And what do we do about it?
Global warming is for real, and it is important. Just as important is the fact that global warming is largely anthropogenic. Global warming is important because conditions for life on the planet are changing due to warming as well as other changes caused by the release of fossil carbon into the atmosphere, in ways that will have, on balance, negative impacts; That it is anthropogenic is important because this means we have identified a cause of an important negative effect and thus could potentially curtail it. The anthropogenic nature of global warming is also important for another reason: It provides a test case. Can humanity handle a problem of this magnitude, that it has created for itself, with sufficient speed to curtail the worse consequences? Or not?
It has been said that global warming is a mixed bag: For some it will be bad, for others it will be good. This is a myth. Global warming is on balance bad, and it is mostly bad. Never mind the extra CO2 in the atmosphere that plants like, and which would increase agricultural productivity. Plants do not produce more tissue, fruit, grain, or what have you in direct proportion to the CO2 in the atmosphere. A little, yes, but after a small increase in productivity more CO2 does not increase productivity. The small amount of productivity is offset by the negative consequences of global warming.
It may be that the most significant impact of "global warming" will actually be not in atmospheric temperature change, but rather, in the change of ocean chemistry caused by absorption of extra CO2. If ocean chemistry changes in a way that some models predict, it will become difficult for several kinds of small marine organisms to build their shells. Many of these organisms reside at or near the base of the marine food chain. Some also serve, collectively, as one of the primary means by which atmospheric CO2 is broken down to produce atmospheric oxygen. Collectively, they are one (and an important one) of several "lungs of the, planet." In the worse case, which may or may not happen, oxygen may become noticeably depleted in our atmosphere, and food supplies may be negativelhy affected.
The situation will probably eventually resolve itself. A widespread oxygen-breathing organism causes the oxygen-producing system to fail and disrupts its own food chain. The oxygen-breathing organism then goes extinct (taking numerous other species with it). Eventually, oxygen-producing systems re-develop, food chains adjust, and something like present-day conditions return, and since the oxygen-breathing organism that caused the problem to begin with has gone extinct, things would be back to something that passes for normal for a while.
If you are an anthropogenic global warming denialist, you can count yourself as partly responsible for such a calamity. You probably won't live to see the worst consequences because you are old (most AGW denialists are grumpy old men). You may want to write a letter to your grandchildren, who will suffer these consequences, explaining your role in creating their misery. Just sayin'
What does AGW denialism look like?
It looks like a lot of things.
It looks like anonymous Internet cranks shouting at other people for not being real scientists.
It looks like people shouting about alarmism.
It looks like faux journalists seeking a "balanced view" that gives "both sides" of "the debate."
It looks like web sites pretending to be valid science-oriented resources faking data and making stuff up, and Internet trolls dropping links to those sites wherever possible to (mis)direct people to them.
How do we address it?
Call them on it, every time they open their mouths. Demand explanations for their motives (which is something to think about, by the way). If you are a blogger and they comment on your blog, you need not be intimidated by screechy references to the "First Amendment" ... just delete their blaterhing or change their links to point to the web site of the Spam Museum, a major Minnesota Attraction. Or whatever.
When you have friends or colleagues who seem to show leanings towards AGW denialism, show them clearly that you do not take them seriously, indicate subtly that their credibility is at stake, politely give them links to sites like Real Climate where actual climate scientists talk about actual climate science. Do not vote for, and always vote against, politicians who are denialists. Yes, yes, I'm suggesting that Anthropogenic Climate Change is a "litmus test" issue, because it is. And the litmus test is not only a political one ... it is also a test of ocean acidity, which has increased by an average of 30% with the release of fossil carbon to date, and which is expected to reach 150% by 2100, which, in turn, is probably beyond one or more thresholds of disaster.
When you look upon a global warming denialist, you are not seeing a person who is deluded, wrong, misinformed, or misguided. You are seeing a person who is intent on killing your grandchildren. You may want to treat them politely, you may want to be a dick to them. Do whatever works. But don't let them think for a second that you do not know what the consequences of their actions are. Don't let them get away with it.
Here's my next post on AGW Global Warming Denialis, wih comments open!
More like this
Great post - denial of AGW is the more refined climate denial position. The AGW denialists will say - "sure the climate is warming - but this is just a natural cycle and nothing to do with us".
For most of us who fully believe in AGW, citing evidence of GW alone is not hard. But making clear arguments as to why it is man made is a little harder. We (at least I) need to understand the science and importantly the evidence for AGW a little better.
yup! you go Greg!
So what are you all going to do about this. For years we have been warned that time is running out. The first deadline whooshed past in 2000 then the next at 2010. How many times were we told we HAD to do something before those 2 dates or it would be too late. Well guess what people its too late already. What has been set in train is now unstoppable. No amount of fiddling with legislation to get miniscule reductions in CO2 is going to change the fact the population is set to double in 60 years. That 14 billion people folks, by that time our goose will be well and truly cooked.
Get real people, make sure you address the real problem here and that is too many people, AGW is just a sideshow. For heavens sake my government in Australia is struggling to bring in a carbon tax, while at the same time paying people to have babies. True story I kid you not.
The real problem is population, unless this exponential population growth can be stopped we are doomed, no ifs no buts we are doomed.
Wake up and start to see the forest instead of freaking out at the trees, maybe just maybe if we address this it may not be, as I fear, too late.
Don't forget http://www.skepticalscience.com/
Here's a figure that I think brings a lot of perspective to the argument that us wee humans are too small to change the climate: 5.5 acres/person. That's the inverse of world population density. It doesn't include Antarctica, for obvious reasons. What's even more pressing is that just over a quarter of that is desert. In fact only a tenth of that is arable, 2 acres of it is designated agricultural.
That's a tiny amount of land. A single person, with the right tools and some determination, could raze it and kill anything bigger than a mouse on it in only a few months. In light of this, I think it's laughable to suggest we don't have an impact on the world.
Global warming is important because conditions for wealth redistribution and population control and a global government on the planet are necessary to"move forward" as progressives.
global warming is caused by the release of fossil carbon into the atmosphere suh as the 97 percent of carbon created by volcanoes and underwater vents. The less than 3 percent caused by humans is insignificant by the side of natural carbon emissions. Mt. St. Helens spewed more carbon into the atmosphere than all of mankind has done since man has existed.
Global warming is real. it results from sun cycles. This dispute was put to rest in the early 1970s. Yet, liberal pagan earth worshipping socialist globalists still keep pushing it. If it wasn;t global warming, it would be some other catastrophe that needed everone to submit their money and freedom to.
Not so long ago in the past hardline commie liberturds professors would brainwash their pupils into being convinced not to trust anyone over 30. I sure wish they would brainwash them into not trusting anyone who was a liberal socilaist globalist money grubber criminal.
Wealth redistribution is talked about in the Bible. It was first mentioned in Exodus. I believe the quote was "THOU SHALT NOT STEAL".
While Biblical teachings also mention rich people negatively in some cases, it NEVER gave the authority to steal from them. The Bible also says It was God who gives the power to become wealthy. Solomon was wealthy. So was Abraham, the father of ISRAEL.
Jesus often talked about helping the poor and sick, but i do not recall Him EVER telling His disciples to form a union, make up a false catastrophe, steal money from the rich and then redistribute it to the poor.
While we are on the subject of global warming, we could also use another quote in Exodous "THOU SHALT NOT BEAR FALE WITNESS." False witness is a major undestatement on this worlwide ponize scheme. Hope you all brough lot so ice, water, and fireproof suits. Hell will get really hot.
@5
Simple science man indeed !. Try to make sense next time
@4
Well richardrob what are you going to do about this ? Bloody hell with all the increases in goals for the reduction of CO2 we have still seen an increase since the turn of this century. That's because the reductions of CO2 go no where near compensating for population growth. Take into account the explosive increases in per capita CO2 emissions in places like China and India then trying to hold back CO2 emissions with a carbon tax is like King Canute trying to hold back the tide.
Do yourself a favor and check out Sir David Attenborough 2011 RSA President's Lecture on FORA.tv. That's the issue! Learn about it and start spreading the word. We don't have much time and certainly no time to fiddle about fixing symptoms rather than the underlying disease.
To use the term 'denialist' is an Ad Hom attack. As such it is a fail. I wish you people would call a skeptic for what they really are and that is skeptic.
I particularly hate it because it attempts to equate a skeptic on AGW with a Holocaust denier, which I find vile. I find equally intelligent and well reasoned people as I find equally stupid people on either side of this fence.
I am skeptical by nature but not on this. I do not deny AGW, I just deny AGW is important. It's just a sideshow for the real deal. 14 billion Homo Sapiens Sapiens in 2060, that's a lot of CO2 being produced especially as the CO2 emissions per capita are also increasing. Hell even by some miracle we flattened out at 9 to 10 billion like the UN keeps saying that's still a helluva lot of CO2.
So what's it to be folks, the 4 horsemen of the apocalypse or a concerted effort for change, because the only thing I see accomplished with arguing about CO2 is the 4 horsemen. How about talking about the real issue here before it is too late?
@simple jesus man, what few facts you've stated simply bear no resemblance to reality. For example, USGS estimates of geologic emissions of CO2 put total annual emissions at between 1/100th and 1/30 of human emissions. But since the USGS is part of our commie plot, you probably shouldn't believe them.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/volcanoes-and-global-warming.htm
@lurker, Earth's carrying capacity will limit human population whether we like it or not. What that experience is like will depend on how we deal with existing social issues. Once we reach that limit, we will have no choice but to face the impact we have on our planet. Why not get a head start? At this stage, to be effective, a carbon tax will have to put the price of gasoline well beyond the reach of most people. In order to do that we needed to restructure our entire society and completely rethink our consumer lifestyles.
And if you don't watt to be called a denier, stop talking like one.
@Itzac
A carbon tax is a waste of time. cash incentives to industry to develop sustainable technologies makes much more sense as does giving incentives for consumers to switch to Sustainable energy. The great depression of the 21st century is just starting to bite so any party who advocates extra taxes will most likely get voted out.
Of course we are going to hit limits and when we do it won't be pretty. I advocate doing something about the disease and not the symptoms and doing it now. You on the other hand wish to treat the symptom while the disease runs rampant and kills us all. Once again its people who are the problem not CO2.
Re the denier tag give me a break, either argue logically or don't bother. If you want to get into an Ad Hominem slug fest go right ahead, it makes no difference one way or the other.
Calling someone a denier isn't an ad hom. Denialism comprises a number of specific traits and behaviours, such as appeal to conspiracy theory (a whole class of behaviours unto itself) and refusal to address rebuttals to your arguments, among others. See simple science man for a master class.
I will however grant that you are not a denier. The label that best describes the behaviour you're exhibiting is "troll."
Also, "Ad Hominem" describes a specific type of fallacious argument. Arguing that a person is wrong because of who they are is an ad hominem. For example, "You are wrong because you're an idiot," is an ad hominem. "You're an idiot," on the other hand, is not an ad hominem, it's just rude. In fact, and ad hom. need not be rude. You can look up troll on urban dictionary to determine for yourself if that's an ad hom. or not.
The rest of your response is twice paradoxical. You dismiss my idea due to political realities, but ignore the fact those same realities preclude your idea as well. Further, assuming the political will can be mustered, why not fund one with the other. Tax unsustainable choices while subsidizing sustainable ones. Taxes are extremely effective as disincentives.
You keep complaining about the root cause being us, and complain that we're going to kill us all. Can I assume nuclear holocaust is not an option for dealing with the root cause? How exactly do you propose to stem population growth?
Okay, Delurked lurker, what's your (final) solution? You say there are (or soon will be) "too many people." Whom are you going to kill or sterilize or prevent from having sex? Just the poor people who don't produce anything useful or just the rich (all of them because there aren't that many) because they tend to generate more CO2 than poor people? Some mixture? How about you be one of the first to volunteer to enter the camps in order to set an example for the rest of us?
I also love this particular bit of stupidity:
If AGW is not important, then why the fuck would extra CO2 emissions (per capita or otherwise) be a problem? Are you concerned that levels would rise so high that the air becomes unbreathable? I'm going to need some citations before I accept anything like that line of reasoning.
Shit, I hate to Godwin this thread, but some people really need to be called out for advocating genocide.
@
"denial of AGW is the more refined climate denial position."
There is already an another iteration coming up: CAGW-"scepticism" .
It stands for "Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming - scepticism" and one can guess what it means:
Yes, there is GW and its A but its more positive then negative, with all the well known arguments like:
-CO2 is a ferteliser.
-More heat will increase harvests.
-If ice and snow melds there will be more farmland.
etc...
Of course they newer try to figure out if the cons outweigh the pros.
Everyday new research papers are out and new stories are told about "Global Warming". I realize that while talking about global warming we tend to avoid discussing few major causes of Global Warming, I happened to watch this documentary "Meat The Truth" in online film festival "Green Unplugged" this documentary made me aware of few other things about global Warming which I never thought would be contributing so much towards it
I would suggest everyone to watch this documentary.
http://www.cultureunplugged.com/play/6449
Hey Simple Science Man
I agree with everything except one bit:
"Yet, liberal pagan earth worshipping socialist globalists still keep pushing it. If it wasn;t global warming, it would be some other catastrophe that needed everone to submit their money and freedom to. "
I'm a liberal pagan earth worshiping gal. :)
But I don't believe global warming is anything but natural Mother Earth cycles.
Hell, She's old enough, maybe She's going thru Menopause!! :)
"If it wasn;t global warming, it would be some other catastrophe that needed everone to submit their money and freedom to."
You mean like "if the banks fail, we'll have a massive recession" catastrophe that needed everyone to submit their money and freedom to?
Or how about the "terrorists will kill us all on 11/9" catastrophe that needed everyone to submit their money and freedom to?
They don't seem either
a) very liberal oriented
or
b) declaimed by yourself and fellow AGW deniers of that persuasion
I guess my last comment got lost somewhere in the eather. Let's try it again.
"Denier" is not an ad hom. It has a precise definition and describes a set of behaviours, such as appealing to conspiracy and persisting in arguments that have been rebutted over and over again. See simple science man for a master class.
I will grant that you don't actually seem to be a denier. You're a troll. That also has a specific definition. You can find it in Urban Dictionary.
Here's a good start on understanding Argumentum Ad Hominem.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
Note that an ad hom. need not be rude, and being rude does not automatically constitute and ad hom.
As for your arguments, you dismiss a carbon tax because of political realities, but fail to notice those same realities preclude your idea as well. Further, how do you propose to pay for those cash incentives? May I suggest that using a tax to disincentivize unsustainable choices, while subsidizing sustainable innovation would yield the best results?
You keep ranting about overpopulation being the root cause, but I don't see any proposals to deal with it. Since apparently we're going to kill us all, can I assume nuclear holocaust is off the table?
Note: I post as itzac or richardrob, depending on how the blog software decides to parse my name and email address at any given moment.
Someone who questions existing evidence, and changes their understanding according to that evidence, can be called a Sceptic.
Someone who, in the face of growing and substantial evidence, continues to repeat the same questions, is a Denier. They are called "deniers" because they "deny" the evidence for observed events like climate change, the Holocaust, and evolution.
Are you seriously unable to see the difference?
I'm going to recycle a tired old ad hom blog post and hope one of my mindless worshippers writes 'you go' in a comment.
Yessir! That's what I'm gonna do.
"I'm going to dismiss your blog post without addressing any of the arguments contained therein because it's an 'ad hom' [even though it isn't, as has already been explained in the comments]." The irony would be delicious if it were only intentional.
CO2 racket (cap n trade/price on carbon) is just that a fraud racket. RICO type laws need to apply .
If you are so worried plant more trees.
OK, KB, I believe you. You're a pagan earth worshiping gal.
You're also a fucking moron.
Hi
Solutions are easy. First educate women everywhere, make it a priority. Secondly instead of encouraging people to have babies discourage it, no more cash handouts for new babies and skew the tax system to ensure that every extra mouth to feed costs enough for people to seriously consider the choice not to have kids. No need for a nuclear holocaust and no need for wars. There are other things we can do all it needs is some imagination and will power. None of this is new it has been discussed at length throughout the last half of the 20th century.
Re AGW Carbon emissions will drop. For a start of peak oil is kicking in and once it starts to bite CO2 emissions will drop even faster. Nothing like $3 a liter to get people on their bikes and walking more. Couple that with the coming depression and you have even steeper drops in emissions. You won't be able to keep your car on the road with no job and petrol at $3 a liter. these drops in emission will make any carbon tax redundant.
RE Ad Hom. I don't care what you think but to me to equate someone with a holocaust denier simply because they disagree with you is a vile ad hom attack. if you want to engage people in reasoned argument then you need to treat them with a bit of respect, otherwise you get nowhere.
AGW is a fact that I do not dispute. I just don't think it is the crucial problem and merely a symptom of the real issue which is exponential population growth. Hey even if we fix AGW all it is going to do is buy as a few decades of time before the crunch happens anyway.
@21
BS
For a start I do not deny AGW. Never have ever. I knew it was coming in 1972. Back then we knew what the real problem was but all that is lost in the noise these days.
Ok so 'AGW denier' isn't an ad hom. What about AGW fundamentalist is that an ad hom ?
Hi
Now I am a troll. ROFL you guys are too funny. Certainly if I was a troll I would come here often as it is too easy to rattle your cages.
Get a grip people, while you fiddle Rome burns. Start educating all around you to the real issue. If we get a handle on population the solution to AGW will fall into our laps.
A few comments on global warming denialism; East Anglia University academic fraud, Bjorn Lomborg and recent nasa generated data that suggests significantly reduced sunspot activity may result in global cooling...you guy's are nuts. I'm sure my grandkids will be fine unless they start listening to people like Greg Laden.
Simple Science man #5 should at least come up with something other than tired old canards. Is it even worth it trying to type out a refutation? I'm bored and procrastinating, so why not.
1) "Mt. St. Helens spewed more carbon into the atmosphere than all of mankind has done since man has existed". Not so- Mt. St. Helens emitted the equivalent of 2.5 hours of anthropogenic emissions. The estimate for integrated annual global CO2 emission is equal to about 2.7 days of anthropogenic emissions. from EOS Vol 92, no 24. No firewall- look it up.
2)"Global warming ... results from sun cycles." Sometimes. But solar activity (and total solar output) has been declining for the last two decades... and temperatures continue to rise. Orbital dynamics can also drive global warming. It doesn't mean that anthropogenic carbon emissions won't also drive global warming, and since there is nothing in the solar output or orbital dynamics right now that would lead to warming, that leaves AGW due to carbon emissions.
""THOU SHALT NOT BEAR FALE WITNESS." " So, considering how terribly false your assertions are, what does that say about you?
Shawn Smith
you said:
'Shit, I hate to Godwin this thread, but some people really need to be called out for advocating genocide.'
You are fucking nuts
Wow, Greg, the trolls are making your point for you even more effectively than you are.
Homer - you do realise that 4 independent inquiries failed to find any evidence of wrongdoing on the part of east anglia university dont you? In addition the bodies actually performed their own analysis and VALIDATED east anglias approach and conclusions with respect to the use of freely available data? I guess you dont. Its not surprising none of the media outlets who were stridently reporting this 'academic fraud' bothered to report the official rectractions. Which I guess is where people like you get their information.
Prof Bleen, I usually delete the trolls when it comes to global warming, but I'm doing a discussion panel on the topic (AGW denialism) this weekend and needed some fresh material.
Delurked lurker,
I suppose I am "fucking nuts" because I claimed you advocated genocide. I can't imagine that calling out people who advocate genocide is "fucking nuts," unless you mean that more strident actions should be taken. All you had written before was that there were too many people and we needed to get a handle on that "problem." It sounded way too much like Paul Ehrlich's arguments from the 1970's and really has an implication that people do little more than breathe, sleep, eat, drink, talk, and poop. I find that a very anti-human outlook and simply pointed out what happens when you take that outlook to its logical conclusion.
I agree that educating women does more than anything else to reduce birth rates. But if a carbon tax is politically infeasible in a developed country, (you in #2) how much harder is it to change whole societies across the under developed and developing world who apparently don't really value women and girls to begin with? I think that a round of price inflation is much easier to stomach for most people than changing their prejudices, but I could be wrong and would be convinced to change my mind with some evidence.
Evidently you still don't know what an ad hominem fallacy is, even though it was explained to you quite clearly in the third paragraph of #11. Ad hominem is not equivalent to "insult." If you are someone who was around and cognizant in the 1970s, you really should know that. It's pretty basic knowledge. Calling someone an "AGW fundamentalist" in itself is NOT an "ad hom." If someone has already said that no evidence could possibly convince them that AGW is not true, then "AGW fundamentalist" is a perfectly appropriate label. If you're upset because someone insulted you, then say they insulted you. Don't try to get all hoity-toity using Latin in order to make it look like you're more educated than you are. When you use the Latin phrase incorrectly, it makes you look like an idiot. Just sayin'.
Lurker, what AGW deniers have in common with Holocaust deniers is not the Holocaust, but the denial. There are also HIV deniers, evolution deniers, vaccine deniers, people who denied the link between smoking and lung cancer, and likely many others of lesser note. What these people have in common is not the moral repugnance of their positions, which varies greatly, but the manner in which they defend those positions. The word doesn't cease to be apt simple because it often follows another word. But if you're going to insist on taking offense, then I suggest you get yourself a fainting couch.
That's actually a good suggestion. Also, provide affordable birth control and health care. No need for large families if your children don't die of childhood diseases. And a proper welfare and pension system. No need for large families if you don't have to depend on your descendants to care for you when you're old. We're pretty sure it will work too.
But that doesn't make it an easy solution. Try finding someone willing to pay for it, while education and welfare systems receive budget cut after budget cut in even the wealthiest of nations. Easy!
But then you say this:
Yes, let's only have the rich have babies! That'll produce a pleasant, stable society for sure! </sarcasm>
But you won't be able to buy a new electric car either. So how would you suggest these people go looking for a new job? Or do you support investing in a viable public transport system?
And I don't know about you, but I'd prefer a solution that does not depend on a prolonged economic depression and masses of people being jobless.
I've been fighting this war for decades, literally. I was a speaker at the "2nd International Conference On Climate Change", in 1988. For several years, I did confront them vigorously, at every opportunity.
At this point, I almost never bother to respond to denialoons on the web. Because:
These days, virtually 100% of those giving long responses, full of citations and pseudofacts, are NOT actually human beings. They are paid workers, doing their job of disrupting conversations and spreading disinformation. 100%? Yes, very close. Google "astroturfing".
The other type of denialoon is generally unreachable by any logical response. You waste your time trying; and, you make them feel important by taking them seriously. Not a good idea. Ignoring them can make them go away; responding will bring them back.
More:
http://tinyurl.com/yr9cl8
http://tinyurl.com/3vk3wny
Hi shawn smith
I owe you an apology . I took umbrage at the fact you accused me of advocating a final solution to reduce population. I thought your were nuts for coming to that conclusion but I realize my post was so poorly written that this erroneous conclusion was easily made. I blame lack of time as I rarely have time to proofread posts.
I still think calling people deniers adds nothing to the debate, in fact it is the best way to shut the debate down. If you really want to effective change here then you need to be able to discuss the issues with out resorting to name calling. Present your argument but be prepared that it might not be accepted and you may actually have to convince someone. Good luck in thinking you can do that by ridicule and Ad Hom attacks
"Science is a way of thinking much more than it is a body of knowledge." Carl Sagan
"Skeptical scrutiny is the means, in both science and religion, by which deep thoughts can be winnowed from deep nonsense." Carl Sagan
"In science it often happens that scientists say, 'You know that's a really good argument; my position is mistaken,' and then they would actually change their minds and you never hear that old view from them again. They really do it. It doesn't happen as often as it should, because scientists are human and change is sometimes painful. But it happens every day. I cannot recall the last time something like that happened in politics or religion." Carl Sagan
I try to increase my carbon footprint with every step. My life is a living middle finger in the air to environmentalist zealots. I hate environmentalists. Global warming is a fraud. I like warm weather anyway. I can get a tan. Just listen to you when you say we want to kill grandchildren. You're not worthy of being taken seriously. You really are nothing but a fool who has bought into a modern day religion called environmentalism. I'm off to turn on all my lights and drive around the block. I ripped a few trees out of my yard last weekend to make way for a spit roast BBQ area. I love eating dead animals too. Warmists are not welcome at my BBQ.
@34 Deen
'Yes, let's only have the rich have babies! That'll produce a pleasant, stable society for sure! '
Deen how did you come to that conclusion? I'm afraid your appeal to fear falls on deaf ears here. please give reasons you think "only the rich will have babies" I was not advocating making it impossible to have kids, just hard enough that people really have to consider having their second child, but never make it so hard that the choice has been taken away.
You said
'But you won't be able to buy a new electric car either. So how would you suggest these people go looking for a new job? Or do you support investing in a viable public transport system?'
I sorry your point is?? BTW I fully support having a public transport that actually works, unlike the crap system we have in my town, certainly helps get the per capita CO2 emmissions down for those commuters using the system :)
Now the World depression 2 is on it's way. I don't like it one bit. Its going to make life real tough for me and you, tough like we have never had it before. No way I want this to happen but just because I don't want it too happen doesn't mean it won't. In case you hadn't realized its already started.
No indication from this post that Greg has ever looked at the science for himself. Does he even know that there was a "grand maximum" of solar-magnetic activity from 1923-2003? Is he at all aware of the dozens of studies that show a .5 to .8 degree of correlation between solar magnetic activity going back many thousands of years? Is he aware that IPCC models completely exclude solar magnetic effects from their models, so that this well established and very powerful solar effect on climate gets misattributed to the only correlated variable that they DO include in their models?
That would be CO2, which by coincidence also reached high levels during the 20th century due to human fossil fuel burning. Take away this misattribution and what little warming effect can still be attributed to CO2 is seen to be utterly benign. The primary climate driver is solar activity, and human release of CO2 can only alter this a tiny bit. In particular, any kind of runaway warming is no longer in prospect, and absent a danger of runaway warming, warming is good, while cooling is bad.
With the sun having dropped into a phase of extraordinarily low activity, the immediate prospect is for substantial global cooling. In the small degree to which a bit more CO2 will mitigate this cooling, it will be beneficial, but the effect probably won't be worth much. More valuable will be CO2's role as plant-food. The human increment to CO2 has already increased plant growth rates substantially, and as growing seasons shorten, this faster growth will significantly reduce famine.
One place I agree with Greg: it is ridiculous to argue about who is a real scientist. Just look at the science for yourself and see whether it is beyond your grasp or not. As outlined above it is not actually beyond anyone's grasp (fuller discussion, with links, here). It is only the alarmist scientists who want you to think so. Only look at peer-reviewed studies they say, as they exert a strangle-hold on the peer review process (Climategate). We have heard this before: "Ignore the man behind the curtain! So commands the great and powerful Oz!"
Hard to imagine anyone obeying that command, and in the present case, it really is a fundamental requirement of due diligence that people not simply accept the word of the alarmists that laymen cannot judge the science for themselves. Take a look and see whether this is true and you find that it is not, but that they do indeed have a good reason for not wanting you to look. They don't want you to see their blatant deceptions.
It is not just our grandchildren's lives that are at stake. It our own futures. The war on CO2 is right now collapsing our economy, all to get limit a trace gas whose actual external value is unambiguously positive. You are destroying our and your grandchildren's future in order to make the coming cold an itsy tiny bit colder.
Q33 richardrob
Science does not make arguments from authority. While there is a degree of consensus for evidence of AGW there is no mechanism in science that brands you a 'denier' for holding a different point of view. By resorting to such tactics you take the debate out of the scientific realm and make it a political argument. Over the years this is exactly what has happened and a debate that should have been resolved quietly by scientists has been ambushed by politicians and people with no idea of how science works.
Re ad hom
An ad hominem (Latin: "to the man"), short for argumentum ad hominem, is an attempt to link the truth of a claim to a negative characteristic or belief of the person advocating it.
Calling someone a denier, in this context, is a deliberate attempt to equate them with a woo meister/scammer/charlatan/holocaust denier, take your pick. To do so right at the beginning of debate is definitely an ad hom. To use such a term anywhere in the context of a scientific debate is definitely an ad hom, but I will admit this is not a scientific debate by a long shot.
"A central lesson of science is that to understand complex issues (or even simple ones), we must try to free our minds of dogma and to guarantee the freedom to publish, to contradict, and to experiment. Arguments from authority are unacceptable."
C.S. c1998
I am not convinced that calling someone a 'denier' is not an ad hom in the context of an AGW debate. I also think this term is based on an argument from authority and not valid. I am also convinced this debate has ceased being scientific and will remain a political one from here on and any rational debate is out the window. As such the use of the term 'denier' in AGW debate is understandable as politics thrives on logical fallacies but it remains an ad hom in my view.
You fail to see the symmetry of both side's claim that the other will impoverish grandchildren, except that AGW is highly speculative whereas artificial energy rationing and burning corn will have very definite negative effects upon all the world's grandchildren. Demonizing those who disagree with you creates monsters of yourself and turns many an activist into a terrorist.
The LA Times featured cold fusion in '89 before its debunking. Environmentalists were aghast!
âItâs like giving a machine gun to an idiot child.â â Paul Ehrlich (mentor of John Cook of the SkepticalScience blog, author of "Climate Change Denial")
âClean-burning, non-polluting, hydrogen-using bulldozers still could knock down trees or build housing developments on farmland.â â Paul Ciotti (LA Times)
âIt gives some people the false hope that there are no limits to growth and no environmental price to be paid by having unlimited sources of energy.â â Jeremy Rifkin (NY Times)
âMany people assume that cheaper, more abundant energy will mean that mankind is better off, but there is no evidence for that.â â Laura Nader (sister of Ralph)
CLIMATEGATE 101: "For your eyes only...Don't leave stuff lying around on ftp sites - you never know who is trawling them. The two MMs have been after the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I'll delete the file rather than send to anyone....Tom Wigley has sent me a worried email when he heard about it - thought people could ask him for his model code. He has retired officially from UEA so he can hide behind that." - Phil "Hide The Decline" Jones to Michael "Hockey Stick" Mann
Here I present A Global Warming Digest:
Denial: http://i.min.us/ibyADs.jpg
Oceans: http://k.min.us/idAw6Y.gif
NASA: http://k.min.us/idFxzI.jpg
Thermometers: http://i.min.us/idAOoE.gif
Earth: http://k.min.us/ibtB8G.gif
Ice: http://k.min.us/ibtZec.jpg
Authority: http://k.min.us/iby6xe.gif
Prophecy: http://i.min.us/idEHdo.jpg
Psychopathy: http://i.min.us/ibubmk.jpg
Icon: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tmPzLzj-3XY
Thinker: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n92YenWfz0Y
-=NikFromNYC=- Ph.D. in Carbon Chemistry (Columbia/Harvard)
¨And what do we do about it?
Global warming is for real, and it is important. Just as important
is the fact that global warming is largely anthropogenic¨.
*
¨Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd¨.
Voltaire
Greg Laden: "It may be that the most significant impact of "global warming" will actually be not in atmospheric temperature change..."
What? Denier! So how can you call it global warming? Ah, you put the word within quotation marks!
This site should fire you immediately, and you should be put on the list on Wikipedia among the other deniers.
I would call AGW denialism an indicator, rather than a litmus test, because AGW denialism frequently overlaps with denialism of evolution and other accepted science and seems to correlate with acceptance of other irrational concepts and behaviors.
I suppose I'm veering off topic here (and being redundant), but I love this explanation of what "ad hominem" means and how people get it wrong. http://plover.net/~bonds/adhominem.html
Cahterine, thanks, that could not possibly be MORE on topic, actually!
Keep up with the stereotype .. not so old, getting quite grumpy though..
My daughter is a proud member of the Infants schools eco-team, I'm very proud of her to.
My only thoughts are for her future, which includes the environment as well as the social environment,hopefully one where the language 'of climate change deniers' is left in the past.
I wonder how much energy you all use slandering each other...electrical, physical and mental.
Mark July 2, 2011 10:27 AM.
I'm an CAGW (Catastrophic AGW) skeptic, and I don't know of any (or many) skeptics which denies evolution. Okay, Roy Spencer is a Christian which think there may be some devine influence within the evolution, but heavily Greenpeace funded Jim Hansen also believe in Creation -- as at Christian.
Sorry, Your argument is actually flawed.
Br, Magnus Andersson (Sweden)
@47 catherine
From your link
In reality, ad hominem is unrelated to sarcasm or personal abuse. Argumentum ad hominem is the logical fallacy of attempting to undermine a speaker's argument by attacking the speaker instead of addressing the argument. The mere presence of a personal attack does not indicate ad hominem: the attack must be used for the purpose of undermining the argument, or otherwise the logical fallacy isn't there. It is not a logical fallacy to attack someone; the fallacy comes from assuming that a personal attack is also necessarily an attack on that person's arguments.
So to use the term denier in the context of a scientific debate is an ad hom then as its use is meant to undermine skeptical positions in this debate.
Thank you
Delurker:
The key word in that passage is "instead." Ad hominem = "attempting to undermine a speaker's argument by attacking the speaker instead of [my italics] addressing the argument." If the sentence read, "...attacking the speaker in addition to addressing the argument," that would apply to the definition as you are currently using it. Greg did not use the word "denialist" FOR THE PURPOSE of undermining his opponent's arguments. He addressed the realities of global warming, AND he called them denialists (he did not once use the word "denier"; that is your term. The association of the term "Holocaust denier" with the term "AGW denialist" is your own.) He addressed several of their arguments and tactics, such as the argument that global warming can have some benefits, and the tactic of using fake stats to back up their point (which is not skepticism, but deliberate deception). He discussed global warming for several paragraphs before mentioning the word "denialist." That is simply not ad hominem.
You seem to be taking umbrage with the term that Greg used. Simply changing all instances of "denialist" in his post to "skeptic" would not have changed the thrust of the post.
Compare this:
A: All wolves are canines. My pet is a wolf, therefore it's a canine. If you disagree with me, you're an asshole.
with this:
B: All wolves are canines. My pet is a wolf, therefore it's a canine. If you disagree with me, you're still beautiful.
Both are logically sound. In one instance, you are insulting those who disagree with you; in another, complimenting them. The core argument is unchanged. You are simply demanding that we implement an argument more like B. You said in a comment above: âif you want to engage people in reasoned argument then you need to treat them with a bit of respect, otherwise you get nowhere.â Actually, reason does not demand respect. Two separate things. You can wish that denialists were treated with more respect, but that has no bearing on the logic of anyone's argument.
I donât even see what is insulting about the term âdenialist,â as it is merely a descriptive, and, I would say, accurate term. I deny things at times. The following fictitious anecdote is illustrative: a cop pulled me over once for speeding, and I denied that Iâd been speeding. I was wrong; I had been speeding, and the cop had evidence of that on his radar gun. I only denied what the police had evidence of because I was trying to protect my own economic interests (i.e., trying to talk myself out of a ticket), even though Iâd been disregarding the rights and safety of others on the road by my reckless activity.
The cop pointed out that I was a denier. He had evidence; he showed me the evidence; then he pointed out that not only was the law and evidence on his side, but that I was a moron AND a denier.
I accused him of implementing an ad hominem argument, and of equating my actions with those of Holocaust deniers, and I told him that just because he was in a position of authority didn't mean he wasn't wrong, and demanded that he respect me.
Things didn't turn out so well for me in that incident. But at least I had reason on my side.
Science is based on observations... not a consensus. Science is about skepticism. In essence, that is what the scientific method encourages.
The IPCC, however, has demonstrated how it has manipulated the science... promoting a mantra without providing the necessary empirical evidence proving that Co2 emissions from human activities is causing catastrophic global warming.
Science is not about preparing a flawed biased '2007 AR4', in order to prosecute a political dogma by claiming an authority based on sole reliance on one-sided peer reviewed literature, when in reality 30% of the 18,500+ citations used (i.e. over 5000 citations), in any case, refer to 'grey literature'. How can such a report be accepted as a valid scientific report. It cannot.
Skepticism is important... to make sure that what is claimed to be, is fully supported by evidence. But when people try to shut out the alternative view, and insist that people should abide by the 'consensus' view, it is in no way helpful to advancing good science.
As a reminder of why it is wrong to simply accept the consensus view, let us recall what happened when, in 1982, Australian researchers - Dr Marshall and Dr Warren - discovered that the Helicobacter pylori bacterium was the cause of stomach ulcers. The consensus amongst the medical community was that this was rubbish... after all, bacteria could not survive the acid conditions of the stomach. Well, who won the 2005 Nobel Medicine prize for discovering a bacterium that causes gastritis and stomach ulcers? The medical community, the pharmaceutical companies, and all the other know-alls had to hang their heads in shame. They forgot that science is not about a consensus view... it is about empirical evidence. And It only takes one scientist to prove a point.
So... when I read about what should be done about deniers, and attempts are made to belittle deniers and skeptics, it simply indicates much about the people who would like this to happen. Such ideas fit well in a totalitarian state. Fortunately, in a democratic society, such ideas can be freely expressed... even though they are not appropriate and go against that much treasured freedom... freedom of speech.
I don't care what you think but to me to equate someone with a holocaust denier simply because they disagree with you is a vile ad hom attack. if you want to engage people in reasoned argument then you need to treat them with a bit of respect, otherwise you get nowhere.
(...)
Calling someone a denier, in this context, is a deliberate attempt to equate them with a woo meister/scammer/charlatan/holocaust denier, take your pick. To do so right at the beginning of debate is definitely an ad hom. To use such a term anywhere in the context of a scientific debate is definitely an ad hom...
Nonsense.
Skeptics exist. They really do. They are out there.
Deniers exist. They really do. They are out there.
They are NOT the same thing.
Being a skeptic is not the same thing as being a denier.
The methodology is very different.
It's possible to examine how skeptics go about examining a scientific issue and reach a conclusion.
It's possible to examine how deniers go about examining a scientific issue and reach a conclusion.
It's different.
Just because someone calls themselves a skeptic does not mean they are a skeptic. They could well be just a denier.
Deniers don't usually cheerfully admit they are deniers unless they are getting all passive-aggressive.
Calling out a denier as a denier is a good thing. It's about accurate labeling and identifying something in real and honest terms. If you don't want to be lumped in with the HIV deniers or the Evolution deniers or the vaccine deniers or the moon-landing deniers...then don't whine about being called a denier. Just demonstrate how you don't behave exactly like them in your methodology.
Easy fix.
Bitching about how you don't like the association with Holocaust Deniers...just makes you sound like a denier of another stripe. Holocaust deniers are not unique in their thinking. There are valid and interesting parallels in other topics too.
Denialism is real. It's not an empty word.
One expects scientific discourse to be focused dispassionately on substantive issues. Yet doctors, scientists, and others who question whether human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) causes acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS) have been called the moral equivalent of Holocaust deniers
(..)
Op-ed pieces and non-technical articles continue to reiterate that it is beyond reasonable doubt that HIV causes AIDS, but the restrained language of the Durban Declaration has been replaced by strident denunciations: Public dissent from HIV = AIDS is said to be on a moral par with Holocaust denial.
(â¦)
Readers of this essay are invited to sample items on that website and to note the lack of substantive discussion and the preponderance of attacks on so-called âHIVdenialists.â
Questioning HIV/AIDS: Morally Reprehensible or Scientifically Warranted?-Henry H. Bauer, Ph.D.
(Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons Volume 12 Number 4 Winter 2007)
http://www.jpands.org/vol12no4/bauer.pdf
Science is based on observations... not a consensus. Science is about skepticism. In essence, that is what the scientific method encourages.
Yeah, yeah. There's a consensus on the Theory of Gravity too. It didn't happen by magic. There was a process involved.
Well, who won the 2005 Nobel Medicine prize for discovering a bacterium that causes gastritis and stomach ulcers?
Don't stop there. Is there or is there not a consensus on what causes ulcers nowadays? Oh there is? How was that consensus formed? By magic?
Deniers always bitch and moan about scientific consensus.
A case of sour grapes.
Either you have the scientific evidence to get all the scientific communities on your side...or you don't.
Every crackpot wants to compare themselves to Galileo.
The HIV=AIDS believers insist that the mainstream consensus is so overwhelming that dissentersmust bewrong. History of science is not kind to this argument. As scientific understanding has advanced, sooner or later the most firmly held mainstream views have been modified, indeed often overturned completely. Near the end of the 19 century it was the consensus that all the major discoveries had already been madeâjust before the Second Scientific Revolution turned on their heads the firmly held beliefs about atoms and much else. Medical science firmly believed that schizophrenia could be cured by infecting the sufferer with malaria (Nobel Prize, 1927) or by cutting out bits of brain (Nobel Prize, 1949) before settlingâfor themoment?âon drugs.Diseases like mad cow disease were firmly believed to be caused by lentiviruses (Nobel Prize, 1976) until the firm belief became that they are caused not by viruses but by prions (Nobel Prize, 1997). The proper, historically informed questions to ask are:How likely is it that HIV/AIDS theory will be significantly modified at some future time? What is likely to stimulate modification?When is that likely to happen? Those questions could only be addressed properly by the usual procedure in science, with substantive interchanges over the evidence by people with disparate views and ideas. As already noted, from the very beginning defenders of the mainstream consensus have steadily declined, indeed specifically refused to engage in substantive discussion.
Questioning HIV/AIDS: Morally Reprehensible or Scientifically Warranted?-Henry H. Bauer, Ph.D.
(Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons Volume 12 Number 4 Winter 2007)
http://www.jpands.org/vol12no4/bauer.pdf
Those who subscribe to the IPCC's mantra, that CO2 emissions from human activities is causing catastrophic global warming, believe that the IPCC's 2007 Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) is the "gold standard in climate science". But how can it be?
After 20 years, and tens of billions of dollars spent on trying to prove that CO2 emissions from human activities is causing catastrophic global warming, no empirical evidence exists proving this claim.
The world now knows that the AR4 ignored a wealth of peer reviewed studies... ignored because they exposed the IPCC's mantra as being flawed. If the AR4 was meant to be a balanced and objective report, it would have covered all scientific papers on climate matters not just those that support the IPCC's mantra. How could the IPCC lead authors have done this? It took a group of international scientists to reveal the contrary peer reviewed studies in a report titled "Climate Change Reconsidered"... thousands of studies revealed... download the report at the following link and see for yourself:
http://www.heartland.org/publications/NIPCC%20report/PDFs/NIPCC%20Final…
Worst of all, the IPCC made its biggest mistake... relying heavily on computer model-based predictions. These models do not represent science. Heck, they haven't even been audited. These models are now an embarrassment. All are flawed. They do not reflect what the real world observational data on climate is revealing... the real science. It means that the 2007 Summary for Policy Makers is wrong... obsolete... invalid. It means that the AR4 cannot be considered as the "gold standard in climate science".
And as for all those economists' reports that are based on AR4 e.g. The Stern Review (UK), The Garnaut Report (AUS), etc.. they are based on flawed science... which means such reports are also necessarily flawed... wrong... obsolete... invalid.
In short, obscene amounts of tax payers money have been wasted... to produce a hoax!
So, Greg, so-called "deniers" are "killing your grandchildren".
Do you advocate "reasonable force" to stop them?
Just curious.
cedric: your
Yeah, yeah. There's a consensus on the Theory of Gravity too. It didn't happen by magic. There was a process involved.
Ever hear of MOND? Its a different theory of gravity. Even in gravity, there are competing theories.
Greg: If so called "deniers" are "intent on murdering your grandchildren", would you advocate the use of reasonable force, as a measure to prevent this?
Just curious?
The 'troll' does have a point about population control even if that doesn't seem pc. The David Attenborough RSA speech is well worth listening to and it's transcription is available here.
http://churchandstate.org.uk/2011/04/david-attenborough-speech-to-the-r…
"It remains an obvious and brutal fact that on a finite planet human population will quite definitely stop at some point. And that can only happen in one of two ways. It can happen sooner, by fewer human births â in a word by contraception. This is the humane way, the powerful option which allows all of us to deal with the problem, if we collectively choose to do so. The alternative is an increased death rate â the way which all other creatures must suffer, through famine or disease or predation. That translated into human terms means famine or disease or war â over oil or water or food or minerals or grazing rights or just living space. There is, alas, no third alternative of indefinite growth."
The louder the global warming scammers scream, the more people are waking up to this scam -- the greatest ever purpetrated on mankind. Shame on all of you scammers.
Let your global warming scam die, the world will be a better place.
Fewer and fewer are buying the global warming scam.
Truth is coming out. Thanks to all the smart people out there who are able to spot the obvious scam behind the global warming hoax.
So sad some people are just too gullible.
The louder the global warming scammers shout, the more people will wake up to the truth behind the global warming hoax. Let's call the global warming promoters for what they are --scammers!
The louder the global warming scammers shout, the more people will wake up to the truth behind the global warming hoax. Let's call the global warming promoters for what they are --scammers!
Ever hear of MOND? Its a different theory of gravity. Even in gravity, there are competing theories.
Don't be stupid.
There is a scientific consensus on the Theory of Gravity.
That's just the way it is.
Scientific consensuses abound in science.
They don't appear by magic.
It takes work and an overwhelming preponderance of evidence.
MOND is fine and wonderful but it's got nothing to do with the scientific consensus on Theory of Gravity.
You won't wake up tomorrow and find that the Theory of Gravity has been overturned and replaced with something else. Read more.
In physics, Modified Newtonian dynamics (MOND) is a hypothesis that proposes a modification of Newton's law of gravity to explain the galaxy rotation problem.
Your talking point is taken from the creationist playbook.
They too have an attack of the vapours over Punk Eek yet the the Theory of Evolution is not going anywhere.
Claim CA250:
Scientific theories are always changing. You cannot trust what scientists say, since it may be different tomorrow.
Response:
1.Science investigates difficult questions about unknown fields, and scientists are human, so it is inevitable that scientific findings will not be perfect. However, science works by investigating more and more, which means results get checked and rechecked with further findings. The reason some findings change is because they get corrected. This process of correction helps make science one of the most successful areas of human endeavor. The people who cannot be trusted are those who are always right.
2.As more evidence accumulates, scientific findings become more and more certain. Theories that have withstood several decades of study may undergo more refinement of details, but it is almost inconceivable that they would be overturned completely.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA250.html
As those of you who were at CONvergence know, this post was left open to global warming denialist scammers in order to produce a number of examples for discussion points and to demonstrate what sorts of things they say and do. In so doing, this post also became exposed to a wider range of dissemination among denialists than usual, and has become the focus for a semi-coordinated attack. What fun. However, since it is against the policy of this blog to be a clearing house for AGW denialist links, literature, or loon-acy (and I say that with apologies to the loons) comments on this post are now closed.