Global Warmists -- Read ( Climategate )

[Heavencloud]

Environmentalists are responsible for things like banning the use of DDT which was the greatest weapon against malaria in Africa which kills roughly 1-3 million people a year. Why did they ban it? Oh sure DDT in large amounts was a carcinogen but the main reason they stopped use was to protect birds. That's the thing about true environmentalism though even in their science they are usually more concerned about maintaining a low impact on every else and perceive humans as a problem.

Sure quick fixes like DDT seem awesome now, but in hundreds of years the picture gets much more gloomy. You can't just use chemicals like that and expect to not have negative effects on humans as well as the environment. It's all connected.

[orson]

I agree on the 3rd part of what you said - environmentalists often put the wildlife above humans. And even the environment itself sometime, nuclear power is a good example of this - where they protest CO2 emissions but then protest nuclear power which is the only feasible alternative with a negligible carbon footprint.

But the part about Al Gore was pretty ridiculous, in fact I saw a video of some congresswoman saying the same thing to him. He slapped her down silly by pointing out that all of his profits would go right back into more green projects (and she STFU'd straight away). And as for the other part, a lot of companies try to boost their reputation by labelling themselves as green sure...but.. I don't see anything wrong with this. What's wrong with profiting from being green? I can't think of a reason.

Yes he's investing in what he believes in but it's also what is making him money. Absolutely nothing is wrong with profiting off of your own ideas and business. The problem I have is that people have this idea in their head that someone like Al Gore is simply out for the betterment of the planet with no investment in proving and promoting global warming. That's BS his actually has direct monetary investment in global warming and even beforehand he spent a lot of money on said investments. Not only that I'm sure that Al Gore has huge pressure from investors, companies, and political just like any politician/celebrity has.

People like Al Gore are not necessarily altruistic and not "all" of his profits go into green investments. He still lives in a giant house, drives, and uses air travel often using a far greater carbon footprint than that of what an average person would use. Also I'm not meaning just his travel to promote global warming and other related agendas.

If you wholeheartedly believe global warming to be true than sure Al Gore is doing an awesome job. Even then you think he would reduce the size of his home and cut back on some of the luxuries most average Joe's don't even get.

Sure quick fixes like DDT seem awesome now, but in hundreds of years the picture gets much more gloomy. You can't just use chemicals like that and expect to not have negative effects on humans as well as the environment. It's all connected.

You do realize that malaria was a big problem in North America and Europe too. Generally it isn't brought up much anymore because of environmentalist idiots. Spraying of DDT and other pesticides in many areas, better sanitation, draining wetlands (also a shit storm from environmentalists) almost completely killed out the malaria caring mosquitoes in NA and EU. This isn't a quick fix it was THE FIX. Vaccination is still years away from being effective and vector control A.K.A. wiping out the mosquitoes completely is the best way to stop the disease. Ya I'm sure that NA and EU are still suffering from these terrible effects, like not dying from malaria.

[Shuvo]

Yes he's investing in what he believes in but it's also what is making him money. Absolutely nothing is wrong with profiting off of your own ideas and business. The problem I have is that people have this idea in their head that someone like Al Gore is simply out for the betterment of the planet with no investment in proving and promoting global warming. That's BS his actually has direct monetary investment in global warming and even beforehand he spent a lot of money on said investments. Not only that I'm sure that Al Gore has huge pressure from investors, companies, and political just like any politician/celebrity has.

People like Al Gore are not necessarily altruistic and not "all" of his profits go into green investments. He still lives in a giant house, drives, and uses air travel often using a far greater carbon footprint than that of what an average person would use. Also I'm not meaning just his travel to promote global warming and other related agendas.

If you wholeheartedly believe global warming to be true than sure Al Gore is doing an awesome job. Even then you think he would reduce the size of his home and cut back on some of the luxuries most average Joe's don't even get.

I found the video I was talking about:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V5A6h6r7qaY
Starts at about 0:30

He's flat out said that every penny he makes form the investments goes right back into non-profit green projects.

As for the other stuff you said - If you wanna criticize him for having a big house, go right ahead, although it's more likely he made the money on his own private work (His salary + book sales), rather then on the investments people put in for his green projects. (Their are probably laws against that sort of thing)

It's also silly to criticize him for flying around on planes. Every single year I see this same argument used on a different politician each time, and I'm kind of tired of it. You think he'd raise nearly as much money as he has if he sits in his room all day talking about global warming on say, Youtube? as opposed to travelling and giving speeches to the public? It's expected that public figures will travel a lot more. And even if it wasn't all for work, who cares? You do not need to be a purist to have a cause.

[Linliel]

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/20...te-psychology/

Wired.com: How does this translate into skepticism about climate change?

Norgaard: It’s a paradox. Awareness has increased. There’s been a lot more information available. This is much more in our face. And this is where the psychological defense mechanisms are relevant, especially when coupled with the fact that other people, as we’ve lately seen with the e-mail attacks, are systematically trying to create the sense that there’s doubt.

If I don’t want to believe that climate change is true, that my lifestyle and high carbon emissions are causing devastation, then it’s convenient to say that it doesn’t.

Wired.com: Is that what this comes down to — not wanting to confront our own roles?

Norgaard: I think so. And the reason is that we don’t have a clear sense of what we can do. Any community organizer knows that if you want people to respond to something, you need to tell them what to do, and make it seem do-able. Stanford University psychologist Jon Krosnick has studied this, and showed that people stop paying attention to climate change when they realize there’s no easy solution. People judge as serious only those problems for which actions can be taken.

Another factor is that we no longer have a sense of permanence. Another psychologist, Robert Lifton, wrote about what the existence of atomic bombs did to our psyche. There was a sense that the world could end at any moment.

Global warming is the same in that it threatens the survival of our species. Psychologists tell us that it’s very important to have a sense of the continuity of life. That’s why we invest in big monuments and want our work to stand after we die and have our family name go on.

That sense of continuity is being ruptured. But climate change has an added aspect that is very important. The scientists who built nuclear bombs felt guilt about what they did. Now the guilt is real for the broader public.

Wired.com: So we don’t want to believe climate change is happening, feel guilty that it is, and don’t know what to do about it? So we pretend it’s not a problem?

Norgaard: Yes, but I don’t want to make it seem crass. Sometimes people who are very empathetic are less likely to help in certain situations, because they’re so disturbed by it. The human capacity of empathy is really profound, and that’s part of our weakness. If we were more callous, then we’d approach it in a more straightforward way. It may be a weakness of our capacity as sentient beings to cope with this problem.

[Beckwin]

I love how everyone paints this picture of the ever caring environmentalists that just want to save the planet. Al Gore has made millions of dollars off of his green investments. Many many companies also use this "green" bullshit as marketing and a way to create money for their new products. Not only that but cap and trade is literally a way of socializing world business basically allowing environmental and green companies to legally take money from any type of business that puts out a carbon footprint.

you have to convince the capitalists of the world that being green can make money or otherwise you'll only see strong resistance to any measures that would combat pollution and global warming. kinda like we're still mostly seeing now.

[orson]

I found the video I was talking about:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V5A6h6r7qaY
Starts at about 0:30

He's flat out said that every penny he makes form the investments goes right back into non-profit green projects.

As for the other stuff you said - If you wanna criticize him for having a big house, go right ahead, although it's more likely he made the money on his own private work (His salary + book sales), rather then on the investments people put in for his green projects. (Their are probably laws against that sort of thing)

It's also silly to criticize him for flying around on planes. Every single year I see this same argument used on a different politician each time, and I'm kind of tired of it. You think he'd raise nearly as much money as he has if he sits in his room all day talking about global warming on say, Youtube? as opposed to travelling and giving speeches to the public? It's expected that public figures will travel a lot more. And even if it wasn't all for work, who cares? You do not need to be a purist to have a cause.

That's great that he says that every penny he invests in green goes back into green but I doubt that takes into account his personal investments nor does that take into account the countless millions he's probably made for his colleagues and friends. There is no law against you investing in something and then promoting it or vice versa, as long as you're not intentionally misleading people.

The fact that his isn't a purist does point out that there are some things that he is unwilling to part with. Why should he expect middle America to reduce their carbon footprint when he is unwilling to reduce his own. Hell on the retarded stunt called Earth Day where everyone was supposed to turn off their lights his household did not. It's not about being a purist it's about not coming of like a hypocrite. It's OK though with cap and trade he's probably stopped so much CO2 he's justified to waste 100s of times that of a regular person.

As for the plane issue I'm not talking about him using plane travel to promote his message. Again I cannot believe that he doesn't take more holidays and uses more air travel then the general public. Now granted I don't have any proof of that but he doesn't come off as one who doesn't make use of his money.

My main point is he's not a saint. He's just a salesman trying to sell people a product. Albeit a product that many people would like to think is akin to a lifeboat or defibrillator.

[Shuvo]

That's great that he says that every penny he invests in green goes back into green but I doubt that takes into account his personal investments nor does that take into account the countless millions he's probably made for his colleagues and friends. There is no law against you investing in something and then promoting it or vice versa, as long as you're not intentionally misleading people.

You're saying that "he probably made money doing this and that" without any kind of proof or even evidence. He said in the video I just showed you that every single penny he made from the investments went back into more green projects. He's either lying or he's telling the truth. Are you saying that he's lying/misleading?

The fact that his isn't a purist does point out that there are some things that he is unwilling to part with. Why should he expect middle America to reduce their carbon footprint when he is unwilling to reduce his own. Hell on the retarded stunt called Earth Day where everyone was supposed to turn off their lights his household did not. It's not about being a purist it's about not coming of like a hypocrite. It's OK though with cap and trade he's probably stopped so much CO2 he's justified to waste 100s of times that of a regular person.

Not being a purist does not make you a hypocrite, IMO anyway. Personally I would never follow a purist even if I did believe in their cause 100%. They usually cross the line from reasonable/balanced to batshit-crazy.

And, "100s of times" is a gross understatement.

My main point is he's not a saint. He's just a salesman trying to sell people a product. Albeit a product that many people would like to think is akin to a lifeboat or defibrillator.

You're giving 2 extreme examples, a saint vs a guy who's conning millions (possibly billions) of people for decades, all for the sake of making money, and thats ridiculous. Do you honestly believe he spent 30 years of his life dedicated to this cause for making money? Even the most extreme right wingers would at say that Gore at least believed in his cause, however misguided it may be.

Now I think the only mildly-valid criticism you could make of him is how he profited from his book sales, which were no doubt helped by his cause. But, I don't really care about that. Just because he's one of the big figures in the movement does not mean he can't conduct his own private business, so long as it does not use investor money or insider information (which is illegal, just so you know).

[Demosthenes11]

http://www.thedailygreen.com/environ...house-47062202

[Acturus]

http://www.thedailygreen.com/environ...house-47062202

If u dont forward this to 20 ppl, ur crush will die tonite!

[Olo401]

how is it that lief manages to say his argument much better without images he googled?

He's had more practice making concise arguments without actual proof of anything.

[Linliel]

I still like the fact that the climate change skeptics are the warm fuzzy huggy people who just feel too guilty to own up to the fact that they're killing the planet

[Demosthenes11]

I still like the fact that the climate change skeptics are the warm fuzzy huggy people who just feel too guilty to own up to the fact that they're killing the planet

have you seen capitalism? shit is so cash.
it's way better than this damn planet

[Linliel]

have you seen capitalism? shit is so cash.
it's way better than this damn planet

But seriously, according to psychs the people who actually want to do something about it are the callous ice cold hard hearted bastards that wouldn't give you the time of day usually!

[Tristam]

Indeed, I'm not arguing against the possible effects of this in the near term/long term.

I'm arguing against the manner in which this data was handled, processed, presented, so forth.

There's a good reason for reading a thermometer upside down I'm sure... when it's sticking out of someones ass?

I don't know why the fuck they did it, but it's there for us to go "uh... why would you deliberately read data upside down?"

I'm not a climate scientist, I know, but don't make me science your ass back into the stone age! Seriously, it doesn't matter how they think it through if they don't show their work.

Mmm, datalicious.


That's enough for now.


I mean, I can see how you could hunt around and pick things to put into models to produce a specific outcome.

I can also see how you could present data honestly, have any of you guys seen this stuff? Do you know where to get more of it? It can take some digging to find, lemme tell ya, and there are lots of "if you wanna see where we got the info for our models, download the model, dumbass" type references... which is uh, unhelpful?

Puking graphs all over the internet doesn't make you knowledgeable, especially when I can't figure out what you're trying to say. I can't even tell which graphs are just local data and which are reconstructed global average means. Some of your graphs aren't even labeled. You CANNOT compare local temp changes with global average means and shout "fluctuations!" That may as well be the equivalent of saying goddidit. That is one of the strengths of the work by Mann et al., they use data from more sources than anyone else. I also think you have this misconception that their lab is running around sticking thermometers in the air and writing shit down in notebooks. That's not the case as I explained before.

I assume your objections to Mann et al., 09 were regurgitated directly from climateaudit and other denialist sites, because they DO explicitly show their work. In their reply in PNAS:

McIntyre and McKitrick (1) raise no valid issues regarding
our paper. The claim that ‘‘upside down’’ data were used is bizarre.
Multivariate regression methods are insensitive to the sign of
predictors. Screening, when used, employed one-sided tests
only when a definite sign could be a priori reasoned on physical
grounds. Potential nonclimatic influences on the Tiljander
and other proxies were discussed in the SI, which showed that
none of our central conclusions relied on their use Finally, McIntyre and McKitrick misrepresent both the National
Research Council report and the issues in that report
that we claimed to address (see abstract in ref. 2). They ignore
subsequent findings (4) concerning ‘‘strip bark’’ records
and fail to note that we required significance of both reduction
of error and coefficient of efficiency statistics relative to
a standard red noise hypothesis to define a skillful reconstruction.
In summary, their criticisms have no merit.



There is more of course, but I have issues regarding cutting/pasting shit directly from journals.

edit: also, we need a limit on the number of figures per post in this thread, gish-gallops are not intellectually honest arguments.

[Max™]

I assume your objections to Mann et al., 09 were regurgitated directly from climateaudit and other denialist sites, because they DO explicitly show their work. In their reply in PNAS:

My objections in the big post on the last page were just from shit found on their own site, in their own words. If it is claimed as honest science, yet some fucking retard like myself can see HUGE ASS THORDAMNED HOLES in their claims, maybe they should be stating it as an untested hypothesis based on limited modeling... not the only game in town?



Here's the problem with this:

Wired.com: How does this translate into skepticism about climate change?

Norgaard: It’s a paradox. Awareness has increased. There’s been a lot more information available. This is much more in our face. And this is where the psychological defense mechanisms are relevant, especially when coupled with the fact that other people, as we’ve lately seen with the e-mail attacks, are systematically trying to create the sense that there’s doubt.

If I don’t want to believe that climate change is true, that my lifestyle and high carbon emissions are causing devastation, then it’s convenient to say that it doesn’t.

Wired.com: Is that what this comes down to — not wanting to confront our own roles?

Norgaard: I think so. And the reason is that we don’t have a clear sense of what we can do. Any community organizer knows that if you want people to respond to something, you need to tell them what to do, and make it seem do-able. Stanford University psychologist Jon Krosnick has studied this, and showed that people stop paying attention to climate change when they realize there’s no easy solution. People judge as serious only those problems for which actions can be taken.

Another factor is that we no longer have a sense of permanence. Another psychologist, Robert Lifton, wrote about what the existence of atomic bombs did to our psyche. There was a sense that the world could end at any moment.

Global warming is the same in that it threatens the survival of our species. Psychologists tell us that it’s very important to have a sense of the continuity of life. That’s why we invest in big monuments and want our work to stand after we die and have our family name go on.

That sense of continuity is being ruptured. But climate change has an added aspect that is very important. The scientists who built nuclear bombs felt guilt about what they did. Now the guilt is real for the broader public.

Wired.com: So we don’t want to believe climate change is happening, feel guilty that it is, and don’t know what to do about it? So we pretend it’s not a problem?

Norgaard: Yes, but I don’t want to make it seem crass. Sometimes people who are very empathetic are less likely to help in certain situations, because they’re so disturbed by it. The human capacity of empathy is really profound, and that’s part of our weakness. If we were more callous, then we’d approach it in a more straightforward way. It may be a weakness of our capacity as sentient beings to cope with this problem.

I don't see as many informed skeptics who are bitching over the shit suggested there.

I see lots of naysayers, but that is denial, not questioning.


A skeptic is one who doubts. Doubting is good. Blind acceptance, or blind denial... those are bad things, pride or ignorance. Asking questions, questioning despite supposed "authority", educating yourself and others... those are good things.


I don't give a fuck about the psychobabble reasons given there, probably because my head is wired oddly, I am unable to believe or empathize. I have nothing behind my skepticism but a demand for honesty in science, I can't speak for everyone else though.

Observe-hypothesize-test-theorize-re-test-revise. Not observe-hypothesize-test-revise the data-test-declare the issue settled. Trust us, we're scientists and anyone who doubts us is just a shill for Big Oil.

[eunhye]

Ahh here's the perfect article about 1974

Spoiler: show

In Africa, drought continues for the sixth consecutive year, adding terribly to the toll of famine victims. During 1972 record rains in parts of the U.S., Pakistan and Japan caused some of the worst flooding in centuries. In Canada's wheat belt, a particularly chilly and rainy spring has delayed planting and may well bring a disappointingly small harvest. Rainy Britain, on the other hand, has suffered from uncharacteristic dry spells the past few springs. A series of unusually cold winters has gripped the American Far West, while New England and northern Europe have recently experienced the mildest winters within anyone's recollection.

As they review the bizarre and unpredictable weather pattern of the past several years, a growing number of scientists are beginning to suspect that many seemingly contradictory meteorological fluctuations are actually part of a global climatic upheaval. However widely the weather varies from place to place and time to time, when meteorologists take an average of temperatures around the globe they find that the atmosphere has been growing gradually cooler for the past three decades. The trend shows no indication of reversing. Climatological Cassandras are becoming increasingly apprehensive, for the weather aberrations they are studying may be the harbinger of another ice age.

Telltale signs are everywhere —from the unexpected persistence and thickness of pack ice in the waters around Iceland to the southward migration of a warmth-loving creature like the armadillo from the Midwest.Since the 1940s the mean global temperature has dropped about 2.7° F. Although that figure is at best an estimate, it is supported by other convincing data. When Climatologist George J. Kukla of Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Geological Observatory and his wife Helena analyzed satellite weather data for the Northern Hemisphere, they found that the area of the ice and snow cover had suddenly increased by 12% in 1971 and the increase has persisted ever since. Areas of Baffin Island in the Canadian Arctic, for example, were once totally free of any snow in summer; now they are covered year round.

Scientists have found other indications of global cooling. For one thing there has been a noticeable expansion of the great belt of dry, high-altitude polar winds —the so-called circumpolar vortex—that sweep from west to east around the top and bottom of the world. Indeed it is the widening of this cap of cold air that is the immediate cause of Africa's drought. By blocking moisture-bearing equatorial winds and preventing them from bringing rainfall to the parched sub-Sahara region, as well as other drought-ridden areas stretching all the way from Central America to the Middle East and India, the polar winds have in effect caused the Sahara and other deserts to reach farther to the south. Paradoxically, the same vortex has created quite different weather quirks in the U.S. and other temperate zones. As the winds swirl around the globe, their southerly portions undulate like the bottom of a skirt. Cold air is pulled down across the Western U.S. and warm air is swept up to the Northeast. The collision of air masses of widely differing temperatures and humidity can create violent storms—the Midwest's recent rash of disastrous tornadoes, for example.

Sunspot Cycle. The changing weather is apparently connected with differences in the amount of energy that the earth's surface receives from the sun. Changes in the earth's tilt and distance from the sun could, for instance, significantly increase or decrease the amount of solar radiation falling on either hemisphere—thereby altering the earth's climate. Some observers have tried to connect the eleven-year sunspot cycle with climate patterns, but have so far been unable to provide a satisfactory explanation of how the cycle might be involved.

Man, too, may be somewhat responsible for the cooling trend. The University of Wisconsin's Reid A. Bryson and other climatologists suggest that dust and other particles released into the atmosphere as a result of farming and fuel burning may be blocking more and more sunlight from reaching and heating the surface of the earth.

Climatic Balance. Some scientists like Donald Oilman, chief of the National Weather Service's long-range-prediction group, think that the cooling trend may be only temporary. But all agree that vastly more information is needed about the major influences on the earth's climate. Indeed, it is to gain such knowledge that 38 ships and 13 aircraft, carrying scientists from almost 70 nations, are now assembling in the Atlantic and elsewhere for a massive 100-day study of the effects of the tropical seas and atmosphere on worldwide weather. The study itself is only part of an international scientific effort known acronymically as GARP (for Global Atmospheric Research Program).

Whatever the cause of the cooling trend, its effects could be extremely serious, if not catastrophic. Scientists figure that only a 1% decrease in the amount of sunlight hitting the earth's surface could tip the climatic balance, and cool the planet enough to send it sliding down the road to another ice age within only a few hundred years.

The earth's current climate is something of an anomaly; in the past 700,000 years, there have been at least seven major episodes of glaciers spreading over much of the planet. Temperatures have been as high as they are now only about 5% of the time. But there is a peril more immediate than the prospect of another ice age. Even if temperature and rainfall patterns change only slightly in the near future in one or more of the three major grain-exporting countries—the U.S., Canada and Australia —global food stores would be sharply reduced. University of Toronto Climatologist Kenneth Hare, a former president of the Royal Meteorological Society, believes that the continuing drought and the recent failure of the Russian harvest gave the world a grim premonition of what might happen. Warns Hare: "I don't believe that the world's present population is sustainable if there are more than three years like 1972 in a row."

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/ar...4914-2,00.html

[Cadsuane]

Except, my standards are: If the burden of proof is on you, you need to make your case before I've made mine. The problem is, if they actually had a case, all of us "skeptics" would shut up because we would be convinced. This is a case of them convincing us, not us convincing them.

Ah, okay, let's try again. I'm not surprised that you were convinced about the discontinuity of the dirichlet function (but as an aside, were you convinced about it's discontinuity at rational x values or that it was discontinuous at every x?):

Well I've seen the latter, and I was convinced. Try me on the first one. I bet, like the Dirichlet function, the research has some major gaps in it.

But then again it's not as if I was saying anyone would find it difficult to believe since it's not that unintuitive, just that unless you'd gone through the process of understanding the logical steps of the proof for it you'd be completely unentitled to an opinion of whether or not its true, ie. noting that the graph has "gaps" isn't really considered to be a good understanding of the concept of discontinuity.
Real slow now. Let's say hypothetical science guy postulates some theorem to Biff the skeptic, about which Biff is skeptical because it doesn't make sense to him, or it contradicts something else that Biff holds to be true, or maybe just because Biff is a thoroughly ignorant and recalcitrant cunt, or some combination of the three.
Biff's believing or disbelieving has no bearing on whether or not the theorem is true. Science guy's inability to persuade Biff has no bearing on whether or not science guy is wrong. And unless Biff has the education and intelligence necessary to have a solid understanding of what science guy is trying to say, Biff is not entitled to an opinion anyway even if he did agree with science guy, since he would only be basing it on nothing but his trust in science guy's or someone elses authority on the matter.

So as this pertains to our current discussion, your inability to be persuaded by climate scientists does not make them wrong about global warming (I'm not saying it makes them right either), or even suggest that there is a lack of evidence to support the claim. It does not by itself give you license to have a contradictory opinion without some other logical/evidenciary basis. It also doesn't mean that we can't ask you to enumerate your own position and defend it.

Moving on.

I buy evolution so far. It's still a myth.

What?

Except, in your tradition of never completing the argument, you never established how my ideological bias is present on this particular issue.

Uh, why bother? You do that by yourself:

Except, as recent evidence has shown, these academics were corrupted by the political game over global warming. See, liberals are using it as a tool to gain government control. Conservatives don't like that.

I like how the ideological bias you can't seem to prove or document is grounds to reject everything I say before I even say it. Simply the fact that I think global warming is a giant hoax means that it must exist!

That's some sloppy thinking.

It is! Good thing that's an even sloppier straw man.

I happen to think I'm rather intellectually honest. For one, I don't post news stories as my evidence. Second, I don't revise an opinion, and I never contradict myself because I stick to what I actually think. There's no room for error there.

I think I'll sig this. "I don't revise an opinion (because I'm always right), and whatever I think is always non-contradictory and correct by definition."

Dude, I don't even have to caricature the last sentence. "There is no room for error there". Sers?

Great. Now that I've accomplished number 1, we can talk about how public debate makes scientists go coo coo for corruption.

Post-normal science, already covered.

You keep bringing fancy terms in like "statistics" "equal causation" and the "Dirichlet function" (which you misspelled by the way) to try and prevent people from responding to you. To further prove my point, I think people can understand your point quite clearly without being a statistician.

No you didn't. Prove that a layperson can have a solid understanding based on their own reason (ie. without assuming it to be true because some authority said so) of some majorly unintuitive but well established scientific principle.

[CDF]

Ahh here's the perfect article about 1974

Spoiler: show

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/ar...4914-2,00.html

The same article cited a consensus among climate experts (how nefarious) at the time "that vastly more information is needed about the major influences on the earth's climate." Newsflash: the current year is 2009.

[Tristam]

Max, you didn't present any objections to anything, you barfed graphs and didn't say much.

State one objection, and I can work from that, the "upside down thermometer" misunderstanding hopefully makes more sense to you now, I can only assume you have many more things misunderstood.

For instance, you have an issue with CO2 somewhat following temperature trends for historical data but not for the last ten years, correct? However you fail to recognize sunspot cycles which occur over shorter timescales, like ten years or so. Even though you also show a graph with sunspot cycle lengths over a different timescale. It's that kind of shit that makes me think you're just acting on what your gut tells you, and not really interpreting figures. Climate is the sum of a number of things, the atmosphere being one of them. You also present the water argument, which is bogus on a number of levels, the most important one being we're not putting more water into the atmosphere, and water is removed much more quickly, so it's not as important in long-term forcing.

You're not a skeptic, you're a denialist, face it. If you have a problem with the models, what about all the other evidence?

[Byrthnoth]

Global Walarmists are crazy yo! lolol

If I might give a brief summary of the argument:
1) Increasing levels of greenhouse gas (CO2, methane, and ozone among others) in the atmosphere cause a decreased radiation of heat off into space, so we take in the same amount of heat from the sun and get rid of less off into space.
2) Atmospheric CO2 levels are seasonal and positively correlated with photosynthetic rates (due to deciduous plants), so the more CO2 in the atmosphere the more the plants use. This adds noise to CO2/Greenhouse gas measurements.
3) This increase in CO2 efficiency is likely not overcoming our increased production of CO2.
4) The atmosphere is very large relative to the amount of historical excess greenhouse gas we make each year, thus changes are slow and hard to prove (due to 2), so some people claim humans are not responsible for greenhouse gas changes.
5) Global temperature is hard to measure for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is inconsistent weather patterns.
6) Because the change in average temperature (predicted to be very small from 4) over the last 10 years is technically within the noise of some of the measurements (due to 5), some people claim there's no evidence that global warming is occurring, or that if it is then it isn't our fault.
7) Some people take 6 and claim that we can't affect global warming even if it is occurring, which isn't really a logical jump to make but it happens anyway.

In fact, Global warming probably occurring. It doesn't make logical sense for it to not be purely based upon our actions and science. Fossil fuels are a big big problem and not just due to their direct greenhouse gas contributions, but also due to the environmental impact of their processing and the massive amount of energy we expend transporting them around. You want to hear a scary statistic? Plants only photosynthesize six times the amount of energy we use every year. In a pure energy-in, energy-out sense, we'd have to be pretty freaking efficient in refining that energy to not be "net-losing energy" overall.

I'd just like to point a few issues that I feel are underaddressed:
Phytoplankton and Algae are largely responsible for Earth's oxygenated atmosphere. We need to be nice to them, and can't be killing them with pollution. Right now we're fortunate that the ocean is big and that dilution is one of the best ways to make substances non-toxic, because otherwise we'd be rapidly running out of oxygen (by some estimates they make over 50% of the Earth's O2). Bottom line is that we can't keep dumping crap in our oceans if we like breathing though. Poisoning our oceans could end up being worse for us than poisoning our skies.
Freshwater aquifers are going to run out soon, and already have started to do so in central and southern america. Next will be California. Then the area South East of the Rockies. I'm shocked Europe isn't out of water already. Our overuse of fresh water resources (due to overpopulation) is going to cause massive logistical problems within our lifetimes.
Which leads to my next point, overpopulation. Overpopulation isn't "going to happen", it has happened. The earth is overpopulated with humans, and it only gets moreso every year. We need a pandemic to hit and wipe out at least 70% of the world's human population. This, in turn, would reduce the strain on the land because we'd need less food. Needing less food would reduce the number of livestock raised, which would reduce the Earth's animal population more. Reducing our population is the most obvious solution to many of the problems we face today. You don't have to deal with the consequences of overpopulation (poisoning the oceans, greenhouse gas levels, etc) if you aren't overpopulated.
The final point is pandemics. Pandemics are more likely now due to the amount of traveling people do and the close proximity in which people live, but less likely due to our scientific advances. Still, you can see how freaked out people get at the mention of a potential pandemic, and how hard it hits the third world nations where people might not be in the best of health to start with. A real one, not this H1N1 bullshit, will probably happen in the next 50 years. At least we'll see an increase in H1N1 quality pandemic frequency.

Basically, right now I see us in a population boom, and I'm waiting for the bust and hoping I'm not voted off the island. I don't think we'll kill the planet, because I think the planet will kill (most of) us first.