Only 20% Think Debate About Global Warming Is Over

[green73]

Voters strongly believe the debate about global warming is not over yet and reject the decision by some news organizations to ban comments from those who deny that global warming is a problem.

Only 20% of Likely U.S. Voters believe the scientific debate about global warming is over, according to the latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey. Sixty-three percent (63%) disagree and say the debate about global warming is not over. Seventeen percent (17%) are not sure. (To see survey question wording, click here.)

Forty-eight percent (48%) of voters think there is still significant disagreement within the scientific community over global warming, while 35% believe scientists generally agree on the subject.

The BBC has announced a new policy banning comments from those who deny global warming, a policy already practiced by the Los Angeles Times and several other media organizations. But 60% of voters oppose the decision by some news organizations to ban global warming skeptics. Only 19% favor such a ban, while slightly more (21%) are undecided.

cont.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/lifestyle/general_lifestyle/july_2014/only_20_think_debate_about_global_warming_is_over

[RickyJ]

Whether it is over or not they are going to push CO2 restrictions on us to better control us and further enslave us. They don't work for us.

[Zippyjuan]

So 80% think there will still be discussion and arguments on the issue. On the other hand, only 14% of those polled said that global warming/ climate change is not at all a serious problem.

More from the poll:

Consistent with earlier polling is the finding that 60% of voters consider global warming a serious problem, with 37% who describe it as a Very Serious one. Thirty-five percent (35%) disagree and don’t believe global warming is that serious a problem, with 14% who say it is Not At All Serious.

[green73]

So 80% think there will still be discussion and arguments on the issue. On the other hand, only 14% of those polled said that global warming/ climate change is not at all a serious problem.

More from the poll:

Yep, most people are still well bamboozled. Good job gov't schools, fascist media.

[Zippyjuan]

So you have proof they are wrong?

[green73]

So you have proof they are wrong?

Warmest temp ever recorded: Libya 1923
Warmest temp in US: 1936
Inconvenient Global Temperature Update:
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-ZYNUyleNG1k/U7wSsS7bTsI/AAAAAAAARU0/wK60Ls6HItk/s1600/clip_image002_thumb.png

Icebergs on the Great Lakes in June...

Record Ice in Antarctica...

Climategate...

blah blah blah

[Zippyjuan]

Two points in different parts of the world hardly indicate a global, long term trend. That is not scientific evidence that there is no global warming. 2012 was "only" the second warmest on record. (why only choose 17 years, nine months- an odd number? Because going longer would no longer support the conclusion the chart maker wanted).

[green73]

Two points in different parts of the world hardly indicate a global, long term trend. That is not scientific evidence that there is no global warming. 2012 was "only" the second warmest on record. (why only choose 17 years, nine months- an odd number? Because going longer would no longer support the conclusion the chart maker wanted).

I think it was posted in May 2014, the ending date, idiot.

Why haven't those records been broken with all this CO2 and this rapidly warming world?

[PRB]

I think it was posted in May 2014, the ending date, idiot.

Why haven't those records been broken with all this CO2 and this rapidly warming world?

every month must break a new record or else you don't call it global warming?

[green73]

every month must break a new record or else you don't call it global warming?

1923

[XxNeXuSxX]

1923

Not to mention that North America, as a whole, had it's coldest winter in 17 years.

[PRB]

Not to mention that North America, as a whole, had it's coldest winter in 17 years.

NA is not the globe.

[PRB]

1923

And what do you say when 1923 record is broken? that it's settled? or what?

[green73]

And what do you say when 1923 record is broken? that it's settled? or what?


Why hasn't it been broken yet?

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

The BBC has announced a new policy banning comments from those who deny global warming, a policy already practiced by the Los Angeles Times and several other media organizations. But 60% of voters oppose the decision by some news organizations to ban global warming skeptics. Only 19% favor such a ban,...



The telltale sign of a weak argument is censorship of the opposition.

[Lord Xar]

NA is not the globe.
So, where is it getting warmer?

And then...... "insert hot place" is not the globe.

Just regular earthly cyclic changes, but the sycophants use it to push their religion.

[56ktarget]

Scientific facts are not decided by opinion polls.

[green73]

The telltale sign of a weak argument is censorship of the opposition.

Considering they are a state appendage, it's even more disgraceful. Own a TV in Britain? You must fund this propaganda merchant.

[green73]

Scientific facts are not decided by opinion polls.

Thanks for your much valued opinion.

[dude58677]

So you have proof they are wrong?

The burden of proof is on the one making the positive claim which is that it exists. Pseudoscience such as global warming switches the burden of proof onto the skeptics while also ignoring the principle of falsifiability. Meaning that null studies should be sought instead of explaining it away or ignoring it.

[PRB]

The burden of proof is on the one making the positive claim which is that it exists. Pseudoscience such as global warming switches the burden of proof onto the skeptics while also ignoring the principle of falsifiability. Meaning that null studies should be sought instead of explaining it away or ignoring it.

So if I make the claim "you are innocent of being a child rapist" I am making a "positive claim" for which I must prove? And if I fail, you can conclude that "You are not innocent of being a child rapist" as the null hypothesis?

[56ktarget]

97% of all scientific studies conclude humans are causing global warming,

Next.

[dude58677]

So if I make the claim "you are innocent of being a child rapist" I am making a "positive claim" for which I must prove? And if I fail, you can conclude that "You are not innocent of being a child rapist" as the null hypothesis?

You said global warming is taking place and I'm skeptical of this claim and so the burden if proof is on you.

[PRB]

So, where is it getting warmer?

And then...... "insert hot place" is not the globe.

Just regular earthly cyclic changes, but the sycophants use it to push their religion.

that's the point, you don't insert hot place, you take the overall temperature of everywhere you can.

[PRB]

You said global warming is taking place and I'm skeptical of this claim and so the burden if proof is on you.

answer my question first.

[PaulConventionWV]

Two points in different parts of the world hardly indicate a global, long term trend. That is not scientific evidence that there is no global warming. 2012 was "only" the second warmest on record. (why only choose 17 years, nine months- an odd number? Because going longer would no longer support the conclusion the chart maker wanted).

The whole point of using the last 17 years 9 months is to simply show how long the world has gone without warming. Doesn't mean there hasn't been warming since earlier dates, just that it doesn't seem to be getting any worse for a significant amount of time. Let me guess, you don't think almost 18 years is significant.

[PaulConventionWV]

every month must break a new record or else you don't call it global warming?

Not every month. But it probably should take a little less than almost 18 years to break a new high.

There's a pretty damn big difference between 1 month and 18 years. I know it's 17 years and 9 months, but I'm going to go out on a limb and predict that we won't see a new record this year.

[PaulConventionWV]

So if I make the claim "you are innocent of being a child rapist" I am making a "positive claim" for which I must prove? And if I fail, you can conclude that "You are not innocent of being a child rapist" as the null hypothesis?

Do you know what a null hypothesis is? Not being a child rapist is the null hypothesis. You can't word a negative claim differently to make it a positive claim.

Saying "You are innocent of being a child rapist" and "You are not a child rapist" mean exactly the same thing, a negative claim to being a child rapist.

[PRB]

Warmest temp ever recorded: Libya 1923
Warmest temp in US: 1936
Inconvenient Global Temperature Update:
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-ZYNUyleNG1k/U7wSsS7bTsI/AAAAAAAARU0/wK60Ls6HItk/s1600/clip_image002_thumb.png

Icebergs on the Great Lakes in June...

Record Ice in Antarctica...

Climategate...

blah blah blah

that's not what these guys say. So somebody's looking at different data, or lying.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2013/13

[PRB]

Do you know what a null hypothesis is? Not being a child rapist is the null hypothesis.


Says who?



You can't word a negative claim differently to make it a positive claim.

What makes a claim inherently negative that you can't word it to become positive or vice versa?

[PRB]

Not being a child rapist is the null hypothesis.

And not being innocent?
Not being human?
Not being alive?
Not being a liar?
Not being a criminal?
Not being a man?

What makes a claim a null hypothesis?

[PaulConventionWV]

Says who?

Literally everyone who's ever studied statistics.


What makes a claim inherently negative that you can't word it to become positive or vice versa?

The fact that switching "are not" in for "are" and then following it with a nullifying word (innocent) does not make the claim positive.

"Are innocent of being" and "are not" are both negative claims. You just made the statement a little longer and more redundant.

[PRB]

Literally everyone who's ever studied statistics.

The fact that switching "are not" in for "are" and then following it with a nullifying word (innocent) does not make the claim positive.

"Are innocent of being" and "are not" are both negative claims. You just made the statement a little longer and more redundant.

So let me get this straight, less words is more positive??

[PaulConventionWV]

So let me get this straight, less words is more positive??

No, less words is just proper grammar. It has nothing to do with the positiveness or negativeness of the statement.

[PRB]

No, less words is just proper grammar. It has nothing to do with the positiveness or negativeness of the statement.

what determines if the statement is a "positive" one with the burden of proof?

[dude58677]

what determines if the statement is a "positive" one with the burden of proof?

Pretending to be stupid? I couldn't have been more clear. A positive claim is something that is taking place while a negative claim is something that isn't taking place. You can't prove a negative it is not our job to prove that global warming is not taking place. It is your job to prove that it is taking place.

[Zippyjuan]

The whole point of using the last 17 years 9 months is to simply show how long the world has gone without warming. Doesn't mean there hasn't been warming since earlier dates, just that it doesn't seem to be getting any worse for a significant amount of time. Let me guess, you don't think almost 18 years is significant.

In terms of global history, no, 18 years is not really significant. They are looking at LONG TERM changes. Climate change is not a linear change. The planet does not get hotter every year (even the theory of climate change does not say that the planet will get hotter everywhere- some places will be cooler and others warmer and drier). The United States is only about 12% of the planet's surface.

Climate change is like arguing religion. Science generally accepts it happens (over 90% in polls- the argument is about how much human activity adds to it). Those who don't believe it happens (running about 15% of the population) will not be convinced by any information.

I have tried to use my "boat on a lake" explanation. Waves reach the shore of the lake. Those waves are temperatures. Crest of the wave is warmer climate, bottom of the wave cooler temperatures. "Natural climate change". Now a boat enters the lake. Man. He creates some of his own waves. His waves get added to the natural waves- which depending on "peak vs troth" can make the "natural waves" larger or smaller by the time they reach the shore (our experience of weather). The existance of natural waves does not rule out that man also makes waves which add to (or sometimes subtract from) natural changes.

Global temperatures (not just US) recently:
http://www.weather.com/news/science/environment/13-14-hottest-years-record-occurred-21st-century-wmo-20140324


13 of 14 Hottest Years on Record All Occurred in 21st Century

Call it climate change, global warming or even global "weirding," 2013 was the planet's sixth hottest year on record, the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) announced Monday in a report that detailed a litany of historic weather events around the world like Typhoon Haiyan, Cyclone Phailin and Australia's record-breaking heat wave.

The average temperature worldwide last year – global land and ocean surface temperatures – was 58.1°F, about 0.9°F above the 1961-1990 average and about 0.05°F above the 2001-2010 decadal average, the WMO said in the report.

The organization's Annual Statement on the Status of the Climate showed also that despite the oft-reported global warming "hiatus," 13 of the 14 warmest years in recorded weather history have all occurred in the opening years of the 21st century.


While 2013 brought unusually cool summer temperatures to much of the eastern half of the United States, and one of the quietest Atlantic hurricane seasons in recent memory, the year elsewhere around the world brought many events that "we would expect as a result of human-induced climate change," said Jarraud.

"We saw heavier precipitation, more intense heat, and more damage from storm surges and coastal flooding as a result of sea level rise, as Typhoon Haiyan so tragically demonstrated in the Philippines," he added.

Temperatures in the Southern Hemisphere were very warm throughout the year, the report notes, evidenced by Australia's record heat as well as the warmth in New Zealand and Argentina, both of which experienced near-record warm years.

Searing droughts occurred in northwestern Brazil – that region's worst in 50 years – as well as in southern China and parts of Africa, while heavy rains and severe floods swept through the India-Nepal border region as well as Sudan and Somalia.

Extreme precipitation also led to severe floods in Europe, especially in the Alpine regions of Austria, Germany, Poland, Switzerland and the Czech Republic.

Australia's bout with record-breaking heat and wildfires is examined in a peer-reviewed case study within the report, which investigated whether that country's extreme summer temperatures were caused by man-made climate change.

More at link.

[oyarde]

There is no warming in my area , although , come Jan. , I could welcome a little .They can take warming taxes , stick them up the ass and light them .

[Madison320]

In terms of global history, no, 18 years is not really significant. They are looking at LONG TERM changes. Climate change is not a linear change. The planet does not get hotter every year (even the theory of climate change does not say that the planet will get hotter everywhere- some places will be cooler and others warmer and drier). The United States is only about 12% of the planet's surface.

Climate change is like arguing religion. Science generally accepts it happens (over 90% in polls- the argument is about how much human activity adds to it). Those who don't believe it happens (running about 15% of the population) will not be convinced by any information.

I have tried to use my "boat on a lake" explanation. Waves reach the shore of the lake. Those waves are temperatures. Crest of the wave is warmer climate, bottom of the wave cooler temperatures. "Natural climate change". Now a boat enters the lake. Man. He creates some of his own waves. His waves get added to the natural waves- which depending on "peak vs troth" can make the "natural waves" larger or smaller by the time they reach the shore (our experience of weather). The existance of natural waves does not rule out that man also makes waves which add to (or sometimes subtract from) natural changes.

Global temperatures (not just US) recently:
http://www.weather.com/news/science/environment/13-14-hottest-years-record-occurred-21st-century-wmo-20140324


You're right that 18 years in terms of global history is not significant. But then you show data that only goes back a couple hundred years. That's still not even a blip in global history. You're not one of those people that believe the earth was created 10,000 years ago are you?

[buenijo]

So if I make the claim "you are innocent of being a child rapist" I am making a "positive claim" for which I must prove? And if I fail, you can conclude that "You are not innocent of being a child rapist" as the null hypothesis?

This is sophistry born of vagueness. Yes, you are switching the burden of proof. For clarity, consider that in a court of law the plaintiff makes the claim. The defendant might claim "not guilty" (i.e. innocent). However, only the plaintiff must make a case. With respect to Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW), what is the claim under consideration? It's not that Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) exists. Very few here (or elsewhere) doubt the Green House Gas (GHG) emissions from human activities are affecting the climate (either contributing to warming trends, or mitigating cooling trends - and not necessarily in any measurable or material way). Rather, the claim is that AGW is destructive on net balance. A derivative claim is implied: We must slow or reduce our emissions of GHG's. This derivative claim is generally conflated with the primary claim (particularly in the media). The skeptic dismisses the claim for lack of sufficient evidence.

PRB, your logical fallacy is argumentum ad ignorantiam:

(following taken from http://www.logicalfallacies.info/presumption/arguing-from-ignorance/)
"Arguments from ignorance infer that a proposition is true from the fact that it is not known to be false. Not all arguments of this form are fallacious; if it is known that if the proposition were not true then it would have been disproven, then a valid argument from ignorance may be constructed. In other cases, though, arguments from ignorance are fallacious.

Example;

(1) No one has been able to disprove the existence of God.
Therefore:
(2) God exists.

This argument is fallacious because the non-existence of God is perfectly consistent with no one having been able to prove God’s non-existence."

Similarly, one who makes the claim that AGW will prove destructive on net balance must prove it. If this is done, then the derivative argument can be considered.

[Zippyjuan]

You're right that 18 years in terms of global history is not significant. But then you show data that only goes back a couple hundred years. That's still not even a blip in global history. You're not one of those people that believe the earth was created 10,000 years ago are you?

No, I am not a Creationist. Any reason to think I am? (Creationists don't believe in Climate Change)

Long term (800,000 years) of temperatures as measured by ice core samples (yes, peaks and valleys but peaks keep rising and current peak is still on its way up:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/ca/EPICA_temperature_plot.svg/2048px-EPICA_temperature_plot.svg.png

[Zippyjuan]

But again, arguing Climate change is like arguing religion or 9/11. There are strong opinions on both sides and evidence will not change opinions on it.

[oyarde]

No, I am not a Creationist. Any reason to think I am? (Creationists don't believe in Climate Change)

Long term (800,000 years) of temperatures as measured by ice core samples (yes, peaks and valleys but peaks keep rising and current peak is still on its way up:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/ca/EPICA_temperature_plot.svg/2048px-EPICA_temperature_plot.svg.png
Looks normal to me .

[PaulConventionWV]

In terms of global history, no, 18 years is not really significant. They are looking at LONG TERM changes. Climate change is not a linear change. The planet does not get hotter every year (even the theory of climate change does not say that the planet will get hotter everywhere- some places will be cooler and others warmer and drier). The United States is only about 12% of the planet's surface.

We have only been taking measurements for a little over a hundred years. Everything we really know is based on that. The rest is speculation. You can't know what the temperature was thousands of years ago with any degree of accuracy. In the scope of actual measured temperatures, 18 years is very significant. There are far too many factors involved for us to assume that the uptrend will resume eventually just because we did some speculative tests on things that have never been scientifically observed, tested, or repeated, which brings me to my next point.


Climate change is like arguing religion. Science generally accepts it happens (over 90% in polls- the argument is about how much human activity adds to it). Those who don't believe it happens (running about 15% of the population) will not be convinced by any information.

The false dichotomy between religion and science is shaky, at best, and much less reliable when you're trying to compare it to an institution with a known motive for falsifying data (goverment-controlled science and education) with questionable statistics to back it up.

This said, why do you insist that only the skeptics are closed-minded? Maybe you're the closed-minded one because you refuse to maintain a skeptical attitude toward something that hasn't bee proven. Why are we the ignorant ones when we simply embrace the null hypothesis until proven otherwise? Why must you assume that we are simply blind when the null hypothesis is on our side? The scientific "consensus" shouldn't even be a factor because there is too much at stake for it to ever be a reliable measuring stick for truth.


I have tried to use my "boat on a lake" explanation. Waves reach the shore of the lake. Those waves are temperatures. Crest of the wave is warmer climate, bottom of the wave cooler temperatures. "Natural climate change". Now a boat enters the lake. Man. He creates some of his own waves. His waves get added to the natural waves- which depending on "peak vs troth" can make the "natural waves" larger or smaller by the time they reach the shore (our experience of weather). The existance of natural waves does not rule out that man also makes waves which add to (or sometimes subtract from) natural changes.

Global temperatures (not just US) recently:
http://www.weather.com/news/science/environment/13-14-hottest-years-record-occurred-21st-century-wmo-20140324





More at link.

If the earth were really going to warm catastrophically, it should be far more obvious than it is now. It is not enough to point to a slight uptrend over the past few decades despite much higher temperatures in the past and somehow come to the conclusion that "this time it's different" because we looked at a few stupid models that have no way of properly gauging the earth's temperature down to a fraction of a degree. It's really not hard to conceive of how the multitude of factors involved in global climate -- many of which we're not even aware -- could skew our data. Why do we have to assume the worst when we haven't even broken the all-time highs? What happened to the hockey stick graph? Why is that not a thing anymore? Why do we constantly defend this insanity despite repeated attempts to boondoggle the public and use lies and deception to make people believe that we should depart from the idea that maybe, just maybe, the world is in no real danger?

[PaulConventionWV]

No, I am not a Creationist. Any reason to think I am? (Creationists don't believe in Climate Change)

Long term (800,000 years) of temperatures as measured by ice core samples (yes, peaks and valleys but peaks keep rising and current peak is still on its way up:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/ca/EPICA_temperature_plot.svg/2048px-EPICA_temperature_plot.svg.png

Gee, if that graph is right, then we should be in real trouble in about a million years (assuming the trend doesn't change).

EVERYONE PANIC!

:eek:

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

The idea that people all over the globe consistently collected temperature information since the 1800s is ludicrous. The idea that you could possibly standardize all of this information to conclude that temperatures have increased by a single degree or less is even more ludicrous. It's even more ridiculous that one could sort this out and figure the percentage that comes from a coal mine vs. burning leaves vs. the sun vs. a cow's butthole.

The temperature on my front porch is different from my driveway, but somehow I'm supposed to believe that somebody could consistently measure temperature within one degree after the bum truck Egypt shack where they measure it was reconstructed countless times, and probably even moved.

The thermometers of yesteryear were not nearly anything like the ones of today, but somehow the red liquid that was probably often rounded off, misrecorded, etc. can be compared to the more precise digital records of today.

Yeah, the temperature might have risen by one degree. Or not. I'll also tell you my net worth after I check my couch for loose change.

[FindLiberty]

I understand the near-term importance of protecting water sources from industrial pollution and keeping all those nukes sealed in their bottles, but why is this global weather pattern issue any significant short term scientific concern?

The Earth can/will slowly "fight back" and resolve itself without requiring any consultation or assistance to eventually starve/choke or otherwise kill-off some (or all) of the annoying humans if they manage to screw up the weather (or immediately contaminate food/air/water sources and mutate human DNA with enriched radioactive isotopes) too much. Humans are a danger to themselves politically too, but the Earth will keep spinning.

This whole climate warming/cooling/change issue seems more like continued dramatic political psychopathic central planning taxation/control nonsense. It draws in smart minds that earnestly try to unscramble it all, but then it becomes a modern day, computer enhanced recorded data, goober-funded-choir chanting, "virgins-into-the-volcano" freak show. Now, they (the ones without any clothes on) are even screaming, "There will be no more comments or discussion" because the time for science is already over!

Maybe they should focus their efforts on terraforming Mars so it will be in move-in-ready condition before the sun eventually expands and roasts the entire Earth.

[PRB]

The idea that people all over the globe consistently collected temperature information since the 1800s is ludicrous.


Which is why nobody claims it



The idea that you could possibly standardize all of this information to conclude that temperatures have increased by a single degree or less is even more ludicrous.


So don't tell me MWP and LIA anything, since we can't know, right?



It's even more ridiculous that one could sort this out and figure the percentage that comes from a coal mine vs. burning leaves vs. the sun vs. a cow's butthole.


Actually, not so much. Since we understand "conservation of mass". We know how many cows there are, how long the sun has been shining, how many leaves there are to burn, and how much have been burned, how many coal mines there are and how much each burns....while you may not be able to backtrack from results, we know quite a bit about origins.



The temperature on my front porch is different from my driveway, but somehow I'm supposed to believe that somebody could consistently measure temperature within one degree after the bum truck Egypt shack where they measure it was reconstructed countless times, and probably even moved.


Not all temperature stations are reconstructed several times



The thermometers of yesteryear were not nearly anything like the ones of today, but somehow the red liquid that was probably often rounded off, misrecorded, etc. can be compared to the more precise digital records of today.


So then we can forget about the past? Even better!



Yeah, the temperature might have risen by one degree. Or not. I'll also tell you my net worth after I check my couch for loose change.

Go ahead.

[PRB]

This argument is fallacious because the non-existence of God is perfectly consistent with no one having been able to prove God’s non-existence."

Similarly, one who makes the claim that AGW will prove destructive on net balance must prove it. If this is done, then the derivative argument can be considered.

So help me here, why is greenhouse effect not in dispute or the claim to be examined? Is it just because more people are convinced? Or just your choosing?

Do greenhouse effect claimers still have the burden of proof? or has it been established for so long and accepted so widely, opponents have the burden of proof?

[PaulConventionWV]

So help me here, why is greenhouse effect not in dispute or the claim to be examined? Is it just because more people are convinced? Or just your choosing?

Do greenhouse effect claimers still have the burden of proof? or has it been established for so long and accepted so widely, opponents have the burden of proof?

Claimers still have the burden of proof. Given that it's so widely accepted based on sound reasoning and evidence, it shouldn't be hard to prove.

[Madison320]

No, I am not a Creationist. Any reason to think I am? (Creationists don't believe in Climate Change)

Long term (800,000 years) of temperatures as measured by ice core samples (yes, peaks and valleys but peaks keep rising and current peak is still on its way up:



The reason I thought you were a creationist is because you thought long term was 200 years. Even that latest chart is only 800,000 years old. That's still microscopic out of 4.5 billion years.

How about a chart that covers 500 million years? That's a lot better perspective.

Looking at a REAL long term chart you can see that any recent "warming" trend is microscopic and has most likely happened thousands, maybe millions of times previously.



http://s1.hubimg.com/u/1139916_f1024.jpg

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

We know how many cows there are,..

No, you can't possibly know how many cows exist in the world. My neighbor currently has eight. He might have double that in the fall. The people who know that number are him, me, and anybody he tells or anybody who observes his pasture. He is one guy out of countless farmers in the world.



how many leaves there are to burn, and how much have been burned, how many coal mines there are and how much each burns

Knowing the number of leaves in the world is even more ridiculous than your cow counting.



....while you may not be able to backtrack from results,...

That is my whole point. Global warming rests on backtracking and documenting temperatures from the 1800s. Very difficult and practically impossible to calculate within one degree.





Not all temperature stations are reconstructed several times

But some or many are reconstructed. Some are renovated. Some are moved. It's yet another number you could not practically know. You also could not practically know the consistency of these "stations" going back to the 1800s.




So then we can forget about the past? Even better!

Not at all. Just be honest about what you can represent.

[PRB]

The reason I thought you were a creationist is because you thought long term was 200 years. Even that latest chart is only 800,000 years old. That's still microscopic out of 4.5 billion years.

How about a chart that covers 500 million years? That's a lot better perspective.


Looking at any temperature before industrial age at best tells us whether we've experienced higher or lower temperatures in the past. It does not answer "Will we have our fragile modern lifestyle as we know it?" We will definitely survive, people have survived Katrina and Sandy, and many worse disasters.

We can survive carbon taxation too, we can survive all kinds of government regulation, but do we want to have to?

[PRB]

No, you can't possibly know how many cows exist in the world. My neighbor currently has eight. He might have double that in the fall. The people who know that number are him, me, and anybody he tells or anybody who observes his pasture. He is one guy out of countless farmers in the world.




But we know he doesn't have a million.

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

Which is why nobody claims it

You do. It's the very foundation of your claim about global warming. You even posted the temperatures and the sources.

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

But we know he doesn't have a million.

You just said we know how many cows there are. Tell me how many cows exist in the world.

[PRB]

You just said we know how many cows there are. Tell me how many cows exist in the world.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/dailychart/2011/07/global-livestock-counts

[PRB]

You do. It's the very foundation of your claim about global warming. You even posted the temperatures and the sources.

I also use proxy temperatures

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

http://www.economist.com/blogs/dailychart/2011/07/global-livestock-counts

So you don't know.

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

I also use proxy temperatures


??????

[PRB]

??????

Meaning, i don't need to rely solely on reliable instrumental data to have an argument. I am fine using proxies as needed.

[Constitutional Paulicy]

http://www.spacetimestudios.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=14061&d=1343012360

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

Looking at any temperature before industrial age...


Again, impossible to know. I would venture that anything remotely resembling a thermometer of today would have been invented about this time. I would venture those were fairly inaccurate, and would at least come nowhere close to measuring temperatures within one degree over the last 100+ years.

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

Meaning, i don't need to rely solely on reliable instrumental data to have an argument. I am fine using proxies as needed.

So you don't need reliable instrumental data, but your entire claim about global warming rests on these fairly precise measures, specifically that the temperature changed one degree over many decades.

[Zippyjuan]

Again, impossible to know. I would venture that anything remotely resembling a thermometer of today would have been invented about this time. I would venture those were fairly inaccurate, and would at least come nowhere close to measuring temperatures within one degree over the last 100+ years.

Older temperatures are calculated by measuring ice cores in the Antarctic (thicker ice accumulations from colder years, less from warmer ones), sediment measurements in the oceans, and tree rings on really old trees (thicker rings in good years, narrow ones for more difficult ones). They then compare them to try to calibrate the data.

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

So help me here,...

No, I can't help you. Your entire argument of global warming rests on getting information from non-standardized and inconsistent sources from people all over the globe since the 1800s. You're not even getting this information yourself, so you don't even know anything about these gathering stations, thermometers. etc.

The rest of your argument depends on things like counting the number of leaves in the world and how many are burned.

[buenijo]

So help me here, why is greenhouse effect not in dispute or the claim to be examined? Is it just because more people are convinced? Or just your choosing?

Do greenhouse effect claimers still have the burden of proof? or has it been established for so long and accepted so widely, opponents have the burden of proof?

This is a red herring. The veracity of the greenhouse effect is not relevant. "It has been established" and it is "accepted" as you emphasized. You and I established in previous discussion a definition of AGW. Under this definition, a proponent of AGW does not question the ability for GHG emissions from human activities to affect climate. However, there is a very wide variance in the positions taken by the proponents of AGW. For example, both I and Christopher Monckton (widely but wrongly criticized as a "denier" of AGW) take the position that the GHG emissions from human activities are affecting the climate. However, we are skeptical in that we are not convinced sufficient evidence exists to show these affects can be accurately quantified, characterized, forecasted, or even that they will manifest in any measurable or material way.

Again, the contention under scrutiny is not the greenhouse effect. Nor is it the general theory of AGW. The relevant contention is whether or not AGW has been and/or will be detrimental on net balance. If this can be established, then a discussion can continue to determine the best course of action (which may or may not include governmental interventions). The vagueness surrounding the AGW issue includes the unjustified conflation of several questions. Whether AGW exists, whether it is detrimental or not, whether or not we can and should do anything to alleviate the effects, and what our actions should be (if any) are separate issues to be determined in their place.

With this clarity established, you will find the vast majority of people, including those active on this forum, do not doubt the basic AGW premise. Their contentions lie with the other questions.

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

Older temperatures are calculated by measuring ice cores in the Antarctic (thicker ice accumulations from colder years, less from warmer ones), sediment measurements in the oceans, and tree rings on really old trees (thicker rings in good years, narrow ones for more difficult ones). They then compare them to try to calibrate the data.

Yes, exactly. They try to calculate the data. You're not getting within one degree, the accuracy and number which is the basis for global warming advocates.

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

The relevant contention is whether or not AGW has been and/or will be detrimental on net balance.

Exactly. This detriment has never been established, and actually, quite the opposite has happened. These dipshits back in the 1980s and 1990s talked about Manhattan being under water and the Missouri River disappearing. I don't see these specific claims any more, but these people already made fools of themselves. Their claims are now much more vague, but libs with no common sense still believe them.

[PRB]

No, I can't help you. Your entire argument of global warming rests on getting information from non-standardized and inconsistent sources from people all over the globe since the 1800s. You're not even getting this information yourself, so you don't even know anything about these gathering stations, thermometers. etc.

The rest of your argument depends on things like counting the number of leaves in the world and how many are burned.

you got a better way? I'm listening.

[buenijo]

you got a better way? I'm listening.

Again, careful about shifting the burden of proof. NorthCarolinaLiberty doesn't have to do shit.

[PRB]

Again, careful about shifting the burden of proof. NorthCarolinaLiberty doesn't have to do shit.

he does if he's claiming that unreliable or less than perfect means it's wrong or opposite.

[buenijo]

he does if he's claiming that unreliable or less than perfect means it's wrong or opposite.

He's not. Nor am I.

Consider this. My personal study of economics is more relevant to my position on AGW as compared to my formal education in the physical sciences. It was my understanding of the so-called "Austrian" economics perspective that allowed me to see clearly that both the housing market and stock markets were overvalued during the recent past (2005-2006) and due for a significant correction. It's interesting to note that so many economists, financial professionals, and politicians expressed certainty in the stability of the markets at that time. The existence of a housing "bubble" was emphatically denied by these professionals. I knew they were wrong at the time. Many knew they were wrong at the time. In retrospect, we all know they were wrong at the time. We failed to characterize and forecast an economy that is actively tracked and even manipulated by trained professionals. The climate is less well understood than the economy. It seems the rational and humble position is to meet the alarmist claims of many AGW proponents with skepticism.

It's perfectly clear where the burden of proof lies. It is, however, unclear how the evidence (i.e. the uncontested facts) supports the many alarmist claims made by some proponents of AGW.

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

he does if he's claiming that unreliable or less than perfect means it's wrong or opposite.

The people you quoted are the ones saying it.

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

you got a better way? I'm listening.


So now we've gone from your firm claim of global warming, to your shaky claim of global warming, to you now asking for help.

[PaulConventionWV]

Older temperatures are calculated by measuring ice cores in the Antarctic (thicker ice accumulations from colder years, less from warmer ones), sediment measurements in the oceans, and tree rings on really old trees (thicker rings in good years, narrow ones for more difficult ones). They then compare them to try to calibrate the data.

The variation between white and black ice from ice cores is the result of periods of warm and cold, not winter and summer like is often believed. You can have 10 of those in 1 year. They found a fighter plane from the 1950s buried under thousands of layers of ice in Greenland.

[PaulConventionWV]

he does if he's claiming that unreliable or less than perfect means it's wrong or opposite.

He's making the claim that it's *not* reliable. You're making the claim that it *is* reliable. The burden of proof is on you.

[Henry Rogue]

He's making the claim that it's *not* reliable. You're making the claim that it *is* reliable. The burden of proof is on you.

The P-38 Lighting, named "Glacier Girl". I've seen it when it was in pieces and after it was fully restored and the bit that was used to melt a tunnel down to it.

[PaulConventionWV]

The P-38 Lighting, named "Glacier Girl". I've seen it when it was in pieces and after it was fully restored and the bit that was used to melt a tunnel down to it.

That's awesome. I thought this was common knowledge, but apparently people just kind of take ice core data for granted.

[PRB]

So now we've gone from your firm claim of global warming, to your shaky claim of global warming, to you now asking for help.

I'm not the one changing the subject

[PRB]

He's making the claim that it's *not* reliable. You're making the claim that it *is* reliable. The burden of proof is on you.

so when I say you're not an honest person or not a child molester, it's on you to prove that you are?

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

I'm not the one changing the subject

Neither am I.

Did you count all those burning leaves yet?

[Zippyjuan]

Shh. Still counting. Now I have to start all over again. I ran out of fingers anyways. One. Two. Three. Eleven. Fifteen...

[dude58677]

I go about my daily life and the notion of global warming only occurs to me when PRB declares it as fact. I wonder why that is!

[PRB]

Neither am I.

Did you count all those burning leaves yet?

Counting is your only way of "knowing", no wonder you're surprised that somebody knows more than you.

[PRB]

I go about my daily life and the notion of global warming only occurs to me when PRB declares it as fact. I wonder why that is!

I can't make you believe anything.

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

proxies


Counting is your only way of "knowing", no wonder you're surprised that somebody knows more than you.

Yeah, the guy who Googles his answers to my questions and labels them with big words must be the one who knows more than I.

[PRB]

Yeah, the guy who Googles his answers to my questions and labels them with big words must be the one who knows more than I.

I didn't say must be.

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

I predict that we'll see an upsurge of "meth labs" in rural areas. These will combine with cow gas and a scorching summer to create miniature explosions all across the countryside. There will be no water to put out the fires because all the rivers will be dried up. The fires will eventually combine to obliterate America in biblical proportions.

[buenijo]

Counting is your only way of "knowing", no wonder you're surprised that somebody knows more than you.


"It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so." -Mark Twain

[PaulConventionWV]

so when I say you're not an honest person or not a child molester, it's on you to prove that you are?

The null hypothesis is that I am an honest person because that's the norm unless you have a reason to believe otherwise.

This is basic stuff, and it's taught in accredited universities around the nation. This isn't just something I pulled out of my arse.

When you meet someone, you generally assume they're good, right? So if you say I'm NOT a good person, then you are making the positive claim that I AM a liar or a bad person and you need to prove it so that you can be taken seriously. That's just how society works. When faced with the unknown, we revert to the norm and anything outside of that, we have to prove.

[PRB]

The null hypothesis is that I am an honest person because that's the norm unless you have a reason to believe otherwise.

This is basic stuff, and it's taught in accredited universities around the nation. This isn't just something I pulled out of my arse.

So the null hypothesis is that the norm is true?

"You're an honest person" is not a positive claim which has the burden of proof?

[PaulConventionWV]

So the null hypothesis is that the norm is true?

"You're an honest person" is not a positive claim which has the burden of proof?

Yes, that is the way it works. The norm is true unless you have a reason to believe otherwise.

See, positive and negative claims are interchangeable because you can also make the question positive or negative. So if someone asks a positive question (Is this happening?), the positive response is that, yes, it is.

Now if we just followed that rule, obviously, you could go around demanding proof of just about anything, which you are doing, so we base it on what the norm is. If you make a positive claim that departs from the norm, then the burden of proof is on you.

[buenijo]

Yep, that's how it works. Of course, people can quibble about what the null hypothesis might be in a particular case. Relevant to the topic at hand is to consider that there was a time (quite recently, in fact) when nobody considered greenhouse gas emissions from human activities to affect the climate (i.e. this was once a norm). Then, one day (again, quite recently), some folks came along and suggested it. Interestingly, it was suggested early on by a climate scientist as a beneficial mechanism to mitigate global cooling believed to be taking place at the time (during the late 1960's I believe). AGW has since been widely accepted based on the knowledge of our greenhouse gas emissions and our understanding of the greenhouse effect. So, one might consider AGW as a new norm.

Now, it was somewhat later (during the late 1980's I believe) when some started to express concern that the effects of AGW on climate might prove disastrous. This has not yet been demonstrated to be the case. In other words, the "norm" in this case is only that AGW exists - we do not yet understand its effects, and certainly do not know it will have disastrous consequences. I mentioned in another post that a major problem, if not THE major problem with the AGW debate, is that several considerations are unjustly conflated. The perceived danger from AGW is generally introduced into the debate surreptitiously with the underlying AGW concept itself (sort of like a Trojan horse). For example, PRB has been doing this throughout his discussions of the matter. It's an oblique (read: deceptive) but effective rhetorical strategy, and especially for those who already perceive a danger from industry, "capitalism", or "globalism" for other reasons. Hence the association of Marxists, so-called "liberals", and permaculturists with the AGW concept. The strategy often works simply because so many assume that if human activities are affecting the climate, then it can only be in a bad way - somehow. Another interesting possibility is that many of the proposed interventions for AGW could be considered as beneficial, such as economic "stimulus" by those influenced by the Keynesian economics perspectives. The proposed interventions might also be considered to be beneficial for political reasons, such as a means to "redistribute" wealth, or as a means for beneficent politicians to control "big oil", coal, and other "evil" multi-national corporations. In other words, I believe those who believe AGW will cause disruptive and disastrous climate events are doing so for reasons other than the preponderance of the evidence for that that conclusion. Rather, I believe they are doing so for other reasons. I take the view quite simply because the evidence is simply not there. Defending the claim represents a rationalization. It does not represent sound reasoning.

[Carson]

When has the debate on anything ever over?

The Hockey Stick vs. Ice Core Data

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DFbUVBYIPlI

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100019671/climategate-the-video-everyone-should-see/

[PaulConventionWV]

Yep, that's how it works. Of course, people can quibble about what the null hypothesis might be in a particular case. Relevant to the topic at hand is to consider that there was a time (quite recently, in fact) when nobody considered greenhouse gas emissions from human activities to affect the climate (i.e. this was once a norm). Then, one day (again, quite recently), some folks came along and suggested it. Interestingly, it was suggested early on by a climate scientist as a beneficial mechanism to mitigate global cooling believed to be taking place at the time (during the late 1960's I believe). AGW has since been widely accepted based on the knowledge of our greenhouse gas emissions and our understanding of the greenhouse effect. So, one might consider AGW as a new norm.

Now, it was somewhat later (during the late 1980's I believe) when some started to express concern that the effects of AGW on climate might prove disastrous. This has not yet been demonstrated to be the case. In other words, the "norm" in this case is only that AGW exists - we do not yet understand its effects, and certainly do not know it will have disastrous consequences. I mentioned in another post that a major problem, if not THE major problem with the AGW debate, is that several considerations are unjustly conflated. The perceived danger from AGW is generally introduced into the debate surreptitiously with the underlying AGW concept itself (sort of like a Trojan horse). For example, PRB has been doing this throughout his discussions of the matter. It's an oblique (read: deceptive) but effective rhetorical strategy, and especially for those who already perceive a danger from industry, "capitalism", or "globalism" for other reasons. Hence the association of Marxists, so-called "liberals", and permaculturists with the AGW concept. The strategy often works simply because so many assume that if human activities are affecting the climate, then it can only be in a bad way - somehow. Another interesting possibility is that many of the proposed interventions for AGW could be considered as beneficial, such as economic "stimulus" by those influenced by the Keynesian economics perspectives. The proposed interventions might also be considered to be beneficial for political reasons, such as a means to "redistribute" wealth, or as a means for beneficent politicians to control "big oil", coal, and other "evil" multi-national corporations. In other words, I believe those who believe AGW will cause disruptive and disastrous climate events are doing so for reasons other than the preponderance of the evidence for that that conclusion. Rather, I believe they are doing so for other reasons. I take the view quite simply because the evidence is simply not there. Defending the claim represents a rationalization. It does not represent sound reasoning.

Actually, I would like to point out that the norm is not what people believe (that AGW exists) but what the reality of the situation is. For instance, we don't consider it the norm that people are generally good because most people BELIEVE that people are generally good, but because people will normally treat you that way when you interact with them. That means that the norm is based on what the usual outcome is, not the belief of what the outcome will be.

Things don't get moved into the "norm" category simply because most people believe them and there is a so-called consensus. Norms, in the context of the null hypothesis, are much more immovable than the opinions of society at large.

People generally believe that warming has happened or is happening (not for almost 18 years, though) because people believe it has been proven. It still has to be proven, though, because it is still a positive claim that deviates from the norm of "temperatures will stay about the same".

It is easier to believe these, however, because it has been well-proven that temperatures do not stay the same forever. They fluctuate. Now, the idea that they will fluctuate to a larger extent than normal is certainly NOT the norm, and is, in fact, an extraordinary claim that must be proven.

[FindLiberty]

Oh my, that chart! (post #95)

Need to prevent another global ice age ASAP...

Should we find some virgins and an active volcano?

Oh, there might be a problem here unless there's no minimum age cut off...

[buenijo]

Actually, I would like to point out that the norm is not what people believe (that AGW exists) but what the reality of the situation is. For instance, we don't consider it the norm that people are generally good because most people BELIEVE that people are generally good, but because people will normally treat you that way when you interact with them. That means that the norm is based on what the usual outcome is, not the belief of what the outcome will be.

Things don't get moved into the "norm" category simply because most people believe them and there is a so-called consensus. Norms, in the context of the null hypothesis, are much more immovable than the opinions of society at large.

People generally believe that warming has happened or is happening (not for almost 18 years, though) because people believe it has been proven. It still has to be proven, though, because it is still a positive claim that deviates from the norm of "temperatures will stay about the same".

It is easier to believe these, however, because it has been well-proven that temperatures do not stay the same forever. They fluctuate. Now, the idea that they will fluctuate to a larger extent than normal is certainly NOT the norm, and is, in fact, an extraordinary claim that must be proven.

Ok, I see I was interpreting "norm" in a different light. You're considering "norm" as used in statistics where I was considering the term as it's sometimes used in philosophy or law. Yes, this is one way to expose a problem with AGW, but I am focused on a different perspective - hence my error. I'm focused on clearly defining the terms of the debate. I think the main problem in discussing this topic is an underlying vagueness or lack of precision in the terms. Even the term Anthropogenic Global Warming has no clear definition. Although, for purpose of discussion, PRB and I agreed in previous discussion that AGW entails only the process by which greenhouse gas emissions from human activities affect climate. This suggests that AGW can contribute to a warming trend, or mitigate a cooling trend, but not necessarily in any measurable or material way.

[buenijo]

Oh my, that chart! (post #95)

PRB, any thoughts about the chart?

[PRB]

PRB, any thoughts about the chart?

Would showing that people 300 years ago

1. Died before age 55
2. Had more earthquakes
3. Didn't have air conditioning or refrigeration
4. Had no electricity
5. Had no efficient transportation devices

Mean that people today
1. Killed at 55
2. Died from an earthquake
3. Lost their air conditioning or refrigerator
4. Went days without electricity
5. Losing their only car
Is "no big deal, after all, people 300 years ago survived fine"?

[buenijo]

PRB, honestly, I can't make sense of your post. The words "obfuscation", "smokescreen", "red herring", and "evasion" comes to mind.

It's no problem if you do not wish to comment on the graph, I was merely curious.

[PRB]

PRB, honestly, I can't make sense of your post. The words "obfuscation", "smokescreen", "red herring", and "evasion" comes to mind.

It's no problem if you do not wish to comment on the graph, I was merely curious.

My comment on the graph is this :

1. you either trust proxies or you don't
2. Past temperatures being higher and lower can't and won't tell us whether we'd like it today
3. Nobody says that just because people died before 55 in the past, therefore being killed at 55 today is natural or no big deal, so why would we try to assume that past temperatures being higher or lower somehow means we should never be surprised or make no adaptions?

[buenijo]

My comment on the graph is this :

1. you either trust proxies or you don't
2. Past temperatures being higher and lower can't and won't tell us whether we'd like it today
3. Nobody says that just because people died before 55 in the past, therefore being killed at 55 today is natural or no big deal, so why would we try to assume that past temperatures being higher or lower somehow means we should never be surprised or make no adaptions?

The reason I didn't understand your post is because your concerns are not relevant to the discussion. You're on a different page so to speak.

(1) It's not this simple. You can reject the graph if you like, but I hope you have good reason. For example, I reject the first so-called "hockey stick" graph based on how I understand many of the temperature proxies were weighted. Also, it has seen many significant revisions since it was first released. Smells fishy to me.
(2) Whether or not we "like" the temperatures today is not relevant.
(3) The graph has no bearing on your concerns here.

I mentioned the vagueness surrounding the AGW issue. Many people wrongly consider that the temperatures today are unusual and dangerously high, and they believe this largely based on the media accounts of AGW. Many also believe that the temperature is increasing at a dangerously high rate mostly due to human activities. The graph shows that temperatures have been much higher in the past, and that temperature has changed very rapidly in the past - all without any influence from human activities. So, how should we presume that the conditions today are dangerous? Could it be that we don't actually know this? Could it be that those who believe AGW will cause disruptive and disastrous climate events are doing so for reasons other than the preponderance of the evidence for that that conclusion? Could it be that the rational and humble position to take on this matter is one of skepticism?

[PRB]

The reason I didn't understand your post is because your concerns are not relevant to the discussion. You're on a different page so to speak.

(1) It's not this simple. You can reject the graph if you like, but I hope you have good reason. For example, I reject the first so-called "hockey stick" graph based on how I understand many of the temperature proxies were weighted. Also, it has seen many significant revisions since it was first released. Smells fishy to me.
(2) Whether or not we "like" the temperatures today is not relevant.
(3) The graph has no bearing on your concerns here.


Hockeystick consists of 2 parts, the flat part and the upward turn. the upward turn is instrumental, the flat shaft (MWP, LIA) is based on proxy.

So either you trust proxies or you don't. If you don't, there's no point in showing non-instrumental data, if you do, then fine, don't turn around and say "We can't trust recorded temperatures because.....when you're willing to trust proxy"

What is the point of looking at past temperatures, especially more than thousands of years, if it isn't to minimize the concerns of today?




Many people wrongly consider that the temperatures today are unusual and dangerously high, and they believe this largely based on the media accounts of AGW.


Today's life expectancy is over 70 years old, and not 55 or under. What you find as "unusual" depends on what you consider the norm.

Whether people in Katrina and Sandy experienced a surprise depends on whether they're expecting it.



Many also believe that the temperature is increasing at a dangerously high rate mostly due to human activities.


Yeah, because people who claim human activities are the primary causation just happen to be those who made the most accurate predictions. They may not be perfect, but would you likely trust those with the highest accuracy of predictions? Or something else?



The graph shows that temperatures have been much higher in the past, and that temperature has changed very rapidly in the past - all without any influence from human activities.


Yep. People died before 30 years old too, without being murdered, so we should regard all people dying today before 30 years old as NATURAL, NO BIG DEAL, why assume they were murdered? They obviously were NOT murdered when people died at 30.



So, how should we presume that the conditions today are dangerous?


Because our modern fragile lifestyle demands a very low standard of what is considered "dangerous".
How long can you last without electricity?
People lived without electricity for all of history until about 200 years ago.
That must mean people who lose electricity today either will live, are expected to live, or should STFU about not having it, because people OBVIOUSLY survived then, what's SO dangerous about it?



Could it be that we don't actually know this? Could it be that those who believe AGW will cause disruptive and disastrous climate events are doing so for reasons other than the preponderance of the evidence for that that conclusion? Could it be that the rational and humble position to take on this matter is one of skepticism?

It could be, but it doesn't matter. If you can predict an earthquake, hurricane, drought, or flood, you'd likely act on it, rather than argue who/what is causing it, because you know how easily your life would be disrupted.

So, there's 2 questions on here , leaving aside political policy.
1. Do we know the cause of GW and can we predict future temperatures and events?
2. Can we predict enough events worth worrying about, and if we can, would it matter what the cause is?

You can keep saying you're skeptical of whether AGW will be as bad as alarmists are scaring you about, I just hope you never have a power outage/hurricane/drought/flood/heat wave/blizzard catching you off guard.

If you're unwilling to pay a few thousand bucks a year for a useless carbon tax, I hope you're never caught off guard to leave your house, rebuild it, or a loved one due to any life saving devices losing electricity or water.

Overall, on the long time line, you will survive, and if you don't, the rest of us will. That's not the question, we KNOW humans will survive at almost any climate (just dont throw us meteors), the question is, do you just want to survive or would you want to preserve your modern lifestyle?

If you just want to survive, it would also make little sense complaining about all the government, taxes and jealousing over other countries' freedoms, because you can again go back and say you're much better off than people in the past who had much less than you, less freedoms, less choices.

[PRB]

OMFG!

Stop the presses! it's summer!

Just when you thought alarmists are dismissing North American winter snow as "local" against "global warming"

We now have a deal breaker!!

What's Brisbane doing with the coldest morning in 103 years? It's SUMMER NOW

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-07-12/brisbane-records-coldest-morning-103-years/5591890

finally proof that global warming is a scam, what better evidence is there than a coldest morning in the middle of summer!!!!!!!! debate is INDEED OVER, just not what alarmists think.

[buenijo]

So, there's 2 questions on here , leaving aside political policy.
1. Do we know the cause of GW and can we predict future temperatures and events?
2. Can we predict enough events worth worrying about, and if we can, would it matter what the cause is?

You can keep saying you're skeptical of whether AGW will be as bad as alarmists are scaring you about, I just hope you never have a power outage/hurricane/drought/flood/heat wave/blizzard catching you off guard.

If you're unwilling to pay a few thousand bucks a year for a useless carbon tax, I hope you're never caught off guard to leave your house, rebuild it, or a loved one due to any life saving devices losing electricity or water.

Overall, on the long time line, you will survive, and if you don't, the rest of us will. That's not the question, we KNOW humans will survive at almost any climate (just dont throw us meteors), the question is, do you just want to survive or would you want to preserve your modern lifestyle?

Sorry for not addressing your other concerns, but I consider them irrelevant.

(1) No. I don't. You don't. Nobody does and nobody can. We can only speculate.
(2) We can track hurricanes and predict storms with some precision over a short term (matter of days). Of course this is useful for advanced warning. Understanding their cause could lead to enhanced predictive power and possibly some limited means to control or direct the events some day.

The likelihood of my experiencing various disasters has not be shown to have a causal relationship with AGW. We established this in previous discussion. AGW is merely the recognition that GHG emissions from human activities are affecting the climate. The science implies that AGW can contribute to a warming trend or mitigate a cooling trend, but not necessarily affect the climate in any measurable or material manner. I am skeptical of the alarmists because they provide no convincing evidence for their assertions.

My personal position on a carbon tax is irrelevant. More important, your emphasizing it represents a conflation of issues. Whether AGW is harmful is a different issue than the proposed solutions. Also, you're begging the question by referencing future disasters (implying they will somehow be caused by AGW) and suggesting a perceived threat to our "modern lifestyle".

[buenijo]

finally proof that global warming is a scam, what better evidence is there than a coldest morning in the middle of summer!!!!!!!! debate is INDEED OVER, just not what alarmists think.

What do you mean when you write "global warming" here? If scientists were to show decisively that a cooling trend is in place, then do you believe this would discredit AGW?

[PRB]

My personal position on a carbon tax is irrelevant. More important, your emphasizing it represents a conflation of issues. Whether AGW is harmful is a different issue than the proposed solutions. Also, you're begging the question by referencing future disasters (implying they will somehow be caused by AGW) and suggesting a perceived threat to our "modern lifestyle".

I proposed no solutions.

Fragility of our modern lifestyle is threatened by just about anything, or else you wouldn't be on this board complaining about too much government and not enough choices.

[PRB]

What do you mean when you write "global warming" here? If scientists were to show decisively that a cooling trend is in place, then do you believe this would discredit AGW?

I am open to AGW being wrong, or GW being wrong.

Your key word here is "decisively" and "trend".

So, for scientists to show that, they must consider all the information available today, AND any new information they can find. This is how science works, instead of cherry picking or ignoring. If somebody were to dismiss or discount certain observations, he'd have to explain and justify why some information is less important than others when taking into account all factors and facts.

Example : you cannot grab ONE era in all of history where CO2 was higher than today, while temperatures lower, and then conclude "AHA! See? CO2 doesn't cause warming!". Similarly, you cannot look at one local temperature and one point in time and say "Aha! See? We have a record cooling NOW, so it must mean global warming isn't happening everywhere therefore it's not happening anywhere"

When you find data and observations in conflict with your original theory and predictions, first you should see if it actually is in conflict. Then you ask whether you failed to consider certain possibilities and causes. Then you ask if now, taking into account any new information you find, if available, would you either arrive at the conclusion which conforms to the allegedly contradictory observation. Then, you can modify your theory based on new information and considerations.

The saying "1000 conforming results won't prove my theory right, but one contradictory result will prove me wrong" is only true IF IT IS AN ACTUAL CONTRADICTION.

[buenijo]

I proposed no solutions.

Fragility of our modern lifestyle is threatened by just about anything, or else you wouldn't be on this board complaining about too much government and not enough choices.

Evasion.

PRB, I'm here to watch your mental gymnastics. If you're done with the cartwheels, mind-numbing twists, and extraordinary leaps, then I'll go elsewhere.

[PRB]

"The likelihood of my experiencing various disasters has not be shown to have a causal relationship with AGW."

"I am skeptical of the alarmists because they provide no convincing evidence for their assertions."

We'll see who is best at predicting the next hurricanes, droughts, floods, blizzards.

I'll digress again here and say, there's 2 questions here
1. The scientific and factual question of whether such extreme events ARE in fact caused by CO2 and human activity
2. Whether we can predict such events, regardless of what we believe cause it.

From a practical standpoint, I don't care what causes extreme events as long as
1. I'm not taxed for it
2. I know as advance as possible so I can prepare for it

From a scientific/knowledge standpoint
1. I want to know facts as accurately as possible, even if they're worthless
2. I want to test predictions as much as possible, even if they lead to no policy changes or policy changes I'd hate

[PRB]

Evasion.

PRB, I'm here to watch your mental gymnastics. If you're done with the cartwheels, mind-numbing twists, and extraordinary leaps, then I'll go elsewhere.

Sorry, which question did I fail to answer?

[buenijo]

Sorry, which question did I fail to answer?

There was no question. I and others have noted your logical fallacies on many occasions. You don't address or correct them, then continue to make the same mistakes. I admit to being fascinated with the process - kinda like watching a slow motion train wreck. However, the train now lies motionless in a pile of twisted rubble. Any worthwhile arguments have already been settled despite your not being willing to state the conclusion outright. I'll be highly impressed if you would state without equivocation that you don't know how the GHG gas emissions from human activity will affect the climate, you don't know how much warming has been caused by these emissions to date (if any), and there will be no way for you to know how any future weather events might be affected by these emissions. Of course, you're free to believe anything you like.

[Zippyjuan]

This thread defenately proves the debate on climate change is not over and will probably never be over. The amount of hot air is growing.

[PRB]

This thread defenately proves the debate on climate change is not over and will probably never be over. The amount of hot air is growing.

proof you're trolling.

[PRB]

There was no question. I and others have noted your logical fallacies on many occasions. You don't address or correct them, then continue to make the same mistakes. I admit to being fascinated with the process - kinda like watching a slow motion train wreck. However, the train now lies motionless in a pile of twisted rubble. Any worthwhile arguments have already been settled despite your not being willing to state the conclusion outright. I'll be highly impressed if you would state without equivocation that you don't know how the GHG gas emissions from human activity will affect the climate, you don't know how much warming has been caused by these emissions to date (if any), and there will be no way for you to know how any future weather events might be affected by these emissions. Of course, you're free to believe anything you like.

We can get all literal about what "know" means. You said evasion so I wondered what you meant I evaded.

What conclusion are you asking me to make that you think I'm dancing around or unwilling to admit I can't make?

[Zippyjuan]

proof you're trolling.

Just surrendering that arguing it here won't change any minds either way on the issue.

[mrsat_98]

Whether it is over or not they are going to push CO2 restrictions on us to better control us and further enslave us. They don't work for us.

Well good gosh, did it ever occur to you that we are breathing their air.

[Bastiat's The Law]

Saying that "the debate is over" is a leftist tactic. So is bringing up the ridiculous bogus percentiles of scientists that agree with their worldview. That's not even how science works. It's all meant for conditioning.

[PRB]

Saying that "the debate is over" is a leftist tactic. So is bringing up the ridiculous bogus percentiles of scientists that agree with their worldview. That's not even how science works. It's all meant for conditioning.

is the debate on anything ever over?

[dude58677]

is the debate on anything ever over?

No, we haven't said there was an end to any debate on anything. We just don't believe anything you are saying.

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

is the debate on anything ever over?



You should put that question to yourself:



I never cited the IPCC, so I don't care about their claims. But that aside, the science IS settled...

[PRB]

No, we haven't said there was an end to any debate on anything. We just don't believe anything you are saying.

you don't have to believe anything I said, if debate on nothing has ended, then saying so is quite pointless.

[MRK]

97% of all scientific studies conclude humans are causing global warming,

Next.

100% of all scientific studies are concluded by humans.

[dude58677]

you don't have to believe anything I said, if debate on nothing has ended, then saying so is quite pointless.

The debate on why you are trolling is not over.

[green73]

Coldest Antarctic June Ever Recorded (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/07/12/coldest-antarctic-june-ever-recorded/)