Next decade 'may see no warming'

Tim, you're being offended by criticism of your climate skepticism is like a KKK member being offending by questioning their position on race relations.

You're questioning why the IPCC does something. I suggest that you get a PhD in Climate science, study the issue for 20 years, then ask that question.

A non-expert questioning the world's leading climate scientists would be like me walking into a room full of brain surgeons and pointing out their incorrect positions on brain surgery.

When it comes to knowledge in human society, science is the gold standard. When EVERY peer reviewed scientific study says climate change is happening and humans are causing it, the debate is over. The uncertainty is gone.

Questioning science is what happened in the dark ages. Oil companies and others who believe they would be hurt by carbon restrictions count on the vulnerability of the public to be misled. Misleading information from the oil industry and others is why many non-experts question climate change, when all credible experts (ie: peer reviewed) no longer question it.

Climate is hugely complex. Pointing to a few anomalies like the studies you mentioned is a red herring. Here's the only thing you need to focus on. Humans are removing millions of years of carbon from the Earth's crust in a very short period of time and placing it in the atmosphere as a known heat trapping gas.

Assuming that such a massive alteration of natural cycles would have no impact on climate is foolish and illogical, as well as grossly irresponsible to our children.

All thinking people understand this. I would be willing to bet that your skepticism results from one of two sources: one, you have a direct or indirect vested interest in the fossil fuel industry, or two, you think it's fun to get the environmentalists all riled up.

 

It wouldn't suprise me with this cool down. I talked to my Dad back home and he said as of may 2nd the trees have not really peeked out the leaves yet. They've been hit with three good snow storms. Infact, The whole upper midwest is in danger if they can't get crops in on time.

I've spent the last month up in Alaska and temps are way below normal. Tons and Tons of ice and people have said that this winter was brutally cold.

 

There were more papers than that written for cold fusion. I have no idea how many alchemy tracts were written about turning lead into gold, but quite a few. In both cases it was the naysayers who were on the right tract.

I do not know if Tim Bikes is on the right tract about the consequences of global warming being minor instead of catastrophic, but his points are always presented intelligently.

 

There's a big difference between non-peer reviewed papers, such as the ones you're referring to about cold fusion, and peer reviewed papers. Any quack can write a paper. But only the credible, non-biased scientists are validated by peers.

When every peer reviewed paper on climate change says it's real, it's real. Game over. I don't care whether a non-expert's opinion sounds logical. I'm not qualified to find the flaws in the reasoning. Neither is any other non-expert.

It's ludicrous that climate change is debated any more. We know we're pulling huge amounts of carbon from the ground and putting it in the atmosphere. It's like the Earth is burning. It simply is not logical to take the default position that such a vast alteration of natural cycles will have no impact.

Someone implying climate change isn't happening because it was colder one winter somewhere (thus ignoring or invalidating all credible scientific research) is like Dorothy tapping her heals together and wishing she was in Kansas.

People have a right to take any position they want. But we're at the point where it's no longer logical or defensible to say climate change isn't real. For this to be true, it would mean all credible scientists are wrong. There isn't a human being on this planet that has the qualifications to credibly take that position.

 

Yeah nyprius, you should be more like TimBikes, who never resorts to personal attacks, insults, and insinuations.

 

Hi Tim, labeling a logical position as a rant is a common tactic for misleading the public. You hope people will accept your opinion that my logic is a rant without looking at what I actually said. Many times this works. That's why so many people illogically doubt the reality of climate change.

But let me try to be even clearer than I was above. Failure to achieve peer review in scientific research means that the best people qualified to determine the validity of a position have found it flawed in some way. No scientific paper saying that humans aren't causing climate change has ever achieved peer review.

However, hundreds of scientific papers that say climate change is happening and we are contributing to it have achieved peer review.

This is the most important fact in our conversation. Using the word rant does not change the fact that no credible expert agrees with your position. Even if you were an expert, your colleagues would not support your position.

Perhaps you weren't trying to rile up the environmentalists (if you were, I obviously took the bait).

The key point is that it's silly for non-experts, like you and I, to have a conversation about something that the experts have already agreed upon.

As I said, for your non-expert opinion to be correct, it would mean all credible expert research and opinions are incorrect. Given the truly overwhelming scientific evidence about the reality of climate change, it is absurd for a non-expert to take the counter position.

The fact that this conversation is still going on in society is a sad sign of the times. Are we going back to the dark ages where we ignore science because it's inconvenient.

The changes required to deal with climate change are scary and threatening to many. So they would rather delude themselves and say that it is not real. That's sad because it means we will delay action to protect our children.

This is why more of us must stand up to these foolish arguments. Perhaps this doesn't apply to you, but many climate skeptics think that by being rude and abusive they can override logic. For the good of our children, we must stand up to these fearful and irrational positions.

I'm assuming you do have a vested interest in the fossil fuel industry since you didn't deny it. The writing is on the wall for fossil fuel. The smart companies will transition to energy efficiency and alternative energy. The not so smart ones will resist change and go the way of the horse and buggy companies.

Anyway, I'm only trying to stand up for future generations. We cannot allow this illogical debate about whether or not climate change is real to continue. Science has told us it's real in the strongest possible terms. It's time to take action. The sooner we start, the easier it will be. If we wait too long, our options will be limited and expensive, and our children will not be proud of us.

 

So, Whats the idea? Turn every human being into a self dillusioned emo?
Give me a fawking break, To say that Humans are causing this so called global warming is ridiculous.

We have no control over the weather, It's gonna do what it's gonna do, PERIOD!

Read this- Global Warming gets the Cold Freeze

It's living proof that the Goverment and these other wacko's want to take every right away from you. Thye start out small and then move on up.

Oh, I don't care what you want to do for children, Let me raise my kids and worry about them, Not you.

 

Did you read the part about every peer reviewed scientific study says climate change is real?

Of course you and others are free to claim that all the credible (ie: peer reviewed) climate scientists are wrong and you, a non-expert, are right. And there might be some people who agree with your logic, just like there are those who agree with the positions of the KKK.

Even President Bush now says climate change is real and we need to do something about it. Probably more than 95% of major corporations acknowledge the reality of climate change and are taking actions to lower carbon emissions, even when regulations don't require it.

All credible scientists, the President of the US and the CEO's of almost all large companies say global warming is happening and humans are contributing to it. How can you logically and credibly disagree with all these highly qualified, highly credible people.

Of course you love your children and want to do the right thing for them, as all parents do. I assume when your kids get sick, you do what the doctor says. Why then, when all credible climate experts suggest that lowering carbon emissions is the best course to protect your children, would you disagree with their expert advice.

 

Whatever.... Post more BS.

Back in 2000, Mn got rid of emissions testing because they said every year cars and trucks will become more fuel efficient and pollute less. It's stupid people in our own goverment enacting all these stupid laws when for a fact that carbon is in our environment naturally.

A smart asteroid could hit this planet and kill all life that exists. Seems alot worse than some carbon in the damed atmosphere.

 

I'll bite. Although this thread is about climate, not weather, it has been shown that in fact humans do impact weather as well. In many highly populated areas, it is more likely to be cloudy on the weekend than during the week. Google "weekend effect on weather".

 

Whats funny, even if that report were true, climate change will be happening, but just maybe that time would give us time to improve our country for major change after the moderation. Nah, forget that, we still will be fighting with the nothing is going to happen, all is well people, until its too late of course.

 

What's even funnier is that there are so many reasons for us to stop using fossil fuels. GW is just one. Another is our dependence on foreign oil. Another is the simple fact that it is non-renewable, meaning that eventually we will have to switch to something else, no matter what. Oh and by the way, we're at peak oil production right now, so we're about to slide down a very steep slope at the same time that the population keeps increasing. Exponentially. Another is that it's finally become cost efficient to do so. (Notwithstanding that it takes fossil fuels to build an infrastructure that doesn't, but that's another discussion.) Funny, except it's really tragic, in so many ways.

 

Well, Just when you thought we were not drillin in Alaska, We actually are and increasing production. I was just in Prudhoe bay for a month and I'm loving what I saw.

Gas Engines are here to stay.
Internal combustion here to stay - May. 2, 2008

And crude oil is a renewable resource. Where do you think it comes from?

The generally-accepted origin of crude oil is from plant life up to 3
billion years ago, but predominantly from 100 to 600 million years ago [1].
"Dead vegetarian dino dinner" is more correct than "dead dinos".
The molecular structure of the hydrocarbons and other compounds present
in fossil fuels can be linked to the leaf waxes and other plant molecules of
marine and terrestrial plants believed to exist during that era. There are
various biogenic marker chemicals ( such as isoprenoids from terpenes,
porphyrins and aromatics from natural pigments, pristane and phytane from
the hydrolysis of chlorophyll, and normal alkanes from waxes ), whose size
and shape can not be explained by known geological processes [2]. The
presence of optical activity and the carbon isotopic ratios also indicate a
biological origin [3]. There is another hypothesis that suggests crude oil
is derived from methane from the earth's interior. The current main
proponent of this abiotic theory is Thomas Gold, however abiotic and
extraterrestrial origins for fossil fuels were also considered at the turn
of the century, and were discarded then. A large amount of additional
evidence for the biological origin of crude oil has accumulated since then.

Oh, I'm sorry for swearing, But I get mad just like anybody else does.

So, Peak oil was supposed to happen in the late 70's so what happened?

I agree, We need to get of our dependency on foreign oil, So we need to drill more here in the US. In fact, China is drilling right now in the gulf of Mexico.

 

Where did you cut and paste this from?
Anyhow, yeah that's where I thought it came from. So yeah, ok, it's renewable in the sense that 3 billion years from now there will probably be another stockpile for some future life form to exploit. Doesn't help us now.

It did. 1970 was the peak for U.S. production. (aka Hubbert's Peak)

 

I'll try to find the link again for you.

According the USGS we have plenty of oil that were sitting on. And production is increasing in Alaska.

Don't you mean Hubbert peak oil THEORY?