Yeah so global warming huh...

[GwynnInTheHall]

We do not understand we are causing it, because there is no scientific consensus that we are. There is consensus among scientists on some things, but not this. Anthropogenesis is the most hotly contested subject. One problem is that if there had never been a human on the planet, the climate would be changing, trending warmer. The north polar cap would be melting, because it is an unstable aberration. Nothing we can do would change either fact.

The question is not what we should do to stop global warming or climate change. The question is how we should deal with the inevitable.

J

One vote for drinking champagne........

[onejayhawk]

You're embarrassing yourself. There is an exceptionally strong consensus and has been for some time. The deniers are rightfully way, way out on the fringe, holding snowballs like dumbasses. http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

This position is supported by the Academies of Science from pretty much every single nation on earth. I cannot imagine a more thorough endorsement of a scientific concept. Let's be crystal clear here: there IS absolutely a consensus that global warming exists yes and that its primary cause is man. No Don't be fooled by some crackpot Wall St. Journal op-ed from a climate change denier. This is a consensus, pure and simple.

Don't be fooled by claims of consensus. It's a bait and switch tactic. Where it matters there is no consensus. Pure and simple.

J

[gcstomp]

Well, let's just assume for a moment that evolution is real and gravity isn't some liberal conspiracy, despite Isaac Newton's well-known propensity for exaggerating his penis size to try and hook up with the ladies..... I was going to start off with a similar wiseguy opening, but to what end? There absolutely is a consensus from the scientific community, that climate change, caused directly by humans, is a real and proven fact. There also exists a vast and impenetrable blockade in government, greatly rewarded in various ways by the Koch brothers to parrot certain nonsense, echo chambered by a widely watched news station and countless radio stations, to say it is a all a liberal fabrication.

Truth exists, there are such things as facts, science is not liberal. And yet that is not the movement being embraced in this country. The idiocracy has taken hold, that moment in history when Gore lost due to gerrymandering, creative counting, and plain old florida election 3 stooge re-eneactment via the hanging chad, The Florida vote was ultimately settled in favor of George W. Bush, by a margin of only 537 votes out of almost 6 million cast, when the U.S. Supreme Court, with its final ruling on Bush v. Gore, stopped a recount that had been proposed by the all-Democrat Florida Supreme Court. The outcome resulted in Bush gaining a majority of votes in the Electoral College, winning the overall presidential election. Despite millions more people voting for Gore over Bush.

On this speck of a site of a hundred? maybe active posters, we cannot even reach unanimous decision here, what hope to reach the majority of the country that what is popular is not equal to truth. As steadfast as the opposition is here, with continual sidetracking with bluster and noise (Hillary private email, Benghazai, birth certificate, shiney rocks)
I fear for all of us, as the trend does appear that we will land some republican as next president, who will be beholden to certain continued ridiculous and dangerous paths.

[Moonlight J]

[Fresno Bob]

if the same level of denial existed for the impact of CFC's on the ozone layer back in the 70's, we'd all be dead by skin cancer right now.

[DMT]

Yea, I appreciate your effort Chris, but there is nothing you can say or post that will change his mind because it's already settled. Similar to the anti-vaxxers. I hear people talking about the need to open a dialogue and listen in order to find common ground. Gimme a break. These idiots readily acknowledge they are completely out of their element yet they'll embrace the views of fringe loonies who have been exposed as frauds just because it suits their own personal beliefs. I fear we're just going to have to wait for demographics to sweep these dipshits into the dustbin of history as there is no compromise and no common sense or decency.

[GwynnInTheHall]

I used to get all twisted up about the willful ignorance some people embrace for whatever their chosen reason. Now I just shake my head and genuinely feel sorry for these types as if this kind of thinking is pervasive in their lives, it must suck to be them.

But then again, they probably doesn't know it sucks.

Mindless Drones of America UNTIE!







Yes that was intentional.

[bryanbutler]

Don't be fooled by claims of consensus. It's a bait and switch tactic. Where it matters there is no consensus. Pure and simple.

J

at the risk of digging my sandal deeper into something i won't be able to wash off, what do you mean by this? what do you consider "where it matters?" as others have posted, there *is* a clear consensus (or, let's call it an overwhelming majority at least) on climate change, and that it is accelerated by human influences, in the scientific (peer reviewed) literature. the only question or disagreement is on the rate of acceleration. so it must not be that particular point that you consider "where it matters."

Let's assume for a moment, despite the failure of every major model over the last 20 years, and the gross exaggerations and outright lies by the IPCC, that we accept your premise on climate change.

which failure are you referring to?

[onejayhawk]

I'm tired of refuting your off-the-wall assertions with facts, links, and reason.

Try replying to the actual statements.

Pie Chart

Climate change is not the issue. The impact of humans on climate change is not a matter of this sort of consensus.

at the risk of digging my sandal deeper into something i won't be able to wash off, what do you mean by this? what do you consider "where it matters?" as others have posted, there *is* a clear consensus (or, let's call it an overwhelming majority at least) on climate change, and that it is accelerated by human influences, in the scientific (peer reviewed) literature. the only question or disagreement is on the rate of acceleration. so it must not be that particular point that you consider "where it matters."

There is a huge gap between the science and the politics.

Science agrees that the climate is changing. So does every Republican in the US Senate IIRC. That is where the pie chart Jason posted comes from. There is no similar consensus as to how much of it is caused by humans. To get get to elD's NASA quote all you need is that some of the trend is caused by human activity. Take for example this article, which contradicts itself in the first two sentences.

A comprehensive analysis of peer-reviewed articles on the topic of global warming and climate change has revealed an overwhelming consensus among scientists that recent warming is human-caused. The study is the most comprehensive yet and identified 4000 summaries, otherwise known as abstracts, from papers published in the past 21 years that stated a position on the cause of recent global warming -- 97 per cent of these endorsed the consensus that we are seeing human-made, or anthropogenic, global warming (AGW)

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/05/130515203048.htm

Correctly stated, the first sentence should be "... consensus among scientists that SOME recent warming is human-caused." How much? 100% is the political version of Al Gore and the Democrats. Yet, as chancellor points out, they cannot get the models to track that assumption. The reason is feedback mechanisms. We don't understand them. There are positive feedback mechanisms and negative feedback mechanisms. To get dramatic change, you need to favor the positive mechanisms.

Ice ages, the minor ones, are thought to be caused by a geophysical conditions, which cause a change in tilt and orbital shape among other things. This happens on 41,000 year Milankovitch cycle. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles The mechanism is not well understood. Indeed, the reason this is the accepted theory is observational. The Milankovitch cycle simply fits observed glaciation extremely closely.

The thing to note is that we live an the warm interglacial period of an ice age. The M cycle is 41,000 years. That most recent period of glaciation was about 10,000 years ago. We live in an ice age. Moreover, the age is waning, not waxing, so warming is expected. In the periods between major ice ages, the polar caps melted. At the height of one ice age, the entire planet was covered by sheet ice. The changes we see are minor in comparison.

J

[bryanbutler]

you are right that the gap is between science and politics.

you are also right that there is no consensus on precisely how much of the warming is caused by humans. i stipulated that before. but there *is* consensus that part of the warming is caused by humans. again see my previous; it's only the rate that is in question. this is what the republicans (and, seemingly, you) dispute - they claim that *all* of the observed warming can be attributed to so-called "natural" causes. the scientific literature disagrees, and nearly unanimously. it's simply not the case. and the problem is that even the lowest rates predicted by the scientists, which equal what has already been observed, result in many degrees of warming, which is fairly drastic.

and, wow, milankovitch theory is fairly well understood. it's orbital mechanics, and solar insolation - not rocket science as they say. yes, there are feedback mechanisms, which must be modeled, but that has been done and quite successfully. all (good) modern models take all of this into account, and still show quite definitively that we're warmer than we should be given no human input. yes, waning, not waxing, so warming is expected, but not the amount we have.

are you disputing that humans have an impact on the climate, and are part of the warming? or are you agreeing with that, and saying it's dwarfed by "normal" temperature changes (as expected as part of random fluctuations)?

[swampdragon]

Lest anyone believe 1J's parsing bullshit, the consensus is that A) there is global warming (and no, all Republicans don't believe that.....don't make me laugh), and B) "Earth’s warming in recent decades has been caused primarily by human activities that have increased the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere".

That quote is taken directly from the US National Academy of Sciences.

I really wonder what onejay does/lives and how he spends his days.

He seems to dedicate an incredible amount of effort to being so wrong

[Gregg]

Gentlemen,

I am glad that all of you take the time and effort to talk about and debate what interests you.

I would appreciate it if you do not make your posts as a personal attack on other posters. I get that people are passionate about some things. Still if you drive people away than all you will have is a handful of you sitting around telling each other how smart you think you are. You become what you think you are fighting against.

Thank you for your consideration.

[swampdragon]

Gentlemen,

I am glad that all of you take the time and effort to talk about and debate what interests you.

I would appreciate it if you do not make your posts as a personal attack on other posters. I get that people are passionate about some things. Still if you drive people away than all you will have is a handful of you sitting around telling each other how smart you think you are. You become what you think you are fighting against.

Thank you for your consideration.

point taken

but the frustration level for people denouncing science and factual information is a personal insult to me as a science educator

[Lucky]

I know almost nothing of science, and would not be able to evaluate the studies if my life depended upon it, but I have made a living observing people, mostly in the courtroom, but outside as well.

Here is what I have observed. Republicans are advocates of big business (hardly shocking). Democrats more strongly advocate for the environment (again, hardly shocking). With some exceptions, the efforts to cast doubt upon theories of global warming (as climate change was known) were initiated by big business such as tobacco in the 1960s. It was not until about 30 years ago, however, until global warming became a major political issue, this during the Reagan administration. People who were Republicans adopted the position that climate change science was bunk. People who were Democrats adopted the position that climate change science was real. Around 15-20 years ago, climate change became a massive societal issue, and not just a political issue. But, once again, people who identify as conservatives believed that climate change is a hoax, while people who identify as liberals believed climate change is the most important issue we face.

Here is what all of this tells me...people are not persuaded by the science one way or the other. They adopt the scientific position which is favored by those of their respective ideological or political affiliation. They root for the home team. So instead saying "my science is real", or "your guys fudged the data", everyone should just hold up a sign that either says "conservative" or "liberal".

This technique will resolve numerous other burning issues, such as "birtherism", "Benghazi", "9/11 truthism", etc. Think of all the electrons we could save.

[Gregg]

point taken

but the frustration level for people denouncing science and factual information is a personal insult to me as a science educator

As an educator I am sure you have to deal with uneducated people all of the time. Your chosen mission is to educate. That would be why they call you an educator.

From your posts over the years, I would suspect you are very good at it.