Global Warming?

[toppop52]

Well supported response :confused2: The scientific community does not support your view and your comparison to religion does not help your case. Repeating a claim of that sort does not improve its validity. Check out the volume of data and scientific papers used to support AGW and compare that to basis for religion. (religion results from belief and faith that sacred book is the truth)

Loren

Felt the need to say something twice? Oh well, religion? The only mention of religion was that of global warming, not sure how you extrapolated that to include your irrelevant response, but then the true believers do that now don't they? If scientists can't show why repeated warming events, some much warmer than today happened without AGW, then how can they credibly prove today's events, if we are indeed still warming, are AGW and not even remotely possibly something natural, since all previous events were. It certainly did warm from around 1980 through a few years ago, not sure about now, but then it cooled significantly from 1950-1972, so.... As you say, repeating it doesn't make it so, prove it.

 

[crash325]

Now we have global warming & global cooling running into each other.
Wonder how that will be spun???

 

[IslandTractor]

If scientists can't show why repeated warming events, some much warmer than today happened without AGW, then how can they credibly prove today's events, if we are indeed still warming, are AGW and not even remotely possibly something natural, since all previous events were. It certainly did warm from around 1980 through a few years ago, not sure about now, but then it cooled significantly from 1950-1972, so.... As you say, repeating it doesn't make it so, prove it.

You don't seem to appreciate how science works. The point is not to exclude something is "even remotely possibly something natural". The issue is whether it is reasonable that such a "remotely possible" explanation should be preferred over a "probable" explanation based on best available data and models. You have to play the odds. Absolute certainty is almost never achievable in science as new and even better theories come along to displace the older, mostly good theories. With weather science we certainly see incremental improvements over the past hundred years as the field becomes more sophisticated through review of new data and testing of new weather models. That doesn't mean every prediction will be 100% accurate but you'd have to be an idiot to sit around saying that you won't listen to the weatherman because they don't get it 100% right all the time. Climate science is still relatively young and will improve but that is no reason to disregard what it tells us today. The state of the art climate science may not be perfect but it is sure better than the crap that gets discussed on front porches by people more influenced by politics than science.

 

[Dustier]

After Hurricane Sandy's destruction, politicians say it is time to take steps to deal with increasingly extreme weather conditions. But why are they still unwilling to discuss climate change?

The massive storm which began as Hurricane Sandy has dominated the headlines across the United States.

At least 16 states felt the impact of the weather system causing floods and power outages. While scientists say they cannot conclusively link this specific event to climate change, they do say the changing climate is likely increasing the threats associated with such a storm.

Recently, German reinsurance company Munich Re, released a study on the financial cost of severe weather in North America and found that, between 1980 and 2011, some 30,000 people lost their lives and related weather-related disasters cost the country $1,060bn.

The report goes on to say man-made climate change contributes to this trend - particularly when it comes to flooding and heat waves, which cause significant losses and also storms - which account for 76 per cent of overall costs.

Hurricane Sandy and other extreme weather events like this year's droughts and record temperatures have made the lack of discussion about climate change during the presidential election season, even more jarring.

In fact, when it came to the environment, Barack Obama and his Republican opponent, Mitt Romney, focused on who will drill more oil and extract more coal when they take to the White House.

Climate change was not mentioned once during the presidential debates - the first time this has happened since 1984.

So why have politicians become so afraid to approach the issue?

To discuss this on Inside Story US 2012, presenter Shihab Rattansi is joined by guests: Rick Piltz, the director and founder of Climate Science Watch; Joe Romm, a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress; and Michael Mann, a Nobel Prize-winning climate change scientist.
© 2012 Al-Jazeera

 

[toppop52]

No, what it shows is that this would have to an outlier of historical proportions for it to be solely man made, when hundreds or thousands of previous events could not possibly have been. Is it possible, sure, is it likely without the grant seekers/enviro cultists tilted data? No!

 

[Dustier]

Mumbo jumbo, toppop52. Denial of climate change as a man made phenomenon is ridiculous. Whatever drives such cognitive dissonance will never elevate intelligent discussion on this matter. Your efforts as a denier are laudable, albeit, unflattering, especially in the face of so much evidence in contradiction to your agenda.

The notion, however, that climate change is historically and arguably natural could have some merit were it not isolated in the ambiguous past, i. e. pre-historic era of the Earth. But even that is a stretch as the historical record is compiled by the same people you routinely dismiss as agenda driven, scientists.

Our discussion of the matter of climate change, however, is welcome if, for no other reason, more evidence of its existence surfaces.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/31/us/sandy-climate-change/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

 

[IslandTractor]

No, what it shows is that this would have to an outlier of historical proportions for it to be solely man made, when hundreds or thousands of previous events could not possibly have been. Is it possible, sure, is it likely without the grant seekers/enviro cultists tilted data? No!

There is simply no logic to your argument. You distrust grant seekers (aka scientists) and their "tilted data" then you refer to their data about past events to dismiss their current thinking. Where is the data you do trust and who generates and interprets it? I'm going to guess that you don't like the overwhelming majority expert opinions on this subject if they don't support your firmly held political views. Weren't you one of the cheering section for Rose's discredited Daily Mail article a few weeks ago? Do you check on the impact of data on your preconceived views before passing judgment? Do you really have such a limited understanding of and respect for the scientific process?

 

[crash325]

WHAT no mention of the fact Sandy was a tropical storm that Collided with and Ice Age type storm from the west????

Seems to me that Sandy started out off the coast of Africa, lots of man made warming there.
2 to 4 Foot snow storm coming from the West, Must be Man Made Cooling???? RIGHT?????

 

[skspurling]

Mumbo jumbo, toppop52. Denial of climate change as a man made phenomenon is ridiculous. Whatever drives such cognitive dissonance will never elevate intelligent discussion on this matter. Your efforts as a denier are laudable, albeit, unflattering, especially in the face of so much evidence in contradiction to your agenda.

The notion, however, that climate change is historically and arguably natural could have some merit were it not isolated in the ambiguous past, i. e. pre-historic era of the Earth. But even that is a stretch as the historical record is compiled by the same people you routinely dismiss as agenda driven, scientists.

Our discussion of the matter of climate change, however, is welcome if, for no other reason, more evidence of its existence surfaces.

Experts warn of superstorm era to come - CNN.com

The problem here is that the correlation to a causal relationship between human activities and unusual climate events is tenuous at best. Climate science is an observed science. There aren't much of any experimental tests that can be run to prove or disprove a specific causation relationship. Even worse, there isn't an ability for a control group to see what happens when a specific system input is applied or withheld. Except for solar activity. We can see what happens to other planets with variance in solar activity. That is why I am surprised that solar effects are so quickly dismissed. CO2 was supposed to have a weaker green house effect than they are claiming now. (The effect they thought it should have was originally tested in the lab.) Water has a much larger effect. The uncorrected temperature data is protected by copyright. It has been "corrected" in undefined ways. This limits peer review of the data correction methods and original data collection methods. They claim that a common gas has a much greater effect than it should. Then they implement political controls in inconsistent ways to achieve political gains that don't really solve any issues. People who rightly question the means and goals of this whole mess are bullied and pressured to keep their mouths shut. Why would anyone be skeptical about this?

As far as Sandy, even if it is an outlier, we would have to see quite a few more of these to say there is a new normal. Problem is, there are fields of study that show major events like this just occur. Sometimes the perfect storm just happens. It was an event. It happened. There have been worse.

 

[tcreeley]

No, what it shows is that this would have to an outlier of historical proportions for it to be solely man made, when hundreds or thousands of previous events could not possibly have been. Is it possible, sure, is it likely without the grant seekers/enviro cultists tilted data? No!

You are slipping- you just allowed the possibility of GW! Was this a typo or a freudian slip! You've been a global warmist all this time! I see what this is all about now!:cool2::cool2: