Climate change - natural or man-made?

[makattak]

The attacks on science and scientists on this issue are interesting. Generally the public in the West are pro-science, science has been responsible for massive improvements in public health, standards of living etc. There are a couple of issues where the public resort to the mad scientist, the dangerous scientist and the bad scientist ideas. Interesting that they are issues where the public, or parts of the public, dislike the conclusions and so attack the methods.

Ummm... I'm sorry, this is how science is criticized.

I'm an economist. To critique an argument, I begin with the assumptions made, the data used, the method of analyzing that data, and finally the conclusion from that analysis.

How else do you argue science, but to "attack the methods"?

[Iain]

The attacks are on the method. The scientific method. Thus the old 'it's only a theory, they can't prove it' line, which betrays fundamental misunderstandings.

Where the conclusions are uncontroversial scientists are admired, respected. Where the conclusions are not, suddenly they are the ghillie suit of the left/right/atheism etc

[makattak]

The attacks are on the method. The scientific method. Thus the old 'it's only a theory, they can't prove it' line, which betrays fundamental misunderstandings.

Where the conclusions are uncontroversial scientists are admired, respected. Where the conclusions are not, suddenly they are the ghillie suit of the left/right/atheism etc

??

Really? People here have been spouting "it's only a theory?"

Seems to me people have questioned their computer models, questioned the data, and, in my case, questioned the conclusions they have drawn from their analysis.

There's a reason this is "controversial." It's not because people don't trust science, it's that there is a lot of bad science in all these theories.

You want people to believe your ideas? Use better data and better methods in order to satisfy the critiques. Many of the criticisms are levelled by other scientists because that's how science is supposed to work: scientists critique each other.

Science doesn't go on a witch hunt for those who disagree with the conclusions.

[Ron]

When "science" or politicians using "science" promote something as fact and use it to promote radical changes to human civilization, changes that will be demanded at the point of a gun, why would you be surprised that there is some push back? Not only from the people but other scientists.

In spite of those whose contention is otherwise the issue doesn't seem to be settled as to the extent of our complicatedness in the changing of our climate.

What is a good course of action is what Nema's is promoting though, be prepared and have contingencies ready in the event something happens in your lifetime.

Adapt or die.

[El Tejon]

I question the science of eugenics.  Does this make me anti-science?

[erik the bold]

Didn't I just see a week or two ago:
1.  That the Arctic and Antarctic ice is at 1989 levels? 
2.  That the earth has been steadily cooling since 1998? 
3.  That the temperatures of 2008 canceled out the last 100 or so years of warming?
4.  That the winter of 2008/2009 is one of the coldest in recent memory?

Does the climate change?  Absolutely.

Does man have anything to do with it?  IMHO, not a bit....

[Nematocyst]

Does the climate change?  Absolutely.

Does man have anything to do with it?  IMHO, not a bit....

I'm curious. How do you explain the fact that CO2 levels are far higher than
the highest level they've been in 650,000 years? (That's 6 ice age cycles.)

Normal ice age level: 180 ppm
Normal interglacial level: 280 ppm
Previous interglacial high: 300 ppm
Now: 385 ppm & increasing at > 2 ppm/year

[Nematocyst]

1.  That the Arctic and Antarctic ice is at 1989 levels? 

The Arctic and Antarctic caps are very different systems.
The northern is ocean based, the southern is a continent.
Apples & oranges.

Here's info on this year's rapid freeze in the Arctic.
Here's more from climatologists.
Those who dig a little deeper will find that
regardless of area, the Arctic ice is ever thinner.

Here's the latest on Antarctic.
More here by the pros.
Oh, one more.

2.  That the earth has been steadily cooling since 1998?
4.  That the winter of 2008/2009 is one of the coldest in recent memory?

Check here.

[erik the bold]

I'm curious. How do you explain the fact that CO2 levels are far higher than
the highest level they've been in 650,000 years? (That's 6 ice age cycles.)

Who cares.....?   My garden will grow better, that is, if it ever warms up enough to plant it.   

OTOH, you're barking up the wrong tree when you site "expert" enviro-hacks backed by MoveOn/George Soros:

Domain Name:REALCLIMATE.ORG
Created On:19-Nov-2004 16:39:03 UTC
Last Updated On:30-Oct-2005 21:10:46 UTC
Expiration Date:19-Nov-2007 16:39:03 UTC
Sponsoring Registrar:eNom, Inc. (R39-LROR)
Status:OK
Registrant ID:B133AE74B8066012
Registrant Name:Betsy Ensley
Registrant Organization:Environmental Media Services

Good 'ol Betsy Ensley also manages BushGreenwatch.org and womenagainstbush.org,  joint EMS-MoveOn.org public "awareness" websites.

Let's look at EMS, or "Environmental Media Services".....

In the “about us” section of its website it states “EMS is a nonprofit communications clearinghouse dedicated to expanding media coverage of critical environmental and public health issues. We build relationships with top scientists, physicians, and other experts to bring journalists the latest and most credible information. EMS was founded in 1994 by former Time, Newsweek and Sports Illustrated journalist Arlie Schardt. Schardt also headed the Environmental Defense Fund in the 1970s. EMS is a nonprofit funded by foundations and individuals working to improve public understanding of environmental and public health issues.”

So, living up to its pledge to provide “credible information” it also sponsors the internet site BushGreenwatch. BushGreenwatch is also sponsored by moveon.org.

A little research on Arlie Schardt, who's a 'senior consultant' at Fenton Communications, the founder of Environmental Media Services reveals the following, “Arlie Schardt, the chairman of Environmental Media Services, was editor of Foundation News from 1982-1994, and vice president for communications at the Council on Foundations from 1988-1992, taking a sabbatical to serve as national press secretary for Al Gore's first presidential campaign in 1988.”

So who is Fenton Communications? Take a look at their homepage to get a little peak into some of the people or organizations they represent. MoveOn is on their Social & Economic Justice list. I was unaware that Moveon.org fit THAT description. Their “case studies” area is also very revealing. The personnel at Fenton Communications reads like a list of aging hippies. Here is a rundown on Fenton Communications:

A close reading of the Fenton Communications overview shows how organizations such as EMS and Fenton are designed to extract money from foundations and clients. All in the name of “activism”. The capitalist spirit is alive and well, even on the left. One wonders however, whether EMS, Fenton or BushGreenwatch really care about the left’s agenda, or whether they are in it for the money........

Believe what you want, but you can keep your fantasies, thank you very much.   :rolleyes:

[Nematocyst]

Hey, here's an idea. If the information presented there is so lame, it should be really easy for you to point out the flaws in it. So why don't you try that.

Otherwise, you are engaging in ad hominem, and your argument holds no water.

Plus, you avoided my question entirely with a cute little quip about gardening, so I'll ask again: if humans have nothing to do with climate change, then how do you explain the fact that CO2 levels are far higher than the highest level they've been in 650,000 years? (That's 6 ice age cycles.)

As the old saying goes, put up, or .... 

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

why do we need to explain a natural  phenomenom?

[Teknoid]

There is a very simple solution to the massive increase in CO2. Just stop exhaling.

[MechAg94]

Hey, here's an idea. If the information presented there is so lame, it should be really easy for you to point out the flaws in it. So why don't you try that.

Otherwise, you are engaging in ad hominem, and your argument holds no water.

Plus, you avoided my question entirely with a cute little quip about gardening, so I'll ask again: if humans have nothing to do with climate change, then how do you explain the fact that CO2 levels are far higher than the highest level they've been in 650,000 years? (That's 6 ice age cycles.)

As the old saying goes, put up, or .... 

Why don't you explain first why CO2 and climate change are supposed to be directly connected as you imply in your last statement?  Or maybe you can explain why you think that Temp vs CO2 formula you posted above isn't nonsense?   

Also, your arctic refreezing links above are a year old and only talk about 2007 refreezing. 

[Ben]

Well, looks like there's enough condescending remarks on the one hand, and sniping on the other, just like in religion and abortion threads, that I think it's time to put this one to rest.