The Cellar - Global warming?

The Cellar (http://cellar.org/index.php)

- Current Events (http://cellar.org/forumdisplay.php?f=4)

- - Global warming? (http://cellar.org/showthread.php?t=18734)

Two recent articles in Newsweek discussing how we have not attempted to adapt to climate change and how we are underestimating our ability to innovate.

http://www.newsweek.com/2011/05/29/a...-for-more.html

http://www.newsweek.com/2011/06/12/b...he-planet.html

I've read her stuff... She's been spouting that same story for years.

http://www.yaleclimatemediaforum.org...hoax_cover.jpg
http://www.yaleclimatemediaforum.org..._hoax_note.jpg

Quote:

Originally Posted by Undertoad (Post 679839)

If a post on GW is contains either the words "denier" or "warmist" it is really talking about people and not science. At that point it is just game-playing and can be ignored.

Naysayer probably fits as well as "denier" or "warmist"

Quote:

Originally Posted by Coign (Post 740136)

My point is we are doing damage to our economy, our rights, and social structure in the attempt to fix something that most likely doesn't even need fixing.

It is the equivalent of Dark Age medicine. We know a fraction of what we need to, yet we are bleeding ourselves out in hopes that it will cure us.

My offered solution, is quit trying to fix it until you know what it is you are trying to fix. You are causing way more damage than you are pretending to solve.

I see the expense as analogous to homeowner's insurance. You pay for it, not knowing what might happen, you may never need it, but if you don't spend that money, you might get fucked.

From The Economist of 24 Jan 2011 entitled "Climate change and evolution":

Quote:

By itself, as we always say, one hot year doesn't prove anything. The fact that every one of the twelve hottest years on record has come since 1997 is a little harder to wave away. 2010 was also the wettest year ever, corresponding to the expectation that higher heat means more water vapour. More countries set national high-temperature records in 2010 than ever before, including the biggest one, Russia. Arctic sea ice in December was at its lowest level ever, temperatures across a broad swathe of northern Canada have been 20 C higher than normal for the past month, the record temperatures are coming despite the lowest levels of solar activity in a century and a La Nina effect that should be making Canada colder rather than warmer, and so on. It is of course possible that global warming plateaued this year; it's also possible that it plateaued this morning. One can always hope! For now, though, this is the basic shape of things:

The George Will "global warming has ended" moment shows up as that little dip towards the end, before it returns to trend. So, what effect will the new data have on that meme? Quite possibly none. People who tried to cast doubt on global warming in 2009 based on a few years one could isolate so that they didn't show a discernible trend will now no doubt respond that a couple of very hot years don't prove anything. Which underlines how often the conclusions one draws from data are determined by a combination of the hypotheses you're framing, and at what point you start looking.

So naysayer pretend this is not happening? Those ostriches continue by simply denying and ignoring.

Blogs (not science) dispute facts. Subjective reasoning replaces quantitative facts and reality?

Expecting science to subvert climate change advocates, a Republican Congress sought immediate testimony from Dr Muller. Only to learn what their political agenda is again contradicted by science.

From The Economist of 31 Mar 2010 entitled "A record-making effort":

Quote:

Various criticisms of the methodology and probity of the temperature records have been made, though much more often in the blogosphere than in the scientific literature. Erring on the side of extra caution is not a bad idea, and various efforts are underway to develop, corroborate and better to underpin the work on temperature records that has been done to date. One such effort is the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature programme, which Dr Muller heads. ...

Rather than look at carefully (and similarly) selected subsets of the data it would look at everything available, just as astrophysicists frequently seek to survey the whole sky. Rather than using the judgement of climate scientists to make sense of the data records and what needed to be done to them, it would use well designed computer algorithms. Put together under the aegis of Novim, a non-profit group that runs environmental studies, the team gathered up a bit over half a million dollars - including $100,000 from a fund set up by Bill Gates and $150,000 from the Koch foundation, whose animosity towards action on climate change made the Berkeley project look yet more suspicious to some climate-change activists - and got to work. ...

The results look very like what the other three teams have seen. ... The earth has warmed by about 0.7 C since 1957, just as the other teams claimed. Adjustments made to the data on a site-by-site basis which have had some suspicious sceptics hopping mad seem to have made no appreciable difference. ...

Dr Muller also, more controversially, reported on results that pertain to a specific point made by climate sceptics; that the temperature record is contaminated because many of the stations used to compile it are in inappropriately located. This idea is particularly associated with Anthony Watts, a former television weatherman who runs an extremely popular website catering largely to a climate-sceptic crowd. Mr Watts has led an impressive crowdsourcing movement devoted to checking out the meteorological stations that generate climate data in America. This has found that a really surprising number of the instruments concerned are not sited in the way that they should be, being inappropriately close to buildings, tarmac and other things that could cause problems. ...

The Berkeley team compared the data from the American sites Mr Watts thought were worst situated and the sites he thought best. It found no statistically significant difference in the trends measured in the two different categories, though the warming trend in the better sites is slightly stronger.

This analysis echoes one carried out last year by scientists at NOAA, which when looking at a subset of Mr Watts's data found much the same thing. The Berkeley team's result, though, is perhaps more striking, in that Mr Watts had made all his data available to Mr Muller and his colleagues, a step he seems now rather to regret.

Impressed by the Berkeley set up, Mr Watts wrote in a post published March 6th:

Quote:

I'm prepared to accept whatever result they produce, even if it proves my premise wrong. I'm taking this bold step because the method has promise. So let's not pay attention to the little yippers who want to tear it down before they even see the results. I haven't seen the global result, nobody has, not even the home team, but the method isn't the madness that we've seen from NOAA, NCDC, GISS, and CRU, and, there aren't any monetary strings attached to the result that I can tell. ... That lack of strings attached to funding, plus the broad mix of people involved especially those who have previous experience in handling large data sets gives me greater confidence in the result being closer to a bona fide ground truth than anything we've seen yet.

Results did not agree with his political agenda. So now Mr Watts is attacking the study. Of course. The science only makes sense when it agrees with a political agenda. The same political agenda that can only deny numbers and provide none.

Quote:

The Berkeley work, especially after it is published and disseminated in full, may increase the acceptance of the reality of global warming among people who have so far managed to maintain a comforting and sometimes self-serving feeling that maybe the people who deny that anything is going on are actually right. It doesn't in itself show how much of the warming is due to human activity. Dr Muller, in a somewhat cavalier way, chose to suggest that about half of what had been seen since 1900 was. Other scientists would put the proportion higher.

So where is science that disproves it. Yes, the same naysayers will post the same subjective denials. Subjective reasoning also said Saddam had WMDs. No way around facts with numbers. Global warming does exist. It is created (fully or in part) by man. With adverse planetary effects.

How much? How fast? How severe? Only those are controversial. Involves numbers. Numbers also proved Saddam WMD claims were mythical. Numbers also define global warming. Numbers are always missing in posts that deny only for a political agenda.

A political agenda said Muller would expose data discrepancies. Those discrepancies cites by a political agenda do not exist when numbers are provided. Only exist in subjective (also called low intelligence) reasoning. Same reasoning massacred 4,500 Americans soldiers (more numbers) in Iraq for no useful purpose. All praise extremism for rationalizing subjectively to advance mankind.

Honest posters, Coign, post with numeric facts.

Quote:

Originally Posted by classicman (Post 740185)

I've read her stuff... She's been spouting that same story for years.

Funny how others who use logic, honesty, and numbers to predict accurately are, to you, lying. Your political agenda petticoat is showing.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tw (Post 740203)

Funny how others who use logic, honesty, and numbers to predict accurately are, to you, a lie.

tommy - where did I say it was a lie?

Please quote and/or cite or apologize.

I got the sense that you were being dismissive - must be the word 'spouting'.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fair&Balanced (Post 740158)

What damage to the economy? The long term damage to the economy will be a result of the US falling behind China, India etc in developing clean energy technologies.

50 billion dollars spent in America is damage to the economy.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fair&Balanced (Post 740158)

What rights have been damaged? The right to keep using incandescent light bulbs after 2014? The long term damage, at least to some degree, is the adverse health impacts for many as a result of the increasing levels of anthropogenic CO2 emissions.

So instead of a 100 watt incandescent bulb you prefer the mercury in florescent bulbs?

And the pusher for this law was/is GE. Because I am sure they are only thinking about energy conservation and not the money they will reap by forcing you to buy their product.

And on that train of thought, it is unconstitutional for our government to tell us what we can or cannot buy if the item is "legal". (This brings up thoughts of healthcare but I will not get into that here.)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fair&Balanced (Post 740158)

What damage to the social structure?

To answer this, see above. Out government should NOT be spending money on faulty science forcing me to buy products that they have investments in, and fining and imprisoning those who do not follow their laws. If you can declare "light bulbs" illegal, were does it stop? Let me repeat that, DECLARING PERFECTLY SAFE LIGHT BULBS ILLEGAL, that is a destruction of rights.

Why do people not see this? Wake up. You give the government more power over your life each time you say, "well they are just light bulbs, that isn't so bad." Next it will be gas, then traveling itself, maybe they should determine how much power our house can draw. I'm sorry, you can't have that extra TV because that will take you over your allotted power usage for your home.

THIS IS BULLSHIT AND NEEDS TO STOP NOW!!!!!

Do not give them a hair more power. We must fight them and their control over what we choose to buy, consume, or live our life.

Here are some quick links you really need to at least open and read the headlines.

http://climategate.tv/

http://wattsupwiththat.com/

http://infowars.net/articles/august2...807Warming.htm

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles...290607ipcc.htm

http://www.dailytech.com/Survey%2BLe...rticle8641.htm

Quote:

Originally Posted by tw (Post 740199)

Honest posters, Coign, post with numeric facts.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spexxvet (Post 740191)

I see the expense as analogous to homeowner's insurance. You pay for it, not knowing what might happen, you may never need it, but if you don't spend that money, you might get fucked.

But this should be voluntary not mandatory. It is an invasion of my rights to require what and how much insurance I have. The Federal Government should have ZERO say in this. (Car insurance is a state law, not federal. And that is an argument on a whole different track.)

Federal Government should have just enough money to:

Quote:

However, the Constitution assumes some civil duties, and these are inherent in the Constitution.

For example, the Constitution presumes lawfulness. It is a responsibility, then, to obey the law. For those who do not, there are protections, but the presumption of lawfulness is apparent.

The Constitution sets rules for a conviction for treason against the United States. This presumes loyalty to the United States. It is a responsibility, then, to be loyal to the United States

The Constitution presumes juries, particularly an impartial one. It is a responsibility, then, to serve as an impartial juror when called.

The Constitution presumes an army and a navy, and provides the Congress with the power to raise armies. Service during war is also mentioned. It is a responsibility, then, to serve in the armed forces when called.

The Constitution is peppered with amendments that expanded the right to vote - many people, over several centuries, have worked hard to bring the vote to as many people as possible. With few exceptions, all persons, 18 or older, can vote in any public election. It is a responsibility, then, to vote.

Every other dollar of funding should be removed from the Federal Government.

http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_resp.html

The Bill of Rights are there to protect us from the Constitution and Government.

They are constantly under attack by our Federal Government who thinks they know better than we do on how to live.

Here is another link you should watch on how we are slipping from a Republic and into a Democracy and this "green movement" is another lubricant making it happen.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DioQo...&feature=share

Quote:

Originally Posted by Coign (Post 740331)

Why do people not see this? Wake up. You give the government more power over your life each time you say, "well they are just light bulbs, that isn't so bad." Next it will be gas, then traveling itself, maybe they should determine how much power our house can draw. I'm sorry, you can't have that extra TV because that will take you over your allotted power usage for your home.

Sorry. I must have been unconscious for a bit after falling down that slippery slope.

Quote:

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45 (Post 740337)

Sorry. I must have been unconscious for a bit after falling down that slippery slope.

You don't think this is happening? Requirement for fuel efficient cars? TSA? Wall Street bailouts? Pushing for a welfare state? Warrantless search and seizure? Warrantless wire taps? Warrantless entry into homes? Entering your home for absolutly NO REASON WHAT SO EVER?

This is happening RIGHT NOW. This is not a slope, this is here right now and getting worse every year. I am afraid of the slippery fall off the cliff.

http://www.truthout.org/indiana-supr...hts/1305811094

http://www.infowars.com/financial-te...ights-hostage/

http://www.npr.org/news/specials/nsa.../legality.html

http://www.epa.gov/fueleconomy/regulations.htm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Coign (Post 740334)

But this should be voluntary not mandatory. It is an invasion of my rights to require what and how much insurance I have. The Federal Government should have ZERO say in this.

Your rights end where mine begin, and I have a right to not have my climate fucked up by you. You don't have the right to do any damn thing you please without regard for other people. If we could put a big bubble around you, you can pollute as much as you want, and you only hurt yourself. But since we can't, the government can regulate how much you pollute.

Right now there is more than enough evidence to say that the Earth's climate is changing. While climate changes are normal throughout Earth's history, it has always had negative short term consequences on humans, usually results in declining economies (from drought and shortage of food), many people dying, and forcing humans to adapt to the new climate. More than ever, with how our agriculture system, economic system, and infrastructure works, a climate shift will have very large short term negative effects on the Earth and humans as an entirety.

Does this mean that our way of life will end as we know it? No, we will have to adapt to the new climate. But, the transition process will be very brutal on our economy and many people, mostly people in third world countries, will die or go through some very tough times.

Going back to the climate shift. The question is not whether it is happening but how much is from human impact? There is a large amount of evidence supporting both sides and I imagine that we are going through a natural climate shift and human impact is just exaggerating the effects. That means we can probably do some to lower the magnitude of changes but they will still occur no matter what.

So this is where government regulations come in. Since one consequence of a free market is that it tends to put short term investment gain over potential long term interest, especially when it comes to situations where the future is completely uncertain as with climate change, sometimes government regulation is needed to act in those long term interests. Banning DDT is a great example of how government regulation can be positive for our society. But, as you said, we can not accurately predict how we will affect the environment, it is too complicated for that, so the impact of government regulation or lack of government regulation is uncertain. That is why climate change is so controversial. Government action could result in positive consequences or negative consequences. We just don't know. And since we only have one life, we can never check to see if any other decision would have been better. But, this lack of knowledge is also not an excuse for inaction either.

If you want to take government regulation on climate change as an excuse for a power grab, go ahead. I realize I am not going to change your mind. But, we are not blind to what is happening. We just see it in a different way.