Ouch That's Got To Hurt-Greenpeace founder "No evidence man is contributing to..

[TechMan]

http://www.foxnews.com/science/2014/02/26/greenpeace-co-founder-no-scientific-proof-humans-are-dominant-cause-warming/

Greenpeace co-founder told lawmakers that there is no evidence that humans are contributing to climate change.  He also stated that he left Greenpeace when the group became more interested in politics than the environment.

“There is no scientific proof that human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) are the dominant cause of the minor warming of the Earth’s atmosphere over the past 100 years,”

More at the link.

[Tallpine]

Hang the skeptic!     

[Gowen]

Realism has no place in Climate Change.  It's the POLITICS DARN IT!!  Don't you forget it.   

[bedlamite]

http://www.epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=415b9cde-e664-4628-8fb5-ae3951197d03

[Perd Hapley]

http://www.epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=415b9cde-e664-4628-8fb5-ae3951197d03

Grrrrrr.

Thanks. I had no way of knowing that was some kind of download, and now I've got some crap on my phone I don't want.

Grrrrrr

[cordex]

Grrrrrr.

Thanks. I had no way of knowing that was some kind of download, and now I've got some crap on my phone I don't want.

Grrrrrr

You mean a PDF?

[Perd Hapley]

You mean a PDF?

Grrrrrr

[230RN]

For years I've been saying that the problem is the sample size.  Two hundred years of accurate measurements perhaps showing an increase in temperature do not trump graphs going back 400,000 years which clearly show fairly regular cycles with spikey short-term variations in each cycle.

It looks to me that we just happen to be in a short-term upspike, but according to what I used to read 30-40 years ago, we are probably heading toward a new ice age.

Besides, even if the earth is warming, that would probably enhance our agricultural abilities to feed our 7.146 billion people.... which number is rapidly growing.  I mean, after all, by burning all those carbonaceous fuels, we're just producing more plant food.  :)

I say again:  The real problem is the very small, very recent, sample size we're looking at.

Terry, 230RN

[Sergeant Bob]

Realism has no place in Climate Change.  It's the POLITICS a religion DARN IT!!  Don't you forget it.   

Had to.

[HankB]

For years I've been saying that the problem is the sample size.  Two hundred years of accurate measurements perhaps showing an increase in temperature do not trump graphs going back 400,000 years which clearly show fairly regular cycles with spikey short-term variations in each cycle . . .

And at least some of the measurements I've seen purporting to prove "global" warming are clearly illustrating  the "urban heat island" effect - a local phenomenon.

[sumpnz]

And at least some of the measurements I've seen purporting to prove "global" warming are clearly illustrating  the "urban heat island" effect - a local phenomenon.

Yep.  Even by their own standards the temp stations don't meet the guidlines for site quality.  GIGO.

[Azrael256]

Yep.  Even by their own standards the temp stations don't meet the guidlines for site quality.  GIGO.

Maybe, maybe not.  I don't care.  I like trees, air I can't see, clear water and stuff like that.  I don't like messes, so I don't care for oil, PBCs, Cadmium, and those little plastic thingies Cokes used to come in.  Fission is a disastrous mess, but it may be the best we've got for the moment.

Why don't I hear environmentalists talking like that?  Why do they all just want to tax stuff until we all live in mud huts?

[Ben]

Maybe, maybe not.  I don't care.  I like trees, air I can't see, clear water and stuff like that.  I don't like messes, so I don't care for oil, PBCs, Cadmium, and those little plastic thingies Cokes used to come in.  Fission is a disastrous mess, but it may be the best we've got for the moment.

Why don't I hear environmentalists talking like that?  Why do they all just want to tax stuff until we all live in mud huts?

Yup. Maybe there's a "silent majority' of them out there that do think like that, but they are well overshadowed by the loud and obnoxious "turn off oil today and turn on solar tomorrow" crowd. There is no reasoning with those people. They have no scientific, engineering, or other logical backgrounds that allow them to see the problem with their binary solutions. A twenty year transition from oil to some alternative energy source(s) is 19.9 years too long for them. They are like spoiled children.

If they embraced the enlightened self-interest of most of the population, they would be much better served. If you can show me an alternative-fueled vehicle that outperforms my oil eater at the same or lesser cost, with ubiquitous fuel and parts available, why wouldn't I want to drive it? Instead, they want to regulate and fine me into compliance with their world view, and they want it NOW. People, especially Americans, have an almost genetic aversion to that kind of behavior.

[230RN]

^ +1 and thanks.

That pdf should receive wider circulation.  I captured it for future reference.  I may even print it out.

Perhaps the simplest way to expose the fallacy of “extreme certainty” is to look at the historical record. With the historical record, we do have some degree of certainty compared to predictions of the future. When modern life evolved over 500 million years ago, CO2 was more than 10 times higher than today, yet life flourished at this time. Then an Ice Age occurred 450 million years ago when CO2 was 10 times higher than today.

There is some correlation, but little evidence, to support a direct causal relationship between CO2 and global temperature through the millennia. The fact that we had both higher temperatures and an ice age at a time when CO2 emissions were 10 times higher than they are today fundamentally contradicts the certainty that human-caused CO2 emissions are the main cause of global warming.

Heh.  "...the fallacy of 'extreme certainty'...”  I didn't know there were degrees of certainty.  I thought p=1.0 was it.  I'm 110% certain that's what my stat teachers told me.

Terry, 230RN

[coppertales]

Gee, how come these people get paid big bucks to make that determination while I have been saying global warming/climate change is a bunch of hooey all along......chris3

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

http://www.epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=415b9cde-e664-4628-8fb5-ae3951197d03

A most excellent read.  Thanks!

[MechAg94]

Maybe, maybe not.  I don't care.  I like trees, air I can't see, clear water and stuff like that.  I don't like messes, so I don't care for oil, PBCs, Cadmium, and those little plastic thingies Cokes used to come in.  Fission is a disastrous mess, but it may be the best we've got for the moment.

Why don't I hear environmentalists talking like that?  Why do they all just want to tax stuff until we all live in mud huts?

Because those people are not Environmentalists.  They are    Communists.  

[bedlamite]

Another one has come to his senses:

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/mar/30/james-lovelock-environmentalism-religion

James Lovelock: environmentalism has become a religion

Scientist behind the Gaia hypothesis says environment movement does not pay enough attention to facts and he was too certain in the past about rising temperatures

[RoadKingLarry]

I'm more than willing to accept that the earth's climate is changing. Just like it has done for billions of years.
I'm just gonna buy into the "man made" BS.

[French G.]

The same Patrick Moore who came out and said we ought to go nuclear. If he turns up as a three shot to the head suicide I would not be surprised.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/14/AR2006041401209.html

[Scout26]

I'm more than willing to accept that the earth's climate is changing. Just like it has done for billions of years.
I'm just NOT gonna buy into the "man made" BS.

FTFY.  

And agreed.

IIRC, the temp hasn't gone up in the last 15 years.

Oh, and we got 80 total inches of Man-Made Globular Woerming Climate Change this year. 231% of normal, during the 3rd coldest winter on record (150+/- a couple of years).

http://www.accuweather.com/en/weather-news/record-breaking-cold-winter-we/24831365

[drewtam]

I currently fall into the lukewarm camp. Not totally convinced one way or the other. Here is what I think I know, but the issue is so politicized its hard to separate the signal from the noise.

We know CO2 is a greenhouse gas that can cause warming, and there is now more of it in the atmosphere, and that increase will cause some warming. Nobody really disputes that part. I think this is the 97% consensus part. But this is a little smoke and mirrors, because the CO2 forcing by itself is not significant in the long term.

The big deal is whether that little bit of warming causes major positive feedback from other systems, especially the all powerful water vapor cycles. This is the absolute most critical question. If the water vapor feedback is strongly positive, there will be lots of warming. If it is neutral, negative, or very slightly positive, the warming from CO2 alone is irrelevant. There are good arguments for and against positive feedback:

Against:
A strongly positive feedback is unstable, and the earth should have already over heated as the sun continues to increase output. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faint_young_Sun_paradox)
the data doesn't seem to support it (with increased warming, we are seeing drying out of the upper atmosphere via latest satellite data, rather than constant RH. this indicates negative feedback)
the warming has stopped for 10-17yrs now with dramatically increasing CO2

For:
some data shows constant RH with increasing temps
logical conclusions from physics supports positive feedback
the models support it (this is the weakest argument in support, to me)

[MechAg94]

I don't think your 2nd paragraph is accurate.  I think there is dispute about if and how much warming is caused by CO2.  I think I saw something that indicated atmospheric CO2 has already doubled in the last 100 years or less and any warming is debatable.  I have also read two things that brought a good bit of doubt.  First, CO2 only traps heat across a very narrow band of light frequency.  Second, the total effect of further increasing CO2 drops off pretty fast.  These facts came up some years ago on this board.  There were some pretty lengthy discussions, some of which were egged on by certain members using alternate log ins.  (I have no proof)

As far as the rest, given that the earth has been hotter and colder than it is now, I really really really doubt there are hidden amplifiers that will cause the earth's temp to go rocketing skyward.  IMO, that sounds too much like someone wishing/ hoping it might still be true but they can't prove it.  Haven't CO2 levels been higher than they are now too?  Not sure on that one. 

[Scout26]

I currently fall into the lukewarm camp. Not totally convinced one way or the other. Here is what I think I know, but the issue is so politicized its hard to separate the signal from the noise.

We know CO2 is a greenhouse gas that can cause warming, and there is now more of it in the atmosphere, and that increase will cause some warming. Nobody really disputes that part. I think this is the 97% consensus part. But this is a little smoke and mirrors, because the CO2 forcing by itself is not significant in the long term.

The big deal is whether that little bit of warming causes major positive feedback from other systems, especially the all powerful water vapor cycles. This is the absolute most critical question. If the water vapor feedback is strongly positive, there will be lots of warming. If it is neutral, negative, or very slightly positive, the warming from CO2 alone is irrelevant. There are good arguments for and against positive feedback:

Against:
A strongly positive feedback is unstable, and the earth should have already over heated as the sun continues to increase output. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faint_young_Sun_paradox)
the data doesn't seem to support it (with increased warming, we are seeing drying out of the upper atmosphere via latest satellite data, rather than constant RH. this indicates negative feedback)
the warming has stopped for 10-17yrs now with dramatically increasing CO2

For:
some data shows constant RH with increasing temps
logical conclusions from physics supports positive feedback
the models support it (this is the weakest argument in support, to me)

1.  Solar output has not been increasing, in fact it has been decreasing.  (Solar observers are somewhat baffled by the declining output, it doesn't follow the models or the previous Solar cycles.)  In fact, observed Sunspots are at the same levels as during the Maunder Minimum.  aka: "The Little Ice Age".   In fact if we take this:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Carbon14_with_activity_labels.svg and overlay it over tempeture charts like this one:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:IPCC_1996_SAR_Figure_3.20.png   they are pretty damn close to being the same.  Yet, I've have numerous AGW believers tell me that "the sun has nothing to do with climate", with a straight face.  

2. Name one positive feedback loop in nature.  Go ahead.  I'll wait...

[Hawkmoon]

I'm more than willing to accept that the earth's climate is changing. Just like it has done for billions of years.
I'm just gonna buy into the "man made" BS.

You are?

How much are you going to pay to buy in? I hope you're getting a bargain price.