Global Warming

[IQS.RLOW]

It seems someone is in denial.

What else would you call it when after questioning your 'faith' you run off and immediately seek absolution via confirmation bias?

[boxy]

Don't be too hard on yourself, IQs, it's understandable that you're scared.

[Super Nova]

It seems someone is in denial.

What else would you call it when after questioning your 'faith' you run off and immediately seek absolution via confirmation bias?

"confirmation bias" - me?

Just because you are a goose stepper and I agree with many of your right leaning views does not mean I will blow with the wind on what I see to be the truth.

My only confirmation for my understanding (belief if you will) is that most respected scientists agree that man is contributing to the increase in green house gases on this planet. The IPCC report due soon is the most scrutinised report in the history of human kind. If they say that "it is highly likely that warming is due to human activity" I will believe them. When deniers say "there is no proof" they are seeking a "confirmation bias" by using these statements and the lack of total proof they think is required before any action is taken.

I do agree that the actions that need to be taken should be well considered for us and the planet and must consider the economic impacts. Carbon taxing and the like I am not in favour of. Carbon trading I am dead against.

Your position is one of denial. This argument is almost as bad as a "is there a God" argument.

Science is a voyage of discovery. Previous models did not predict short term temperatures accurately. They have improved their models. They do not have enough of the right data, They have launched a new weather satellite to look at extreme weather.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/spac ... space.html

Deniers are pointing to the surface temperature as not following the predictions therefore they argue it must all be crap. (baby -- bath water) The mean temperature of the planet is increasing... some of it is due to human activity. What percentage is not known.

Imagine if we are in a nature minor cooling part of a natural cycle, when it returns to normal the real impact will be felt.

As a denier IQ, you advocate sticking your head in the sand and hope that by doing nothing we will all adapt and humanity will survive OK. I consider this to be a real risk and if people with your attitudes rule the planet (and they appear to be so) then in the long term I am worried about the future for our grand children and beyond.

It is right to challenge the science however the challenge needs to keep up-to-date with the changes in the models and forecasts as they learn more.

The sciences is not saying there is no risk. The science is saying the GHG increases are manmade. The science is saying that it is highly probable that changes in global climate are manmade. the science is saying that in the long term, human activity WILL have a dramatic impact of the global temperature of the planet and that will have a major impact on humanity and the environment that contains the life cycle that sustains us.

Hoping that this is not true is madness. The actions needs to be balanced. The science needs to be invested in and better prediction formulated.

Hope is my least favourite risk mitigation strategy. Denial of the risk by the world leadership and the seeking of "biased conformation" that there is no evidence is just a way of covering their arse so they don't have to take the hard decisions now, or at least plan for them.

Would we both agree that we should place on hold any greenie type action for 10 years, invest in global climate science then prepare a plan of action based on the results? Would that be a fair compromise?

I am not interested in a "chicken little" response to the science as the evidence is that the effects in the short term are not catastrophic.

[IQS.RLOW]

Show me any proof whatsoever of catastrophic global warming or cry yourself a fucking river.

You have got exactly zip on any man made connection to catastrophic climate change. None. zip. Nada. Zilch. Sweet fuck all. Nein. Naught. Zero. Have you got that through your thick head?

You can appeal to authority (God?) all you like but your Gods in this case are vested interests promoting the catastrophic climate change in the likes of funded warmist scientists whose egos are riding a theory that is fuelled by tax dollars and reported to a body whose goal is to redistribute money.

Feel free to believe what you like and I'll feel free to call you an ignorant gumby in search of confirmation bias (yes, you! Who fails to gather informed views and only seeks out those that support your bias- I, however have read extensively both sides of the debate and you are on the wrong side of history my friend)

Forgive me for taking advantage when you open yourself up to ridicule, but that really is your problem, not mine.

[Super Nova]

Show me any proof whatsoever of catastrophic global warming or cry yourself a fucking river.

You have confirmed my position on your position.

The long term predictions if we don't reduce our contribution to GHGs is a high average temperature increase. 8 degrees within 200 years. It is a prediction.

You seek proof of a prediction. Like evolution, where it is not possible to provide definitive forecast of the mutations that lead to new species it is still a valid theory accepted because it is the only answer that correlates with what has been observed in the fossil records however elements of the theory can be tested on currently living life forms. because there is no way to prove that in 1 million years life will evolve a certain way doesn't make the theory and it's prediction less valid.

I cannot provide proof. You ask for what is not possible. you use this, with you denier legion to ensure we procrastinate and do nothing to protect our future. We cannot run an experiment that models the entire earth and it conditions in a controlled environment/experiment. We can model. We can infer. We can predict.

Strong inference is not proof of climate change, mainly because correlation does not prove cause. And so there will be debate, argument and polarization of opinion. As we see between us.

Decision makers will procrastinate. You are part of this.

In conservation there is the precautionary principle that says take action just in case.

There is more than enough evidence for us to do that.

You have got exactly zip on any man made connection to catastrophic climate change. None. zip. Nada. Zilch. Sweet fuck all. Nein. Naught. Zero. Have you got that through your thick head?

I see your position to almost be evangelical in opposition to sound and pure logic.

You can appeal to authority (God?) all you like but your Gods in this case are vested interests promoting the catastrophic climate change in the likes of funded warmist scientists whose egos are riding a theory that is fuelled by tax dollars and reported to a body whose goal is to redistribute money.

I am not happy with the corruption of science by politics. However, like religion was used, it is being used as a tool by the political. The debate will still rage and your rage will increase over the next 10 years as the political do start to plan action to take precautions. (that is, mitigate the risks)

Feel free to believe what you like and I'll feel free to call you an ignorant gumby in search of confirmation bias (yes, you! Who fails to gather informed views and only seeks out those that support your bias- I, however have read extensively both sides of the debate and you are on the wrong side of history my friend)

I disagree. You and your kind will go down in history as the cause of not taking responsibility for caring for the planet that gives us life. Your approach will reduce the quality of life for most of humanity in the long run.

Forgive me for taking advantage when you open yourself up to ridicule, but that really is your problem, not mine.

You are forgiven because thou know not what thy do.

Now ... why we don't have the proof in the form you would like.

Definitive proof has been elusive.

The reason is found in how we discover proof. We must turn to science and the technology it uses to discover evidence of something that is both too large and works on timescales that are too long for us to see or experience directly.

How we usually determine proof of climate change.

In a courtroom guilt is established by weight of evidence. Facts are presented and accumulate until the truth can be pieced together beyond reasonable doubt.

In science proof comes from evidence too.

Measurements (facts) are generated from controlled manipulations (experiments) designed specifically to test a proposed explanation (hypothesis).

Sufficient repeatable measurements allow the explanation to be accepted or rejected.

Some scientific phenomena do not allow for experimentation. Only observations are possible, made real as measurements of physical phenomena such as temperature, sea level, concentration of gases and the like.

These measurements (facts) are true in themselves but any explanation of them can only be inferred not proven.

We can surmise and postulate what the measurements mean but we cannot be sure of our interpretation.

Inference can be strong or weak but, being based on probability, it is always a likelihood and not definitive proof.

Inference always leaves room for doubt. And back in the courtroom, doubt precludes a conviction. The accused is innocent until proven guilty.

The evidence for climate change

We cannot undertake a controlled experiment on climate. The Earth is unique so we have no replicates and no control subjects with which to compare with those we have manipulated.

Equally most of the phenomena we imagine are responsible for climate change are too large and complex to replicate in the laboratory.

So we are left with observations and inference.

Recall that climate change is not a change in the weather, nor is it a record temperature, droughts, floods or severe storms. It is a consistent, systematic shift in weather patterns.

A change in average weather.

In other words it takes time.

Scientists have been able to reliably measure and record weather patterns for perhaps 150 years, getting progressively better at it as technology and instrumentation has improved.

For example, the longest direct measurement of atmospheric CO2 concentrations comes from an observatory on the Mauna Loa volcano in Hawaii with continuous records since 1958.

These data are enough to see a trend but CO2 concentrations are an indicator and not proof of climate change.

Historical records from writings, paintings and oral history provide anecdotal evidence. Images of the frozen River Thames during the Little Ice Age of the 1600's are provocative. They point to conditions in the past being different from those today. This is evidence enough for some.

Observation of effects tells us that climate changes and observation of drivers suggests that the causes exist.

Given enough time any one location will see uplift, erosion, deposition, drift and certainly different climates.

This amounts to strong inference for climate change over geological time.

The challenge is abrupt climate change and what it means if our activities were the cause, if it really is anthropogenic climate change

Source for some of the above: http://www.climate-change-wisdom.com/pr ... hange.html

[Super Nova]

In 2004 sheer rock faces on cliffs I know were shiny rock. Now they are covered in grass and trees.

Wow Lucus. With that logic you should be called Bizarro Spock

Could it be... now consider this as an alterative explanation.... A sheer rock face was probably shiny due to a recent (geological) fall from the face. The reason it is shiny is because it has been recently exposed.

Now isn't nature wonderful. It struggles to populate every area including newly exposed surfaces on a rock face.

[Super Nova]

It was shiny because it was a drought that global warming dufus's said was going to get worse.
Of course that was bogus so it then became climate change.

But it didn't, it got greener and cooler and grass grew on the mountain and eventually covered the rock.
So now its climate change

So there was a draught and then the draught broke. That must be evidence that supports your case. I understand now.

[IQS.RLOW]

The overreach of the warmists with their doomsday scenarios is exactly why nothing will or should be done except adapt. The Eco-religious movement has been known to use the tactic time and time again in a Malthusian frenzy as a God like threat of hellfire and damnation. They admit using the tactic even though they know they are wrong...and you swallowed it like a fainting southern baptist at a show run by a preacher named "Jimmy"

The facts are that climate sensitivity isn't doing what the warmists have predicted and now they are running about like headless chooks trying to find the warming. News flash for you buddy, that's called being wrong and your catastrophic conundrum has unfolded before your eyes- and you can't handle the truth, so you have 'belief'

And that's all you have. No logic, no facts, only belief, Chicken little.

[Super Nova]

The overreach of the warmists with their doomsday scenarios is exactly why nothing will or should be done except adapt.

That is illogical. throw the baby out with the bath water. Just because the short term surface temperature forecast did not progress as modelled, let's ignore the whole issue. That is stupidity t it's most profound.

The Eco-religious movement has been known to use the tactic time and time again in a Malthusian frenzy as a God like threat of hellfire and damnation. They admit using the tactic even though they know they are wrong...and you swallowed it like a fainting southern baptist at a show run by a preacher named "Jimmy"

I concede that the Eco-warrior has jumped on climate change for there own greenie agendas. that doesn't make it an invalid issue or that science needs to improve it's forecasting. It is the politics around this issue that has gone wrong including the IPCC being influenced by policy makers in the past to show a forecast that was not correct. Politics effecting science reporting.

The facts are that climate sensitivity isn't doing what the warmists have predicted and now they are running about like headless chooks trying to find the warming. News flash for you buddy, that's called being wrong and your catastrophic conundrum has unfolded before your eyes- and you can't handle the truth, so you have 'belief'

I am trying to address the truth. Your version of the truth is, they didn't get it right the first time so it should be ignored from now on.

And that's all you have. No logic, no facts, only belief, Chicken little.

I have an open mind. Yours is closed.

[IQS.RLOW]

You type lots but offer little.

The theory doesn't fit long or short term. FACT.

Why is your mind so closed? Why do you need to believe that we are on a destructive path when all evidence is to the contrary?