If you do not agree that Global Cimate Change is real...

[NeilBlanchard]

What other parts of science do you not believe are true?

Do you believe that the Theory of Gravity is correct? Or, do you believe in Intelligent Falling?

Do you believe in evolution? Or, do you believe in Intelligent Design?

Do you believe in the theory of atomic structure? Or, something else is responsible for how physics and chemistry work?

Do you believe in DNA? Or, do you believe that God chooses what characteristics to give your child?

What about the theory of how the Universe works, and the life cycles of stars and galaxies? Or, do you believe that God created it all in 6 days?

Do you believe that the Earth and the other SEVEN planets are orbiting the Sun? Or, does everything revolve around the Earth?

Is the Earth (approximately) a sphere -- or is it flat?

Do you believe that drugs are developed using scientific methods? Or, are they just lucky guesses?

You see, you can't believe in just parts of science -- it all works the same: we explore the unknown, and as we find out more and more, we theorize about how it works. Then, based on the evidence and peer review, the accepted theory emerges; and is continuously tested and debated. Things settle more, as scientist come into closer and closer agreement.

This is how it is for all scientific endeavors -- they are not just making this up! Global Climate Change is real and it is the predominant scientific conclusion that humans have affected an abrupt change in the climate, by burning old carbon fuels; releasing millions of years worth of old carbon in about 150 years.

A few naysayers here and there may be right -- but on the other hand, maybe the large majority of the scientists who study this are right? Which is the bigger risk: that the naysayers are right and we conserve too much fuel and move to renewable energy anyway -- or, we keep on keepin' on and the ocean rises 40 feet in the next 100 years or so, and parts of the world go into an ice age, other parts go into drought, etc. etc. etc. -- who knows what the risks are??

Are you willing to take that risk?

[autoboy]

Do you believe that consensus proves AGW?

There was a consensus that witches were rampant in Salem.

There was a consensus that the earth was flat.

I was a scientist at Lockheed Martin. I worked on space research and robotics. I know and trust science.

I do not believe in God.

I also know the science shows that the earth is warming and has been since the last ice age.

I have not seen any science that can reasonably show it is from man.

Politics and fear mongering have taken over what was once a valid concern. It is now so out of hand that much of what you hear is barely based on science. Climate is one of the most complex physical systems we have ever tried to model. Because it is such a complex system, we leave out countless variables. Some of these could be damping variables, some could be forcing variables, but none of these models can accurately predict the future without taking into account all the major variables. Your computer models are worthless.

Intelligent Falling? Pretty funny. But, we still don't understand gravity and it is 400 years since we first explained its effects mathematically and were able to prove it with empirical evidence. And yet it is a still a THEORY and up for debate.

There are many scientists with credentials that do not believe in AGW. Assumptions that naysayers are bible toting wackos simply shows tendency towards group think and a lack of original discovery.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/ is a pretty decent place to see that rational people are debating rational ideas using real science.

[Michael Sandstrom]

In the 1970s a large number of scientists were predicting an impending ice age. This scare was hyped by many media outlets including the NY Times. I think global warming may be real but the alarmists are nuts.

[NeilBlanchard]

Hi,

I'm willing to let the scientists work out the best scientific procedures. The things you mention do not fit the accepted scientifically rigorous peer review process. Eugenics is an example of this. And don't forget that Darwin was the lone voice who upended the science of the day.

But, what is the accepted science today is that humans have at least contributed to global climate change and accelerated it, and may have actually caused it. To deny this without a clear alternative explanation of what the data show, is to deny that the scientific process is completely flawed.

[Olle P]

Not only do I believe in global warming, but also in global shading.
Most opponents of the global warming theory point at the fact that it is only marginally warmer than can be expected due to natural swings.
What they miss is that when we burn all that coal/oil/gas/wood we not only get carbon monoxide, but also tiny soot particles that raise into the sky, creating the foundation for clouds that reflect sunlight before it gets a chance to heat the planet. Another effect is health problems caused by inhaled particles.

The actual result of the global shading was studied by checking the weather at LAX in September 11-15 2001. When all air traffic was banned for a couple of days the temperature rose 3-5 degrees above what was expected for the given weather.

So by simply stop burning fuel the global temperature can be expected to go up at least three degrees, and probably more.

Do you believe in evolution? Or, do you believe in Intelligent Design?

I don't see any opposition here. Any other design than evolution would be stupid! (Whether there's some almighty entity that actually created evolution or not I don't care.)

Do you believe in the theory of atomic structure? Or, something else is responsible for how physics and chemistry work?

The string theory is quite intriguing... but I don't know it well enough to form an opinion.

... do you believe that God created it all in 6 days?

I believe that the Bible was written to be comprehensible to the readers/listeners at the time.

Do you believe that drugs are developed using scientific methods? Or, are they just lucky guesses?

There are both kinds! And some lucky mistakes on top of that...

/Olle

[Ch0z3n]

Neil, I am pretty sure that the general consensus is that we sped it up by some undetermined degree, not that we started it. The earth naturally goes through warming and cooling cycles (see: ice ages, mini-ice-ages, etc.)

Also, didn't Einstein disprove Newton's Theory of Gravity? Rather, that the space bent around an object pushes down on objects rather than an object's gravity pulling nearby objects; that is why we can see stars behind the sun during a full eclipse.

[edh]

Also, didn't Einstein disprove Newton's Theory of Gravity?

No, that was actually extending it if anything. The mathematical laws still hold.

It is very much a US view point that man has nothing to do with global warming. We are observing massive changes that could potentially kill millions of people. Wouldn't it be better to err on the side of caution rather than risk being proved wrong later with a global catastrophe?

The economic crisis may actually be holding back global warming simply by reducing the amount of consumption. A few airlines and manufacturers of really inefficient cars going bust should help too.

[autoboy]

Er on the side of caution?

Really?

What happens when your "solutions" cause more harm than good?

Ethanol is one of the worst offenders. Global demand of corn and sugar skyrocketed and caused global food shortages that likely killed hundreds of thousands.

And what do we do with all those hybrid batteries? Each one a little toxic waste dump. You can't buy enough reusable shopping bags to offset your extravagant consumption of batteries.

What is your endgame? An economy based on hydrogen? Do you understand that water is 95% of the greenhouse gas? That hydrogen is not an energy source, but simple energy storage; that creating it is energy intensive; that the energy for creating hydrogen comes from fossil fuels; and that creating new water may also have an effect on the climate?

Do you understand that wind doesn't blow everyday? That the sun doesn't shine everywhere? That these technologies cost 5-100X current energy costs and that the government has to subsidize these technologies heavily. That technology takes decades to implement at huge costs. And the only way to do it right is to let market forces find a new energy source that is a net cost savings to man, or it will bankrupt you.

Do you understand that keeping underdeveloped countries from exploiting energy delays their industrialization so they can have access to clean water and medial services? Is this delay not killing people? I do not understand how you can claim something like AGW will kill hundreds of thousands, and yet you ignore actual, completely provable evidence that suggests your solutions are killing far more people NOW! Or do you not care about poor people? Is every person born a burden on your precious earth?

The law of unintended consequences can be brutal. But at least you had good intentions...

Don't forget that there is a lot of evidence out there that tends to get ignored now that politics and 24 hour media have taken hold of it. Every new prediction and every new study has to be more and more dramatic to gain any sort of attention.

What about the studies that show humans historically thrive when temperatures rise, that CO2 levels are historically low, that a rise in temperature tends to warm the poles more than the center of the earth, reducing the potential energy that weather feeds off of, reducing the intensity of weather.

Can you explain the cooling for the last 10 years? Because those that study the sun can show a very good correlation between temperature and sun activity. That doesn't however, prove the sun drives temperature.

Do you understand what correlation even means? It does not imply cause and effect.

Wikipedia

The conventional dictum that "correlation does not imply causation" means that correlation cannot be used to infer a causal relationship between the variables [6]. This dictum should not be taken to mean that correlations cannot indicate causal relations. However, the causes underlying the correlation, if any, may be indirect and unknown. Consequently, establishing a correlation between two variables is not a sufficient condition to establish a causal relationship (in either direction).

A correlation between age and height in children is fairly causally transparent, but a correlation between mood and health in people is less so. Does improved mood lead to improved health; or does good health lead to good mood; or both? Or does some other factor underlie both? In other words, a correlation can be taken as evidence for a possible causal relationship, but cannot indicate what the causal relationship, if any, might be.

The politics of science has buried these stories because they don't support the accepted conclusion. But that doesn't prove these studies false.

Why is the debate over? Science is all about debate.

[autoboy]

The actual result of the global shading was studied by checking the weather at LAX in September 11-15 2001. When all air traffic was banned for a couple of days the temperature rose 3-5 degrees above what was expected for the given weather.

You can't prove a claim with a single data point under uncontrolled conditions.

[edh]

Ethanol is one of the worst offenders. Global demand of corn and sugar skyrocketed and caused global food shortages that likely killed hundreds of thousands.

I never suggested use of bioethanol. This is shortsighted and very selfish for developed countries to do unless you're actually making it at home yourself.

And what do we do with all those hybrid batteries?

I never suggested use of full hybrid drive trains either. These are generally quite inefficient in terms of raw material use. Low profile hybrid systems such as energy recovery into capacitors is much cheaper, it just doesn't have the same marketing cache around it. Both use of bioethanol and hybrid drivetrains have been used for over a century so neither is a new idea, trying to use these technologies to reduce oil usage is a fairly new idea though. It is unfortunately from the same viewpoint as those who disagree with the existence of global warming. It does not tackle the root cause and what many people want to avoid doing: changing their lifestyle.

That hydrogen is not an energy source, but simple energy storage; that creating it is energy intensive; that the energy for creating hydrogen comes from fossil fuels

There are ways of generating electricity that aren't fossil fuels. Modern nuclear is very safe, reliable, carbon free in operation and can provide base load in a way other sources can't. Public perception of nuclear safety is misguided, particularly as you can expect to get more dosage from coal per Watt than nuclear due to traces of radionuclei in coal going up in smoke. Efficiency of electrical generation is also pretty poor in many cases. There is a coal fired plant in the US that has a thermal efficiency of 8%. Makes the 80+ scheme seem irrelevent if that much power is being wasted by the generator. The best coal, gas and nuclear stations are all around 45% as they use very similar steam plant (let's ignore boiling water reactors, they're obsolete).

Do you understand that wind doesn't blow everyday? That the sun doesn't shine everywhere?

Look at my location tag . In the UK it's almost always cloudy and we have so much wind that we often have to disconnect wind turbines as it's too windy. You need to use a full range of resources to have sustainability.

That these technologies cost 5-100X current energy costs

One of the most profitable plants in the UK and also one of the best for the environment is the pumped water storage station at Dinorwig:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dinorwig_power_station
How many 8% efficient coal fired stations can break even in a decade?

Do you understand that keeping underdeveloped countries from exploiting energy delays their industrialization so they can have access to clean water and medial services? Is this delay not killing people? I do not understand how you can claim something like AGW will kill hundreds of thousands, and yet you ignore actual, completely provable evidence that suggests your solutions are killing far more people NOW! Or do you not care about poor people? Is every person born a burden on your precious earth?

Do you understand what correlation even means? It does not imply cause and effect.

I'm a career scientist. Of course I know what it means. You're not taking a balanced scientific viewpoint and instead just dismissing any pro-climate change argument as sensationalism driven by the media. The media typically cotton on to things very late especially as climate change as a result of the greenhouse effect has been talked about for over 20 years.

When I worked in the nuclear industry some years ago I picked something up about the number of 'fuels' we have:

1st fuel: Cut something down or dig something up and burn it.

2nd fuel: dig something up, process it into highly enriched pellets, arrange it in fuel stringers and then use a moderator to slow down the neutrons enough (let's ignore fast reactors) to get criticality.

3rd fuel: Renewables. Use a selection of wind, wave, tidal, solar, hydro etc. These are very easy to implement on a small scale and having a wind turbine at the bottom of your garden is quite practicable.

There is then a theoretical 4th fuel: energy efficiency. Like perhaps not driving to the TV remote today? Regulation can help this. The 80+ scheme is great I'm sure you'll agree as it has lots of knock-on effects like making computers cheaper to run and produce less heat, thus making them easier to cool quietly. We also have regulations on car emissions that are dealing with both local pollutants like NOx and SOx and CO2 which are largely related to how much fuel is used.

The developed world is short on energy but has an excess of fat bastards due to lack of exercise. We could sort two problems out here. The only reason why we won't is because human beings are in general stupid and lazy. If we tackle this in the developed world it will also pass on to the developing world who won't take on the bad habits we now have in richer countries.

What about falling levels of natural resources? We can't continue to use more and more oil for everything so we have to use other sources at some point.

[autoboy]

I never suggested use of full hybrid drive trains either.

@edh
Actually, you didn't really say much of anything. You only have one short post before this one.

I am commenting on the widely accepted "solutions" to AGW. Not on your solutions which are actually very valid alternatives. These solutions are what our "leaders" have clung to and are supporting with massive government programs. Bush LOVED ethanol and really screwed everyone over with his pro corn ethanol policies. Now we have Government Motors and we all know were that will take us. A massive mismanaged jobs program selling cars the government tells us the American people want, but nobody will buy. Subsidized by the American taxpayer. Why do they have to destroy car companies when all they really need to do is raise taxes on gasoline and efficiencies will naturally occur, eventually replaced by an alternative fuel if one can be found that is cost effective. Instead they burden the car makers with regulations that will continue to destroy them because nobody will buy new. They will just hold onto their SUVs that are just so damn useful. 70s all over again. I can't wait!!!! Don't believe me this will happen? Really? How many 70s collector cars are there vs 60s collector cars? I don't see anyone collecting Ford Mustag IIs.

There are valid bio fuels. 4th generation bio fuels made from algae and others are viable alternatives to gasoline. These are in their infancy and are decades away from mass adoption. Ethanol is also corrosive and cannot be shipped over our gas pipelines. While this is viewed as Carbon neutral, you still have other, and in my opinion much worse, emissions because you are still burning fuel.

If you incorrectly determine the problem, your solutions will address the wrong issue. We could develop better bio diesel from alternative methods, but we will still have particulate emissions which could be worse than the CO2 we saved. By making CO2 the enemy, we leave ourselves open to much worse pollutants that actually may have worse effects than CO2 which is a naturally occurring and common gas exhaled by every animal on earth.

I LOVE nuclear, just don't try to build one in the US. While the greenies hate CO2 they hate nuclear even more. Likely because they grew up hating it. I grew up on Saved by the Bell and I'd be damned if anyone messed with my childhood memories no matter how dumb they are.

[Wibla]

For anyone interested, I would suggest this report for a .. slightly different viewpoint than most of the fear-mongerers: http://www.nipccreport.org/

[spookmineer]

Do you believe that the Earth and the other SEVEN planets are orbiting the Sun? Or, does everything revolve around the Earth?

They are orbiting one another. The fact that the orbit of the sun lies within its outer shell (due to its mass) tends to hide this.

Sorry, off topic

[NeilBlanchard]

Post Script:

Since Intelligent Design is a renaming of Creationism -- and neither one of them is science, then you can believe in it if you want to. The Theory of Gravity is science, and so it remains true whether you accept it or not. If you choose to take a similar tact to believing in Intelligent Design instead of accepting Evolution as the science that it is, then you might need to try to work out calling gravity Intelligent Falling as well.

My intent is to point out that science is a process where based on the facts, we humans work to understand and name the best -- and most consistent theories possible to make all the facts that we know to fit together. Scientists are constantly testing all the theories, and exploring the unknown. When they find something that they cannot explain -- they DO NOT just attribute it to some unknown cause; like we all do in our faiths all the time! This is the different between science and faith. Science looks to either find out more about the unknown, until either the new thing fits into the accepted theory, or they have to change the theory to fit with everything that has come before AND with the new thing. Faith simply accepts the unknown thing without question.

I apologize for this sentence in particular: "Or, do you believe that God created it all?". Later on I edited this to say "Or, do you believe that God created it all in 6 days?". There is a BIG difference there, because it means something very different -- so again I apologize.

The difference is that one could believe that a God created the world as a matter of faith AND the creation process is what science is working to explain and understand. But believing that God created the universe, the world, and all living things in a literal 6 days is a matter of faith which is conflict with science. I hope that I have made the difference a little clearer.

Again, it was not my intent to debate the difference between faith and science; though this is obviously part of the discussion. My main point was to try to point out the need for consistency in the understanding of science: if the scientific process has produced strong theories (which are very different from hypothesis') for things like gravity, atomic theory, plate tectonics, evolution, electricity, astronomy -- all of these things and much more -- are *inseparable* from the way we live and the way we understand all things in science. To be intellectually consistent, all of these and more -- including global climate change must be accepted as a whole! If you reject one part, then you must reject all the others, too -- because they are part of the whole.

This certainly does not mean that one cannot question any or all of these things -- this is what scientists do ALL THE TIME! This is EXACTLY what scientists DO all the time. But to throw out the theory of evolution say, on the basis of a few examples, is frankly throwing out the baby with the bath water. If one is to pronounce that any part of accepted science as bunk, then one had better be ready to show that they have a fully working alternative theory -- and to defend it scientifically, through accepted scientific process.

I urge all of you who are interested in this to watch a NOVA video online, or the next time it is broadcast on your local PBS station:

PBS NOVA page
Watch show online

[Ch0z3n]

Quick caveat: the reason Creationism and Intelligent Design can not ever be considered science since it is impossible to reproduce the result. Also, Intelligent Design isn't just a rename of Creationism, it is more like the 9800GTX -> 9800GTX+ rename; they gave it a die shrink and over-clocked it. ID allows for small scale evolution which is a fairly large departure from Creationism.

[thejamppa]

I believe that humans are contributing somewhat to climate change... About as much as throwing a snow ball would increase deadliness of an avalanche. IMHO human's have slightly contributed but so called climate change is not due human's but its cyclic thing that planet goes thru every few hundred thousand years. Same way as polarity of planet changes every about 400,000 years and so forth.

Not all can be blaimed on human's some thing just happened... I mean nobody really believes that last time it was big climate change it was due dinosaurs were pumping greenhouses gass' on planet's atmosphere...

[nomoon]

Neil,

What specific evidence have you found that convinces you that man made CO2 emissions are causing significant warming beyond natural variation?

Your original post contains some insults and logical fallacies, but no science.

Jason

[AZBrandon]

Quick caveat: the reason Creationism and Intelligent Design can not ever be considered science since it is impossible to reproduce the result.

Evolution can't be reproduced either. There is a "missing link" between every one of the millions of genetically incompatible forms of life which the theory of evolution simply declares was bridged by spontaneous generation of new life. Where a creationist sees evidence of creation, an evolutionist declares is evidence of evolution. It's very much a case of people looking at the same exact thing and drawing two completely different conclusions, neither of which can actually be proved.

[Ch0z3n]

Evolution can most certainly be reproduced, at least on a small scale: plant-hybridization, genetics, every species of dog and every other domesticated plant and animal. Even with all of the differences that we see in other humans, we are an incredibly homogeneous species. I think it is something like every human can trace their maternal roots back to one of about 5000 breeding-age females about 13,000 years ago or so.

Creationism and Evolution most certainly do not reference the same thing. In Creationism humans have always been are they are now, meaning that we were never quadrupedal and we aren't descendant from neanderthals and the like.

[autoboy]

Neil,

I thought this was a global warming debate. I, and many others on this thread are debating your rude comments about naysayers being anti science wackos, with science, thus proving you wrong. Meanwhile, you continue to talk about how crazy creationism is. I would almost go as far as to say that you don't actually know any of the science behind AGW and are taking it based on faith that "scientists" are in agreement on it. Meanwhile, you choose to ignore all the scientific evidence that attributes GW to other natural forces. There are thousands of scientists who are speaking out against AGW. It is consistently ignored by the media who choose instead to listen to the politics of AGW. Do some research for yourself and come back with some real evidence. Otherwise, who is really taking the Blue Pill?

[judge56988]

There is no disputing the fact that the earth has undergone many changes in climate during it's existence and obviously they were not due to human activity because humans were not there.
There is also no disputing the fact that the normal state of the planet is warmer than at present, usually there is no ice at the poles. Ice ages have occurred periodically and we are currently in a warmer period that may be a prelude to another period of glaciation or the ending of the current ice age - no one knows. Also, no one knows for sure, the cause of these ice ages.
There have been occasions in the past when the entire planet has been covered in ice and it's perfectly possible that that might happen again in a hundred million years or whatever.

What man has done, and again, this cannot be disputed, is add a huge amount of CO2 to the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels. No one has managed to prove conclusively that this is causing or accelerating global warming, but I believe that there is a f**king good chance that it's having some effect - how could it not?

Maybe, ultimately, it will be a good thing because it might prevent another period of glaciation; which would be infinitely worse for mankind than a small increase in temperature and a rise in sea level.

The point is, that with almost 7 billion people living on this planet, there is no way that we are not going to have a big effect on things. We have to live with that and find ways of adjusting, or we have to kill off 99% of the population and go back to a hunter gatherer way of life. And even then, if we did do that, climate change will still occur through natural means.

What right do we have as a species to be here forever? What right do we have to shape the planet to our needs? Homo Sapiens has existed for a tiny fraction of the time that there has been life on this earth. We will ultimately use up all the resources - fuel, iron and so on. We may become responsible for the sixth great extinction - the previous five being caused by natural disasters such as collisions with meteors or vulcanism - but actually, the great extinction we might cause would be natural too because we are part of nature.

And in another 50 million years or so, the earth will have recovered - there will be new species, new deposits of raw materials will have been formed and perhaps new intelligent life forms will be digging up our fossilised bones and trying to piece together what went on all those years ago.

[xan_user]

If you think burning 65 million years of stored carbon energy in less than 200 years wont negatively effect the environment, Ive got ocean front property in Nevada to sell you.

There's a simple experiment for skeptics to quickly disprove carbon induced global warming once and for all...

Seal up your garage and park inside with the engine running with a full tank of gas, hang out in the garage until the tank is empty and report your findings back here.

[nomoon]

xan_user,

I'll ask this question to you as well?

What specific evidence have you found that convinces you that man made CO2 emissions are causing significant warming beyond natural variation?

CO2 is a trace component of the atmosphere (less than 0.1%). The greenhouse effect is dominated by water vapor and clouds.

The rhetoric from you and Neil are typical of the ideological hysteria that I've seen elsewhere. If you lack specific scientific arguments, you resort to ridicule and other logical fallacies.

Jason Lewis

[Ch0z3n]

I don't think ridicule is a logical fallacy.

[autoboy]

If you think burning 65 million years of stored carbon energy in less than 200 years wont negatively effect the environment, Ive got ocean front property in Nevada to sell you.

There's a simple experiment for skeptics to quickly disprove carbon induced global warming once and for all...

Seal up your garage and park inside with the engine running with a full tank of gas, hang out in the garage until the tank is empty and report your findings back here.

The amount of C02 we emit per year makes up .000006% of the total volume of the atmosphere. That would need to be one big garage, or one small car if you want to make the garage analogy. It would be like turning on a gas powered micro machine in the astrodome.

[nomoon]

I don't think ridicule is a logical fallacy.

See Fallacy: Appeal to Ridicule

A simple internet search of "ridicule ad hominem" will confirm that ridicule is commonly defined as a type of logical fallacy. Are there any scientific arguments here that man made CO2 emissions are causing catastrophic warming above natural variation?

Jason Lewis

[xan_user]

It would be like turning on a gas powered micro machine in the astrodome.

exactly, and after 200 years, the air would not be breathable. the garage and car was a metaphor to accelerate our industrial age down into one afternoon. Maybe you have a few hundred years to run the experiment, but the rest of the human race might not.
Now add in massive deforestation, the loss of protection from solar radiation and added temps due to paving and buildings, and soils being ripped up and releasing even more CO2.

What happens when the methane trapped under sea all bubbles up at once due to our leaving the heat on all these years?

Its like we're speeding into a fog bank near a school zone and instead of letting off the accelerator and covering the brakes, we're flooring it.
Not good.

[Ch0z3n]

I didn't say it couldn't be a logical fallacy; just that in and of itself it isn't. Sometimes ridicule is just a cigar... or something like that...

[NeilBlanchard]

Hi,

I'm not a climatologist -- are you? There is no scientific controversy; only that caused by those paid by energy companies.

[xan_user]

There is no scientific controversy; only that caused by those paid by energy companies.

I wonder why?

Lets not forget the energy company insider whistle blowers that get constantly bought out, and silenced.



"Doesn't take a weatherman to tell which way the wind blows"