Is the 'Environmental' sub-Catagory a new FHOP

If by "visceral" you are referring to deep emotion based, not intellectual (e.g. the typical stance of the denialist locust swarm), then, yes.

 

Boy that is funny, Shawn.

You continue to take digs at people without contributing anything to the discussion. Does it make you feel good about yourself to insult people?

 

It's not inappropriate. Next to global warming, all other environmental questions amount to deck chairs on the Titanic.

 

The degree of ignorance on very basic facts on environmental issues is embarrasing for Americans:

• 65% think most of our oil is from the Middle East (it's 16%)
• 39% can't name a single fossil fuel
• 51% can't name a single source of alt energy

So think about that when very opinionated n00bs tell us about "facts" like the Sudbury nickel mine, and Dust to Dust.

 

90% of Americans believe in a mythical old man with a beard that lives in the sky and controls our day to day lives

To be honest, I feel bad for the average American.

 

Couldn't have said it better! Thank you.

Some one once said, if a politician were to say " the most important problem facing humans is..." and it were not followed by "global warming" that politician should be slapped up side the head! (Metaphorically, I'm not advocating violence, don't go crying to mommy and daddy,,, again!)

Somethings are to important to remain silent about, and in fact as the deniers have been able to obfuscate the debate with BS, it is ever more important that we speak out, and speak our loudly, slapping folks up side the head!

Icarus

 

Slapping folks upside the head? Wow.
BS? For lack of a better term ... ?

Violence and foul language. A very simple pattern, as always.

And just what stuff is it that has obfuscated the idea of AGW? Can you please detail what parts and why?

 

The recent obfuscation is the outrage at occasional poor behavior by some at CRU and trying to use that to divert attention from the ever-more-dire underlying science. Fortunately that is now blowing over and we can get back to things of more substance.

The Arctic is on track to be ice-free by the summer of 2015. As that happens absorption of sunlight increases significantly (dark water versus bright ice) and global warming accelerates. Ten years from now it will be getting ugly.

 

RP,

Clearly, either you can't read, don't read, or don't understand metaphor. (I even caveted (I don't think that's a word!) myself by pointing out the metaphor, because I state with reasonable assurance you (in particular) would jump on it if I didn't.

I confess that one could consider the abbreviation term "BS" to be foul language. If that is the threshold, then I plead guilty. At least you didn't accuse me of using fowl language again.

What I am curious to know is, what kind of Doctor are you that allows you the time to spend nearly all day, everyday, responding with your opinion?

(Just to answer your expected response, I am a semi-retired builder with a small construction consulting practice. Between being semi-retired/self employed, as well as being at my seasonal slow time, that is where I find the time).

 

Hill,

To answer you directly, I think that there has been an organized, concerted and well funded effort to spread doubt about the validity of global warming/climate change and environmental issues in general. I think this effort has been quietly spearheaded by multinationals whose real interest in profits, and they have a vested interest in obstructing anything that will potentially adversely affect those profits. If they can (and I believe they have) plant a seed of doubt in the public's mind, it only gets that much harder to find the political will to really address the issue.

This campaign has been aided and abetted by talk radio/ talk TV, because in my opinion, there is an added side benefit of making it harder for President Obama to succeed in any fashion. The long term consequences be damned.

The net result of this, is that contrary to the vast majority of scientific evidence, a clear majority of American's now believe that global warming is not real at worst, or not much of a threat at best. It now has become mainstream to earnestly believe this line, and as a result the acolytes are trying to bring their denialist message to as many outlets as they can to further their cause. So in the past few months a small but significant number of folks have come with lots of time, and lots of obfuscation charts and graphs to "prove" their point, flooding this forum with half truths, outright lies, and deliberate misinformation.

At it's core, I believe that underlying much of the opinion of the deniers is a fundamental selfishness in that these people (and multinational corporations!) realize that the change that is going to have to happen to begin to solve these problems is going to have to come at some cost. They don't want to pay for it, and they are willing to send that debt on to future generations, either because they don't care, or they hope against all evidence to the contrary, that we on the other side are wrong. I believe that every day we wait, before we take real and constructive action, that debt gets bigger, and at some point a tipping point is reached where future generations cannot pay it at any price.

To counter the argument that "we can't afford it, especially now" I counter with three simple observations. We are the most affluent country in the history of the world, and just be cause our wealth is disproportionally held by so few, we can't afford not to do it. Any nation whose stores are stocked with $80 pre-ripped jeans who claims they can't afford to solve this is just selfish!

Second, there is no case where environmental regulations cost more net/net than the money they save through the regulation. Clean(er) water/clean(er) air have come at some small cost (cat converters on cars for example) but the health benefits to the whole are way bigger than the cost.

Finally, in this age of global tensions and "war's on terror" or "wars for oil" clean, sustainable energy, and the policy that gets us on the road there should be priority #1 for anyone who is worried "about security". The side benefit of sustainable energy is that it generally) comes with a climate benefit as well.

On balance, I see almost no down side to tackling these issues now as though the peril were clear and present (as many of us do)If we are right, the mechanisms will begin to be in place for the future. If we are wrong, or if the peril isn't as bad as predicted, the gain would be, cleaner, more sustainable energy for future generations, at virtually no real cost to us. ( you can argue that if I have to spend and extra $500 a year for energy that is a cost, but if the net benefit to the country and ergo to me is more than that $500 say in reduced flood damage, or heat related deaths, or what ever it is a net/net win.

Icarus

 

My line to AGW skeptics is we import $600-700B of oil from mostly unreliable or unfriendly countries, borrowing from foreign banks...what fiscal conservative would oppose ending that?

_______________

May I gently say I read Revelations or Apocalypse when it predicts famines, pestilences, floods and conclude it's talking about climate change.

Just commenting - not trying to throw firebombs.

 

FWIW:

You probably saw that realclimate has a simple analysis showing that the CRU data have to be roughly correct. (As if matching all the other global temperature timeseries data were not enough.) I thought it was a nice piece of work.

RealClimate: Are the CRU data “suspect”? An objective assessment.

NASA GISS posted the November temperature anomaly, and by my estimate, 2009 is shaping up to be the second warmest year in the instrumental record, after 2005 (although the differences among the top-ranked years are not statistically significant.) Although looking at any one year is not smart, maybe that will dampen the "earth is cooling" meme for a while.

On the arctic ice, yeah, people are not paying nearly enough attention to that. On a seasonally-adjusted basis, it's pretty much right at the 2007 minimum again. It only gets in the news at the summer minimum, but basically it's back to where it was in 2007, at this time of year, in terms of extent, and below where it was in terms of volume.

http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_timeseries.png

I think the key question for the season is, where will Santa go when the icecap melts?

 

Very nice, thank you Icarus. As I was reading along in this forum I was wondering the same thing. Really it does not matter which side of the argument you are on. The fact remains that doing something now can only help future generations at a relatively small cost to us.
On a personal level, I bought a Prius not because I believe it is the best we can do, but because I believe it is a step in the right direction. We have many steps to take along these lines and the sooner we get ourselves on the path the better.
It is not a question of whether you choose to believe in global warming, it is a question of whether you are willing to take that risk for you children. Only hindsight is 20/20, so the real arguement is do you care enough about your future and your childrens future to take steps to be environmentally and socially considerate?

 

Radiant,

The difference however is that global warming isn't (and shouldn't be) a belief! It is based on reproducible scientific experiments, the vast majority of them lead to conclusive proof! The occasional contrary result does NOT negate the vast majority of other results. While agree that nothing is 100% certain, a few % of outliers don negate all the others.

The main ammunition used by deniers (and it has been fed to them by above mentioned special interests if not directly, then certainly indirectly) is to take one anomalous result and scream, loudly, over and over again, "See! because of this the entire body of scientific evidence is wrong!" That is like saying, it is we are having a cooler than "normal" (statistical/historic average) December ergo it "proves" that global warming is a hoax. I could conduct a study of say lake temperatures in my neighbourhood this fall, and have a perfectly designed study whose results are transparent, and conclude by that that because my lake temps this year were cooler than historical average or cooler than last year or what ever, and conclude from that evidence that warming can't be happening. It is wrong on it's face, and it really means nothing in fact, aside from the fact that my area lakes are cooler this fall.

The reality is, in spite of all the smoke an mirrors, the vast body of science and climate scientists agree that man caused global warming is happening beyond any reasonable doubt. Where the science differs is largely in the modeling on predicting the future. On any given day, no one can predict the future with near 100% certainty. But if we agree that even the smallest amount of predicted warming has consequences of a dire proportion, shouldn't we do AT LEAST as much to off set that prediction? To do other wise is insane. I have been accused of being "foul/foul, advocating violence etc. I have been yelled at for "being insulting" by commenting that inmates are in charge of the asylum. The reality is, if you accept my opinion, than you have to consider that at some level, the deniers are either extremely selfish, or insane, or quite possibly both, so I stand by my statement.

I agree with a couple of things these folks say however. I agree that the science should be transparent. I also agree that anamalies will always exist. I agree that few if any of us has the resources/time/energy to track down and read EVERYTHING about every study ever done. (even though there are those who would like us to believe they have)

So once again I suggest, that in order to find out what is really going on, all one has to do is follow the money. Ask the question who benefits if we do nothing and who stands to lose? I have suggested that it is Big oil/big coal/ big nuke/ big utility who stands to lose the most, and who through proxies have infected the waters. The deniers like to say, "well the winners will be Big environmental groups/big government who will benefit from doing something" I ask again, in simple terms, who has more clout? The Sierra Club or Exxon? The APA or your local congressperson? President Obama or The clean coal Institute? Pretty simple to figure out.

So it is not a matter of belief! It is not like Santa, or the tooth fairy or even the existence of god! One may not believe in evolution, but if you are stricken by a genetically evolved strain of the flu you might be hard pressed to hold on to that belief.

 

Not true.

Inconvenient truth for Al Gore as his North Pole sums don't add up - Times Online

Talk about obfuscating the truth

 

Uh, no it's not. It's based on computer models. Computer models are not "reproducible experiments that lead to conclusive proof." There isn't a climate scientist in the world that would tell you that.

(The "experiment" that shows that our 30 years of recent warming is greater than could be accounted for by the sun alone was done on a computer model.)

You guys literally know nothing about this, and you go around screaming at the top of your lungs. Your lack of knowledge on the subject you so strongly believe in is astounding.

I mean I can not think of a more disgusting mindset. You have to be open and look at both sides of the story. You seem to want to pretend that ClimateGate is a "nothing." Hello? Mann had to step down. The DOE is investigating. 100% fraud was uncovered, and it is not even refutable. It was discovered attempts to keep dissenting scientists out of the peer reviewed literature, and we discovered gross negligence of the peer review process. This is all 100% undeniable.

I mean do you feel like if there is even the tiniest hole in your AGW theory that the whole thing is invalid? It's not - that isn't how science works. The truth is that ClimateGate opened the flood gates to a whole lot of garbage that was going on behind the scenes. We see weather stations that are wholly invalid, data that is manipulated, etc.

You can not deny this. It is a fact. The data is there. The emails are there.

I'm sure it hurts you, because you believe so strongly about AGW, and you believe that since you bought a Prius you are saving the world, but the reality is that AGW has a closet full of skeletons that is becoming exposed. There is even a good chance that the CRU leak was by Briffa. I'm sure you ALL know who he is right? If you don't, then how can you possibly claim to know anything about AGW? You can now Google him and act like you knew, but in your heart you know you didn't know who he was, and in your heart you truly know that you are almost completely devoid of global warming knowledge. All you know is rhetoric, like "the Arctic will be free of ice in 5 years!"

Richard, in 5 years I will post back here and laugh at you at how wrong you are.

What will it take for you out of control alarmists to realize that things are not what you think?

I didn't even read the rest of your post because you know so little, that it is literally like pounding my head on the wall trying to have any type of discussion with you. I feel like I'm arguing with a kid.

 

RP,

Like I said so many times before, either you can't read or (now admittedly, "I didn't even read the rest of your post ") you don't read.

What I said was:

"The difference however is that global warming isn't (and shouldn't be) a belief! It is based on reproducible scientific experiments, the vast majority of them lead to conclusive proof! The occasional contrary result does NOT negate the vast majority of other results. While agree that nothing is 100% certain, a few % of outliers don negate all the others."

What I also said was:

"The reality is, in spite of all the smoke an mirrors, the vast body of science and climate scientists agree that man caused global warming is happening beyond any reasonable doubt. Where the science differs is largely in the modeling on predicting the future. "

If you had actually read (and understood my post) instead of clinging to your own narrow world view, I was saying two different things, both of which are true. The scientific method of any given study can be questioned, and certainly the extrapolations and conclusions can be questioned. The future modeling can also be questioned, but what cannot (and in scientific circles is not) be debated is the aggregate of raw date that is empirically clear,,,,,Global warming is happening and it is a virtual certainty that man's previous and continued emission of greenhouse gases (most notably CO2) are to blame. That is the fact! If you wish to point to one or two studies out of thousands that model the future differently, fine, that is your right. But I don't think you can come up with any credible BODY of data that is in significant disagreement with that.

 

You can't pretend to that what you said means something else.

What kind of repeatable scientific experiments that lead to conclusive proof are the basis for AGW? What kind of repeatable scientific experiments that lead to conclusive proof show that our current warming is greater than that which is expected by solar irradiance alone? Please provide one repeatable scientific experiment that leads to conclusive results which shows that our current warming is greater than that which is expected by solar irradiance.

And you are wrong about what is and is not debated. No one denies that we have experienced a general warming trend in the last 150 years. What is debated is the amount of warming, if this warming trend is abnormal, and the amount to which humans have contributed it. These things are all discussed in the scientific literature, which I know you have not read (you admitted it in a previous post - that you don't have time to read the literature.)

Again, demonstrably, you are wrong.

Why don't you just admit, at least to yourself, that you don't know really know what you are talking about and go do some research? You aren't doing anything to help yourself by consistently failing to make a point on an internet message board. You really need to do some reading.

(And I love that you failed to address all the points I brought up in my post - you merely wanted to try to point out something that you were, like always, wrong about.)

 

Rp,

It SAYS exactly what it SAYS. I don't believe a lot of explanation is required to understand what it says!

"nd you are wrong about what is and is not debated. No one denies that we have experienced a general warming trend in the last 150 years. What is debated is the amount of warming, if this warming trend is abnormal, and the amount to which humans have contributed it. These things are all discussed in the scientific literature, which I know you have not read (you admitted it in a previous post - that you don't have time to read the literature.)"

Once again, you pick and choose what you wish to from anything and every thing. I said:

"the future modeling can also be questioned, but what cannot (and in scientific circles is not) be debated"

The virtually the only debate is carried on by denialists.

Once again, you "quote" out of context, and indeed misquote because you think it furthers your argument. You state that I hadn't read the literature when in fact I wrote :
"I agree that few if any of us has the resources/time/energy to track down and read EVERYTHING about every study ever done. (even though there are those who would like us to believe they have)"

Now if you can claim to have read every single peer reviewed scientific journal that relates to climate change/global warming etc, my only hope is that you you read with a little more attention to detail than you do here.

At the very least, when I quote I do it accurately or I note that I am quoting from memory.