Climate Science Is Not Settled

[fskimospy]

/insert pot meet kettle.gif

Just listen to yourself.

I am. All I'm asking you guys to do is put down the faith and look at the science. If you did that we wouldn't be having this discussion.

You guys are exactly the 'religious' people you're complaining about, the new creationists. Sometimes new discoveries come along that threaten what you think and it's hard to adjust. That doesn't change reality.

If science's conclusions changed and it turned out AGW wasn't a big deal I wouldn't just change my mind, I'd be overjoyed by it. That would be absolutely wonderful news. Despite how much I hope that becomes the case I'm not going to blind myself to reality.

 

[fskimospy]

You have the audacity to call yourself a liberal and yet you support policies that attack and impoverish America's most vunerable. From the congressional budget office....

http://www.cbo.gov/publication/44223

You're an embarrassment to everyone who considers themselves a liberal. You are just as irrational as the conservatives you claim to hate.

 

[dphantom]

A denier is someone who does not accept the overwhelming scientific consensus on climate change. Specifically, that the earth is warming due to greenhouse gasses and the majority of this warming has come from human sources.

http://www.catholic.com/tracts/the-galileo-controversy

the judges who presided over Galileo’s case were not the only people who held to a geocentric view of the universe. It was the received view among scientists at the time.


It goes on to explain the Church's position but I can't help but think in some ways this is similar to today. Work in the climate field that may show CO2 is not the prime forcing agent or that say PDO/AMO cycles play a larger role than thought are dismissed as "deniers" regardless of their credentials simply because of some mythical 97% of scientists say MMGW is the holy grail.

It is an incredibly dishonest viewpoint, intellectually dishonest to shut down any debate. How anyone can possibly think we now know everything there is to know about climate and how it will change is, well absurd.

Thank goodness I have an open mind yet to science. And critically view scientific papers on all aspects of our warming globe since the end of the LIA.

 

[xBiffx]

I am. All I'm asking you guys to do is put down the faith and look at the science. If you did that we wouldn't be having this discussion.

You guys are exactly the 'religious' people you're complaining about, the new creationists. Sometimes new discoveries come along that threaten what you think and it's hard to adjust. That doesn't change reality.

If science's conclusions changed and it turned out AGW wasn't a big deal I wouldn't just change my mind, I'd be overjoyed by it. That would be absolutely wonderful news. Despite how much I hope that becomes the case I'm not going to blind myself to reality.

What you are asking for is for those of us with an actual science background to ignore everything we know, have learned, and practice regarding scientific principles.

Sorry, but nothing is concluded. There has been no "overwhelming" proof of any hypothesis here. That's the whole fucking point of the thread. Again, you are the religious sounding one here wanting everyone to act on faith and not scientific principle.

 

[xBiffx]

You're an embarrassment to everyone who considers themselves a liberal. You are just as irrational as the conservatives you claim to hate.

Unlike yourself, a shining example of LBD.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

I know you were trying to go for that, but that's because you guys are so blinded by ideology you can't look at the facts objectively.

Only on ATPN do the people who say we should follow the overwhelming conclusions of science try to get labeled as the religious guys by the people desperately trying to deny those same scientific conclusions.

You guys are displaying all the same irrationality that comes from the creationists in the creation/evolution debate, just about a different topic. What's sad is that I'm pretty confident that you think creationists are acting foolish when they do this.

Please enumerate these specifically in regard to AGW. Rhetoric is one thing...facts are quite another.

 

[dphantom]

All I'm asking you guys to do is put down the faith and look at the science. If you did that we wouldn't be having this discussion.

I really wish you would open your mind to ALL the data, not just that which reinforces your belief.

There is data showing a warming climate. There is data showing CO2 emissions are rising. And there is now data coming in on solar irradiation and PDO/AMO cycles among other that as we learn more we find those other factors are having a greater and greater influence on climate.

Maybe even more than CO2.

edited for typo

 

[fskimospy]

Please enumerate these specifically in regard to AGW. Rhetoric is one thing...facts are quite another.

They have been enumerated over and over and over again.

I 100% agree that rhetoric is one thing and the facts are quite another. I'm just asking you to look at the facts. There is nothing I've seen from you in this thread or others that makes me think it is likely that you are amenable to the facts. (the atmospheric temps while ignoring ocean data was particularly telling)

 

[fskimospy]

I really wish you would open your mind to ALL the data, not just that which reinforces your belief.

There is data showing a warming climate. There is data showing CO2 emissions are rising. And there is now data coming in on solar irradiation and PDO/AMO cycles among other that as we learn more we find those other factors are having a greater and greater influence on climate.

Maybe even more than CO2.

edited for typo

I have the same wish for you. The data you need is out there, you just have to be brave enough to be willing to change your mind.

 

[Matt1970]

You're an embarrassment to everyone who considers themselves a liberal. You are just as irrational as the conservatives you claim to hate.

He's right though. Unless those the carbon tax is aimed at decide out of the goodness of their hearts to just eat the cost, it always gets passed on to the consumer. Who do you think will feel the effects of a rise in energy costs more, Bill Gates or someone living check to check?

 

[xBiffx]

They have been enumerated over and over and over again.

I 100% agree that rhetoric is one thing and the facts are quite another. I'm just asking you to look at the facts. There is nothing I've seen from you in this thread or others that makes me think it is likely that you are amenable to the facts. (the atmospheric temps while ignoring ocean data was particularly telling)

I have the same wish for you. The data you need is out there, you just have to be brave enough to be willing to change your mind.

Asked for something specific and other than rhetoric. Gives rhetoric.

/smh

 

[fskimospy]

What you are asking for is for those of us with an actual science background to ignore everything we know, have learned, and practice regarding scientific principles.

No, I'm asking you to accept science.

Sorry, but nothing is concluded. There has been no "overwhelming" proof of any hypothesis here. That's the whole fucking point of the thread. Again, you are the religious sounding one here wanting everyone to act on faith and not scientific principle.

Of course nothing is concluded; nothing is ever 'concluded' in science. There is simply overwhelming evidence in favor of one hypothesis here. All science in the end is weighing probabilities. The probabilities here are, again, overwhelming.

What's funny is that you're acting just like so many of those other people who think that because they have any scientific background whatsoever that they are qualified to weigh in on the climate science debate against actual experts in the field. It should be obvious to you just how ridiculous that is the same as if a climatologist decided to weigh in on germ theory.

 

[fskimospy]

Asked for something specific and other than rhetoric. Gives rhetoric.

/smh

Asks the same questions that have been asked and answered literally dozens of times. Acts aggrieved when people don't want to keep repeating themselves.

/smh

 

[fskimospy]

He's right though. Unless those the carbon tax is aimed at decide out of the goodness of their hearts to just eat the cost, it always gets passed on to the consumer. Who do you think will feel the effects of a rise in energy costs more, Bill Gates or someone living check to check?

The effects of policies enacted to curb man caused climate change have literally zero to do with whether or not man caused climate change is real.

 

[Jaskalas]

As I've posted above we've seen decreases in the mass of ice at both poles via satellite measurements indicating melting. Melting requires energy. Energy that wouldn't be available if Argo was wrong and ocean temperature was decreasing.

It's likely that melting hasn't stopped since the Little Ice Age ended.

Example One - Glaciers Of Norway And Alaska Lost Half Their 'size' During The First Half Of The 20th Century

Example Two - Alaska’s Most Famous Glacier Retreated Eight Feet Per Day Between 1794 And 1879

It's also likely that melting won't stop there, because sea levels were higher during the Eemian. Thus we won't equal previous, natural, interglacial warming until much more ice has melted.

Thus what you describe is not unique to the 21st century, or CO2 induced warming. Also... Argo measures OHC, but you moved your argument out of ocean to discuss glacial mass loss? Or... if you're discussing sea ice, that's only the sea surface and then we need to start discussing weather anomalies which temporarily displace that energy for decades at a time.

Either way Ice is a messy subject, where our true observations are only as old at the satellite era. Unless you'd like to discuss the USS Skate, which surfaced in open water near the pole in 58 or 59.

She also mentions that it may not make sense that warm water would be carried down...

I was interested in the error margin for Argo, for measuring OHC. Since we're talking two hundredths of a degree. It is interesting that it continues to rise, but such a small amount overall and only over an 11 year period. The "signal" in the Argo data is going to take time to mature and become convincing beyond doubt.

 

[glenn1]

The effects of policies enacted to curb man caused climate change have literally zero to do with whether or not man caused climate change is real.

What's the point of your exertions if this is completely a science debate? Do you spend huge amounts of time arguing against people who disagree with the scientiic consensus that Pluto insn't a planet like they were taught when they were young? Or on behalf of loop quantum gravity rather than string theory? No, your entire point is that you think you can somehow force the political decision if you can get people to agree with your scientific premise.

 

[xBiffx]

The effects of policies enacted to curb man caused climate change have literally zero to do with whether or not man caused climate change is real.

Man causing global warming isn't at issue. Wish you would learn to read.

 

[fskimospy]

Man causing global warming isn't at issue. Wish you would learn to read.

lol, it's definitely at issue.

Check that beam in your eye, brotha.

 

[fskimospy]

What's the point of your exertions if this is completely a science debate? Do you spend huge amounts of time arguing against people who disagree with the scientiic consensus that Pluto insn't a planet like they were taught when they were young? Or on behalf of loop quantum gravity rather than string theory? No, your entire point is that you think you can somehow force the political decision if you can get people to agree with your scientific premise.

Step one in getting people to agree on effective policy is getting everyone on the same page with understanding the problem.

 

[xBiffx]

lol, it's definitely at issue.

Check that beam in your eye, brotha.

Only because you fail to read. Everyone except people way off the reservation agree that climate change is real. Everyone also agrees that man can cause some climate change.

Those aren't the issues. The issue is how much can be caused by man, how much can be prevented, and how much could be reversed.

You want to keep preaching a religion about man being the undeniable and preventable cause to global warming. That if it weren't for man, there wouldn't be much, if any, global warming. Also, it appears that you believe that we can stop or even reverse what man has done. Sorry if others don't subscribe to your belief system.

 

[fskimospy]

Only because you fail to read. Everyone except people way off the reservation agree that climate change is real. Everyone also agrees that man can cause some climate change.

This is demonstrably false. Check the poll data. Additionally, plenty of people here hold those exact same views.

Those aren't the issues. The issue is how much can be caused by man, how much can be prevented, and how much could be reversed.

You want to keep preaching a religion about man being the undeniable and preventable cause to global warming. That if it weren't for man, there wouldn't be much, if any, global warming. Also, it appears that you believe that we can stop or even reverse what man has done. Sorry if others don't subscribe to your belief system.

I just want people to follow the science. Is that too much to ask?

 

[xBiffx]

This is demonstrably false. Check the poll data. Additionally, plenty of people here hold those exact same views.



I just want people to follow the science. Is that too much to ask?

It is plausible that man's addition to global warming is so minute compared to other factors that it could be ignored. No way to know for sure, at least today.

No, you don't want people to follow science. You want people to jump to conclusions loosely based on science. Figure it out. There is nothing scientific about concluding a hypothesis is true when you have conflicting evidence. And a consensus isn't scientific proof either, even if there was one.

Learn from Galileo.

 

[fskimospy]

It is plausible that man's addition to global warming is so minute that it could be ignored. No way to know for sure, at least today.

No, you don't want people to follow science. You want people to jump to conclusions loosely based on science. Figure it out. There is nothing scientific about concluding a hypothesis is true when you have conflicting evidence.

You don't ever conclude a hypothesis is true, you look at the probability that it is true given all the data. The evidence for it is overwhelming in this case.

And a consensus isn't scientific proof either, even if there was one.

The consensus is overwhelmingly supported as well. Again, nothing is ever proven, we only deal in probabilities. For that, the evidence is, yet again, overwhelming.

Learn from Galileo.

Attend that beam in your eye once again. Galileo was the one attempting to use the light of science, not deny science. You're on the side of the church.

 

[dphantom]

lol, it's definitely at issue.

Check that beam in your eye, brotha.

so what is at issue? It seems everyone here agrees man causes some warming. So what is your issue with those who say man causes some warming but may not cause most or all of it?

 

[xBiffx]

You don't ever conclude a hypothesis is true, you look at the probability that it is true given all the data. The evidence for it is overwhelming in this case.

Nope, sorry. Probability doesn't factor into the scientific method. That's just a way for you to cloud the waters.

The consensus is overwhelmingly supported as well. Again, nothing is ever proven, we only deal in probabilities. For that, the evidence is, yet again, overwhelming.

Sorry, but you do prove a hypothesis. Probabilities it is not. We don't probably know that gravity exists, or that the earth is round, or that the sun is the center of the solar system. If your hypothesis is one that says something probably is this or that then you could have a point. But then, you would be terrible at proving anything definitively as well.

You are on the side opposite Galileo. Everyone told him he was wrong, he was nuts, and that he had no proof. They based that on supposition and incorrect interpretation of data. Weird irony.