Climate Change Debate

One last note on this…my day of climate change……

There is a debate, believe it or not, going on about the issue of climate change or if you care global warming…..the problem to my thinking is that the debate is seldom cared on at the same time.  Yes we have conflicting points of view and they are very vocal in their positions….the real problem is that the debate is never done face to face.  Instead the discussion is done in 30 second sound bites or 3-5 minute segments on the media we call news…….and then it is usually not the opposing sides but rather one side or the other making their points and NO one challenges their findings, instead the moderator just feeds the position taken, basically soft ball questions….nothing in opposition.

We all have our opinion on the subject……me?  I think man would f*ck up a wet dream……but then it is my opinion and we know what they say about opinions, don’t we?  There is scholarly research done on both sides of the argument……however there are those that are paid by business and industry to come up with a position paper and they use mercenary scientists that will do whatever it takes to earn a buck.

Let me illustrate for you……we will look at a simple statement of what conservs feel and those of liberals…….

Liberal
Global warming is caused by an increased production of carbon dioxide through the burning of fossil fuels (coal, oil and natural gas).  The U.S. is a major contributor to global warming because it produces 25% of the world’s carbon dioxide.  Proposed laws to reduce carbon emissions in the U.S. are urgently needed and should be enacted immediately to save the planet.  Many reputable scientists support this theory.
Conservative
Change in global temperature is natural over long periods of time.  Science has not shown that humans can affect permanent change to the earth’s temperature.  Proposed laws to reduce carbon emissions will do nothing to help the environment and will cause significant price increases for all.  Many reputable scientists support this theory.
There you go…….if you want to debate the subject……pick a side and then build your case around that belief……….
There will Never be a deciding debate on this issue until the players stop acting like cowards and debate one another face to face…..and there will NEVER be a solution one way or the other until the voter learns to listen and understand all sides of an issue……basically, what I am saying is that we will NEVER have a solution of this issue in my life time…….Americans just do not have it in them.  And that is the truly sad part of this situation.
About these ads

11 thoughts on “Climate Change Debate

  1. Yeah but the “facts” on you link are wrong.

    The big one that gets repeated over and over is number four.
    97% of all scientist agree that humans are causing global warming. It’s a lie.

    The Consensus Project read papers from scientist and drew their one opinion on what the author believed was the cause of global warming. They never asked or polled the authors. So they said 97% of all scientist believed man is causing global warming. The truth is when the scientist were ACUTALLY polled they were split almost right down the middle as to the cause.

    You can’t read something from a lobbyist group, close the page and believe you are well informed. You must cross reference and check sources.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/11/20/the-97-consensus-myth-busted-by-a-real-survey/

    1. ” Yeah but the “facts” on you link are wrong. The big one that gets repeated over and over is number four. 97% of all scientist agree that humans are causing global warming. It’s a lie.

      Actually #4 says “97% of climate experts agree humans are causing global warming.” Big differnece between all scientist and just those scientiist who study climate change, which by the way are called climatologist.

      “For the sake of argument I’ll go along with the statement that it is warmer now then the Medieval Warming Period (it isn’t). The point is chariot’s were the main mode of transportation, not SUV’s.”

      Chariots were the main mode of transportation during medieval times??? Good god man, where did you study history. Obviously it must have been from someone who thought medieval times occurred about 1000 B.C.E.. They were only off about 2000 years.

      You’re zero for two Owen. But then this the kind of ignorance that’s typical of climate deniers. And please, don’t refer anything to me about climate change from former weatherman Anthony Watts. He’s been debunked so many times that it’s likely my hip joint could predict the weather better than this guy.

      1. Dude,

        You need to have a certain level of reading comprehension to understand what I wrote.

        #1. The internal combustion engine did not exist during the Medial Warming Period. So man made CO2 could not account for the warming hence man made CO2 does not cause global warming. I noticed you side stepped this fact, don’t sweat it. Gore, Mann and Hanson have ducked it as well. The man made global warming believers have no answer for this problem. If your Michael Mann you just ignore it and use the tree ring from ONE tree.

        #2. Again you duck the fact that it’s not 97% of “climate experts” but virtually 50-50. Watts blogged about a story that appeared elsewhere, he didn’t do the research or write the original story.

        If you weren’t holding your hands over your ears with your eyes closed repeating “man made global warming is REAL” over and over, you would of noticed the link to the real study; http://www.populartechnology.net/2013/05/97-study-falsely-classifies-scientists.html

        Notice all the “scientist” that were counted as the 97% that come out and say they were misrepresented. Lots of links to verify what they said.

        I know this is difficult times for the remaining man made global warming cult members. Maybe this will help.

  2. Additionally, look at #27. So called myth..”Medieval Warm Period was warmer”
    Their response – Globally averaged temperature now is higher than global temperature in medieval times.

    For the sake of argument I’ll go along with the statement that it is warmer now then the Medieval Warming Period (it isn’t). The point is chariot’s were the main mode of transportation, not SUV’s. Man made CO2 was a fraction of what it is today. How can man made CO2 cause global warming when it was non existent during the Medieval Warming Period.

    Which leads us to #32. So called myth…”It’s a 1500 year cycle”.
    Their response – Ancient natural cycles are irrelevant for attributing recent global warming to humans

    Really?? We are suppose to ignore thousands of years of scientific evidence because Mann and Hanson can’t explain it?

    The 1500 year cycle is a reference to Singer and Avery’s book “Unstoppable Global Warming every 1500 years”.
    If you are truly open minded, the first 10 pages of this book will challenge you and that is a good thing.

    1. ”Dude, You need to have a certain level of reading comprehension to understand what I wrote.”

      Dude?!? I thought that term died in the 1990’s. I guess that’s about the best one can expect from someone who thinks chariots were the main source of transportation during the medieval times.

      You want to have this discussion Owen? Great, I’m up for it.

      Let’s begin with the basics first.

      First, most climate deniers like you and the former weatherman Anthony Watts believe that global warming is a hoax perpetrated by Al Gore and some climate scientists to cash in on a get rich quick scheme that entails cap and trade. Are you one of those conspiracy oriented “dudes”?

      Second, climate deniers like you and the former weatherman Anthony Watts like to make people believe that they have refuted the climate science that says man-made global warming is real by using outdated and debunked information that was handed to them by a few people who study this phenomena but did so with funding from the fossil fuel industry. This creates a conflict of interests so if you are going to use that information be prepared to defend something where nearly 97% of those specialist who study this phenomena disagree with them and for reasons that have nothing to do with a conflict of interests. And don’t even begin to suggest that the conspiratorial discovery of “Climategate” serves as proof that global warming has been proven to be a charade. I’ll rip you apart on that one.

      On November 31, 2009, the Pennsylvania State University announced an inquiry into the potential misconduct of Michael Mann, director of its Earth System Science Center.[25] The inquiry decided he had not directly or indirectly falsified research data.

      Here’s all you or anyone needs to know about “Climategate”

      Now let’s deal with your two earlier points that you thought I was ducking

      ”The internal combustion engine did not exist during the Medial Warming Period. So man made CO2 could not account for the warming hence man made CO2 does not cause global warming.”

      Well duh! As if CO2 from the internal combustion engine was ever the sole source of global warming then or now. Clearly Owen you didn’t take the time to read the response to the climate denier position about medieval times being warmer. If you had you would have realized that no one suggested that CO2 was the main culprit for this warming period between 800 and 1400 C.E. Here’s what you failed to read:

      the Medieval Warm Period has known causes which explain both the scale of the warmth and the pattern. It has now become clear to scientists that the Medieval Warm Period occurred during a time which had higher than average solar radiation and less volcanic activity (both resulting in warming). New evidence is also suggesting that changes in ocean circulation patterns played a very important role in bringing warmer seawater into the North Atlantic. This explains much of the extraordinary warmth in that region. These causes of warming contrast significantly with today’s warming, which we know cannot be caused by the same mechanisms.
      and this on the “intermediate” link

      The Medieval Warm Period was not a global phenomenon. Warmer conditions were concentrated in certain regions. Some regions were even colder than during the Little Ice Age. To claim the Medieval Warm Period was warmer than today is to narrowly focus on a few regions that showed unusual warmth. However, when we look at the broader picture, we see that the Medieval Warm Period was a regional phenomenon with other regions showing strong cooling. What is more, and as can be seen in Figure 4, globally, temperatures during the Medieval Period were less than today.

      Still 0 for 1 Owen

      ”#2. Again you duck the fact that it’s not 97% of “climate experts” but virtually 50-50. Watts blogged about a story that appeared elsewhere, he didn’t do the research or write the original story.”
      The link you provided doesn’t really dispel the what the statement in the Skeptical Science link asserts. It also disputes the contention made in your Popular Technology links. Contradictory to what the PT post says the Skeptical Science response states that in fact “The scientific authors of the papers WERE … contacted and asked to rate their own papers, and again over 97% whose papers took a position on the cause said humans are causing global warming. There continues to be growing examples of how people who study this phenomena are agreeing that man-made global warming is real. Read here and here

      Still 0 for 2 dude.

      After you attempt to respond to these two again then let’s go down the list Owen and tell me what you are calling a “lie” in each one of them.

      Hre’s a little bonus info for you. How do we know that recent CO2 increases are due to human activities?

      GAME ON!

  3. ”Dude, You need to have a certain level of reading comprehension to understand what I wrote.”

    Dude?!? I thought that term died in the 1990’s. I guess that’s about the best one can expect from someone who thinks chariots were the main source of transportation during the medieval times.

    You want to have this discussion Owen? Great, I’m up for it.

    Let’s begin with the basics first.

    First, most climate deniers like you and the former weatherman Anthony Watts believe that global warming is a hoax perpetrated by Al Gore and some climate scientists to cash in on a get rich quick scheme that entails cap and trade. Are you one of those conspiracy oriented “dudes”?

    Second, climate deniers like you and the former weatherman Anthony Watts like to make people believe that they have refuted the climate science that says man-made global warming is real by using outdated and debunked information that was handed to them by a few people who study this phenomena but did so with funding from the fossil fuel industry. This creates a conflict of interests so if you are going to use that information be prepared to defend something where nearly 97% of those specialist who study this phenomena disagree with them and for reasons that have nothing to do with a conflict of interests. And don’t even begin to suggest that the conspiratorial discovery of “Climategate” serves as proof that global warming has been proven to be a charade. I’ll rip you apart on that one.

    On November 31, 2009, the Pennsylvania State University announced an inquiry into the potential misconduct of Michael Mann, director of its Earth System Science Center.[25] The inquiry decided he had not directly or indirectly falsified research data.

    Here’s all you or anyone needs to know about “Climategate”

    Now let’s deal with your two earlier points that you thought I was ducking

    ”The internal combustion engine did not exist during the Medial Warming Period. So man made CO2 could not account for the warming hence man made CO2 does not cause global warming.”

    Well duh! As if CO2 from the internal combustion engine was ever the sole source of global warming then or now. Clearly Owen you didn’t take the time to read the response to the climate denier position about medieval times being warmer. If you had you would have realized that no one suggested that CO2 was the main culprit for this warming period between 800 and 1400 C.E. Here’s what you failed to read:

    the Medieval Warm Period has known causes which explain both the scale of the warmth and the pattern. It has now become clear to scientists that the Medieval Warm Period occurred during a time which had higher than average solar radiation and less volcanic activity (both resulting in warming). New evidence is also suggesting that changes in ocean circulation patterns played a very important role in bringing warmer seawater into the North Atlantic. This explains much of the extraordinary warmth in that region. These causes of warming contrast significantly with today’s warming, which we know cannot be caused by the same mechanisms.
    and this on the “intermediate” link

    The Medieval Warm Period was not a global phenomenon. Warmer conditions were concentrated in certain regions. Some regions were even colder than during the Little Ice Age. To claim the Medieval Warm Period was warmer than today is to narrowly focus on a few regions that showed unusual warmth. However, when we look at the broader picture, we see that the Medieval Warm Period was a regional phenomenon with other regions showing strong cooling. What is more, and as can be seen in Figure 4, globally, temperatures during the Medieval Period were less than today.

    Still 0 for 1 Owen

    ”#2. Again you duck the fact that it’s not 97% of “climate experts” but virtually 50-50. Watts blogged about a story that appeared elsewhere, he didn’t do the research or write the original story.”
    The link you provided doesn’t really dispel the what the statement in the Skeptical Science link asserts. It also disputes the contention made in your Popular Technology links. Contradictory to what the PT post says the Skeptical Science response states that in fact “The scientific authors of the papers WERE … contacted and asked to rate their own papers, and again over 97% whose papers took a position on the cause said humans are causing global warming. There continues to be growing examples of how people who study this phenomena are agreeing that man-made global warming is real. Read here and here

    Still 0 for 2 dude.

    After you attempt to respond to these two again then let’s go down the list Owen and tell me what you are calling a “lie” in each one of them.

    Hre’s a little bonus info for you. How do we know that recent CO2 increases are due to human activities?

    GAME ON!

    1. If your going to challenge me your going to have to do a lot better than this.
      You are all over the place, ADHD problem?

      To help you stay on task, I never mentioned Climategate or the Petition. Why do you feel it was necessary to bring these up? Try and stay on topic. You seem to be trying to compensate for something.

      Lets start with the Penn State clearing Mann. Michael Mann brought in millions of research dollars to Penn State, as does its football program. Do you not find it ironic that the same board that “cleared” Mann also covered up the sex scandal?? You have to be pretty naïve not to see the conflict of interest

      http://investigations.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/07/12/12699159-report-finds-penn-state-president-paterno-concealed-facts-about-sandusky-sex-abuse?lite

      In your attempt to explain away the Medieval Warming Period you almost make my point. I must say that your understanding of this period is a bit elementary.

      The Medieval Warming Period was a global occurrence. It didn’t happen every where at the same time.

      http://www.co2science.org/subject/m/summaries/mwpchina.php

      This study just days old show that the temperatures in Europe were much higher then originally thought.

      http://www.co2science.org/articles/V16/N50/EDIT.php

      As I stated before, in your attempt to explain away the Medieval Warming Period you almost make my point. For the science deniers like yourself, it has always been claimed that ALL GLOBAL WARMING IS CAUSED BY MAN MADE CO2. The reason they have stood by this insane claim is because man produces so little of the CO2 in the atmosphere.

      Lets review shall we. The atmosphere is:
      78% Nitrogen
      21% Oxygen
      01% Argon
      00.04% CO2

      Yes, CO2 is 0.04% of the atmosphere, but it gets worse. 75% of that CO2 is released from nature, the rest if from humans.

      Human activity makes up 0.0003% of the atmosphere. Show me anything that 0.0003% affects 99.9997% of anything,

      Oh, and lets not forget that the Kyoto treaty was going to save the earth by reducing that 0.0003% by 10%. I’m not even going to bother and do the math, you get the idea.

      I made my point, you can open your eyes or continue to stick you head in the ground.

      I’ll leave you with some George Carlin.

      The point is, if you have a theory and you make predictions based on that theory and those predictions are so far off that they should send you back to the lab.

      1. “I never mentioned Climategate or the Petition. Why do you feel it was necessary to bring these up?”

        Because you’re a typical climate denier and they all do. Didn’t think you would be any different.

        ”Lets start with the Penn State clearing Mann.”

        Doh! See there. You just couldn’t refrain

        ”Michael Mann brought in millions of research dollars to Penn State, as does its football program. Do you not find it ironic that the same board that “cleared” Mann also covered up the sex scandal??”

        Did you read that trumped up tripe in the National Review too. Well it makes for good conspiracy theories but it’s nothing more than a specious argument. Besides Mann was not only exonerated by Penn State but by three major investigations in the United Kingdom, and one by the National Science Foundation. Now if you don’t, you should feel like a fool right about now. You have to be pretty naïve to believe that they all took notes from the Penn State investigation

        And what the hell is that link you gave to me about medieval warming. Was that somehow supposed to be proof positive that the climate science that says medieval warming was not global. I sure didn’t see it. Now, true, I didn’t read the entire thing but my perusal of it didn’t show me anything that convinces this bares out the belief that medieval warming was global. I’m giving you the benefit of the doubt and presuming you read it in its entirety, so please point me to the paragraph that makes this assertion

        First, the research focused on mainland China from what I could see, Now true, China’s a big country but it doesn’t encompass the entire world. Second, this article was taken from one of those websites I warned you up front not to try and slip by me. The three men that own that website founded the right wing think tank called the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change. It’s chairman Craig Idso and the company’s president, Craig’s father Sherwood have degrees in Geology. Their brother, the company’s vice president, Keith, is a botanist. None of them are experts in the climate sciences and their think tank is funded by Exxon Mobil and other fossil fuel interests. I wrote about the Idso’s here when they wrote a piece for the Koch brothers to dissuade the public from viewing CO2 as anything harmful.

        That makes this entire piece suspect and if this is the typical source you get your information from then I can see why you think you know more than you really do. These people have written very little peer-reviewed stuff concerning climate change and where they have their ideas have been laughed out of the classroom by the consensus of climate scientist. The Idso’s are part of the right wing efforts funded by the fossil fuel industry to cast doubt about the climate science. Not from a scientific interests but because their wealthy patrons pay big bucks for them to do so. And don’t try and slip something in from the Heartland Institute either. They too are in the back pockets of the Koch brothers.

        I’m not trying to shoot the messenger to ignore the message. But there ample examples of where there material on global warming has either been debunked or shown to be a smoke and mirror attempt to create doubt about the climate science.

        Which by the way. No one denies global warming has occurred in the earth’s history from natural causes. The point that gets dismissed by people like you and the former weatherman Anthony Watts is that the current rate of increase has never been seen in the millions of years that we are able to measure earth’s temperatures through ice cores, tree rings,, etc. The fact that there was a warming trend in medieval times does nothing to negate that anthropogenic global warming is real today and has stimulated the rate of warming beyond natural causes ever since the industrial revolution kicked in some 250 years ago.

        ”For the science deniers like yourself, it has always been claimed that ALL GLOBAL WARMING IS CAUSED BY MAN MADE CO2.”

        What a sack of shit. Is that what people like you tell each other. That’s just patently false and shows you clearly haven’t read much more on this subject outside what you read on the former weatherman’s blog, WattsUpWithThat.

        ”Yes, CO2 is 0.04% of the atmosphere, but it gets worse. 75% of that CO2 is released from nature, the rest if from humans.”

        Wow Owen! That’s amazing! But the fact is that these numbers only look remarkable to people who really do not understand how sensitive our ecosystem is. The fact that these numbers are small in regards to CO2 doesn’t negate the fact that just the slightest change one way or the other will destabilize the environment that has allowed all life on earth to exists. This is a dog and pony show that deniers like you and the former weatherman Anthony Watts like to use to convince poorly informed people that man-made global warming is not a threat.

        Let me leave you my own skit of Carlin’s that address people like you who think only they do critical thinking. People like you who work for the real owners of this country who spend billions to deceive people about the threat AGW so they can continue to increase their massive fortunes.

        What else you got?

  4. For Owen “Dude” Kellogg

    Petition asserting that 30,000 “scientist” have debunked global warming used by climate deniers is itself debunked as a fraud. HawkEye Pierce of the M.A.S.H TV series was one of the signatories on it.

    Is there a scientific consensus on global warming?

    Oreskes 2004 and Peiser
    A survey of all peer-reviewed abstracts on the subject ‘global climate change’ published between 1993 and 2003 shows that not a single paper rejected the consensus position that global warming is man caused (Oreskes 2004). 75% of the papers agreed with the consensus position while 25% made no comment either way (focused on methods or paleoclimate analysis).

    Doran 2009
    Subsequent research has confirmed this result. A survey of 3146 earth scientists asked the question “Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?” (Doran 2009). More than 90% of participants had Ph.D.s, and 7% had master’s degrees. Overall, 82% of the scientists answered yes. However, what are most interesting are responses compared to the level of expertise in climate science. Of scientists who were non-climatologists and didn’t publish research, 77% answered yes. In contrast, 97.5% of climatologists who actively publish research on climate change responded yes.

    Anderegg 2010
    This overwhelming consensus among climate experts is confirmed by an independent study that surveys all climate scientists who have publicly signed declarations supporting or rejecting the consensus. They find between 97% to 98% of climate experts support the consensus (Anderegg 2010). Moreover, they examine the number of publications by each scientist as a measure of expertise in climate science. They find the average number of publications by unconvinced scientists (eg – skeptics) is around half the number by scientists convinced by the evidence. Not only is there a vast difference in the number of convinced versus unconvinced scientists, there is also a considerable gap in expertise between the two groups.

    Vision Prize
    The Vision Prize is an online poll of scientists about climate risk.  It is an impartial and independent research platform for incentivized polling of experts on important scientific issues that are relevant to policymakers. In addition to assessing the views of scientists, Vision Prize asked its expert participants to predict the views of their scientific colleagues.
    Approximately 90% of participants responded that human activity has had a primary influence over global temperatures over the past 250 years, with the other 10% answering that it has been a secondary cause, and none answering either that humans have had no influence or that temperatures have not increased.  Note also that the participants expected less than 80% to peg humans as the primary cause, and a few percent to say humans have no influence – the consensus was significantly better than the participants anticipated

    Thoughts Owen?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s