Print
E-mail
Share
digg
Newsvine
Facebook
Stumble
Technorati
reddit
Fark
twitterLetter to the editor:
It’s wrong to deny threat of global warming
Thursday, July 16, 2009 | 2:04 a.m.
Global warming deniers frequently allude to climate change in geological history. The point they are trying to make is generally only implied, but I think this is their argument: Global warming is a natural occurrence; therefore it is not caused by people and we can’t do anything about it. Climate change in geological eras occurred over a span of many millennia. Equating this with a change occurring over a few decades is a non sequitur.
Global warming ended an ice age and its animals 10,000 years ago. The world has been warming from purely natural causes at a rate of 1 degree in five centuries. We could live with that, but 1 degree in 30 years is a serious threat to our planet and our way of life.
If a man were to add an extra blanket to his bed, he would be warmer because less of his body heat would be radiated into the room. This is what we have done to the world. We have wrapped it in a blanket of carbon dioxide and other insulating gases by burning coal, gas, oil products and forests. The world is getting warmer because it is not cooling off at night as much as it used to.
Discussion: 81 comments so far…
Post a comment
- Most Read
- Discussed
- Most E-mailed
- Harrah’s working on plan to take over Planet Hollywood
- Judge’s divorce filing follows arrest of her husband, a lawyer
- Two years after Sports Illustrated feature, Bellfield says gamble paid off
- Task force taking down mortgage scammers, one at a time
- Contractors make another bid for Fontainebleau
- Martha Stewart has no business criticizing Palin
- UNLV zaps Holy Cross, 80-59
- Shooting in parking lot of CVS leaves man dead
- Las Vegas expecting more visitors this Thanksgiving
- Holiday shoppers skip turkey for Strip stores
Blogs
The Kats Report
Could a savior of shuttered Las Vegas Art Museum be ... Peter Max? (3 Comments)
For Paul Stanley and KISS, rock and roll is not over (3 Comments)
Twenty years ago today, Human Nature took root on the farm (1 Comment)
Robin Leach's Las Vegas Celebrity Watch
Photo Gallery: Donny Osmond’s triumphant return to the Flamingo
The Kats Report
'DWTS' champ Donny Osmond still deft afoot in return to Flamingo (8 Comments)
Politics: The Early Line
Meeting of GOP governors draws challengers, not Gibbons (3 Comments)
Politics: Ralston's Flash
Oscar loves forcing developers to sign labor peace agreements, Culinary loves the city's downtown plans and all is forgiven (7 Comments)
Calendar »
- 27 Fri
- 28 Sat
- 29 Sun
- 30 Mon
- 1 Tue
-
Bill Cosby at Treasure Island
Treasure Island Theatre
-
The Las Vegas Locomotives vs. the Florida Tuskers
Sam Boyd Stadium
-
Papa Roach at the House of Blues
House of Blues | 6:30 p.m. to 11 p.m.
-
Tuff-N-Uff at the Orleans
Mardi Gras Room | 7 p.m. to 11 p.m.
-
David Spade at the Venetian
The Venetian Resort Hotel Casino
The Sun
Locally owned and independent for more than 50 years.
Vernon: only block headed ingnorant fools deny even the remote possibility tht humans are contributing to global warming.
We have many that believe religous-scientists than legitimate scientits. Remember it was the G.W. Bush administration that stymied and silenced true scientific research in this area for the views of religion based science.
Many of the same fools do not belive the southwest is in a serious drought that may go on for decades or even centuries. In Las Vegas we have the fools who still believe they can continue to build more and more homes, business parks, casinos, highways, parking lots and use the endless supply of water that we really don't have. These are the fools that will turn Las Vegas into the biggest ghost town in world history within the next 30 years.
Vernon: we have a very uneducated public that know more about the facts and figures of sports and entertainers than they do about basic biology and world ecology. Very few of our citizens are knowledgeable about basic science.
Are you for real? It appears as though you've been brain washed like so many others. Take a look at this - it's exactly what you need to read - taken from the Hudson Star Observer. It's impossible for anyone to predict what's going to happen 50-100 years from now. Please remember that the carbon man emits into the atmospher is very microscopic. And for the person that mentioned the Southwest - did you know that the Southwest is a normally dry environment plagued by extreme dry air and heat???
__________________________________________
http://www.hudsonstarobserver.com/event/...
tlovesm - excellent article.
Don't forget about the Earth's "wobble" has a cause and effect.
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/pl...
Most people are not deniers of global warming but the fact is that many people are not convinced that America can fix the problem with the inept cap and trade bill.There has been no open inquisitive debate of anthropogenic global warming.
On 7-7-2009, Chu and EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson admitted that reductions in the U.S. alone will not be enough to avert the worst consequences of global warming. The hope is that the legislation will inspire other countries to also act.
"U.S. action alone will not impact world carbon dioxide levels," Jackson said.
When America goes it along and wreks our economy, othercountries will be LOL.
The smaller G-8 -- the U.S., Canada, Britain, France, Germany, Italy, Japan and Russia -- agreed July 8,2009, to reduce global emissions by 50%, and their own emissions by 80%, by 2050.
They agreed to allow a rise in temperature since about 1900 of 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit), by 2050. That's the point at which the Earth's climate system would fall into perilous instability, according to the United Nations' chief panel on climate change.
The 17-member Major Economies Forum chaired by Obama, on July 9, 2009 has omitted the emission reduction goals -- a sign that G-8 countries could not convince developing nations, notably China and India, to go along.
The G-8 has not been forthcoming on pledges of financing and transferring technology to the developing world.
The 17-member Major Economies Forum countries and Environment Groups are disappointed that their G-8 counterparts did not set short-term targets for 2020.
Without short term goal there is no reason to believe that 2050 targets will be met.
Obama told Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva today "that it is hard for us to go to certain countries in the world and ask them to do something that we don't appear to be likely to do."
The 17-member Major Economies Forum countries worried that major reductions could hamper their economies.
tlovesm,
Perhaps you could try a microscopic amount of methylmercury since, according to your 'logic', it could not possibly have any effect?
As for precession wobble see Milankovitch Cycles.
For those interested in what researchers, not what some local meteorologist says, have learned click on the 'start here' option at the top of this page:
http://www.realclimate.org/
No no no... are you daft??
You are confusing global warming with pollution, first of all.
NOBODY denies they pollution is a bad thing and we need to be better as a society to keep pollution down.
The people that DENY Global Warming/Global Climate Change are not at all saying that "it's been steadily increasing 1 degree" blah blah blah... we take a look at the environment around us. For the last 2 years, my state of Minnesota has been below average temperatures. On a regular daily basis of up to 10 degrees, and on a yearly basis of about .5 or 1 degree lower than average. And yet, Global Warming THEORISTS say that it's a statistical outlier. In the past decade, the average global temperature has stayed nearly steady or gone down and yet we are supposed to believe it's still warming.
Not to mention your theory about the man and the blanket is WRONG! That analogy only works if the Earth is the place creating the heat. Ahhh... but we're not! We NEED the heat from the Sun! If you put blankets over the bed when there's an EXTERNAL heat source, the bed actually stays COOLER with that extra blanket. So the problem we have to worry about is not Global Warming, but Global Cooling, which, in all actuality, is MUCH MUCH worse than Global Warming.
Let's just agree that we need to clean up our environment and act more responsibly with our waste. This Global Climate change argument is stupid. Pollution is bad, clean it up!
Dont worry Vegas, and the sceptics, you will pull through, 97 degs just now, and the forecast is perhaps up to 110 this weekend, so what, you may say, its always this warm, OK, then what if it increases another 6 or 8 or 10 degrees, no problems you say we all have A/C, maybe, but if the rules in the future say close down the fossil fueled plants, and you still havent invested in renewables, what then, go driving with the A/C on full blast. Use that space between your ears for a change
"We have wrapped it in a blanket of carbon dioxide and other insulating gases by burning coal, gas, oil products and forests."
Vernon -- are you Chinese?
mshaffer,
The article was written by a meteorologist but it is NOT just his opinion...this is a quote from the article...
"Over 30,000 scientists are now saying that humans are not causing changes in global conditions," Dahl said. "The climate has 'changed' since the planet began."
...the fact of the matter is that there is NO conclusive evidence that global warming/climate change is due to man-made greenhouse gas emissions.
But do law makers really care about the climate? The issue of climate can be debated forever. I think we have a real issue here, but it is rather disgusting to see our elected officials simply use it as front to jump start a Wall Street economy. Was there a Terror attack on 9-11. Of course there was. Did Bush use it to get what he wants? Of course he did. Obama needs a boogyman to scare people into supporting his green economy. He has global warming, but is he really helping us produce our own energy? No. We can not buy affordable solar or wind energy producing items.
Global warming is the democrat's War on Terror. They never really cared about it. People need to learn to read between the lines. Fear is the way they control your support of them.
Real Climate==Environmental shill site:
RealClimate.org is assumed by those who do not know any better to be an "objective" source on climate change. It features activist scientists with degrees in Geology, Geosciences, Mathematics, Oceanography and Physics who are all self proclaimed "climatologists". Yet skeptical scientists with equivalent credentials are not (probably because they have not proclaimed it). Essentially the site exists to promote global warming alarm-ism and attack anyone who does not agree with their declaration of doomsday (proven of course by their own computer climate models) and the need for government intervention against the life supporting, atmospheric trace gas, carbon dioxide. Standard operating procedure is to post "rebuttals" to everything they disagree with and then declare victory, making sure to censor comments challenging their position. It doesn't matter if they actual rebutted any of the science or facts just so long as they provide the existence of a criticism. This gives their fanboys "ammunition" to further promote alarmist propaganda across the Internet (and of course declare victory). Their resident propagandist William Connolley's job is to edit dissent and smear skeptical scientists on Wikipedia. In the world of global warming alarmist "science" pretending you win is apparently all that matters because in real debates they lose. The truth is that RealClimate.org is an environmentalist shill site directly connected to an eco-activist group, Environmental Media Services and Al Gore but they don't want you to know that.
Sunlizard said...
"Was there a Terror attack on 9-11. Of course there was. Did Bush use it to get what he wants? Of course he did"
...could you explain what Bush wanted and how he used the terror attacks of 9/11 to get it? TIA
Just think how much better off this country--and this world--would be right now if Al Gore had been President the last eight years. I mean, just think about that: no King George ruining everything, from education to the entire Earth.
Al Gore would have prevented the housing bubble by herding all of us into sustainable apartment buildings...except for himself, of course.
Oh my god!! I'm just going to send Al Gore 25% of my pay check right now. We are all gonna die.
"The truth is that RealClimate.org is an environmentalist shill site directly connected to an eco-activist group, Environmental Media Services and Al Gore but they don't want you to know that." and there it is! not to many people can express it better or simpler than that! Rusty57 is spot on...
Is air pollution a problem? yes. Is global warming (aka climate change, doomsday or whatever these money hungry only looking for themselves to get richer maniacs will attempt to brainwash all to believe) a problem? Not in any way. But of course this is my opinion and will be trashed without any REAL or even HARD evidence by a lot of posters here!
"Dont worry Vegas, and the sceptics, you will pull through, 97 degs just now, and the forecast is perhaps up to 110 this weekend, so what, you may say, its always this warm, OK, then what if it increases another 6 or 8 or 10 degrees, no problems you say we all have A/C, maybe, but if the rules in the future say close down the fossil fueled plants, and you still havent invested in renewables, what then, go driving with the A/C on full blast. Use that space between your ears for a change"
Really depends on which model you looks at. There are some people working for the USGS (a federal agency) who are predicting the Mojave Desert will recieve more rain due to a projected shift in the climate. This is neither good or bad, yet it does show that recent predictions of climatic shifts that have become mainstream, are focused on a more simple scenario that predicts hotter temps in the southwest.
"Several global climate models predict that a doubling of atmospheric CO2 concentration and its accompanying warming effect will significantly increase both winter and summer rainfall, or possibly just summer rainfall, in the southwestern desert region." Frequency of El Nino events may also increase. This will result in increased biological productivity and plant biomass in the Mojave Desert. Source: Effects of global change on Mojave Desert ecosystems, S.D. Smith, T.N. Charlet, L.F. Fenstermaker, B.A. Newingham, In: The Mojave Desert, Ecosystem Processes and Sustainability, 2009, edited by R.H. Webb, L.F. Fenstermaker, J.S. Heaton, D.L. Hughson, E.V. McDonald, D.M. Miller, University of Nevada Press, Reno.
That doesn't mean we shouldn't be producing clean energy, but it does suggest that people like Reid are in need of the most dire news that fits a "world burning up" model. Remember, fear sells good. Technology is limited. We can not predict the exact future with a simple computer model.
Climate is anything but simple. It can still be effected in a negative way by our emissions yet a shift in the climate does not always mean "warmer" for the whole planet. More like drier in some regions and wetter in others. What we do know is that the latest science that is broadcasted by the media conveniently reflects the democrats futile attempts to jump start Wall Street.
Boy, lots of stuff on Climate models today, can we stick a fork in AGW yet???
http://www.dakotavoice.com/2009/07/new-s...
"Today Reuters published a similar article stating that during the Palaeocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum event, temperatures on earth rose 5-9 degrees Celsius within a few thousand years. Far before evil capitalists came along to wreck the planet, earth was much warmer and had no ice at all on the surface, the report says.
Gerald Dickens and Richard E. Zeebe have a peer-reviewed article just published in the journal Nature Geoscience which says "unknown processes accounted for much of warming in the ancient hot spell." Zeebe admits, "I don't think we can say much about what the humans are doing."
Climate Depot cites other scientists who realize how incredibly weak is the foundation for the contention of anthropogenic global warming.
"Over geologic time. there has been 15 to 25 times more CO2 than current concentrations; the claim that this time we will reach a tipping point is alarmist, ludicrous, and totally without foundation," declared atmospheric scientist Robert W. Endlich on July 12, 2009. Endlich tests weather software at the Physical Sciences Laboratory at New Mexico State University, and is a former weather officer with the U.S. Air Force who has published papers in the technical literature."
Once again.... There are answers to the issues that face the USA in the areas of the drought in the American southwest and the issue of global warming ... but ... We will not have the opportunity to address these issues in a logical manner .. WHY? ... Because the chicken littles and the monied interests are firmly in control and neither side is interested in intelligent answers to the problems facing us!
As long as the status quo is making the rich folks richer there is no incentitive for them to act and the chicken littles among us are too worried about the possibility that the sky might be falling to stop running around in circles while staring skyward.
Real answers to the issue go wasted while the government lines us up for plucking via a scheme called purchasing carbon credits.
Rusty,
Also just released today...
The hefty "Climate Change Reconsidered: The 2009 Report of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change" weighs in at more than 4 pounds, and is available free online.
"We see no evidence whatsoever for the claim that the warming of the last 50 years is due to human activities," co-author Dr. S. Fred Singer said in presenting the report. "On the contrary " we see evidence against man-made global warming."
It's the crazy religious people that don't think it's necessary.
I'm sick of these "right wingers" who are the most selfish people in the world.
WWJD? Huh? Huh????
I think they would do better to adapt that to try to change the climate. I think it's mostly a tax scheme anyway
A quick question: If man wasn't around as the Earth was coming out of the last Ice Age, how did the Earth manage to warm sufficiently to sustain life?
Could it be that these cooling/warming trends are natural and have nothing to do with man?
Mr., WWJD??!!??, are you serious.
I am no right wing religeous nut-job but I do not believe a word of the global warming garbagio.
Do we need to change our ways? Yes, but we do not need to throw the baby out with the bath water.
We need to slowly change our ways. The freekish enviro-nuts want extreme change yet continue to reap the benefits of living in a modern mechanical society.
I mean really, how would the green kooks surf the internet all day and bitch about global warming if modern electricity didn't power the internet.
Just because you use a solar laptop skippy doesn't mean google is powered by renewable energy.
Our_Linn
And heres a quick answer to your tricky question, I dont know, but it could have something to do with the hydroflontaganisticating of the earths climate
For readers who are less than impressed by missives written by people who hide behind fake names and want reliable information your local higher education library is a good start. This is where the peer reviewed literature containing the actual research will be found. But be prepared that there are thousands of papers to go through and you will have to spend hundreds of hours getting a sense of it. None of the people above have done this or had a good formal educational background or they wouldn't be spouting the nonsense above.
If any readers want to take a shortcut please click on the "start here" link of the main page of Real Climate.
For an antidote to the nonsense of "30 thousand scientists disagree" with global warming please search for please read the background information on the Oregon Institute for Science and Medicine here:
http://www.desmogblog.com/flawed-oregon-...
To see what legitimate science agencies are saying see here:
http://www.logicalscience.com/consensus/...
Mschaffer
Good recommendation, Real Climate.
AND!!!!, just for the fun of it, why not read 2 books by Mark Lynas, "High Tide" all facts, not fiction and very interesting. The other book is called SIX DEGREES, and it is exactly what the title says, what could happen to our planet IF we get to +6 degs C
"what could happen to our planet IF we get to +6 degs C"
The key word in your post is COULD .. Why didn't your source say WILL HAPPEN Uddered ONE?
No need to answer as you and Mschaffer need to spend most of your time outdoors watching for sections of falling sky!
Sarcasm on:
Isn't that nice that pmmart knows what uddeboda and I are doing.
Should I be looking over my shoulder? Nawwwww
pmmart should tell us who it really is or I could just state that it is paid by the oil industry to spread misinformation and idiocy. Hmmmmm...
The evidence for warming being human caused comes from computer models. Since computer models consist of what we believe we know about climate, it is a circular argument to say that they provide evidence for what we don't know. I don't have to be a climate scientist to know a logical fallacy when I see it.
Further, these models have proven themselve's innacurate by their inability to predict the current cooling trend.
I should anticipate the ad hominem attacks by explaining that I have no connection to any group, but have graduate level training in philosophy of science - no bias, no axe to grind.
I think politics has infected science and THAT is the grave danger we face...
What did the people of Tennessee see in Al Gore? Not much. They didn't vote for him, his home state.
Mschaffer
The biggest difference between you and I lies in the fact that I use common sense while you allow yourself to be lead by folks with a hidden agenda.
What will happen if/when the "westernized" countries give the undeveloped countries billions [trillions?]of dollars for "carbon credits"?
Will the citizens of those countries demand that their standard of living be elevated to ours regurdless on the environmental costs? [3rd world countries aren't subject to the articles of the Kato accord]
Will Wally World figure out how to run high voltage lines to America from the unregulated coal fired electrical plants of China and India?
As for Uddeboda's commentary ... Join MSNBC's message boards and follow his "train" of thought ... If you still value his "insightful" contributions you will prove that you are just another gadfly with a "fake name" and a hidden agenda.
Yeah, that Real Climate site is a real unbiased source of climate change/global warming information....just like MSNBC is a real unbiased source for politics...LOL.
But here's another article that proves that the disagreements between real scientists about climate change/global warming are REAL.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/200...
floydo,
There are many lines of evidence for global warming that have nothing to do with computer models. Try here:
http://www.elmhurst.edu/~chm/vchembook/g...
The computer models are based on well established physical processes and look to estimate future warming. While statistics will always mean there is some uncertainty about the models this does not, in simplistic black and white terms, mean they are not useful and being refined to become more so.
If you are going to claim there is a "cooling trend" please post the source for this information and let's see if their data is valid.
I do agree that politics has interfered with science as has been shown under the Bush administration when many scientists protested the rewriting of their reports by non scientists.
pmmart,
What special sources of information do you have that have ferreted out this "hidden" agenda?
Are you quoting me on Uddeboda are making the quotes up? Please point to where I used the term insightful regarding Uddeboda and, if so, in what context. Otherwise, learn what the quotation marks are for and stop abusing the English language.
Finally, we come to enteaser who doesn't point to any factual or logical errors on the part of the climate researchers posting on Real Climate but makes up charges of bias.
Yes there are things not yet known regarding past climates but this just means that the effects could be worse due to this x factor. What this means is that knowledge moves on leaving you far behind.
Where you reveal your ignorance is in acting as if only one thing at a time could be influencing climate rather than, as the research clearly shows, several factors acting simultaneously.
Mschaffer
"Where you reveal your ignorance is in acting as if only one thing at a time could be influencing climate rather than, as the research clearly shows, several factors acting simultaneously"
"Several factors" sounds like the usual cover for I don't have a clue what I'm talking about.
I hope I didn't misuse the quotes in the above paragraph.
Apparently common sense has no seat at the table when you folks are pressing your agenda of bankrupting what little you and your liberal friends have left for America.
Good luck with your plans ... NOT!!!!!
Mschaffer I think you misunderstand the thrust of my argument. It's clear that a scientific argument has to be logically valid. The argument for human caused global warming cannot be validated any other way than by a computer model, since the "human caused" part of the warming theory has no laboratory in which to test it other than computer modeling.
Now, take a model of the solar system. A computer can precisely predict the movements of the planets and moons many years into the future, because the calculations are based on observation. In the climate model scenario the reverse is true: the model is supposed to PROVIDE the observations for us. With the solar system we have observed phenomena that builds the model, in climate science we are asking the model to provide our observations. The science is backwards.
If you didn't understand how an internal combustion engine worked, what good would it be for you to build a model of how you think it works? Would your model be EVIDENCE of how it works? Of course not. How is a climate model the EVIDENCE that global warming is human-caused? If we can't observe human causality any other way, then climate models only restate the GUESSES of the scientists who built them, exactly as you would be guessing how an internal combustion engine works.
The important take away here is that there IS no other way of demonstrating human influence on the planet's tempurature than by computer models. There's not one other way. So the argument is quite simple, really. The logic of it is there for all to see, and it is clearly a circular argument, aka begging the question, aka petitio principii.
The reasoning is flawed, so why do yo believe it?
Sure Mr. Bostick; the same nuts who want the federal government to build cars, run our banking sector, provide us with quality health care and suck the vitality out of our economy and personal lives through taxation and regulation....................are going to dramatically impact the climate?
Look at the federal programs now in place for 40, 50, 60 years? Shouldn't we have a utopian world at this point after spending 100s of billions of dollars on social and development programs.
What arrogance and what a bunch of nuts! HANDS OFF MY CARBON FOOTPRINT!
pmmart,
No several factors would refer to the forcings of GHG's (e.g. CO2, Methane, solar inputs, etc.) versus feedbacks (water vapor levels, CO2 caused ocean acidification, cloud feedbacks, etc.). Clear?
floydo,
You are precisely wrong as it has been over a century worth of observations that has led to model building. You cannot point to any research by atmospheric scientists where the models were built first because it doesn't exist.
In any case the evidence in the literature is overwhelming and I would offer to meet you at UNLV to search that literature.
Your claim that the reasoning is flawed is not even wrong as your premise is not even wrong.
Can you show how the basic physics of how GHG's work is wrong, get your results published after passing peer review, and overturn the understanding of all these organizations?
http://www.logicalscience.com/consensus/...
So, who to believe? Every single nationally recognized science organization or cranks like the two of you?
Mschaffer, Isn't it required that science be able to point to evidence that global warming is human caused? Where, then is the evidence for that causal connection? We are told that it exists in climate models. I am merely pointing out the absurdity of such a cliam that evidence can be derived this way. You are free to believe what you want, however, if you can explain - yourself - how the logic of such a claim is not flawed, then at least you could demonstrate that you know what you are talking about.
Appeals to authority do not impress me. The history of science is nothing less than the history of consensus thinking being constantly overturned.
You seem like you spend a lot of time referring people to this or that article. I am telling you that, if the logic is fallacious then none of that makes any difference!
floydo,
There is a mountain of direct evidence for human caused global warming in the peer reviewed literature at UNLV. My offer stands for you to meet with me so I can show it to you. Or look here for the direct evidence (although I don't expect you to be able to comprehend the validity of the IPCC and instead will gratuitiously smear those with far better reputations than yourself):
http://www.ipcc.ch
Alternately, if you were not deliberately blinding yourself to the evidence you could read what the authoritative sources have to say using Google Scholar. Since you are not interested in the experts I assume when you have a medical problem you go to a homeopathic quack for your remedies? Or do you use an authority in the form of an M.D.??? Are you really this ignorant?
You are telling me the logic is fallacious with an exclamation point but have completely failed to show that such is the case. Again you are not even wrong in your opinions.
Even better we could meet with this researcher:
http://geoscience.unlv.edu/matthewslachn...
or I could send you his public lecture I have on USB thumb drive on paleoclimatology.
Your final choice is to remain ignorant which is the most likely proposition.
Well, I don't require a whole mountain of evidence! I would like only one thing: where has the fact of human causality been demonstrated?
That's not too much to ask, is it? Or is it that we simply believe people with wonderful reputations and don't ask questions?
floydo,
Where have you looked?
You don't know the answer, do you?
No. Where and what sources have you used?
You don't need anything from me. If the science is valid, then it should be very easy to provide one thing: how human causality is demonstrated.
You should be able to explain this in your own words.
I can, but you are the one doubting the valid science so I would ask, again, what have you looked at? Anything? And why won't you meet with me to look at peer reviewed journals to show you this information? Cognitive dissonance.
You are avoiding the question...
Once again mschaffer is confronted about the falsehoods from the global warming cabal, and once again his/her beliefs are shaken to the core and he/she cannot bear to deal with the reality of the situation.
Man is not creating global warming. Al Gore, running off at the mouth, is.
Oh I forgot, you (mschaffer) wants sources, etc.
The major source is common sense. I don't need an electrical engineer to explain why the filiment in my toaster gets hot when I turn it on; I know it's hot. Same with global warming; I observe who is running off at the mouth and what their agenda is and voila, I get my answer.
getalife,
Do you have any facts to add?
floydo,
So the answer is you have not taken any formal classes on climate nor have you looked at any credible research and you are ducking meeting me at a research library to show you how over the course of a century human causality has been amply demonstrated. OK. You are done here.
Does anyone else want to talk about the actual science? Or click on the "start here" link at the top of the main page here:
http://www.realclimate.org
Oh and for interested readers page 100 of this report explains clearly the attribution for current warming.
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report...
Mschafer,
As appealing as your repeated offers to meet sound, I am afraid that I have a firm "no rendezvous policy" with strange people whom I have met over the internet - libraries or elsewhere. Perhaps there is a university club or something where you can meet people who will be interested in sharing your literature?
As for my being "done" here, since you are not a moderator, I presume that you mean you will no longer reply to posts from me. I understand perfectly.
Just so you know, I looked quickly over your material and could not find where human causality of global warming has been scientifically demonstrated. Once again (and I apologize for being so repetitive) perhaps you could summerize the proof for the rest of us. After all we may all yet be converted...
"CO2 goes up, temperature goes up, CO2 caused it" That's what you believe, right?
If that's the argument then we need a way of rationally demonstrating that CO2 is the cause, and validating tha argument througAfter all there are other potential causes, right? Many h observation. There are, after all, better candidates for the greenhouse effect than CO2 (methane, water vapour).
So how is it proven?
Isn't it computer models? Don't computer models provide the evidence? (the answer to that is "yes, computer models are our only evidence")
Now, I have outlined the circularity of that argument, so you understand my difficulty with the science.
I don't understand why you need other information from me? Is it because you can't refute what I have set out above?
Refute it or let it stand as fact!
If YOU cannot refute that argument, then YOU are done here....
NEXT!!
floydo,
Perhaps this will explain in a way easy for you to understand.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/arc...
But I don't hold out much hope.
Yes, I understood the science before I posted. "Steps" 4 and 5 are at issue - unproven except in models.
What you seem unable to penetrate is the rhetoric of this science, and discern what is actually demonstrated and what is hopeful guesses (i.e. the important bits)couched in convincing - definitive sounding - terms.
I tire of your lecturing, self satisfied tone. It's obvious that you know nothing of Western rational tradition, which has nothing to do with endlessly pointing to other people's work but has to do with training yourself to discern on your own.
You sound like someone's paid spokesperson, or what Stalin used to call a "useful idiot". You talk down in insulting, condescending tones, for no other reason than people do not agree with your point of view - which, by the way, would not exist except that someone told you what to believe! This is obvious because you never say anything, other than insults, without posting a URL.
I believe that my education, such that it is, was to better purpose. I hope to God that your parents aren't paying for yours!
I will bet that you are not so tired as to not respond to me.
Much science operates by some form of modeling so your criticism lacks substance. In the case of climate forcings, models are constructed to check the understanding of the basic physics. Lab experiments have confirmed that basic physics, so now hindcasting is used to see how closely the models following past climates. Statistically they are doing quite well.
The information is all there at UNLV and yet you don't want to face it. Your education has failed at the point that your assumptions are challenged.
As to my parents, my father passed away many years past and my mother is currently vacationing. She is proud that I was magna cum laude in attaining my B.S. My philosophy professor would find your remark about my not knowing the "Western rational tradition" funny after our study of Plato and my reading about other western philosophers.
Right now I am not being paid by anyone at all but that merely allows me to catch up on reading books of interest. I just finished "Idiot America" about people who believe in various fantasies such as the christian mythology of dinosaurs and people existing together at the same time and am now reading Paul Krugman's "The Return of Depression Economics" written in 1999.
My last statement from my prior post still stands and I hold little hope that you are interested in learning and that cognitive dissonance rules your ability to accept the grave harm humanity is inflicting on our supporting environment.
Yes, science very often uses models, as explanaitions and to predict. But as such models are arguments and are valid or invalid -- they are subject to logical analysis. I never said that the use if models itself is problematic, but have consistantly pointed out that climate science is making an invalid argument with ITS models. So please construe my point of view accurately before you tell me my "criticism lacks substance".
I have yet to have an answer from you on how human causality has been demonstrated. For someone who touts their thourough understanding of the subject matter, it seems disingenuous of you to consistantly dodge this fundamental issue (though, I understand why you do...)
Anyhow to your point about climate models and their accuracy. You stumble over my point and don't recognize it!
We are talking about a very SIMPLE argument, when you strip away the rhetoric. I don't know if you are old enough to remember this, but not that long ago the scientific consensus was that eggs are bad for you because of the colesteral in them. When arteries harden they are clogged with colesteral, eggs have colesteral, scientists said "Don't eat eggs". THAT'S a predictive MODEL. And it's argument is logically similar to the AGW argument. We know arteries are clogged with colesteral -- we know that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. We know that eggs have colesteral -- we know that burning fossil fuels releases CO2. You shold be able to see how the two SIMPLE arguments are logically quite similar. HOWEVER, nobody had the gall -- ever -- to build a computer model using what they thought they understood about the effects of eating things high in colesteral and call that EVIDENCE for eggs being bad for you. Such an argument is meaningless as evidence! And without the computer model as evidence then climate science is left with nothing that SHOWS that we are responsible for global warming
You either don't understand my point or are avoiding addressing it. So how about this: the next thing you write is, first, a demonstration of how you get my point (i.e. You explain it back to me), and second show me how I've gotten things wrong.
I really doubt you are capable of either thing.
Hi Floydo,
Have you ever taken a logic class? It really doesn't seem as if you have.
Your assertions are very badly put and confused but if you are suggesting simply that correlation is not causation that has been dealt with not by the use of models but by direct measurement.
1)You have already agreed that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and according to the literature the primary one at work in modern warming.
2)CO2 levels have been rising since the beginning of human impacts on the biosphere and have accelerated since the beginning of the industrial age. See the Keeling curve for the measurements of this.
3)All the rise in CO2 since the beginning of the industrial age is demonstrated to have come from fossil fuel combustion by careful isotopic analysis of carbon from these fuels. Since they have been out of circulation for millions of years they are depleted of radioactive isotopes that carbon circulating through the biosphere contains.
For a good simplified explanation see:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/arc...
None of this requires a model, just good careful measurement.
QED.
On to your next misunderstanding...
What is the evidence for your FIRST POINT, "according to the literature the primary one at work in modern warming."?
Again, avoiding the issue! This is what remains to be demonstrated! and it is THE fundamental point you need in order to be convincing.
"according to the literature" is the sum of your argument, and it means nothing.
How about some proof that the temperature is impacted by human agency? The fact that CO2 is a greenhouse gas AND that its concentration has increased
(A)Doesn't eliminate other causes for warming
AND
(B)Doesn't demonstrate CO2's causality for the current warming.
Both of these are required to demonstrate AGW. You go round and round dodging the same issue: the only place the evidence for A and B exist is in the climate models which is clearly circular!
floydo,
I really have to give you credit for working so hard to avoid the knowledge of how GHG's work.
Since you are afraid to meet me at UNLV why don't you go and look at the literature on your own to verify what it says? After all, it should be a simple matter for you to find credible research that overturns what every single reputable science organization understands about this grave problem.
You could ask to meet with a physicist from UNLV such as John Farley who has publicly given talks on GHG's. When you note his major area of expertise don't ask what it has to do with GHG's or you will reveal an astounding level of ignorance.
http://www.physics.unlv.edu/~farley/
While you are at it look here:
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/
Now just continue your brave stand against all knowledge out there on this subject.
How about you just answer my question yourself, hmmm?
Where can I find the evidence that global warming is human caused? The answer is that the only place it exists is in climate models, right?
Climate models cannot provide evidence, they only convey theory. Their predictions are theories, not evidence.
Therefore...there IS no evidence that global warming is human caused.
Right?
And NO, I am not meeting you anywhere.
Why won't you answer my question?
OK, OK, I will meet you at the UNLV library, under one condition, that you stop obfucating and, 1st, deal with my issue directly.
Your entire argument for AGW can be summerized thus: "Look at all these smart people who have said this is true. It MUST be true!" That doesn't make you intelligent, it makes you a groupie. Pointing to various articles doesn't mean you are fluent in the subject matter. NOT being able to answer a fundamental question about the science means that there is a problem either with your understanding, or with the science itself. Which is it? You should look in your heart and answer this question, because trust me, you may be able to make me go away, but this question will not.
Wow! You are like the energizer bunny of cognitive dissonance.
The answer for where the evidence lies is in the research that can be accessed at any good research library.
QED.
When do you want to go?
While you are avoiding meeting me take a look at this:
http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/FAQ/wg1_faq...
I found these the other day. They express my point of view better than I can:
http://sciencespeak.com/NoEvidence.pdf
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?c...
.....And another question: why, Mschafer, do you join an online discussion when defending your views requires meeting in person in a library?
These two links do show how easy it is to fool you.
The hotspot does exist and Evans has been debunked:
http://bravenewclimate.com/2008/08/10/dr...
Also, I do not require meeting in person to show you the research. It is just that you will accept cranks such as Evans but reject evidence from actual researchers, so I make the offer to see if you can change your mind when either meeting with knowledgeable people or if you are closed to facing how wrong you are.
So when do you want to go?
More background on your 'expert':
http://www.desmogblog.com/who-is-rocket-...
and:
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2008/07/...
But keep digging a hole for yourself.
I don't care about anybody's background, or even (GASP!) their motives. Just the facts and the argument.Arguing "at the man" (Ad hominem) is a fallacy.
Anything you can show me in the library you can tell me here. Unless you're afraid of a record of your ignorance
Why floydo,
I have told you and given you authoritative sources to read. You just have shown no evidence that you have read them and understood them.
Try here and when you respond I would like to know any specifics that show you have understood and read the article:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/arc...
I don't need to show evidence! I have an opinion and you - the supposed expert - have no means of addressing it, other than referring me to other people! How can you claim to understand it if you can't explain it? Oh wait, you CAN explain it, but would rather I read all your literature...whatever.
I've read the REALCLIMATE literature, and understand it. What you don;t get is that I understood it before: telling me how you come up with the figures you come up with is NOT demonstrating how that argument jibes with reality. It's the same thing over and over and over: "here's what our model says" and "here's how we made up our model" what's missing is the ESSENTIAL point: "here's how we've proven that our model is right, eliminating all other explanations for warming."
You should know that everything you've said here is CONFIRMATION of my beliefs. I don't care what you think of me, I am interested in the TRUTH. That's all I want. You say nothing but point to literature. You have no means of expressing YOUR OWN BELIEFS!! Reread your posts! You claim to know, but say nothing!
I'm not interested in discussing this with you if all you do is refer me constantly to other sources. If YOU believe something, then YOU should be able to say it yourself. Otherwise I am leaving this dicussion NO LESS CONVINCED than when I began.
Again, reread your posts! They make you look like you are afraid of the issue you believe in. You don't answer questions, or engage in debate. You seem to have one technique: if you don't have an answer change the subject any way you can. Don't you see how this disingenuous (i.e. BS) tactic WEAKENS your position? I am an intellectually honest person, willing to listen and discuss - willing to admit when I am wrong. Your approach has left me feeling that you are not an intellectually honest person, but are disingenuous and evasive. That discredits your position more than I think you understand.
I will read your next post. If it is not your own expression of your understanding, addressing the issue I am interested in, then I will assume that you don;t have the wherewithal/ guts and integrity to ever do so, AND will assume that you are not worth bothering with.
.
Floydo, floydo, floydo,
Yelling does not increase the validity of what you are saying at all.
My belief is in the strength of the scientific method where reasoning and evidence and veracity is valued as a method to best describe reality. The truth is that you reject the best evidence which shows with a very high degree of confidence that humanity is performing an uncontrolled experiment on the Earth's climate and environmental systems by injecting large amounts of known green house gasses into the atmosphere. I understand you prefer to attack me rather than offer high quality research that supports your opinion because no such research exists.
Perhaps you can show how you, without any outside evidence or the efforts of others, have arrived at your belief. Or, since you reject the models, can you logically show the flaw in the models and present your reasoning to the researchers and see what they have to say about your outlook. They have made the models and they are best equipped to critique your opinion.
Floydo,
When do you want to meet to see the research?
Floydo,
Rest assured that future nonsense you post on this subject will be debunked as well.
Take care,
Mark Schaffer