Global Warming = A JOKE!!

As a skeptic, the global warming debate itself has become really tiresome and boring for me. Both sides can be so stupid and hypocritical. However, observing how the mainstream media covers the subject still fascinates me. The propaganda they spew is so patronizing, it amazes me they can sleep at night. CNN and NY Times are the worst culprits. This is why FoxNews (which sucks in its own ways) is kicking their asses so badly.

outsidethebox wrote:

Of scientists with an expertise in climatology and who have published more than 50% of their recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change, 97.4% said human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures.

According to your paper: 97.4% = 77 scientists, not 3,146.

To qualify for this expert group you need a PhD in a climate science and have published 1 paper.

oh $hit. Third time's a charm I guess.

only me wrote:

It isn't unreasonable to ask why mammalian life forms have prospered on a cooling Earth, since it is contrary to his assertions.

Emerging is not quite the same thing as prospering however. And of course, conincidence does not imply causation. What are your own views on the question you asked?

And, really, what is the point of the observation? What is your conclusion? Are you going to up-sticks and move to a cooler part of the globe yourself and "prosper" better there yourself? Or are you going to advocate that we should try and cool the globe as a whole? I don't get it.

only me wrote:

Have a look at this, which is the whole history of animal existence that we are able to see, instead of a little, tiny, insignificant 10,000 years:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Phanerozoic_Climate_Change.png

and then explain the coincidence between the emergence of primates at around 85 million years ago, and the prolonged cooling period, which also began around 85 million years ago?

Here's another version of your chart that shows temperature changes in degrees C instead of ppm O18 isotopes. Notice that period you talk about is roughly 8C warmer than it is now. So how do you conclude that a cold planet led to the emergence of primates?

But I do like your chart, I'm bookmarking it. Thanks!

I said very clearly in my post that there were 3,146 total scientsits, and only a subset were those that claimed their primary area of expertise was climate channge (and 1 paper is the absolute minimum requirement; Ph.Ds publish more than 1 each year and we can presume many have been in the field for decades).

And still, of the remaining qualified scientists polled, 80% disagree with you. So yes, it is far from settled, but there is a large majority that recognize the weight of the evidence lies against you.

I should have given you this link earlier:

http://www.lomborg.com/faq/

Bjorn Lomborg is a Danish Political Scientist and Statistician who has written several books covering the cost/benefits of trying to stop global warming. His basic conclusion is that the money could be better spent elsewhere.

For the record, Lomborg believes humans are the main cause of warming.

Cooked Up Brit:

I agree with you that scientists are not qualified to ask the political, moral, or economic questions. But I have 3 problems with your analysis:

First, before we can start performing any cost-benefit analysis of future actions, we need to pass the threshold question of "whether man has any part in global warming to begin with." There's no need to reach question 2 without first answering question 1 in the affirmative.

Second, we need to realize that while we waste time answering question 1, the strategy choices for question 2 might be changing (if we answer question 1 in the affirmative). In other words, if we wait 30 years before we decide upon question 1, the costs might be much greater or it might be too late. That is why I think we don't necessarily have to be CONVINCED that global warming is occuring, we just need a strong enough reason to start taking precautions. In the same way, we don't need to be CONVINCED some foreign nation might bomb us before we take precautions (I'm using this example to illustrate the principle that you don't need certainty, not to compare the effect of global warming with a bomb).

Third, you portray the costs of taking precautions in absolute terms. It's not like we need to cut all CO2 emissiosn and return to the stone age. It's more just reducing emissions and finding alternatives.

And 20% don't. Though there's no way to ascertain how accurate that number is since they didn't publish the margin of error. Also, since the poll required respondents to go to a website, it became a self selecting poll and thus biased. This poll is about as scientific as the voting on American Idol.

From a scientific viewpoint, this is meaningless. It's the science itself that matters. But you wouldn't know that because as you said yourself, you haven't bothered to actually look at any of the science.

outsidethebox wrote:

First, before we can start performing any cost-benefit analysis of future actions, we need to pass the threshold question of "whether man has any part in global warming to begin with." There's no need to reach question 2 without first answering question 1 in the affirmative.

Considering that governments have already started imposing the costs without doing what you say should be done first, how is it unreasonable to ask if the benefits justify the costs?

Yawn.

First, potential methodological errors aside, you can't deny that the poll at least demonstrates a significant majority sides with me and not you, even if it the precise numbers accurate and it may contain some biases. When 2500ish out of 3100ish say "yes" (80%), it seems silly to think that of the remaining 6900ish only 2500ish will say "yes" (35%) rendering both sides equal.

Second, I haven't looked at the science because I defer to the experts, particularly in subjects like science and math (but not anything with moral values like political science, etc.). Do you reject everything you haven't gained an expertise in personally and studied yourself?

Blowing.Rock Master wrote:

Considering that governments have already started imposing the costs without doing what you say should be done first, how is it unreasonable to ask if the benefits justify the costs?

First, I'm not saying we shouldn't ask that question, or much less than it is an unreasonable question.

Second, the costs of global warming may be growing as we decide question 1. So it makes sense, just as a precaution, to impose a few relatively small economic costs for the time being in case we should decide question 1 is in the affirmative. It's certainly a risk worth taking.

I had this exact same argument with BR a month ago. Like this one it went on for pages and pages. You've won the argument "outsidethebox." It's over.

My suggestion is to do something else with your time because BR isn't willing to understand your argument, much less agree with it.

Read the links.

Look, you guys are making this way more complicated than it has to be. The people who live on higher ground will live while the people who live near the coasts will die. Natural selection at its finest.

Well put, but the reality is, it would take basically returning to the stone age to affect the climate even a little bit, and this is according to more than just skeptics, mind you. The other thing you have to think about, though, is what these "precautions" will cost. You can tout the consensus all you want, but these "solutions" have never been tested and can't be observed. In other words, they aren't scientific. This is the same way that computer models and hypotheses aren't scientific. None of this has been tested and observed, and that's why the alleged consensus means nothing. Our money would be much better spent helping people as opposed to regulating government control of CO2 emissions. People think up some of the craziest "solutions" to these problems without even looking at the consequences of implementing them. Unfortunately, it looks like it would cost much more than what it's worth.

I understand his argument. Like you he thinks science is something that gets voted on. Sorry, that's not how it works.

Blowing.Rock Master wrote:

And 20% don't. Though there's no way to ascertain how accurate that number is since they didn't publish the margin of error. Also, since the poll required respondents to go to a website, it became a self selecting poll and thus biased. This poll is about as scientific as the voting on American Idol.

From a scientific viewpoint, this is meaningless. It's the science itself that matters. But you wouldn't know that because as you said yourself, you haven't bothered to actually look at any of the science.

Well said, and I might also include that most of these polls don't include the level of confidence anymore, which they really should. Without it, the whole thing could be very suspect, on top of the shaky nature of polling in the first place. If the level of confidence is below 90%, which I'm sure it is in this case because it isn't even a scientific poll, then the poll is garbage because the numbers could really be anywhere inside our outside of the margin of error.

outsidethebox wrote:

Yawn.

First, potential methodological errors aside, you can't deny that the poll at least demonstrates a significant majority sides with me and not you, even if it the precise numbers accurate and it may contain some biases. When 2500ish out of 3100ish say "yes" (80%), it seems silly to think that of the remaining 6900ish only 2500ish will say "yes" (35%) rendering both sides equal.

Second, I haven't looked at the science because I defer to the experts, particularly in subjects like science and math (but not anything with moral values like political science, etc.). Do you reject everything you haven't gained an expertise in personally and studied yourself?

You obviously don't know anything about statistics, or else you would not brush aside such glaring errors in this poll. I'm not an expert either, but I can see that that is definitely far from identifying a solid consensus.