Anthropogenic global warming myth

Originally posted by apathist
[b]If there is a claim proposed and that claim is disputed, the burden of proof falls onto the proponent of the claim.

We prove negatives all the time. Try google for help.[/b]

yes, and what he is too thick to get is that whether it is 'negative' or 'positive' is irrelevant to the 'burden of proof'. Every 'positive' assertion can be restated as a 'negative' assertion and vice versa; the 'positive' assertion that there is global warming can be restated as the 'negative' assertion that there is no global warming etc. The 'burden of proof' has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with whether the assertion is negative or positively stated but generally is at least partly to do with what the current evidence implies with the current scientific understanding (or simply just what the current evidence implies if there is no current scientific understanding) is probably the case although it is also dependent on its degree of relative assumptiveness.
Incidentally, this issue of what constitutes a rational probabilistic belief and scientific method etc is all part and parcel of my current extremely intensive research I am conducting and which I will publish the results in about a years time so I know exactly what I am talking about here.

Originally posted by sonhouse
What you refuse to understand in your haste to pronounce CO2 levels as somehow making what we see today as not being caused by humans, the fact there are more than one greenhouse gas, like methane which is something like 25 times the greenhouse gas pound for pound as CO2. And water vapor is another. You can't just look at CO2 readings and extrapolate a whol ...[text shortened]... al will to counter it, man made or not. But it IS manmade as much as you want to yell otherwise.

You are still lying. You know I never said man is not a factor, yet you still keep lying about it. It is obvious that lies are the only thing you have to cling onto.

The other natural factors you mention only make my case, not yours. Thanks, I'm done with you. Lie to someone else and insult their intelligence.

Originally posted by humy
yes, and what he is too thick to get is that whether it is 'negative' or 'positive' is irrelevant to the 'burden of proof'. Every 'positive' assertion can be restated as a 'negative' assertion and vice versa; the 'positive' assertion that there is global warming can be restated as the 'negative' assertion that there is no global warming etc. The 'burden of pro ...[text shortened]... I will publish the results in about a years time so I know exactly what I am talking about here.

LOL!

Great, then you should have no problem proving man can stop naturally caused climate change. You are hilarious! As if nature is the problem now...lol.

I see no reason to waste time trying to prove your absurd assertion wrong when it is so obvious to almost everyone here that you are wrong.

Originally posted by Metal Brain
then you should have no problem proving man can stop naturally caused climate change.

can you prove that man can never stop naturally caused climate change?

Originally posted by humy
can you prove that man can never stop naturally caused climate change?

Never? Didn't I already answer that question?
You are a scatterbrain.

Originally posted by Metal Brain
You know I never said man is not a factor, yet you still keep lying about it. It is obvious that lies are the only thing you have to cling onto.

To give you the benefit of doubt it seems like your argument comes down to semantics. Human influence on climate change is a primary cause, since it has been proven to have a direct impact (i.e. fundamental, basic, not a secondary cause). However, human influence may not be the only primary cause, since natural causes have also been documented. Would you agree with the following statement: Ample evidence exists that human activity is A primary cause of climate climate, but not necessarily THE primary cause." ?

If we are in agreement on that, we can then have the real conversation. How do we address (and potentially reverse) the consequences of human activity as a primary cause? This is the part that many climate change deniers refuse to discuss. These discussions tend to continually deflect to he-said she-said arguments about other things which may be bigger contributors to an obviously-impending global crisis that could displace 1 billion people. What are we going to do about it?

Originally posted by wildgrass
To give you the benefit of doubt it seems like your argument comes down to semantics. Human influence on climate change is a primary cause, since it has been proven to have a direct impact (i.e. fundamental, basic, not a secondary cause). However, human influence may not be the only primary cause, since natural causes have also been documented. Would you a ...[text shortened]... -impending global crisis that could displace 1 billion people. What are we going to do about it?

"Human influence on climate change is a primary cause"

There is no evidence of that at all. The only poll of climate scientists that has been done establishes that man is a mere factor and nothing more. That is the 97% that many websites like the consensus project FALSELY claims is man made. They do not even leave room for natural causes which shows they are blatant liars! They do not provide the source for their information and that is obviously because they have none that backs up their lie!

A primary cause and the primary cause are the same thing. Primary means primary. I think you should use the word "major" instead of primary if you do not want to use semantics yourself. Not that I am convinced that man is even a major cause since there is no consensus of that shown by climate scientists.

Our planet's climate is still very stable despite our increasing CO2 to similar levels of the pliocene epoch. Al Gore and others have mislead people into believing CO2 levels caused temperature increases in the ice core samples when it was the other way around. Today we can see that our higher CO2 levels do not cause temps to rise anywhere close to the Pliocene Epoch. This proves Al Gore to be either an idiot or a propagandist deliberately misleading people.

Science is about facts, not biased opinions of the misinformed. Take away the misinformation and you will see that science does not support the claims of foolish GW alarmists who think people need to be lied to for their own good. This is much like the "Reefer Madness" anti-cannabis propaganda film. Lying is not a scientific method, it is anti-science. If you want someone to take you seriously don't deliberately lie or repeat lies out of ignorance. Only the truth is convincing.

Do your own research of the Pliocene Epoch and ask good and sensible questions about it. You will learn a lot and we can then have an honest conversation about anthropogenic GW. Also, do not believe hack websites like the consensus project and skeptical science since they lie constantly and have no real credibility. If you do, you will come across like sonhouse making false claims about S. Fred Singer he found on an alien conspiracy site even after I proved his claim to be outright lies. After a while lies are the only thing they have to resort to.

You have absolutely no facts to support your claim that 1 billion people could be displaced. This is more crap certain people pulled out of their butt holes without anything to support their ridiculous claims. They made it up to scare you. If you do not believe me show me the scientific evidence of these made up lies of impending doom.

Originally posted by Metal Brain
"Human influence on climate change is a primary cause"

There is no evidence of that at all. The only poll of climate scientists that has been done establishes that man is a mere factor and nothing more. That is the 97% that many websites like the consensus project FALSELY claims is man made. They do not even leave room for natural causes which shows t ...[text shortened]... f you do not believe me show me the scientific evidence of these made up lies of impending doom.

The problem is you. You are so besotted by your 90 year old buddy who thinks Phobos is an alien star base, you just refuse to accept any evidence. Clearly, this is a religious issue for you, not a scientific one. Ten thousand climatologists can say we are in deep doo doo, but all you do is parrot your 90 year old 'expert' and mouth what he says. Why don't you try reading the exant literature yourself, maybe you would learn something.

Originally posted by Metal Brain
The only poll of climate scientists that has been done establishes that man is a mere factor and nothing more.

They made it up to scare you. If you do not believe me show me the scientific evidence of these made up lies of impending doom.

Ok let's start there then. The scientific establishment agrees that human activity is a factor driving climate change. Now what?

There are lots of potential threats to humanity which we, as a society, need to recognize, confront and deal with. There is a high probability that climate change is one of these threats. Geological records show an Earth with a very different climate from the one we're currently experiencing. If we fail to recognize it for what it is, the potential consequences are severe. This is not fear mongering or irrational madness. Just facts, reason, and self-preservation.

Much of the confusion with published climate science is that data can be easily cherry-picked from some time range or another to support a predetermined conclusion. Climate patterns can be periodic, which is why climate researchers in the 70's falsely predicted "global cooling" was imminent. So if you want it to be a hoax, you can find supportive evidence. Human activities also exert clear benefits to the environment, and these effects are important to document and promote. And yes, of course there are significant outstanding questions and uncertainty. That's why the clear scientific consensus (that anthropogenic activities contribute to climate change) is so important. Certainly do not trust science news headlines that are based on a single study. And don't trust the politician who presents a snowball in the US Senate as proof that global warming is a myth. Read the actual articles, though, and you will see truly compelling data. e.g.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v531/n7593/full/nature16946.html
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v6/n3/full/nclimate2873.html
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v6/n7/full/nclimate2961.html
http://www.nature.com/articles/srep17767

I agree that alarmists may take the issue too far for their own benefit, but what rationale would climate scientists have for collectively spreading false information? In order for the "climate change is a hoax" argument to be true, it would require a vast conspiracy to falsify data, bury negative evidence, and bribe multiple sovereign government agencies. Its James Bond-villain, "moon landing didn't happen" kind of stuff.

I don't think anyone can pretend to know exactly how fast sea levels will rise. But they are rising. 2.5 million years ago, in your cited Pliocene (at least to the extend that fossil and ice records show) sea levels were at least 35 feet higher than today (That's a low estimate, and there was obviously fluctuations and gaps in records since geological time spans millions of years.) Ten percent of the worlds population lives at sea level of 35 feet or lower. So that's not good.

I sincerely hope that scientists have over-stated the problem. But even if they do, I'd like to know that at the very least we did our part to address and combat this as best we can. There are simple cost-effective solutions once we recognize specific anthropogenic problems (e.g. http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate3158.html). Obviously, there will be uncertainty with regard to the exact impact of climate change mitigation strategies, but the benefits outweigh the cost. Hopefully we can have a conversation about it without blaming Al Gore.

Originally posted by sonhouse
The problem is you. You are so besotted by your 90 year old buddy who thinks Phobos is an alien star base, you just refuse to accept any evidence. Clearly, this is a religious issue for you, not a scientific one. Ten thousand climatologists can say we are in deep doo doo, but all you do is parrot your 90 year old 'expert' and mouth what he says. Why don't you try reading the exant literature yourself, maybe you would learn something.

Alien conspiracy websites are not evidence. Did you find it on wikipedia first? That is not evidence either. Go back and read Fred Singer's article Mars in 3 steps and read the part where he says Phobos is asteroid rubble. Are you going to believe him or a ridiculous alien conspiracy website?

Scientists and climate scientists are two very different things. You originally said this in objection to Freeman Dyson (Obama supporter and climate skeptic) so you must accept your own standards rather that be a hypocrite. Ten thousand climate scientists have NOT said we are in deep doo doo.. You have a problem with the truth.

Originally posted by wildgrass
Ok let's start there then. The scientific establishment agrees that human activity is a factor driving climate change. Now what?

There are lots of potential threats to humanity which we, as a society, need to recognize, confront and deal with. There is a high probability that climate change is one of these threats. Geological records show an Earth with ...[text shortened]... nefits outweigh the cost. Hopefully we can have a conversation about it without blaming Al Gore.

First we must agree not to use carelessly unspecific terms like you just did. Nobody says climate change is a hoax. That is like saying the ice ages never happened which is ridiculous. Using the term climate change is a bit stupid if you really think about it. Use the term global warming, but always say anthropogenic if that is what you mean. Leaving out that important term is akin to propaganda because when leftists and others leave it out and someone mistakenly denies climate change is real by ASSUMING someone means anthropogenic opens them up to the very thing I pointed out, ice ages are real and that someone can then say what I just did in sharp criticism.

Even global warming is real right now, but it started over 300 years ago before man could possibly be the cause. Since we have been in a warming trend for that long please do not point out meaningless things like the latest warmest year on record or stuff like that. It means nothing because that is the trend and man did not start that trend.

"That's why the clear scientific consensus (that anthropogenic activities contribute to climate change) is so important."

It is not important if man's influence on global warming is insignificant. That is why a poll of climate scientists opinions needs to be done using the term "primary cause". As it is right now, you have no idea how much climate scientists attribute global warming to anthropogenic causes. It could be 0.1% for all you know. Until a poll is done using specific terms like "primary cause" you have no right to claim we can take any effective action to reduce global warming or even if man is contributing to it in a significant way.

Until a poll is done we do not know. That only makes us wonder why no poll using the term "primary cause" has been done. Maybe GW alarmists do not want a poll like that being done because deep down inside they are afraid the results will show them to be irrational panic spreaders. More likely a limited poll like that has already been done of a small percentage of climate scientists and the results are not what they had hoped for so they suppressed it and are now avoiding a large scale poll so nobody can show how foolish they are. You have to admit that it seems very unlikely that nobody did a poll that would shed light on it. Why go through all the trouble with polls that do not use the term "primary cause" in at least one of them? Seems fishy to me.

The Pliocene had about the same amount of CO2 as today, yet we still have plenty of glaciers and ice sheets today when the Pliocene had none. I think this is good proof that most GW alarmists have greatly overestimated how much CO2 warms the climate. Claims that we are headed for a Pliocene like warming are incredibly foolish. Even if it were true there is no evidence that it would cause droughts as some alarmists have claimed. The Pliocene was a time of increased rainfall so you could say more floods would happen, but saying we will have both is ridiculous propaganda designed to scare people into accepting a carbon tax in the future. Whenever a tax is the popular solution to something that is merely perceived as a problem it should be met with great skepicism.

When the most popular solution does not involve expropriating wealth from most of the modern world I will likely support that solution if it helps preserve fossil fuels for future generations. Right now we are not using energy efficiently enough and there is a lot we can do about it, yet nobody is pushing for a solution of efficiency even though it can be done right now. Why do you think that is?

Originally posted by Metal Brain
It is not important if man's influence on global warming is insignificant. That is why a poll of climate scientists opinions needs to be done using the term "primary cause". As it is right now, you have no idea how much climate scientists attribute global warming to anthropogenic causes. It could be 0.1% for all you know. Until a poll is done using speci ...[text shortened]... ing for a solution of efficiency even though it can be done right now. Why do you think that is?

Good. Now we're getting somewhere, and I agree with you on a lot of points. The media does not do a very good job translating science into easy-to-digest headlines, because the reality is very complicated. If I had to guess, I'd say that is the basis for a lot of the disinformative mythology of climate change (on both sides of the ideological spectrum). If one reads the original science articles (vs. something from Forbes magazine), it turns out there are a lot of variables affecting global temperatures and climate overall, and climate scientists do their work in a narrow cause-effect framework to identify specific mechanisms of climate change in different environments. Uncertainty and complexity don't translate well in the bubble of click-bait on the internet.

So, I don't think its appropriate to poll all climate scientists with the question: "What is the percentage contribution of humans to total global warming?" That poll sounds like something you'd read in the tabloids. You can't do the experiment. But if you look at the example articles from my last post (there are literally hundreds of others) there is compelling data that define specific anthropogenic contributions in specific environmental contexts relevant to climate change. These studies provide the framework for common-sense solutions that governments can enact.

For example, one study looked at greenhouse gas emissions from agricultural crops. They identified some crops such as rice which are disproportionate contributors to atmospheric methane. They suggest funding for educational programs and novel policy measures to incentivize best practices in agriculture to reduce emissions in that specific area. That's a good idea that doesn't cost much.

However, the rhetoric of an "antropogenic global warming myth" is not helping. You sound reasonable, but this same language is used ad nauseum by politicians in the US to block measures that would improve energy efficiency, shift agricultural subsidies, and yes, reduce carbon emissions (it is clearly a contributor). Conservative politicians have proposed abolishing the EPA, which promotes specific research in these areas, because they believe in unsubstantiated claims that global warming is a myth. I know you don't, but they do. When evidence is presented, they reply with "Well, I'm not a scientist." They never get to reviewing the evidence because they're stuck denying it outright. So since you're asking what I think, I think that anti-scientific rhetoric needs to change, and we need to start trusting the data.

Also, the Pliocene was a nearly 3 million year epoch. I don't know a lot about it, but I don't think you can justify direct correlations of average CO2 and glaciation to our current climate and 50 years of data collection, given that we now know temperatures and CO2 levels and glacial melt can change in a relatively rapid manner.

Originally posted by wildgrass
Good. Now we're getting somewhere, and I agree with you on a lot of points. The media does not do a very good job translating science into easy-to-digest headlines, because the reality is very complicated. If I had to guess, I'd say that is the basis for a lot of the disinformative mythology of climate change (on both sides of the ideological spectrum). If ...[text shortened]... e now know temperatures and CO2 levels and glacial melt can change in a relatively rapid manner.

"So, I don't think its appropriate to poll all climate scientists with the question: "What is the percentage contribution of humans to total global warming?"

I strongly disagree. As long as people are promoting the myth that man is the primary cause of global warming I think it is very important to set the record straight with an REAL poll as opposed to a poll that does not exist.

"I think that anti-scientific rhetoric needs to change, and we need to start trusting the data."

It is ironic that you are putting forth rhetoric about science as if skeptics are against science when that is not the case at all. I am very pro science, not the people deliberately misleading others into believing in a poll that does not exist. Furthermore, some data is important and some is irrelevant so "trusting the data" is really just a misleading term designed to convince people that skeptics are somehow denying something. That seems to be a common tactic of GW alarmists, to label skeptics as "deniers" in a slanderous and biased way. The reality is that alarmists are the true deniers in many ways. They deny CO2 levels in the ice core samples lag behind temperatures for one example. Then they return to that same myth again and again that CO2 came first in a sad display of cognitive dissonance. Then they deny that there is no consensus that man is the primary cause of global warming. You can see it here on this thread. Sonhouse could not accept the truth and still went back to that same common myth in a sad display of denial. Sometimes when people hear the same myth over and over again they cannot bring themselves to admit it is a falsehood even after countless times of failing to prove the myth to be true.

Many global warming alarmists point to data that is meaningless as if it is proof of something. Not all data is equal. I will provide you with a link to an interview with Fred Singer so you can see for yourself how many people trust data that is irrelevant and should be exposed as such.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/warming/debate/singer.html

If the corporate news media was not so biased they would have a debate with Fred Singer and one of the alarmists that lie so much about it. They do not because they do not want people to know the truth, that a carbon tax will do nothing to solve the perceived problem. They do not want a good debate because they want to mislead people into supporting a carbon tax that will raise money for completely unrelated purposes.

The Pliocene is important because it shows that CO2 is not the primary factor for that warming period. Until you can site the natural causes of the Pliocene warming you are stuck in a position of saying that you do not know why the Pliocene was so darn warm and that it does not matter. It matters! If you cannot present an explanation for the Pliocene warming you have no right to claim to know why the climate is warming today and trying to digress away from explaining it will only make you look foolish and naive.

Originally posted by Metal Brain
"So, I don't think its appropriate to poll all climate scientists with the question: "What is the percentage contribution of humans to total global warming?"

I strongly disagree. As long as people are promoting the myth that man is the primary cause of global warming I think it is very important to set the record straight with an REAL poll as opposed ...[text shortened]... g today and trying to digress away from explaining it will only make you look foolish and naive.

You are the one looking foolish and naive, again parroting a 92 year old physicist who thinks Phobos is an alien construct. The point to that is he is easily led astray. Plus his science is 60 years old.