Never not spring break, Earth in 2014 hotter than ever

[Cackalacky]

And what I'm saying is that, even if I caved and said the quoted is 100% true (which I don't believe), those "normal trends" have historically been WAY more drastic (ice ages) than the "alteration caused by humans," so who gives a shit?

Again utter horseshit. You are just making shit up because you choose to ignore the hard results supported by hundred of disciplines. Those normal trends are not more drastic relative to carbon dioxide levels which is important because the elevated carbon dioxide level TRAPS HEAT IN THE FUCKING ATMOSPHERE!!!!! Never in the history of the world has carbon dioxide levels been higher since photosynthetic organisms evolved and started converting atmospheric carbon dioxide into oxygen and oxygen/CO2 levels stabilized millions of years ago.

 

[Cackalacky]

I would say anything health care related is ammo for political agenda. These vaccines cause this....Try this one instead.....

Right? But honestly vaccines are less political than hard core pharmaceuticals and all of their side of effects. The burden of proof to get medicine into market is laughable compared to the burden of proof of analyzing and publishing climate data/research.

 

[RyCo1983]

I love IE.

Take him to school boys.

 

[phork]

 

[Domina Nostra]

You recently became a father, right? How do you feel about vaccines? I've read some scary stuff about them being the cause of all sorts of health problems for children. Our species, after all, is roughly 200,000 years old, but America only began systematically vaccinating its populace about 100 years ago. Risking the health of one's child when our data set only covers 0.005% of human history seems mighty irresponsible, no?

Whiskey, I agree with your logic almost all the time, but you mailed it in this time. Still, I bet you will read what I am about to write, and, like a machine, try to tear it up, whether you agree with it or not!

Here goes...

The vaccine analogy doesn't work at all.

- We all know in the most concrete, verifiable way that tons of people die from viral infections every year.
- We also all know in the most concrete, verifiable way that vaccines work to stop many of those viruses.
- We have extremely little evidence suggesting that vaccinations may cause other problems in a small amount of people that take them.
- Failing to vaccinate may or may not prevent those other problems, but it will defintily leave your child exposed to serious viruses.
- People vaccniate in the face of the tiny evidence that vaccines are harmful, because of the the concrete, unquestionable evidence that they are beneficial.
- Periods of longer than a single lifetime are completely extraneous to the benefits of vaccines.

Your analogy makes it sound like peple are saying, "even though we know we civilization is likely to end if we don't institue these GHG rules, we shouldn't implement them because there is good evidence they might drive up interest rates." But that is not what people are arguing. They are arguing that we don't know that climate change is real, because the data is not reliable.

And the years to years comparison is apples to oranges. Whether or not viruses work has nothing to do with how long they have been tested: People heal. Blood samples are taken. Antibodies appear, viruses disappear. Conclusions are drawn.

With climate change, the whole question is whether we can draw conclusions based on a limited sample size. No one is arguing that climate change science isn't good because its new. THey are arguing that the data set it relies upon--ie, a period of 100 years from 1880-2015--is impropper for drawing the conclusions it is drawing.

In medical terms. If a person is exhibitting certain symptoms, and you give them some chemical, and the syptoms disappear, do you have enough information to conclude that the chemical was the reason the symptoms disappeared?

 

[Cackalacky]

Whiskey, I agree with your logic almost all the time, but you mailed it in this time. Still, I bet you will read what I am about to write, and, like a machine, try to tear it up, whether you agree with it or not!

Here goes...

The vaccine analogy doesn't work at all.

- We all know in the most concrete, verifiable way that tons of people die from viral infections every year.
- We also all know in the most concrete, verifiable way that vaccines work to stop many of those viruses.
- We have extremely little evidence suggesting that vaccinations may cause other problems in a small amount of people that take them.
- Failing to vaccinate may or may not prevent those other problems, but it will defintily leave your child exposed to serious viruses.
- People vaccniate in the face of the tiny evidence that vaccines are harmful, because of the the concrete, unquestionable evidence that they are beneficial.
- Periods of longer than a single lifetime are completely extraneous to the benefits of vaccines.

Your analogy makes it sound like peple are saying, "even though we know we civilization is likely to end if we don't institue these GHG rules, we shouldn't implement them because there is good evidence they might drive up interest rates." But that is not what people are arguing. They are arguing that we don't know that climate change is real, because the data is not reliable.

And the years to years comparison is apples to oranges. Whether or not viruses work has nothing to do with how long they have been tested: People heal. Blood samples are taken. Antibodies appear, viruses disappear. Conclusions are drawn.

With climate change, the whole question is whether we can draw conclusions based on a limited sample size. No one is arguing that climate change science isn't good because its new. THey are arguing that the data set it relies upon--ie, a period of 100 years from 1880-2015--is impropper for drawing the conclusions it is drawing.

In medical terms. If a person is exhibitting certain symptoms, and you give them some chemical, and the syptoms disappear, do you have enough information to conclude that the chemical was the reason the symptoms disappeared?

The more correct analogy would be that the HIV virus causes AIDS which has a specific cause, mechanism, and behavior.

The recorded by man temperature data set IS small but luckily temperature is a function of, and affects numerous other natural phenomenon that can be and HAS BEEN measured with great reliability stretching back hundreds of millions of years. So people claiming that the data set is small are incorrectly stating that as a fact and are ignorant of all the data and results. Ignorance can be corrected through education and open dialogue, but many people are like wizards, and are consciously being intellectually dishonest

 

[Domina Nostra]

(1) The more correct analogy would be that the HIV virus causes AIDS which has a specific cause, mechanism, and behavior.

(2) The recorded by man temperature data set IS small but luckily temperature is a function of, and affects numerous other natural phenomenon that can be and HAS BEEN measured with great reliability stretching back hundreds of millions of years.

(2) So people claiming that the data set is small are incorrectly stating that as a fact and are ignorant of all the data and results. Ignorance can be corrected through education and open dialogue, but many people are like wizards, and are consciously being intellectually dishonest

(1) This is something that people can argue about, obviously. Whether temperature data is accurate to 1/100ths of a degree for millions of years is something well-informed people can debate. The problem I have with the global warming crowd is the constant self-righteous, emotive, "ad hominem" arguments that sound almost faith-based: you are a denier, you ignore science, the debate (which we never actually had) is over...

(2) Maybe they are wrong. But lots of well-informed, well-intentioned people are dead wrong about a lot of things. The accusation of intellectual dishonesty is grating.

 

[Cackalacky]

(1) This is something that people can argue about, obviously. Whether temperature data is accurate to 1/100ths of a degree for millions of years is something well-informed people can debate. The problem I have with the global warming crowd is the constant self-righteous, emotive, "ad hominem" arguments that sound almost faith-based: you are a denier, you ignore science, the debate (which we never actually had) is over...

(2) Maybe they are wrong. But lots of well-informed, well-intentioned temple are dead wrong about a lot of things. The accusation of intellectual dishonesty is grating.

1) This is exactly my problem with the deniers. At this point is not a debate. Are you capable of arguing against the veracity of ice sheet mass balances in relation to local and global albedo levels? Popular opinion is not a basis for debating scientific data. Conflating trusting scientific data supported by multiple disciplines all pointing to the same conclusion with faith and is typical of deniers. Its not a matter of faith that evolution occurs or gravity bends light. Any percieved arrogance is likely from having the data to back up the assertions instead of saying...."That fact conflicts with my opinions so I am going to disregard it." That is intellecutal dishonesty defined.

2) See #1. I specifically called wizards intellectually dishonest and I can back that claim up because he has a track record of being given information, by me, and completely disregarding it without bothering to read it. He also has shown no indication to learn anything about this topic and consistenly posts lame, unfounded, and unsupported arguments from a position of being informed on the matter. This is sadly common in the climate change discussion on both sides and is also intellectual dishonety defined.

Further, the fact that something conflicts with ones perception makes it no less real and impactful on one's life. So sometimes that hurts people's feelings.

 

[Grahambo]

The last couple weeks in MD have been friggin cold, mid to low 20's type cold.

I also don't buy into the climate change propaganda.

 

[Domina Nostra]

1) This is exactly my problem with the deniers. Conflating trusting scientific data supported by multiple dieciines all pointing to the same conclusion with faith and is typical of deniers. Its not a matter of faith that evolution occurs or gravity bends light. Any percieved arrogance is likely from having the data to back up the assertions instead of saying...."That fact conflicts with my opinions so I am going to disregard it." That is intellecutal dishonesty defined.

2) See #1. I specifically called wizards intellectually dishonest and I can back that claim up because he has a track record of being given information, by me, and completely disregarding it without bothering to read it. He also has shown no indication to learn anything about this topic and consistenly posts lame, unfounded, and unsupported arguments from a position of being informed on the matter. This is sadly common in the climate change discussion on both sides and is also intellectual dishonety defined.

Further, the fact that something conflicts with ones perception makes it no less real and impactful on one's life. So sometimes that hurts people's feelings.

LOL! Agree with some of that. I thought you said "many people, like wizards, are...," i.e., comparing people to wizards.

I agree that some people ignore data for their own reasons, no doubt! But science corrects itself, science is wrong all the time! I believe in the Big Bang, but I don't think its a fact.

And you say it is not a matter of faith that evolution occurs or gravity bends light. But to me, as a lawyer, there are very different types of scientific claims.

While you can observe somethings in a lab, like a chemical reaction, you can only hypothesize what happened in space billions of years ago, or what you think happens to light as it travels 1,000,000,000 miles through space for millions of years. Is the gravity distorting the light, is it traveling through some unknown medium, is light effected by some particle that we don't know about that becomes relevant in such vast times and spaces? Is there an issue with our equipment that matters at this level of inquiry? That is a lot different than an experiment that is repeatable again and again here and now.

That is not to say that the scientist's hypothesis isn't dead on, but the proof is a lot different, and you shouldn't accuse people of bad faith for treating them as such. Scientists should be a little skeptical!

So if some people question the validity of the climate record, or the scientists application of data, or their conclusions, that does not strike me as anti-science.

Personally, based on what I have read, I have my doubts that we have enough evidence right now that we can conclude with certainty that human beings are causing the type of climate change that imperils civilization.

 

[NDPhilly]

OP

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/a9wmczxnT3c" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

[Whiskeyjack]

Whiskey, I agree with your logic almost all the time, but you mailed it in this time. Still, I bet you will read what I am about to write, and, like a machine, try to tear it up, whether you agree with it or not!

I hope that's not the way I come across...

The vaccine analogy doesn't work at all.

I agree that the analogy doesn't work on lots of levels, but I was only employing it in a very limited fashion-- to criticize his overriding focus on the size of the data set at issue here. First, he greatly underestimates the size of the available set, and second, I suspect he's comfortable making important decisions about his own life based on sets that are at least as small.

Scientists should be a little skeptical!

There's the rub, because they are! Our peer review system is specifically designed to undermine prevailing models. If the overwhelming consensus in favor of impending catastrophic anthropogenic climate change has empirical weaknesses, the man who disproves it would immediately become a legend. So there are huge incentives to discredit it, but that's not happening. The fact that 97% of scientists across every discipline agree with the consensus, despite those powerful incentives, creates a strong negative inference that it's correct.

But the skeptics continue to latch onto that 3%. They're demanding a level of proof from the ACG advocates that their own side could never hope to carry. So unless you buy into some grand conspiracy theory about the scientific community (literally everyone, across all disciplines) being in on a sinister plot to concentrate power under the guise of "carbon controls", the skeptic's case doesn't withstand even the slightest scrutiny.

 

[irishog77]

Why does Wizards put, "ETA," in almost all his posts now?

 

[Cackalacky]

LOL! Agree with some of that. I thought you said "many people, like wizards, are...," i.e., comparing people to wizards.

I agree that some people ignore data for their own reasons, no doubt! But science corrects itself, science is wrong all the time! I believe in the Big Bang, but I don't think its a fact.

And you say it is not a matter of faith that evolution occurs or gravity bends light. But to me, as a lawyer, there are very different types of scientific claims.

While you can observe somethings in a lab, like a chemical reaction, you can only hypothesize what happened in space billions of years ago, or what you think happens to light as it travels 1,000,000,000 miles through space for millions of years. Is the gravity distorting the light, is it traveling through some unknown medium, is light effected by some particle that we don't know about that becomes relevant in such vast times and spaces? Is there an issue with our equipment that matters at this level of inquiry? That is a lot different than an experiment that is repeatable again and again here and now.

That is not to say that the scientist's hypothesis isn't dead on, but the proof is a lot different, and you shouldn't accuse people of bad faith for treating them as such. Scientists should be a little skeptical!

So if some people question the validity of the climate record, or the scientists application of data, or their conclusions, that does not strike me as anti-science.

Personally, based on what I have read, I have my doubts that we have enough evidence right now that we can conclude with certainty that human beings are causing the type of climate change that imperils civilization.

See this is a fundamental misunderstanding and mischarachterization of the argument. Chemical reactions are so predictable that their yields can be calculated to extreme precision and in varying environments. Likewise physics is also very reliable. Consequently the evidence for evolution is quite clear in its conclusions as well. All the fundamental forces governing chemical reactions have been stable for virtually the entire life of the universe. So yeas we can understand what happened even billions of years ago and create accurate and valid models to "PREDICT" behaviors. This is the most awesome aspect of scientific knowledge. Science is self correcting. That is a good thing but that does not mean obtained data is erroneous. Scientists go to great lengths to produce unbiased and accurate conclusions and even then are couched in hedges and assumptions and corrections so that the data can be fully interpreted as being accurate.

First hand knowledge is not a requirement either. The physical properties of the universe have been constant therefor there is no expectation that water would boil at any other temperature that it it does or that protein formation in aqueous solutions would behave any different. Another reason the predictable power of science is so powerful. Lawyer or not, your arguments against the power of predictability would be serious threatened under any scenario.

You can question the process. No one is saying you can't. But again the vast majority of the peer reviewed data is valid whether you it or not even if you can't understand the methods used and models created.

 

[Domina Nostra]

But the skeptics continue to latch onto that 3%. They're demanding a level of proof from the ACG advocates that their own side could never hope to carry. So unless you buy into some grand conspiracy theory about the scientific community (literally everyone, across all disciplines) being in on a sinister plot to concentrate power under the guise of "carbon controls", the skeptic's case doesn't withstand even the slightest scrutiny.

IMO, there are not that many scientists in each relevant field that we can really talk like this all the time.

I do buy into the idea that some of the most respected people in this particular field were blocking and undermining peer review in different ways. I read the emails. You can write those off, but I don't.

I also think that the person would not be a hero. For goodness sake, people on football boards call them deniers! More importantly, they would also be very disliked by a lot of people who make very important decisions about funding.

 

[Andy in Sactown]

The last couple weeks in MD have been friggin cold, mid to low 20's type cold.

I also don't buy into the climate change propaganda.

You realize that a consequence of global warming is hotter summers and colder winters, right? Basically more extreme weather patterns and less seasonal stability.

This extreme winter doesn't disprove global warming; if anything it's direct evidence of it's effects.

 

[Irishnuke]

Why does Wizards put, "ETA," in almost all his posts now?

Because they're coming...

 

[Andy in Sactown]

Why does Wizards put, "ETA," in almost all his posts now?

Because they're coming...

It's more than a river in Egypt..

 

[Grahambo]

You realize that a consequence of global warming is hotter summers and colder winters, right? Basically more extreme weather patterns and less seasonal stability.

This extreme winter doesn't disprove global warming; if anything it's direct evidence of it's effects.

I was making a point on how cold it was, said nothing about extreme weather.

And again, I don't buy into the global climate shenanigans.

 

[NDinL.A.]

These are the times I'm happy that I'm not smart enough to understand the intricacies of important topics like global warming. With my penchant to argue, I'd have spent hours and hours arguing with a dude who has a fingers stuck in both ears while I was trying to debate the points of the argument.

Actually, maybe that makes me smarter than whiskey for the first time in....ever. Haha

 

[TDHeysus]

I think its funny when someone plays the "its the hottest year in recorded history" card

They fail to point out that 'recorded history' is barely over 100 hundreds years. The last 100 years compared to actually how long weather has been on this earth, is less than .0001% of history.

So ppl are basing their propaganga off of a dataset containing .0001% of the point they are trying to make.

seems legit

 

[IrishinSyria]

I think its funny when someone plays the "its the hottest year in recorded history" card

They fail to point out that 'recorded history' is barely over 100 hundreds years. The last 100 years compared to actually how long weather has been on this earth, is less than .0001% of history.

So ppl are basing their propaganga off of a dataset containing .0001% of the point they are trying to make.

seems legit

It's like the scientific community hasn't even heard of the Archean Eon, AMIRITE?

 

[Cackalacky]

I think its funny when someone plays the "its the hottest year in recorded history" card

They fail to point out that 'recorded history' is barely over 100 hundreds years. The last 100 years compared to actually how long weather has been on this earth, is less than .0001% of history.

So ppl are basing their propaganga off of a dataset containing .0001% of the point they are trying to make.

seems legit

You clearly didnt read any posts after the OP. Lol.

 

[phgreek]

I hope that's not the way I come across...



I agree that the analogy doesn't work on lots of levels, but I was only employing it in a very limited fashion-- to criticize his overriding focus on the size of the data set at issue here. First, he greatly underestimates the size of the available set, and second, I suspect he's comfortable making important decisions about his own life based on sets that are at least as small.



There's the rub, because they are! Our peer review system is specifically designed to undermine prevailing models. If the overwhelming consensus in favor of impending catastrophic anthropogenic climate change has empirical weaknesses, the man who disproves it would immediately become a legend. So there are huge incentives to discredit it, but that's not happening. The fact that 97% of scientists across every discipline agree with the consensus, despite those powerful incentives, creates a strong negative inference that it's correct.

But the skeptics continue to latch onto that 3%. They're demanding a level of proof from the ACG advocates that their own side could never hope to carry. So unless you buy into some grand conspiracy theory about the scientific community (literally everyone, across all disciplines) being in on a sinister plot to concentrate power under the guise of "carbon controls", the skeptic's case doesn't withstand even the slightest scrutiny.

I'm less a believer in the peer review process self correcting flaws. I've seen it intentionally manipulated, and inadvertently manipulated by market forces. On the surface, and based on history peer review is meaningful. However the current funding for research seems to weaken this. Non-profits with international reach and governments are not devoid of agenda, and by natural selection "compliant" organizations thrive. Personally, I see funding mechanisms driving an evolution of confirmation bias...

I'm not saying there hasn't been good, verifiable science...but I'm skeptical that it has been vetted in an equally dedicated fashion to that of its development. I kinda look at it like this. Recall the Y2K bug. This was a small issue requiring a little bit of attention, however, the IT community, as well as electrical engineers, and component manufacturers blew it up into a global scare, and NO ONE benefited from debunking half the crap people used to sell the impending doom, and everyone who could say Y2K made a fortune. Not the best comparison, but you get my point. Sometimes simultaneous head nodding occurs, and the head nods are supported by breathtaking science, and modeled scenarios, but it turns out to be hugely overstated.

So I remain concerned about human factors related to climate change, but I still question the "heart" or veracity of the counter attack inside the science community. I am not necessarily moved by discipline convergence, although somewhat assuring. Until I see an economically viable option to be in the dissenter column in equal number and resource as that of the developers of the data, I'll look upon it all with a slightly raised eyebrow.

And BTW, a BIG part of my living comes from solving air pollution problems...but I choose to deal with issues impacting immediate human health and quality of life. I figure if Climate change is not overstated, I'm helping there too....

 

[Booslum31]

What did the polar ice caps look like 1.2 million years ago? 3.6 million years ago? Nobody can convince me that man is speeding up or slowing down what's been happening naturally for hundreds of millions of years. Now, the air is certainly dirtier and man has certainly contibuted to that. I'm all for cleaning up the air that we breath. I think the rest is bullshit...politically motivated bullshit.

 

[ACamp1900]

This is basically the whole thread... Bunch of blow hards convincing themselves of their own truth...

 

[Booslum31]

This is basically the whole thread... Bunch of blow hards convincing themselves of their own truth...

Totally agree. Just convinced myself i am correct...again!

 

[Cackalacky]

I am definitely a blowhard on this subject matter. Most definitely. Its not my first rodeo either. In fact the arguments against are so predictable that its extensively catalogued here:
How to talk to a Climate Skeptic
We can real talk if people want. My personal feeling is that, whatever evidence is presented that it will do little good as no one will read my shit anyway. I have previously submitted several posts packed with goodies and references and citations and figures and it has not furthered the discussion here. But I do not apologize for calling people out on spreading misinformation and passing it off as fact.

 

[Irish YJ]

Thats a fair point, but the fact that global warming is happening is a fact. Look at the polar ice caps. This isn't just a hypothesis. Things need to change and need to change ASAP.

Yep, global warming has been occurring since the ice age, right?

 

[IrishinSyria]

What did the polar ice caps look like 1.2 million years ago? 3.6 million years ago? Nobody can convince me that man is speeding up or slowing down what's been happening naturally for hundreds of millions of years. Now, the air is certainly dirtier and man has certainly contibuted to that. I'm all for cleaning up the air that we breath. I think the rest is bullshit...politically motivated bullshit.

Here's what I don't get. You're willing to admit that man has contributed to be the air being dirty. Presumably, that means you're willing to accept that man's actions can actually change the composition of the atmosphere, unless you're using a definition of dirty that I'm not familiar with. Finally, you probably also agree that the greenhouse gasses in our atmosphere trap heat.

If those three things are true, I don't understand why people resist taking that final step and saying that if we're increasing the carbon density in the atmosphere, we're probably increasing the average temperature of the earth as well. It just seems like a simple conclusion to make to me. Even better that long term observations seem to support that notion.

That all being said, I think there's still a lot left to debate. To what extent is global warming happening? What's the timeframe, what are the consequences, what are the likelihoods of various scenarios playing out? How do we balance our commitment to the economy with our commitment to the environment. After all, economic growth in places like China and India has lifted billions out of poverty. If the cost of that growth is global warming, that may not be a bad trade-off, even if hundreds of millions of people have their lives impacted by it.