Climate Change - Open Letter

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
21

[quote]Schlenkatank wrote:

[quote]John S. wrote:
I would like to know why they have ignored the downward trend, and would like to know why they keep pushing this nonsense that CO2 is the cause.

I would also like to see how they can say this is the warmest period ever when the medieval warming period was warmer.

I would also like to ask how many of the scientists are receiving government funding.

I’m sure my questions are going to ruin the circle jerk that the liberal nujobs created but I think those are some good starting questions.

*p.s. There is nothing that is bringing this nonsense back to life, it was a hoax and you would all be best to do some research on the medieval warming period before you all start blaming capitalism and technology for some warmer weather(that is now getting colder).[/quote]

Start here, this site covers all the bases using peer reviewed studies.

Short answer for your “downward trend” question: there hasn’t been a significant difference from the rest of the data for anything to be called a cooling period. Since good science naturally assumes that their is a margin of error in all data, their has to be statistically significant differences in the data for anything to be called a trend. The margins of error in the GW data overlap going back about 15 years. Science 101 really.

Government funding question: Almost all science is funded by the government through grants. The government has many scientists working on issues with the potential to give back to the community. GW definitely qualifies. There is nothing unusual about the government funding GW research, just like their is nothing unusual about the government funding cancer research.

As for your medieval warming point, many places in the world showed unusual warming during the medieval period, however the overall temp of the earth is much warmer now. Observe the two photos. (data from NOAA)

P.s. You’re retarded on this issue. You know nothing about how science works, and you should absolutely have to admit this before contributing to this discussion again. Thanks for playing.[/quote]

I question the results when the employer of the scientist is such an ambiguous entity. So just dismissing that someone in the government is funding this is very ignorant.

22

The problem with Climate Change is politics. The Conservatards don’t want to admit the Lefties might have a point, and a good deal of the Lefties have poisoned the science by blowing it out of proportion. What we aren’t doing is unnatural per se. However, we are speeding up a natural process to our detriment.

23

[quote]Schlenkatank wrote:

[quote]SkyzykS wrote:
That is just a reiteration of the same crap they’ve been pushing.

Just as with the climate, nothing has changed.

[/quote]

I disagree, I think this is a great way to address many of the ways people are dismissing global warming. It’s a humble and accurate letter that reflects what any good scientists response should be to deniers, i particularly liked this passage

“There is always some uncertainty associated with scientific conclusions; science never absolutely proves anything. When someone says that society should wait until scientists are absolutely certain before taking any action, it is the same as saying society should never take action. For a problem as potentially catastrophic as climate change, taking no action poses a dangerous risk for our planet.”

[/quote]

So you would like to apply the logic of Pascals Wager to the concept of climate change?

Get real man. If it is real and provable, then there will be real proof of it. If that is ever discovered, then there will be a clear method of remediation.

Until then, they can keep their hypotheses and computer models of what might happen, and leave world wide business practices and economic sanctions alone.

Lets imagine for a moment that there is proof and a direct cause. What are you going to do?

24

[quote]Makavali wrote:
The problem with Climate Change is politics. The Conservatards don’t want to admit the Lefties might have a point, and a good deal of the Lefties have poisoned the science by blowing it out of proportion. What we aren’t doing is unnatural per se. However, we are speeding up a natural process to our detriment.[/quote]

Blown it out of proportion?! According to these Austrlian scientists none of us will be alive in 300 years!

Planet Earth will be too hot for humans to inhabit in just 300 years, a group of scientists are saying.

Australian scientists have warned half the planet could “simply become too hot” for human habitation by the year 2300.

New research by the University of NSW has forecast the effect of climate change over the next three centuries, a longer time horizon than that considered in many similar studies.

It suggests without action to cut greenhouse gas emissions, mankind’s activities could prompt average temperatures to rise as much as 10 to 12 per cent in the next three centuries.

The research, produced in partnership with the Purdue University in the United States, is published in the US-based scientific journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) on Tuesday.

“Much of the climate change debate has been about whether the world will succeed in keeping global warming to the relatively safe level of only two degrees celsius by 2100,” said Professor Tony McMichael, from the Australian National University (ANU), in an accompanying paper also published in the PNAS.
“But climate change will not stop in 2100, and under realistic scenarios out to 2300, we may be faced with temperature increases of 12 degrees or even more.”

Prof McMichael said if this were to happen, then current worries about sea level rises, occasional heatwaves and bushfires, biodiversity loss and agricultural difficulties would “pale into insignificance” compared to the global impacts.

Such a temperature rise would pose a “considerable threat to the survival of our species”, he said, because “as much as half the currently inhabited globe may simply become too hot for people to live there”.

Prof McMichael was joined by co-author Associate Professor Keith Dear, also from the ANU.

They describe the UNSW-Purdue study as “important and necessary” as, they said, there was a need to refocus government attention on the health impacts of global temperature rise.

There was also a real possibility, they said, that much of the existing climate modelling had underestimated the rate of global temperature rise.

Dr Dear said scientific authorities on the issue, such as the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), had struck a cautious tone in forecasting future temperature rise and its impact.

“In presenting its warnings about the future, the IPCC is very careful to be conservative, using mild language and low estimates of impacts,” Dr Dear said.

“This is appropriate for a scientific body, but world governments - including our own - should be honest with us about the full range of potential dangers posed by uncontrolled emissions and the extremes of climate change that would inevitably result.”

  • AAP
25

^ total BS

26

So I warn about the chance of hyperinflation which is backed by Austrian economics and I am laughed at and called a nutjob, GCF posts stuff like that and he is the sane one?

27

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Schlenkatank wrote:

[quote]John S. wrote:
).[/quote]
[/quote]

I question the results when the employer of the scientist is such an ambiguous entity. So just dismissing that someone in the government is funding this is very ignorant.[/quote]

Fair enough, but some would say that dismissing a scientific argument just because the government helped pay for the research is oh so very ignorant. Can ya feel me brotha?

And if anyone could find REAL HARD evidence that Global Warming is some kind of mass conspiracy (and believe me, it would have to be MASSIVE, like beyond what anyone here comprehends because of all the various forms of data that support GW), it would definitely be the biggest scandal in modern history.

28

[quote]SkyzykS wrote:

[quote]Schlenkatank wrote:

[quote]SkyzykS wrote:
That is just a reiteration of the same crap they’ve been pushing.

Just as with the climate, nothing has changed.

[/quote]

I disagree, I think this is a great way to address many of the ways people are dismissing global warming. It’s a humble and accurate letter that reflects what any good scientists response should be to deniers, i particularly liked this passage

“There is always some uncertainty associated with scientific conclusions; science never absolutely proves anything. When someone says that society should wait until scientists are absolutely certain before taking any action, it is the same as saying society should never take action. For a problem as potentially catastrophic as climate change, taking no action poses a dangerous risk for our planet.”

[/quote]

So you would like to apply the logic of Pascals Wager to the concept of climate change?

Get real man. If it is real and provable, then there will be real proof of it. If that is ever discovered, then there will be a clear method of remediation.

Until then, they can keep their hypotheses and computer models of what might happen, and leave world wide business practices and economic sanctions alone.

Lets imagine for a moment that there is proof and a direct cause. What are you going to do?
[/quote]

I’ll be very honest with you. Your statements are utterly contradictory and are indicative of someone who doesn’t know a whole lot about the scientific method. But then again you probably know that. Nothing personal, you just made it fairly obvious is all.

This statement, “Get real man. If it is real and provable, then there will be real proof of it” shows that you don’t understand that most “real” things aren’t “provable” things. For instance, evolution is a process that is estimated to have taken over 3 billion years. The scientific data including the morphology, molecular data, fossil record, and geologic timeline all point to an overwhelming argument in favor of evolution. However there isn’t one good scientist alive who will tell you that all of evolutionary theory is fact. It’s still taught in schools though, because it’s the best “guess” we have.

29

[quote]GCF wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:
The problem with Climate Change is politics. The Conservatards don’t want to admit the Lefties might have a point, and a good deal of the Lefties have poisoned the science by blowing it out of proportion. What we aren’t doing is unnatural per se. However, we are speeding up a natural process to our detriment.[/quote]

Blown it out of proportion?! According to these Austrlian scientists none of us will be alive in 300 years!

Planet Earth will be too hot for humans to inhabit in just 300 years, a group of scientists are saying.

Australian scientists have warned half the planet could “simply become too hot” for human habitation by the year 2300.

New research by the University of NSW has forecast the effect of climate change over the next three centuries, a longer time horizon than that considered in many similar studies.

It suggests without action to cut greenhouse gas emissions, mankind’s activities could prompt average temperatures to rise as much as 10 to 12 per cent in the next three centuries.

The research, produced in partnership with the Purdue University in the United States, is published in the US-based scientific journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) on Tuesday.

“Much of the climate change debate has been about whether the world will succeed in keeping global warming to the relatively safe level of only two degrees celsius by 2100,” said Professor Tony McMichael, from the Australian National University (ANU), in an accompanying paper also published in the PNAS.
“But climate change will not stop in 2100, and under realistic scenarios out to 2300, we may be faced with temperature increases of 12 degrees or even more.”

Prof McMichael said if this were to happen, then current worries about sea level rises, occasional heatwaves and bushfires, biodiversity loss and agricultural difficulties would “pale into insignificance” compared to the global impacts.

Such a temperature rise would pose a “considerable threat to the survival of our species”, he said, because “as much as half the currently inhabited globe may simply become too hot for people to live there”.

Prof McMichael was joined by co-author Associate Professor Keith Dear, also from the ANU.

They describe the UNSW-Purdue study as “important and necessary” as, they said, there was a need to refocus government attention on the health impacts of global temperature rise.

There was also a real possibility, they said, that much of the existing climate modelling had underestimated the rate of global temperature rise.

Dr Dear said scientific authorities on the issue, such as the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), had struck a cautious tone in forecasting future temperature rise and its impact.

“In presenting its warnings about the future, the IPCC is very careful to be conservative, using mild language and low estimates of impacts,” Dr Dear said.

“This is appropriate for a scientific body, but world governments - including our own - should be honest with us about the full range of potential dangers posed by uncontrolled emissions and the extremes of climate change that would inevitably result.”

  • AAP
    [/quote]
    This is exactly the kind of inflammatory shit that makes people angry. This isn’t necessarily bullshit, but it’s sort of ridiculous to try and predict what’s going to happen 300 years from now based on 100 years of data.
30

[quote]Schlenkatank wrote:

[quote]SkyzykS wrote:

[quote]Schlenkatank wrote:

[quote]SkyzykS wrote:
That is just a reiteration of the same crap they’ve been pushing.

Just as with the climate, nothing has changed.

[/quote]

I disagree, I think this is a great way to address many of the ways people are dismissing global warming. It’s a humble and accurate letter that reflects what any good scientists response should be to deniers, i particularly liked this passage

“There is always some uncertainty associated with scientific conclusions; science never absolutely proves anything. When someone says that society should wait until scientists are absolutely certain before taking any action, it is the same as saying society should never take action. For a problem as potentially catastrophic as climate change, taking no action poses a dangerous risk for our planet.”

[/quote]

So you would like to apply the logic of Pascals Wager to the concept of climate change?

Get real man. If it is real and provable, then there will be real proof of it. If that is ever discovered, then there will be a clear method of remediation.

Until then, they can keep their hypotheses and computer models of what might happen, and leave world wide business practices and economic sanctions alone.

Lets imagine for a moment that there is proof and a direct cause. What are you going to do?
[/quote]

I’ll be very honest with you. Your statements are utterly contradictory and are indicative of someone who doesn’t know a whole lot about the scientific method. But then again you probably know that. Nothing personal, you just made it fairly obvious is all.

This statement, “Get real man. If it is real and provable, then there will be real proof of it” shows that you don’t understand that most “real” things aren’t “provable” things. For instance, evolution is a process that is estimated to have taken over 3 billion years. The scientific data including the morphology, molecular data, fossil record, and geologic timeline all point to an overwhelming argument in favor of evolution. However there isn’t one good scientist alive who will tell you that all of evolutionary theory is fact. It’s still taught in schools though, because it’s the best “guess” we have.
[/quote]

Well then, I guess you are right.

I’m gonna go buy a Prius, stop eating meat, and do anything you tell me to.

But before I do, How’s that experimental cattle raising project going for you? Did that local cattle farmer implement your plan?

31

[quote]Schlenkatank wrote:

This is exactly the kind of inflammatory shit that makes people angry. This isn’t necessarily bullshit, but it’s sort of ridiculous to try and predict what’s going to happen 300 years from now based on 100 years of data. [/quote]

Ahem…

Pardon me. I just had to grab this little gem. Usually a statement like this would be worthless, but coming from you it is a comedy gemstone.

32

[quote]SkyzykS wrote:

[quote]Schlenkatank wrote:

This is exactly the kind of inflammatory shit that makes people angry. This isn’t necessarily bullshit, but it’s sort of ridiculous to try and predict what’s going to happen 300 years from now based on 100 years of data. [/quote]

Ahem…

Pardon me. I just had to grab this little gem. Usually a statement like this would be worthless, but coming from you it is a comedy gemstone.
[/quote]

In other news, your a dick.

We might be able to predict what is going to happen in the near future with GW, but we certainly don’t know what will happen 300 years from now. Make sense? It should. I was trying to add some merit to your argument. Then again, some dogs just bite the hand that feeds them.

33

[quote]Makavali wrote:
The problem with Climate Change is politics. The Conservatards don’t want to admit the Lefties might have a point, and a good deal of the Lefties have poisoned the science by blowing it out of proportion. What we aren’t doing is unnatural per se. However, we are speeding up a natural process to our detriment.[/quote]
x2 Maybe not our detriment but future generations. They are going to look back and wonder wtf we were thinking.

34

[quote]Schlenkatank wrote:

[quote]SkyzykS wrote:

[quote]Schlenkatank wrote:

This is exactly the kind of inflammatory shit that makes people angry. This isn’t necessarily bullshit, but it’s sort of ridiculous to try and predict what’s going to happen 300 years from now based on 100 years of data. [/quote]

Ahem…

Pardon me. I just had to grab this little gem. Usually a statement like this would be worthless, but coming from you it is a comedy gemstone.
[/quote]

In other news, your a dick.

We might be able to predict what is going to happen in the near future with GW, but we certainly don’t know what will happen 300 years from now. Make sense? It should. I was trying to add some merit to your argument. Then again, some dogs just bite the hand that feeds them.
[/quote]

Might?

MIGHT?

Ohhhh! Well the proposed changes to business and industry WILL have a lasting impact on the lives of everybody on this planet.

So, you will have to do better than MIGHT.

And by the way, news that I am a dick is older than you and has much more incontrovertible proof that your hair brained global hoo-ha.

35

[quote]Schlenkatank wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Schlenkatank wrote:

[quote]John S. wrote:
).[/quote]
[/quote]

I question the results when the employer of the scientist is such an ambiguous entity. So just dismissing that someone in the government is funding this is very ignorant.[/quote]

Fair enough, but some would say that dismissing a scientific argument just because the government helped pay for the research is oh so very ignorant. Can ya feel me brotha?
[/quote]

Yes, I feel you, but when most of it is paid for by the state governments and the way ‘corrective measures’ include more state control over the citizens, I assume that the science might be bias. It is like the funding of the School of Keynesian Economics, a lot of state dollars in the funding, strange when the prescribed measures are again more state control or spending.

[quote]
And if anyone could find REAL HARD evidence that Global Warming is some kind of mass conspiracy (and believe me, it would have to be MASSIVE, like beyond what anyone here comprehends because of all the various forms of data that support GW), it would definitely be the biggest scandal in modern history.[/quote]

Why would it have to massive, Occar’s razor? Shouldn’t scientific theories or findings be easily comprehensive and understood instead of having a bunch of complexities that most scientist I know have a hard time explaining (I live on a university campus).

36

[quote]Schlenkatank wrote:

[quote]GCF wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:
The problem with Climate Change is politics. The Conservatards don’t want to admit the Lefties might have a point, and a good deal of the Lefties have poisoned the science by blowing it out of proportion. What we aren’t doing is unnatural per se. However, we are speeding up a natural process to our detriment.[/quote]

Blown it out of proportion?! According to these Austrlian scientists none of us will be alive in 300 years!

Planet Earth will be too hot for humans to inhabit in just 300 years, a group of scientists are saying.

Australian scientists have warned half the planet could “simply become too hot” for human habitation by the year 2300.

New research by the University of NSW has forecast the effect of climate change over the next three centuries, a longer time horizon than that considered in many similar studies.

It suggests without action to cut greenhouse gas emissions, mankind’s activities could prompt average temperatures to rise as much as 10 to 12 per cent in the next three centuries.

The research, produced in partnership with the Purdue University in the United States, is published in the US-based scientific journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) on Tuesday.

“Much of the climate change debate has been about whether the world will succeed in keeping global warming to the relatively safe level of only two degrees celsius by 2100,” said Professor Tony McMichael, from the Australian National University (ANU), in an accompanying paper also published in the PNAS.
“But climate change will not stop in 2100, and under realistic scenarios out to 2300, we may be faced with temperature increases of 12 degrees or even more.”

Prof McMichael said if this were to happen, then current worries about sea level rises, occasional heatwaves and bushfires, biodiversity loss and agricultural difficulties would “pale into insignificance” compared to the global impacts.

Such a temperature rise would pose a “considerable threat to the survival of our species”, he said, because “as much as half the currently inhabited globe may simply become too hot for people to live there”.

Prof McMichael was joined by co-author Associate Professor Keith Dear, also from the ANU.

They describe the UNSW-Purdue study as “important and necessary” as, they said, there was a need to refocus government attention on the health impacts of global temperature rise.

There was also a real possibility, they said, that much of the existing climate modelling had underestimated the rate of global temperature rise.

Dr Dear said scientific authorities on the issue, such as the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), had struck a cautious tone in forecasting future temperature rise and its impact.

“In presenting its warnings about the future, the IPCC is very careful to be conservative, using mild language and low estimates of impacts,” Dr Dear said.

“This is appropriate for a scientific body, but world governments - including our own - should be honest with us about the full range of potential dangers posed by uncontrolled emissions and the extremes of climate change that would inevitably result.”

  • AAP
    [/quote]
    This is exactly the kind of inflammatory shit that makes people angry. This isn’t necessarily bullshit, but it’s sort of ridiculous to try and predict what’s going to happen 300 years from now based on 100 years of data. [/quote]

It is ridiculous to try to predict anything in the future, since most things are too complex to predict to any real degree besides generalities.

37

[quote]drewh wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:
The problem with Climate Change is politics. The Conservatards don’t want to admit the Lefties might have a point, and a good deal of the Lefties have poisoned the science by blowing it out of proportion. What we aren’t doing is unnatural per se. However, we are speeding up a natural process to our detriment.[/quote]
x2 Maybe not our detriment but future generations. They are going to look back and wonder wtf we were thinking.[/quote]

They would do that anyway, no matter if we were perfect. No one has respect for elders, we are not going around trying to destroy the world, we are trying to do what is best (human nature), that is all we can do.

38

[quote]GCF wrote:
So a bunch of the world’s top scientists have gotten together and written an open letter in the hope of restoring some faith in the climate change debate. Here is the link to the letter itself. It’s an interesting read:

I’m sure that a lot of people here will take issue with a number of the points they raise as they seek to defend the science after the well publicized email leaks.

As I say there are a lot of things in this letter that people will likely want to discuss - go for it. To kick it off though I would like to ask how those who do not follow the man made climate change argument came to their conclusion.

For me it appears the weight of the scientific community is behind this argument (maybe this is an incorrect pereption?). I’m an intelligent person and have read both sides and tend to agree with whoever I just read! At the end of the day I am not nor will I ever be an expert in these matters. As such I have to go with the those who are and it seems to me those are the ones warning of the dangers of climate change.

So, how did those on the other side of the debate come to end up there?

Edit: I might add the other factor in my personal decision was that it seemed to me if man made climate change was wrong, doing something about it would be a lot less dangerous than not doing something about it if it was true. Did that make any sense?[/quote]

Can we point out that climategate was completely blown out of proportion and that after a review by the scientific community no evidence was found of anything unethical?

So with Copenhagen looming on the horizon a nice bit of corporate espionage created a red herring issue casting doubt on climate change that caught traction with right wing bloggers who for some reason desperately don’t want to believe that we are ruining our planet.

39

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:

[quote]Spartiates wrote:
You don’t have to accept that man-made Co2 emission is the largest contributor to global warming, to aknowledge that it’s part of the problem, and something we ought to try and bring down.

The anti-global warming argument seems sloppy, and without any unity: some of them deny that global warming is happening at all, the others just argue that it’s not caused by man, some admit that we contribute to it, but aren’t the primary cause, and there are a couple who even say “yeah, but the cost of industry is worth it”.

So which is it?

It seems that the evidence is overwhelming in suggesting that the world is heating up, and even if you don’t buy into the argument that we caused it, you ought to be concerned. If you believe it was caused by people, the solution is clear: stop causing it. If you believe it’s part of a natural cycle, then shouldn’t your people be formulating some sort of long-term disaster plan, or at least advocating for that, since we could potentially end up with some serious land-mass underwater, and wild weather patters wreaking havoc on agriculture and geographically vulnerable areas?

The fact that the “deniers” haven’t taken a pro-active approach to taking on the challenges of “natural” global warming, leads me to believe their attitude is just flat-out denial, and an unwillingness to change or adapt to the world as it is.

If the global warming is natural, then there’s nothing we can do about it, and we’d batter start restructuring that which in our society will be impacted by this change, right?[/quote]

You raise two points - first - is the planet actually warming? Well, since the data on this is contradictory at best - better data is needed. Indeed, since 1998 the calculated global average temperature has been declining. This is why the “hysteria” about global warming was changed to “climate change” because even the advocates for AGW had to acknowledge something was wrong with their models. In addition, we need historical comparative data as well, and this is the hard part. That is why the Medieval Warming Period is so critical to the debate - the avergae temperatures were much warmer than today and yet - no catastrophy . . .hmm
[/quote]

False about the use of the terms

“Within scientific journals, this is still how the two terms are used. Global warming refers to surface temperature increases, while climate change includes global warming and everything else that increasing greenhouse gas amounts will affect.”
-NASA

Climate change reflects the nuance that the greenhouse effect causes intensification of existing weather patterns meaning that some places will have cooler, wetter summers and dryer warmer winters. Overall, the effect is global warming.

You, sir, are no expert.

40

[quote]SkyzykS wrote:

[quote]Schlenkatank wrote:

[quote]SkyzykS wrote:
That is just a reiteration of the same crap they’ve been pushing.

Just as with the climate, nothing has changed.

[/quote]

I disagree, I think this is a great way to address many of the ways people are dismissing global warming. It’s a humble and accurate letter that reflects what any good scientists response should be to deniers, i particularly liked this passage

“There is always some uncertainty associated with scientific conclusions; science never absolutely proves anything. When someone says that society should wait until scientists are absolutely certain before taking any action, it is the same as saying society should never take action. For a problem as potentially catastrophic as climate change, taking no action poses a dangerous risk for our planet.”

[/quote]

Lets imagine for a moment that there is proof and a direct cause. What are you going to do?

[/quote]

Oh its going to be rough to switch to wind, tide, solar, carbon capture, nuclear and all that. But it has to be done.