Well. You know my answer is yes. I've believed in it for some time. I wish I could convince you.
Let me get this straight though. The majority of the world's climate scientists, having researched the issue for decades, and having taken temperature readings from all over the globe for decades, and having used proxy data to reconstruct historical temperatures over many thousands (hundreds of thousands, millions) of years, tell us that the climate is warming.
And you're pointing to one place at once time where it snowed a lot... and that's supposed to counter all the other evidence of global warming?
the Harper government believes in climate change. What is wrong with you?
Ottawa, May 17, 2013—The Honourable Gary Goodyear, Minister of State (Science and Technology), today announced that seven innovative environmental projects will benefit from more than $32 million in research funding over five years through the new Climate Change and Atmospheric Research (CCAR) initiative. The funding will support teams composed of university researchers, scientists and partner organizations who will work together to advance our understanding of climate and the risks related to climate change.
"Our government is supporting research related to climate change through the creation of the Climate Change and Atmospheric Research initiative," said Minister of State Goodyear. "We are confident that the knowledge generated through these projects will help improve the quality of life of all Canadians."
1. By "global warming", I really mean "anthropogenic global warming" (AGW). And, by AGW, I really mean catastrophic AGW.
That is what I don't believe in.
I believe
1. the science has been politicized with scientists competing for huge grant monies depending on keeping the hysteria happening. To say, "the warming will probably be moderate and may be in some ways beneficial" would shut the whole thing down.
2. the science has been co-opted by left-wing expansionist government politics. It is being used to foward a leftist agenda for big-government, wealth redistribution, etc.
3. It is one thing to demonstrate that there has been modest warming; another to lay it entirely at the feet of man -- which is what is being done.
So far any warming that has taken place is well within the range of natural historical variability. Which is why Greenland is called Greenland.
So, AGW is ideologically-motivated science. So far, I feel quite vindicated by my skepticism.
AGW. Strangely, I rarely see that acronym on websites that believe in it. I'm not sure why.
But I digress.
I'm sure that over time most people will come to see that the so-called skeptics are more motivated by money and politics than the mainstream scientists.
Also, the term "skepticism" is really not appropriate. I'm fine with the term "Denier". Though apparently some find that offensive. I've heard the term "contrarian" from time-to-time. Perhaps that's more appropriate.
If they are denying the claim that there is such a thing as greenhouse gases, and that CO2 is an important greenhouse gas, and that humans have significantly increased the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere since the industrial revolution, and that this increase of CO2 in the atmosphere is warming the climate (and can be expected to warm the climate in the future...)... Well, if those "scientists" are denying that, then, yes, they are denying science. Unless they have a good explanation, a good argument... I'd like to see that sort of argument.
Scientists become famous by proving that all the other scientists have been wrong.
If all the other scientists believe in phlogiston... but you come on the scene and say "hey, that phlogiston theory might make sense given what you know but if you look a bit deeper into things... you'll see it makes no sense... once you take into account my theory about "oxidation"...
Anyway. My point is that there are many scientists who want to prove that the conventional wisdom is wrong. But ... they want to PROVE that.
No one these days wants to disprove the theory of gravity...
"If they dispute that global warming has been caused entirely or mostly by human efforts, is that denying science?" - Well, to deny that recent warming has been mostly due to human activity is denying the best evidence we have at the moment...
"If they doubt the validity of the computer models, is that denying science?" - Perhaps not. But my understanding is that the computer models have been getting much better. And their validity can be tested by "backcasting". That is, running the model backwards, to see how well it "predicts" the past (and since we know what happened in the past, we can check to see how accurate it is).
And we don't need complex computer models to be worried. We have temperature records that show warming, and we have reason to believe that recent warming has been much more rapid than past warming. And we know that greenhouse gases warm the climate, and that we have significantly increased the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere since the industrial revolution.
"If they dispute the catastrophic economic consequences that have been postulated, is that denying science?" - Perhaps not. But some consequences are unquestionably bad. If sea level rises by several feet... that would be bad.
"If they suggest that moderate warming might be good, is that denying science?" - No. But we aren't looking at moderate warming.
"Now, with 100 projections and unbiased science, you might expect 50 to be too high and 50 to be too low."
This sounds familiar. I think I heard Ezra Levant saying something like this a while ago. You wouldn't happen to know the source he was referring to would you?
Thanks for that last link too. It references John Christy. Which is good, since he is a climate scientist.
But... his views are not shared by the majority of climate scientists. And his work has been criticized by other climate scientists.
I know you're probably thinking "science isn't a democracy", the majority has been wrong before, etc etc etc. But...
Well. How about an analogy?
If I went to a hospital, and was examined by 10 doctors, and 9 of those doctors said that I had cancer and needed surgery and chemotherapy or radiation (they might disagree a bit about the treatment, but all nine agree on the diagnosis), and one doctor told me that I was fine and nothing needed to be done... I'd probably side with the majority.
When it comes to climate change... I'm going to believe the majority of scientists (the majority of people who know what they're talking about).
Of course, what we do about the problem(s) the scientists point to is a political question, and all citizens have a right to participate in that discussion.
1. There is big money in science. I know someone who is pursuing PhD at U of T. Because it is science-related, even though the degree is education, there is oodles of grant-money available. So much they fly around the world speaking to each other at conferences. That's a fact. And, the fact is, if you want funding, make it global warming related, and you increase your chances. Scientists are human. If AGW is just a minor problem, the funding would evaporate. They have to press the pedal to the metal and keep the gauge up in the catastrophic area or the funding disappears.
2. The AGW science is just too neatly aligned with leftist marxist agendas for my liking -- it makes me skeptical. The UN is not a neutral dispassionate body. It is interventionist and marxist in orientation. AGW is a wonderful pretext for increased governmental controls and wealth redistribution at the nation-to-nation level. If AGW didn't exist, the UN would have to invent it!
I think there has been some warming, and some of that is due to AGW. I just don't see it as catastrophic or a big problem. Certainly not worth destroying economies or controlling people's lives over.
There's also the saturation factor. Once the thin band of effect caused by CO2 is filled, you can pile on as much more CO2 as you like and it will have zero incremental effect. This factor gets overlooked. Some say it has already almost been reached.
Finally, I believe in the providence and sovereignty of God. I believe he put oil in the ground for us to discover and use and enjoy, responsibly. When I get in my wheels and head out to In-N-Out Burger in Phoenix, I thank God for methane-belching Cows and Oil!
1. Yes. There is money in science. Though probably not as much as there should be. I just don't share your paranoia when it comes to scientists looking for grant money. If it turns out that global warming isn't happening or isn't a problem, scientists can surely find other things to investigate. And of course there are many different scientists investigating many different things. (I'd like to see us invest more time and money in preventing a catastrophic asteroid impact... space exploration and colonization would also be good places to put more money).
2. I also don't share your paranoia about the UN. I don't think it's marxist. If the right is worried about the left using global warming to extend state power... then the right should be working on right wing solutions to the problem, not denying that the problem exists.
3. Ah yes. The global cooling thing. Who are these left wing ideologues who were pushing the global cooling thesis? There was some talk of cooling in the 70s. But the majority of scientific papers were predicting warming. http://skepticalscience.com/ice-age-predictions-in-1970s.htm
Also, some of the arguments about global cooling being big in the 70s are... less than honest. For example, this recent blog post uses a fake time magazine cover to make the point: http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/10/the-danger-of-hanging-your-hat-on-no-future-warming/
(Explanation available here: http://www.realsceptic.com/2013/10/12/roy-spencer-uses-fake-time-magazine-cover/)
4. About the "thin bad effect"... I don't know what you're talking about there.
5. About God putting oil in the ground for us... does that mean you don't believe that fossil fuels were created through natural processes?
6. I'm not sure how far I'd get making a Hobbesian case for anything these days...
There are of course rebuttal arguments. But think of various gases as bands. Once the band blocks out the sun/heat, it can be doubled, tripled and will have no further effect. The band is saturated.
Think of a billiard table. Once the white ball's straight-line access to the 8 ball is blocked, it doesn't matter how many more balls you place in its path; it's saturated.
Thanks for posting the WUWT post. But to be honest, I'm not sure I really understand it.
And I'm suspicious of this "band" thing you're talking about. Gases don't exist in the atmosphere in separate bands...
And... if adding more CO2 after a certain amount doesn't have any more effect, how do we explain Venus? Despite being closer to the sun than the Earth, the surface of Venus receives less sunlight (because the planet is covered in clouds of sulphuric acid that reflect sunlight). But the surface temperature is hot enough to melt led, because the planet has a thick mostly CO2 atmosphere...
33 comments:
Now do I believe in global warming?
Well. You know my answer is yes. I've believed in it for some time. I wish I could convince you.
Let me get this straight though. The majority of the world's climate scientists, having researched the issue for decades, and having taken temperature readings from all over the globe for decades, and having used proxy data to reconstruct historical temperatures over many thousands (hundreds of thousands, millions) of years, tell us that the climate is warming.
And you're pointing to one place at once time where it snowed a lot... and that's supposed to counter all the other evidence of global warming?
This is really sad for the families involved. Please keep us updated.
This is really sad. Please keep us updated.
the Harper government believes in climate change. What is wrong with you?
Ottawa, May 17, 2013—The Honourable Gary Goodyear, Minister of State (Science and Technology), today announced that seven innovative environmental projects will benefit from more than $32 million in research funding over five years through the new Climate Change and Atmospheric Research (CCAR) initiative. The funding will support teams composed of university researchers, scientists and partner organizations who will work together to advance our understanding of climate and the risks related to climate change.
"Our government is supporting research related to climate change through the creation of the Climate Change and Atmospheric Research initiative," said Minister of State Goodyear. "We are confident that the knowledge generated through these projects will help improve the quality of life of all Canadians."
I tried posting a comment last night. I thought it was submitted.
Was I too offensive?
1152 - Not at all. I thought it posted. I will reply shortly, my friend!
1. By "global warming", I really mean "anthropogenic global warming" (AGW). And, by AGW, I really mean catastrophic AGW.
That is what I don't believe in.
I believe
1. the science has been politicized with scientists competing for huge grant monies depending on keeping the hysteria happening. To say, "the warming will probably be moderate and may be in some ways beneficial" would shut the whole thing down.
2. the science has been co-opted by left-wing expansionist government politics. It is being used to foward a leftist agenda for big-government, wealth redistribution, etc.
3. It is one thing to demonstrate that there has been modest warming; another to lay it entirely at the feet of man -- which is what is being done.
So far any warming that has taken place is well within the range of natural historical variability. Which is why Greenland is called Greenland.
So, AGW is ideologically-motivated science. So far, I feel quite vindicated by my skepticism.
"And you're pointing to one place at once time where it snowed a lot... and that's supposed to counter all the other evidence of global warming?"
Actually, it's supposed to be satire!
AGW. Strangely, I rarely see that acronym on websites that believe in it. I'm not sure why.
But I digress.
I'm sure that over time most people will come to see that the so-called skeptics are more motivated by money and politics than the mainstream scientists.
Also, the term "skepticism" is really not appropriate. I'm fine with the term "Denier". Though apparently some find that offensive. I've heard the term "contrarian" from time-to-time. Perhaps that's more appropriate.
There are a lot of "denier" scientists. What is it they are denying? "The science"?
If they are denying the claim that there is such a thing as greenhouse gases, and that CO2 is an important greenhouse gas, and that humans have significantly increased the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere since the industrial revolution, and that this increase of CO2 in the atmosphere is warming the climate (and can be expected to warm the climate in the future...)... Well, if those "scientists" are denying that, then, yes, they are denying science. Unless they have a good explanation, a good argument... I'd like to see that sort of argument.
Scientists become famous by proving that all the other scientists have been wrong.
If all the other scientists believe in phlogiston... but you come on the scene and say "hey, that phlogiston theory might make sense given what you know but if you look a bit deeper into things... you'll see it makes no sense... once you take into account my theory about "oxidation"...
Anyway. My point is that there are many scientists who want to prove that the conventional wisdom is wrong. But ... they want to PROVE that.
No one these days wants to disprove the theory of gravity...
If they are denying the reality of global warming, then yes, they are denying the science.
If they dispute that global warming has been caused entirely or mostly by human efforts, is that denying science?
If they doubt the validity of the computer models, is that denying science?
If they dispute the catastrophic economic consequences that have been postulated, is that denying science?
If they suggest that moderate warming might be good, is that denying science?
"If they dispute that global warming has been caused entirely or mostly by human efforts, is that denying science?"
- Well, to deny that recent warming has been mostly due to human activity is denying the best evidence we have at the moment...
"If they doubt the validity of the computer models, is that denying science?"
- Perhaps not. But my understanding is that the computer models have been getting much better. And their validity can be tested by "backcasting". That is, running the model backwards, to see how well it "predicts" the past (and since we know what happened in the past, we can check to see how accurate it is).
And we don't need complex computer models to be worried. We have temperature records that show warming, and we have reason to believe that recent warming has been much more rapid than past warming. And we know that greenhouse gases warm the climate, and that we have significantly increased the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere since the industrial revolution.
"If they dispute the catastrophic economic consequences that have been postulated, is that denying science?"
- Perhaps not. But some consequences are unquestionably bad. If sea level rises by several feet... that would be bad.
"If they suggest that moderate warming might be good, is that denying science?"
- No. But we aren't looking at moderate warming.
" No. But we aren't looking at moderate warming."
Ah, but the only place the catastrophic warming is in the computer projections. They rely on assumptions. And, they've all been wrong!
Now, with 100 projections and unbiased science, you might expect 50 to be too high and 50 to be too low.
Guess which way they all went? Hello?!
"Now, with 100 projections and unbiased science, you might expect 50 to be too high and 50 to be too low."
This sounds familiar. I think I heard Ezra Levant saying something like this a while ago. You wouldn't happen to know the source he was referring to would you?
It was a BallBounces original!
No idea about Ezra.
The Suzuki smack-down, maybe?
Hm. Then... how do you know that all of the models are wrong?
Climate scientists seem to think that the models are very useful...
e.g., http://skepticalscience.com/climate-models-intermediate.htm
This was one of the sources.
http://junkscience.com/2013/09/19/ipccs-own-graph-shows-climate-models-embarrassingly-wrong/
Many thanks.
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/barbara-hollingsworth/climate-scientist-73-un-climate-models-wrong-no-global-warming-17
Thanks for that last link too. It references John Christy. Which is good, since he is a climate scientist.
But... his views are not shared by the majority of climate scientists. And his work has been criticized by other climate scientists.
I know you're probably thinking "science isn't a democracy", the majority has been wrong before, etc etc etc. But...
Well. How about an analogy?
If I went to a hospital, and was examined by 10 doctors, and 9 of those doctors said that I had cancer and needed surgery and chemotherapy or radiation (they might disagree a bit about the treatment, but all nine agree on the diagnosis), and one doctor told me that I was fine and nothing needed to be done... I'd probably side with the majority.
When it comes to climate change... I'm going to believe the majority of scientists (the majority of people who know what they're talking about).
Of course, what we do about the problem(s) the scientists point to is a political question, and all citizens have a right to participate in that discussion.
1. There is big money in science. I know someone who is pursuing PhD at U of T. Because it is science-related, even though the degree is education, there is oodles of grant-money available. So much they fly around the world speaking to each other at conferences. That's a fact. And, the fact is, if you want funding, make it global warming related, and you increase your chances. Scientists are human. If AGW is just a minor problem, the funding would evaporate. They have to press the pedal to the metal and keep the gauge up in the catastrophic area or the funding disappears.
2. The AGW science is just too neatly aligned with leftist marxist agendas for my liking -- it makes me skeptical. The UN is not a neutral dispassionate body. It is interventionist and marxist in orientation. AGW is a wonderful pretext for increased governmental controls and wealth redistribution at the nation-to-nation level. If AGW didn't exist, the UN would have to invent it!
3. The same leftist ideologues who were hammering for global cooling in the 1970s are now hammering for global warming. I'm skeptical.
I think there has been some warming, and some of that is due to AGW. I just don't see it as catastrophic or a big problem. Certainly not worth destroying economies or controlling people's lives over.
There's also the saturation factor. Once the thin band of effect caused by CO2 is filled, you can pile on as much more CO2 as you like and it will have zero incremental effect. This factor gets overlooked. Some say it has already almost been reached.
Finally, I believe in the providence and sovereignty of God. I believe he put oil in the ground for us to discover and use and enjoy, responsibly. When I get in my wheels and head out to In-N-Out Burger in Phoenix, I thank God for methane-belching Cows and Oil!
(should I add a --
bwahahahahaha!
here?!) :)
(IF you want grant money for your PhD, you should make it a Hobbesian case for climate change intervention!)
1. Yes. There is money in science. Though probably not as much as there should be. I just don't share your paranoia when it comes to scientists looking for grant money. If it turns out that global warming isn't happening or isn't a problem, scientists can surely find other things to investigate. And of course there are many different scientists investigating many different things. (I'd like to see us invest more time and money in preventing a catastrophic asteroid impact... space exploration and colonization would also be good places to put more money).
2. I also don't share your paranoia about the UN. I don't think it's marxist. If the right is worried about the left using global warming to extend state power... then the right should be working on right wing solutions to the problem, not denying that the problem exists.
3. Ah yes. The global cooling thing. Who are these left wing ideologues who were pushing the global cooling thesis? There was some talk of cooling in the 70s. But the majority of scientific papers were predicting warming.
http://skepticalscience.com/ice-age-predictions-in-1970s.htm
Also, some of the arguments about global cooling being big in the 70s are... less than honest. For example, this recent blog post uses a fake time magazine cover to make the point: http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/10/the-danger-of-hanging-your-hat-on-no-future-warming/
(Explanation available here: http://www.realsceptic.com/2013/10/12/roy-spencer-uses-fake-time-magazine-cover/)
4. About the "thin bad effect"... I don't know what you're talking about there.
5. About God putting oil in the ground for us... does that mean you don't believe that fossil fuels were created through natural processes?
6. I'm not sure how far I'd get making a Hobbesian case for anything these days...
4. About the "thin bad effect"... I don't know what you're talking about there.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/02/08/support-for-the-saturated-greenhouse-effect-leaves-the-likelihood-of-agw-tipping-points-in-the-cold/
There are of course rebuttal arguments. But think of various gases as bands. Once the band blocks out the sun/heat, it can be doubled, tripled and will have no further effect. The band is saturated.
Think of a billiard table. Once the white ball's straight-line access to the 8 ball is blocked, it doesn't matter how many more balls you place in its path; it's saturated.
5. About God putting oil in the ground for us... does that mean you don't believe that fossil fuels were created through natural processes?
No. God's providence works through natural means.
"No. God's providence works through natural means."
- I'm glad to hear you say that.
Thanks for posting the WUWT post. But to be honest, I'm not sure I really understand it.
And I'm suspicious of this "band" thing you're talking about. Gases don't exist in the atmosphere in separate bands...
And... if adding more CO2 after a certain amount doesn't have any more effect, how do we explain Venus? Despite being closer to the sun than the Earth, the surface of Venus receives less sunlight (because the planet is covered in clouds of sulphuric acid that reflect sunlight). But the surface temperature is hot enough to melt led, because the planet has a thick mostly CO2 atmosphere...
Post a Comment