Does anyone still believe in Global Warming? Have we all finally concluded that it was a hoax?

Pointing Out the Obvious wrote:Academic/scientific/intellectual curiosity are wonderful motivations. They would naturally lead one to read the existent literature and ask questions of actual experts as opposed to turning to this message board for answers.

I suppose why would any lay person bother to discuss the topic at all? I don't see anything wrong talking about this on a message board.

I do read (some of) the literature but admit this is not my area of expertise or professional interest, so my exposure to the literature is fairly casual and piecemeal, happening over several years in fairly unorganized fashion. I like these discussions because about 1 in 10 posts contains some what among the chaff, and if you can filter through the noise and use critical thinking you can learn new things.

Whether learning new things has any potential to change opinions is another thing...

I guess the US military investing $10 millions in adapting their training for Global Warming is part of the conspiracy.

R2D3 wrote:

I guess the US military investing $10 millions in adapting their training for Global Warming is part of the conspiracy.

THIS is now an argument? Is this the same military that has been known to spend hundreds of dollars on a hammer? Yeah, OK ... shut down the research, our military has proven CAGW.

You and Chewbacca have perverted the Star Wars franchise with your leftist/libtard views. Cease and desist from using the R2D3 and Chewbacca names.

George Lucas wrote:

You and Chewbacca have perverted the Star Wars franchise with your leftist/libtard views. Cease and desist from using the R2D3 and Chewbacca names.

You don't think Chewbacca's sole retort: "LOL - Angry Teabaggers!" is not genius?

At the core of this issue is not the proof or disproof of the science of climate change but the management of resources for the human population vis-à-vis the effects of extremes in "normal" variation of weather patterns.

This includes but is not limited to

extremes of weather and the food crops all along the food chain

air quality

potable water

various energy resources including fossil fuels

almost half(45% is often cited) of the worlds human population lives with in a days walk of a sea coast (more if you add lake and river frontage)so conditions in those waters are important to understand.

The issues is can WE do anything NOW in these areas to help ensure the human population will continue to thrive.

Or we can just face the problems when or if they arise.

Flat Earthers and their ilk are fun to josh with at parties but a pain in the pipic when they interfere with obtaining real world solutions.

http://i.imgur.com/Lr3UmG3.png

Wm Anders original framing of Earthrise

SomeCoach wrote:

Fat hurts wrote:

Newton's Law of Gravity is no longer accepted by anyone as your definition of "Law" would imply. It is no longer accepted as an accurate description of the natural world.

The point is that there is no value in pointing out something called a "Law" versus something called a "Theory". That's about the silliest argument ever to try to cast doubt on evolution.

YOU IDGIT! At no point did I try to cast doubt on Evolution, read the original post .... my point is that climate science is far from being absolutely accepted, and the closed minded folks who refuse to look at the accumulating data which questions current dogma are the actual stubborn ones ....

Forgive me then. I've heard others make that argument and I thought that's where you were going.

AGW is indeed absolutely accepted. There is not a single scientific body that expresses reservations about it.

My main criticism of your natural fluctuation thesis as you've presented it is that you've shown regional fluctuations (which no one denies) and think it supports a global fluctuation argument. To make the case for rapid global fluctuation you'd have to show a representative set of regional proxies and show that they change simultaneously. I think it's unlikely that you can do this convincingly (certainly at the ~one per thousand year intervals of the 324 NWE paper) because presumably competent people who do this sort of thing haven't done so.

Also there's the "past performance is not necessarily indicative of future performance". While it may be complicated and seemingly chaotic, natural variations do have a cause effect relationship. In my view the evidence that solar insolence hasn't increased in recent decades and that the ocean is gaining rather than releasing energy makes a natural variation argument problematic in light of recent atmospheric warming.

Citizen Runner wrote:To make the case for rapid global fluctuation you'd have to show a representative set of regional proxies and show that they change simultaneously.

Hmmmmm... let me scratch my head on that. I see what you're saying. I don't want to agree (that is my instinct :-)) but will mull it over.

Sheriff Buford T. Bussser wrote:

Here is the answer you need wrote:

Here is the way it is:

The place for debating the science lies within and among those who study this issue professionally. These are called scientists.

These 'debates' on LRC and elsewhere are preposterous. If one really has an understanding on the level where their opinion is worth anything at all then they are doing their debating among their peers in the scientific community.

I'm sorry but that is just the way it is.

Those who study the issue professionally, those so-called scientists, are the ones who have been manipulating the data when it doesn't support their agenda. No thanks - I will not leave it to them.

Ah, yes. So you would fall squarely into category 2)

/////////////////////////////////

Fat Hurts Wrote:

"There are three possibilities:

1) The scientific community is made up of stupid people.

2) The scientific community is engaged in a global conspiracy.

3) The scientific community is made up of smart people who know how to do their jobs and are therefore very likely to be correct.

Those who think they know better than the scientists are picking #1. For example, in this thread someone said something to the effect of "Don't you know that some of the thermometers are in urban areas? It's hotter there."

Those who are paranoid are picking #2. For example, on talk radio I often hear, "The global warming crowd is just out to destroy capitalism."

Those who are well grounded in reality choose #3."

You can learn far more and far better by devoting the same amount of time to reading the literature.

You like these discussions for other reasons.

SomeCoach wrote:

R2D3 wrote:

I guess the US military investing $10 millions in adapting their training for Global Warming is part of the conspiracy.

THIS is now an argument? Is this the same military that has been known to spend hundreds of dollars on a hammer? Yeah, OK ... shut down the research, our military has proven CAGW.

Wait, wait, did you really just say, "shut down the research"???? Seriously? You mean all that research that you dismiss as either incompetent or part of a grand hoax?

I tell you, some things you just can't make up.

Thanks for the laughs.

Gravity is a hoax!

I learned it is no longer a law! I learned it at letsrun.com; famous scientific research site

Pointing Out the Obvious wrote:You like these discussions for other reasons.

So you say. I'm a paid shill, I know. It's in my username.

On one said of this discussion we have (a small number of?) lunatics claiming a global conspiracy. On the other side of the discussion we have (a small number of?) paranoiacs claiming all non-believers to be paid shills.

It's best to be neither a lunatic nor paranoid...

hmmmmmm? (the industry shill) wrote:

Citizen Runner wrote:To make the case for rapid global fluctuation you'd have to show a representative set of regional proxies and show that they change simultaneously.

Hmmmmm... let me scratch my head on that. I see what you're saying. I don't want to agree (that is my instinct :-)) but will mull it over.

Typo . . . That should have been "globally representative set of regional proxies". The PAGES 2K presentation I linked earlier has such a plot using all the available data. It also has continental scale reconstructions that show the sort of regional variation you've found, but not globally simultaneous.

Citizen Runner wrote:It also has continental scale reconstructions that show the sort of regional variation you've found, but not globally simultaneous.

And what do these show in the recent (~ 150 years) past? Do they combine to form a trend whereas the older regional trends do not? That would be a telling difference.

I have not tried to combine any of the data. Thought about it, but would need more time and energy than I can muster in the immediate term.

Recognizer of Irony wrote:

SomeCoach wrote:

THIS is now an argument? Is this the same military that has been known to spend hundreds of dollars on a hammer? Yeah, OK ... shut down the research, our military has proven CAGW.

Wait, wait, did you really just say, "shut down the research"???? Seriously? You mean all that research that you dismiss as either incompetent or part of a grand hoax?

I tell you, some things you just can't make up.

Thanks for the laughs.

The is documented proof that The Elders of Zion are behind the Ebola scare, the death of Elvis Presley and the Global Warming hoax.

hmmmmmm? (the industry shill) wrote:

On one said of this discussion...

what said are you on?

you made a boo-boo so I can not take you serious.

/thread

hmmmmmm? (the industry shill) wrote:

Citizen Runner wrote:It also has continental scale reconstructions that show the sort of regional variation you've found, but not globally simultaneous.

And what do these show in the recent (~ 150 years) past? Do they combine to form a trend whereas the older regional trends do not? That would be a telling difference.

I have not tried to combine any of the data. Thought about it, but would need more time and energy than I can muster in the immediate term.

Here's where I go "WTF?" You don't need to plot it, it's already been done. Page 8: