoted. If you read his papers you'll see he argues correctly there are other causes of warming and their relative contributions. However, the additive effect of CO2.

Can you find a quote from a paper that supports your statement? Paper, not
blogpost.

Understand. CO2 and other greenhouse gases are not the primary causes of
climate. Think of the seasons. Human emissions just push the scales ever so slightly to have detrimental effects.

 

"Pielke tends to publish one thing and say another or to write in a style that might be easily misquoted."

Please show an example (and you may use both a paper and a blog post.)

"However, the additive effect of CO2."

Yes?

 

Alric ~

Your error is to rely on data and conclusions from scientists whose scientific credibility is in serious question. Why not present evidence from scientists who have no such allegations against them?

 

That darned George Bush caused all this. I inherited such a mess!

 

Because there is none! Where is the proxy data that shows something different? The different models? Except for very few exceptions there is very good agreement on the datasets and conclusions everyone has independently published using different methods.

The credibility of the scientists has not been questioned. Well, maybe in blogposts and news articles not by other scientists.

 

I don't believe you have looked very diligently. And you may delude yourself into thinking that theie credibility has not been questioned, but, again, you aren't really trying. In fact, it seems the blinders are firmly in place.

 

Well show me! All I have seen so far is link to blogpost that misinterpret or argue incorrectly about other peoples papers. Also the misinterpretations about the emails.

I show data from papers, cite relevant quotes from the papers and discuss the interpretation.

All that you, NP and other deniers do follow the pattern of:

1. Ad-hominem
2. Link to blogpost or news article
3. Use the link itself as proof of a point.
4. Ignore the responses of other.

 

I'm at the point where I sincerely feel bad for Alric. He has three graphs that he rotates in with different blocks of text, and despite being shot down *every* *single* *time* he keeps trying. It's like watching Rocky 1 over and over and over but never getting to see Rocky 2 - 6.

I mean, do I now post emails from Mann showing that he wanted to contain the putative MWP? And also post graphs from other scientists who don't damn the MWP like Mann did in an attempt to make our more recent warming look more dramatic?

And do I need to point out that I never said that CO2 was not a cause of any warming? I merely said that great warming is not unique, and the presence of warming in the past in no way makes the idea of AGW more true. The only error of "interpretation", Alric, is your reading of my post.

 

Ad hominems like these?

Alric, that's funny that you post the "list of things" because that looks like a checklist of a typical post you make. You have never shown it to be true that we have ever misinterpreted an email. You have never shown a blog article that was discussed to be inaccurate. In fact I don't know if you've ever successfully debunked anything.

We have the advantage of having facts on our side, and you have the disadvantage of having disingenuous scientists manipulating data in dubious ways on yours.

Your "data from papers" was a link to an abstract. Your "quotes" are copy-pastes from RealClimate's FAQ page. Your "discussion" involves changing the subject to something else after you've been demonstrably wrong. And your "graphs" are the same three ones posted over and over but each time you find a novel way to use it incorrectly.

The truly disturbing thing about my interaction with you is that I can tell you have a weird attachment to AGW. I really believe that you think if even a single hole is found in it, that the whole thing is untrue. That is not the case, Alric.

It's a fact that the CRU hack exposed deceitfulness, gate-keeping, data manipulation, and all sorts of other things. It's a fact our 1980-2000ish warming is not unique. Etc, etc. Does that mean that CO2 does not in some way contribute to AGW? No. Does that mean that the whole idea of humans contributing to climate change is completely falsified? No.

Once you realize that everything isn't black or white you will be a whole lot more interesting to talk with.

I gotta go to a family Christmas thing with my smoking hot wife. Be back later!

 

This ones for Icarus and Alric. You two have absolutely zero business mentioning bias.

A key thing to remember here is people on both sides of the fence, Icarus and Alric are just as biased to their side of the AGW agenda as TimBikes Ufourya, NevadaPrius, RadioPrius and I are to the anti AGW side.

The words bias coming out of Icarus and Alrics mouth are just freaking ignorant. They are just as biased actually more so than anyone involved in the argument. They wont even read the Facts posted by anyone else. Just claiming them as blogspot articles

Well I got news for you two. Guess what RealClimate is a blogspot too. So by your own argument. Anything you got from their. IE 90% of your argument doesnt mean squat.

 

I have a bias towards peer-reviewed published data. Guilty as charged. Oh, and logic too.

Even if I refer to a blogpost, which I avoid doing for facts, I do it only if the blogpost itself references primary material. As much as I can I reference primary material.

 

Are you trying to say none of the data that others post is published or "peer reviewed" Or are you just whining because its not "reviewed" by the peers on your side of things?

 

None might be too absolute. Let's say very little.