Anthropogenic global warming myth

Originally posted by sonhouse
I think you missed the part about the SPEED of the CO2 increase. That went right by you didn't it? When CO2 levels rise there is a rise in average temperatures and that happened in the pliocence but the difference today is the rate of rise is ten time faster than it ever was back then. We are on track not to 500 PPM or 600PPM but 1000 PPM. That in maybe 200 years, a VERY fast clip VS back then.

Nope. Cherry picking surface temps is not proof of your claim. Besides, it is still MUCH cooler than the Pliocene despite having the same amount of CO2. You completely missed the point!

Originally posted by wildgrass
What bias? You asked for evidence of a correlation. Not me. Obviously the simple fact that 2016 was warmer than ever recorded has no indication as to cause. That's what I said earlier. Doesn't that make you biased?

The same question I've been asking you over and over again still applies: How do you prove causation in the context of a global climate with ...[text shortened]... The data is interesting and possible parallels can be drawn, but the context is very different.

You still have not shown what I have asked you for several times. There is no need for climate models to show a correlation if all the data exists as you claimed. I asked you to show me the data and you did not. Didn't you notice the question marks?

You are being extremely evasive about that data. I think you looked up the data, found out there was no correlation between sea level rise and CO2 levels in the last 100 years and now you are too embarrassed to admit how wrong you are.

Sonhouse is relying on flawed data that was cherry picked. Surface temps are unreliable and you both know it, but why would either of you look up that data to see for yourself? Neither of you care about the truth. You both are eager to mislead with flawed data merely in a feeble attempt to save face. That is why those indoctrinated with leftist propaganda are so dishonest. If you and sonhouse are not using flawed data as you both often do, others are more than willing to leave out important words like "anthropogenic" and "climate" in front of scientists where it makes an extremely important distinction.

Your dishonesty shows how biased you are and it is insulting to science in general. Either show me the sea level data in combination with CO2 level data or admit the data does NOT support your wild and inaccurate claims.

Originally posted by Metal Brain
You still have not shown what I have asked you for several times. There is no need for climate models to show a correlation if all the data exists as you claimed. I asked you to show me the data and you did not. Didn't you notice the question marks?

You are being extremely evasive about that data. I think you looked up the data, found out there was no ...[text shortened]... bination with CO2 level data or admit the data does NOT support your wild and inaccurate claims.

You already said this:

"2016 being the warmest year has no indication that man is the main cause. This warming trend started over 300 years ago from natural causes. All that proves is the trend that was caused by nature is continuing. I find it amusing that many who claim to embrace science cling to that false correlation."

The correlation tells us nothing. We agreed, so I moved on. How is that "extremely evasive"? Why would I try to dig up correlation data for a correlation that does not exist? Why would you even ask someone else to do it several times if you already did it? Maybe I'm missing something but it seems kind of silly.

The main point of contention that we're grappling with is: How do you prove causation? Dr. Singer argued several decades ago that we need better climate models and data to feed into those models. That bar has already been met. I (perhaps overly) trust the general opinion of climatologists that climate models are reasonably accurate tools for studying causes of climate change. You seem to disagree. But if correlations don't tell us anything important, and models are the only system to test causation, how else can we make any important conclusions at all?

I also noticed that you brought politics into this. Isn't it a little paradoxical that pols who say "There is tremendous disagreement as to the contribution of human activity on climate change. We need more data." are the same pols who are trying to slash the funding needed to generate that exact data? It's almost as if they don't want to know the answer.

Originally posted by wildgrass
Isn't it a little paradoxical that pols who say "There is tremendous disagreement as to the contribution of human activity on climate change. We need more data." are the same pols who are trying to slash the funding needed to generate that exact data? It's almost as if they don't want to know the answer.

that is because they don't;
they are cowards.

Originally posted by Metal Brain
Nope. Cherry picking surface temps is not proof of your claim. Besides, it is still MUCH cooler than the Pliocene despite having the same amount of CO2. You completely missed the point!

And you fail to understand the difference between a slow build up of CO2 and an extreme rise we have today, in a hundred years the rise is a hundred times than it was in pliocene times. That alone is a huge driver of change.

I think if you live to be 100 or so and the sea has risen 10 feet and a lot of florida is gone you will still say mankind is not to blame.

Originally posted by sonhouse
And you fail to understand the difference between a slow build up of CO2 and an extreme rise we have today, in a hundred years the rise is a hundred times than it was in pliocene times. That alone is a huge driver of change.

I think if you live to be 100 or so and the sea has risen 10 feet and a lot of florida is gone you will still say mankind is not to blame.

You are assuming CO2 is the main driver of global warming. It is not. You are still assuming that same old myth Al Gore promoted is true. The Vostok ice core samples show that CO2 is the result of higher temps, NOT the cause.

Stop clinging to that old CO2 causation myth. It is a MYTH!

Originally posted by wildgrass
You already said this:

"2016 being the warmest year has no indication that man is the main cause. This warming trend started over 300 years ago from natural causes. All that proves is the trend that was caused by nature is continuing. I find it amusing that many who claim to embrace science cling to that false correlation."

The correlation tells us n ...[text shortened]... unding needed to generate that exact data? It's almost as if they don't want to know the answer.

" Isn't it a little paradoxical that pols who say "There is tremendous disagreement as to the contribution of human activity on climate change. We need more data." are the same pols who are trying to slash the funding needed to generate that exact data? It's almost as if they don't want to know the answer."

Pols? What is a pol?
Who is doing the paradoxical thing you described? I don't know of anyone trying to slash the funding of data. Is this a conspiracy theory? What is your source of information?

Originally posted by Metal Brain
" Isn't it a little paradoxical that pols who say "There is tremendous disagreement as to the contribution of human activity on climate change. We need more data." are the same pols who are trying to slash the funding needed to generate that exact data? It's almost as if they don't want to know the answer."

Pols? What is a pol?
Who is doing the parad ...[text shortened]... g to slash the funding of data. Is this a conspiracy theory? What is your source of information?

I think you are being deliberately obtuse.

All life, from plantains to people, depends on climate and the environment. This is our collective home. Understanding how the climate works, what the main drivers are, how it changes and how quickly, how those changes impact plant and animal life, are important for planning the future of our species.

The current paradigm, whether you like it or not, is that climate change can be driven by CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere. Based on existing data, anthropogenic causes are main/primary/significant drivers of global warming. Lots and lots and lots of research fortifies this conclusion.

Skeptics, who (correctly) point out that the science isn't settled on the exact contribution of CO2 to climate change, believe there are key questions left to be answered before action is taken. One would think, if you proscribe political actions to mitigate man-made climate change, using the argument that unknown natural causes are responsible for recent forcings, then you would promote climate research funding to understand the drivers of climate change. The paradox lies in the statements that "more research is needed" and the actions that cut funding for research grants to conduct the necessary research [1]. It doesn't make sense.

And then, given that the subject impacts all of humanity, what if you're wrong? When the head of the EPA sees meta-analyses like this [2] and then attempts to shape global policy in opposition to this, it raises red flags. Conservative news outlets have recently been hammering this hypocrisy of climate skeptics giving political answers to scientific questions [3,4]. Pew research [5] did a fascinating study on the ideological divide over climate change research. In it, they found that high scientific literacy Democrats tended to agree with the statement that "the Earth is warming due to human activity" more than those with low scientific literacy. Republicans, however, did not change in their opinion regardless of their level of scientific literacy. They concluded that "only Democrats, not Republicans, hold beliefs about scientific consensus which vary with their level of science knowledge." In other words, our political ideology drives a pre-judgement of scientific data. I think that is unfortunate. How can we bridge this divide?

[1] http://www.nature.com/news/us-science-agencies-face-deep-cuts-in-trump-budget-1.21652
[2] http://www.popsci.com/article/science/infographic-scientists-who-doubt-human-caused-climate-change
[3] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/04/03/the-left-and-right-agree-fox-news-destroyed-epa-chief-scott-pruitt-over-climate-change/
[4] http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/04/02/delingpole-epas-scott-pruitt-gets-eaten-alive-by-fox/
[5] http://www.pewinternet.org/2016/10/04/the-politics-of-climate/

Originally posted by Metal Brain
You are assuming CO2 is the main driver of global warming. It is not. You are still assuming that same old myth Al Gore promoted is true. The Vostok ice core samples show that CO2 is the result of higher temps, NOT the cause.

Stop clinging to that old CO2 causation myth. It is a MYTH!

You say CO2 is not the driver, so tell us what is the main driver of climate change.

Originally posted by wildgrass
I think you are being deliberately obtuse.

All life, from plantains to people, depends on climate and the environment. This is our collective home. Understanding how the climate works, what the main drivers are, how it changes and how quickly, how those changes impact plant and animal life, are important for planning the future of our species.

The cu ...[text shortened]... itt-gets-eaten-alive-by-fox/
[5] http://www.pewinternet.org/2016/10/04/the-politics-of-climate/

" Based on existing data, anthropogenic causes are main/primary/significant drivers of global warming. Lots and lots and lots of research fortifies this conclusion."

That is not true and you have failed to show that multiple times. You also failed to show a correlation between CO2 levels and sea level rise in the last 100 years even with a lag effect that I would accept if there was one. The data does not support your conclusion in this case. Only unreliable surface temps with heat island effect data support your false claim and that is clearly bunk not worth the paper it is written on. You have a lot of nerve claiming to have proved something you did not at all.

Democrats and Republicans are equally ignorant about global warming. Sadly, even the (relatively) scientific literate people are ignorant. This is evident when they use terms like "climate change" instead of global warming. In fact, you did just that!

Why would you even use a term like climate change? I often wonder who was the first idiot to use this term instead of global warming. Someone suggested that the pause in global warming is why alarmists deliberately started using climate change in place of global warming because it would help confuse people.

When someone asks me a question like "don't you believe in climate change?". I always reply " of course I do, I would never deny the ice ages". Do you see how stupid it is to use the term "climate change" in this context?

If you really want to bridge this divide start by NEVER using the term "climate change" in place of global warming in this context. Until you do that I will consider you to be scientifically illiterate and not worth my time debating.

The nature link you posted merely says there are budget cuts. It does NOT show that any data collection will be effected. Speaking of Trump, when he said global warming is a hoax he probably means anthropogenic global warming. Even though Trump often speaks loosely so that can be expected of him, it would not even be fair to blame him for it since leftists often say global warming but mean "anthropogenic" global warming. Scientifically illiterate inaccuracies like this are common. I believe it is a deliberate effort to confuse people. The carbon tax proponents want people to be confused so they cannot understand how wrong their agenda is. The last thing they want is an informed public. Heck, a carbon tax will not even do any good. The rich will just pay the tax and drive their Hummer to the golf course and the poor will suffer the most while carbon emissions rise just the same. It is not about helping people, it is about taxing people. As usual, the poor will be burdened the most.

Alarmists are quick to allege a problem, but few want an honest discussion about so called solutions. The only effective ways to reduce fossil fuel burning while sparing the poor do NOT involve a tax. If fact, increased efficiency standards of electricity use can be done right now and I support that 100%. Why are the leftists sitting on their butts doing nothing when they would have plenty of support from both the left and right?

Originally posted by sonhouse
You say CO2 is not the driver, so tell us what is the main driver of climate change.

Solar activity is the most likely. It is difficult to tell for sure though. There are many factors, so many it is foolish to place the blame solely on CO2. The Pliocene is compelling anecdotal evidence that CO2 is not the main cause. If it was the main cause there would be no glaciers and sea ice at all right now.

Originally posted by Metal Brain
Solar activity is the most likely. It is difficult to tell for sure though. There are many factors, so many it is foolish to place the blame solely on CO2. The Pliocene is compelling anecdotal evidence that CO2 is not the main cause. If it was the main cause there would be no glaciers and sea ice at all right now.

Solar doesn't change enough to be a big driver of climate change except for that noted where now the ice age cycle is about every 100,000 years whereas a few million years ago they were spaced on average about 40,000 years apart. Earth's tilt, eccentricity of its orbit, and solar ups and downs set that kind of thing but notice the time scales, hundred thousand years, forty thousand years. Now we are talking big changes in under 200 years. Big difference.

Originally posted by sonhouse
Solar doesn't change enough to be a big driver of climate change except for that noted where now the ice age cycle is about every 100,000 years whereas a few million years ago they were spaced on average about 40,000 years apart. Earth's tilt, eccentricity of its orbit, and solar ups and downs set that kind of thing but notice the time scales, hundred thous ...[text shortened]... years, forty thousand years. Now we are talking big changes in under 200 years. Big difference.

You don't know that. Were there satellites 300 years ago giving us info on solar output? There is much we do not know about the sun and the little ice age may have happened because of solar changes. All we have are sun spot observations and those are not reliable enough to tell us anything for sure. Solar cycles are not fully understood so we may find out there are more long term cycles in the future.

I think it is amusing that some people think they know all there is to know about the sun. We know so very little I think those people are ridiculous and just repeating questionable info that they read from some left wing publication without merit.

Don't forget that I said there are many factors and that it is hard to say. I'm not claiming it is the only factor, but your careless dismissal of a factor that is so poorly understood is premature in my opinion.

Originally posted by Metal Brain
You don't know that. Were there satellites 300 years ago giving us info on solar output? There is much we do not know about the sun and the little ice age may have happened because of solar changes. All we have are sun spot observations and those are not reliable enough to tell us anything for sure. Solar cycles are not fully understood so we may find ou ...[text shortened]... but your careless dismissal of a factor that is so poorly understood is premature in my opinion.

Nobody says we fully understand the sun. But you are just injecting guesses, which are not much use in figuring out climate.

Originally posted by Metal Brain
" Based on existing data, anthropogenic causes are main/primary/significant drivers of global warming. Lots and lots and lots of research fortifies this conclusion."

That is not true and you have failed to show that multiple times. You also failed to show a correlation between CO2 levels and sea level rise in the last 100 years even with a lag effect ...[text shortened]... n their butts doing nothing when they would have plenty of support from both the left and right?

That is not true and you have failed to show that multiple times.

The only reason you can say this is because you didn't read the presented evidence.

You also failed to show a correlation between CO2 levels and sea level rise in the last 100 years

I thought we already went through this. The correlation doesn't exist. Even if it did, would it change anyone's opinion of anything? Would it change yours? Why are you demanding correlative evidence? Hundreds of other variables are changing over the same time frame. The existing evidence identifies much more impactful causal relationships between CO2 and climate.

Why would you even use a term like climate change?

Because global warming is an outdated term. Over the years we have developed a better understanding of the variables, the term global warming only applies to a subset of climate science. Climate change more accurately defines what happens when specific forcing variables are altered due to human activity, which is why it is the more commonly-used term. Politicians may speak loosely but scientists do not.

I don't like the Do you believe questions either. Science is not a belief system at all.

It is not about helping people, it is about taxing people.

It is not. Very few political solutions involve any additional taxes. There is a huge amount of government money being spent on propping up the fossil fuel industry [1]. The largest area of political resistance on climate change surrounds the removal of subsidies to the extant fossil fuel industry, which would force them to compete with alternative energy sources. Removing the nearly $1 Trillion subsidy will increase competition and benefit the US consumer. Why are we still spending government money propping up such an extremely profitable industry?

[1] http://priceofoil.org/fossil-fuel-subsidies/