It’s true, just like the Deniers say, Global Warming is over … again, and again, and again. Not as often as they claim it is, but pretty often!
As any fool can see climate change ended at least 15 times in the last 150 years, even before it started. I just don’t understand why the Deniers only point to the most recent ending … they like “global warming has ended” so much you’d think they’d want everyone to know about all of them.
Actually this is just an excuse to draw everyone’s attention to Tamino’s great analysis in Western Sizzlin’ where he does a thorough job on the “Golly my toes are cold, screw you Al Gore!” meme that saw a resurgence a couple of weeks ago.
Tamino not only hammers home the two essential facts that:
- Global climate change is about the globe, not a tiny local area
- Climate science is about climate, not weather
but also does an analysis of the very disturbing effects it is having on water availability.
Of course I have talked about this one before, again and again and again, so can we please learn the difference between climate and weather and finally put the “Global Cooling” Myth to sleep? sigh, I guess Deniers don’t read this blog.
Sadly water sources disappearing is not local either, as the BBC reports on “Slow death of Africa’s Lake Chad.” There is nothing “slow” when what was once the world’s sixth largest lake is 80% gone in only five decades. Water overuse is exacerbating the consequences of climate change, but this is still a terrifying harbinger of the world we are entering.
Given that the warming of the Indian is thought to have caused an estimated 15% decrease in rainfall in eastern Africa during the rainy season over the same period, we can expect more climate exacerbated conflicts like Darfur.
Some of my mantras include the fact that climate change is first and foremost about food and water, not flooding, and that it is a social justice issue particularly with respect to race, class and gender. Which is why I am particularly offended by the latest Denier meme, the attempt to co-opt development issues as a form of climate denial.
If you can believe it (and do not already know it), those (incredibly long string of unbelievably vile expletives) are claiming that we must not take action on climate because it will hurt the world’s poor. There is currently a movie in production which promises to be i) as error filled and fraudulent as “The Swindle” was, and ii) not just wrong, but evil.
Above you can see what we have in store for the people of the developing world, war, hunger, poverty and sickness – an issue which I hope to go into much more depth in future posts. Recall the last IPPC report claimed 70 to 200 million people in sub-Saharan Africa were “at risk.” I read that as “as good as dead” and it is indeed how it seems to be playing out.
For the real Developing World opinion on climate I suggest a more credible source than a bunch of self-serving white men, viz:
Indeed it is now suggested that “Half world faces water shortage by 2080.” Children born today could still be alive then. Certainly anyone thinking of having children in the future faces the prospect of bringing them into that world unless we act.
Our leaders are currently meeting in Poznan for UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. Frankly I have pretty much zero hope that anything of consequence will come of it.
Blogging from Poznan a Canadian Youth delegate writes “A choice quote from the session: in an impassioned comment, Barbados said they would “refuse to sign a suicide note” that would consign their country, and other vulnerable countries, to massive destruction related to climate change.”
This fight will be “On the Scale of WWII but Longer”, and it is going to require us as individuals to struggle. Struggle not to change light bulbs and buy hybrid cars, but to really struggle. Struggle as the civil rights movement did, as the suffragettes, did, as labour did, as the Chinese democracy movement does. Fight as hard and harder, and longer. The stakes have literally never been higher.
We give our consent every moment that we do not resist.
Denier “Challenge” aka Deathwatch Update: Day 54 … still no evidence.
IMAGE CREDITS:
Global and Hemispheric Temperature – Annual Global HadCRUT University of East Anglia
Great post Greenf! I like the way you link Climate System destabilization to water and food.
The UN’s Declaration of Human Rights includes the right to water and food. Most governments have signed up to them. If these governments allow fossil fuel emissions in their countries, then they are allowing climate destabilization, putting food and water at risk and breeching human rights. This I believe is an angle we should pursue.
—-
Exactly. There are ways to tell if there’s been a change away from the long term trend in a time series. It’s not by determining the confidence interval of the slope of the series in the usual way. Tamino argues this is because of auto-correlation. I personally think what you need to do is check historical variations, like those you see in your graph, and determine the actual “confidence interval” this way. This is basically what I did here.
—-
It’s “Deniers” not “Denier’s”, by the way.[1]
Global warming has ended many times, you’re right. Last time it was seriously cranked up, though, was during the Medieval Warm Period a few hundred years ago without anthropogenic sources of carbon dioxide. I wish your graph would go back further than it does. Is the GISTEMP or the UAH data comprising the graph? I hope it’s not GISTEMP. Hansen can’t seem to get that right lately. [2]
—-
Good post , Greenfyre. Unfortunately most of the denialists/delayers have no idea of trend lines. Every time the temperature drops below the average where they live, they start talking about the end of global warming.
Climate Ark is a good place to recommend to people.
http://www.climateark.org/[1]
The string of bad news coming in there from all over the world makes it pretty hard for any intellectually honest person to deny anthropogenic warming. Of course, anyone who is denying the reality of Climaticide at this point isn’t intellectually honest.
They either have their pocketbook invested in denying/delaying (Exxon, Peabody, Southern, US Chamber of Commerce, etc.) or they have a psychological investment in denying, usually rooted in ideology, but sometimes simply congenital contrarianism (often combined with a deficient education).
Blogging for the future at Climaticide Chronicles
—-
Joseph:
Interesting method, but my worry is whether there’s a meaningful probabilistic interpretation to the test results, i.e. whether the results provide us with a useful model saying “the global temperatures can be said to be generated from such and such a type of stochastic process with such and such parameters”.
(This was in fact one of my beefs against Pielke Jr. — he’d apply statistical tests in ad hoc ways without regard to what they mean.)
Seems logical to me it does!
jess
—-
digg thinks you are retarded.
—-
lol canadian youth delegate.
—-
I’m getting pretty ####### sick of you tossing off “deniers” as an epithet to disparage anyone who doesn’t agree with you. You’re trivializing the holocaust.
—-
The graph you posted in reply to a comment does not go back far enough for me actually. Global climate shifts at a rate of around 100,000 years… not 20k. Geological surveys have shown that the world has been much hotter than it is now and it cooled off naturally. Global warming is simply a result of natural limits. Very little that humans can do can actually impact ‘the planet’. We tend to confuse impacting ‘the planet’ with impacting ‘human beings’. [1] The planet could care less if we are here. It’s going to continue doing what it’s been doing for the past 4.7 billion years… getting hot, then cold, then hot, then cold, etc, etc.
—-
What is that graph? It does not show what the axis mean, nor what the lines and bar means, nor the arrows and, on the top it says Annual. Is this a joke? You can’t put a graph with no legend, only comment, it can not be accepted.
—-
(Thanks Exclave. Unfortunately your thinking is most likely going to be categorized as a “denier”.
It is always amazing how there isn’t a debate allowed.)
Of course the earths Climate has changed dramatically over EONS. The only constant is CHANGE. Global warming is pure hubris. Sad, very sad how this wool has been pulled over SO many people’s eyes. The earth changes naught from human input.
It changes. [1]
Get over it. Also the negative consequences of possible warming is questionable, no one can say authoritatively that a warming is inherently bad. [2] It may be -but it may not be too.
As for the second graph (link provided in the responses: http://climateprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/08/sweet-spot-big.jpg) – what humans are to blame for the dramatic rise in the years 20,000 – 10,000 BCE? [3]
Is a picture of how a lake changes over 50 some years relevant to a process that by your own data and references is measures in tens of thousand years? [4]
Or another prop -the dramatic pictures of glacier recession over a lifetime; the lifetime of a human is a foolish time frame for a 3rd rock process; I mean really. [5]
Just think, dig deeper, question the ‘prevailing wisdom’ – you seem to definitely have the vigor – break away from the herd. You are in a mean herd that has clear animosity toward groups of people and you use denigrating words to dismiss others viewpoints. I don’t know you but I wish you could do better than that. [6]
(Props to Eromane too -that first graph posted is pure chicken-little with axes unlabeled)
—-
methane?
– see this from that bastion of denying: NPR
this methane is all natural – man plays no part in it’s production and save for this scientist’s work would one ever have even imagined this whacky source? This report from NPR is the kind of info I find that totally undermines the guilt ridden cries of humans as culprits.
—-
WHOOPS – wrong link….
here ya go –
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=14288215
go down fightin
what a tool
Lol! These are the same jackasses that say there is no such thing as global warming, as soon as they are proven wrong they say its over now. It’s just beginning and it’s going to get a lot worse. No one has even done anything to stop it, in fact we are still making it worse and even if we did do something it would continue to get worse for many decades.
these are lies! going green is right!
Personally, I’m excited about the the Pentaflop computers that have been developed. These new super computers will allow much greater detail in forecasting potential changes and running Monte-Carlo simulations as to effects.
I’m not ignorant enough to say that the climate isn’t changing. However, I think it is both hubristic and self-flagellistic to think that we as a species are responsible for or that we can do much to alter it.
Climate change has been and will always be a part of the planet.
Fanatics of any religion are generally wrong.
—-
How do you feel about those who do not deny global warming, in fact acknowledge that it is happening every bit as much as reported, but doubt that it is chiefly caused by man?
—-
Great post Greenf! Thanks!
—-
I thought the earth was much older than 150 years thanks for proving me wrong.
—-
Interesting article, very insightful. i frankly find it amazing how ignorant some people can be of humanity’s influence on this planets ecology , sure theres natural cycles, and natural variations in the temperature average, but, emphasize on the term “natural”.
most environmental events fit into a pattern that naturally balances out.. except when those events are artificial and continuously in effect. it throws a big and growing wrench in the gears of the ecology that will over time if stopped, recover, but with things like acidification of the oceans and the destruction of the plant life (both carbon sinks) it makes that system more and more off center and makes it take much, much longer to re-center itself and at the same time you will experience more and more abnormal extreme weather related events.
If more people could see the big picture and not the local one we would all be better off.
—-
Ok… so most of those graphs on the wikipedia page you linked to just show that we are at a peak. This peak is also at about the right time we should be having one. [1] Fact is… we don’t know that this isn’t something that would be happening even if humans didn’t exist. [2] Granted, if humans do end up having some kind of major impact we won’t know it ‘truthfully’ until it is too late. Add to that the fact that even if we went 100% green and left a 0 carbon footprint starting tomorrow… a single major volcanic eruption will negate anything we try to do for a century or more (probably till the next volcanic eruption).[3]
On a side note, many of the readings that are taken today on climate are from sensors scattered all around the world. These sensors are supposed to be placed in areas where they are not effected by constructed means (i.e. sensor next to a mirrored building so it gets 2x the exposure). Problem is, many of these sensors are stationed in places that are exactly where they shouldn’t be. Let’s face it, a sensor set up in the middle of a Wal-Mart parking lot is probably gonna give biased data on heat and CO2 levels. [4]
—-
So, you assume right at the beginning that humans can’t have an effect on global climate, and then turn around and accuse global warming proponents of being “fanatics”?
So once more we have the usual crapstorm of talking points: there’s no global warming, there is global warming but it’s not our fault. even if there is global warming and it’s our fault we can’t do anything about it so we shouldn’t, blah blah blah…
Yeah, in the free-market proponents’ universe, CFC controls, tobacco controls, universal health care, etc. will cause worldwide poverty, and aggressive deregulation of the financial industry will result in mega-truckloads of wealth and a shiny new capitalist utopia for all. None of that happened.
Listen up you guys. I’m a marine biologist and I know what I’m talking about. We’re all gonna fry if the Man doesn’t get his act together and sort it out. The only things left after the Earth has warmed up and exploded will be ants man and they will develop antlers instead of antenae and won’t be able to feed themselves because their heads will be too heavy and they will die painfully. Oh God We must do somethings. Listen to Al Gore he’s an environmentalist too and knows what he is talking about. If you don’t believe him then you are a rich fascist and I don’t like people like you.
I’m a marine biologist and when I went to the islands of Tuvalu which everyone knows is sinking I fractured my neck when I dived into a puddle which I thought was a lake but i think maybe it dried up because of dangerous climate change. Listen to the guys man. Hilary Benn respect to the dude. I know his old man isnt hip but Hil is cool cos he says we’re all gonna die.
For Gods sake We gotta do something.
—-
Strawman sockpuppet.
Largely true.
Certainly an event like the Deccan floods would swamp anything we could do to change the planet’s atmosphere and climate.
And you’re right, we don’t “know” that our recent warming is caused by us. But we have known about greenhouse gasses since John Tyndall in 1859.
We know that it isn’t orbital variations (we should be slowly cooling), and we know that it isn’t the Sun.
In the absence of a better theory, human activity seems to fit the bill. Science isn’t about belief, it’s about evidence.
—-
You missed out “and anyway, it’s good for us”. 🙂
Now do I think that it’s probably not a good idea to pollute the planet?
Should we not be clear cutting trees and leaving forests bare? This one really kills me. Removing trees taht can convert CO2 is probably not a good idea. For every tree we cut down we should be planting 2 in it’s place.
—-
I am so tired of people that see every conflict and disagreement as racial.
—-
I like warm weather.
—-
What exactly IS the best climate for the earth?
http:// magus71.wordpress.com/
—-
The denialist talking point crapstorm continueth…
—-
And I forgot my Wellies 😉
Mike
It’s sad. When I was planning a family I was afraid that my kids and I would be wiped out in a nuclear holocaust. Now the writer is concerned that children born today may be desperately affected by climate change. I let it disturb and dismay me then, but chose to have kids anyway. Now I’m a grandparent.
It isn’t an ideal world – look at all the killing and hatred we are surrounded by. But we’re still here. And I suspect we still will be at the end of the century.
Why yeah, the only things you should need to worry about are
1. global cooling (oh noes!),
2. the Phantom Soviet Empire that’s everywhere and nowhere, and
3. Al Gore + Barack Hussein Obama trying to usher in a New World Order (oh noes!).
I get it. Don’t worry, unless the worry comes from a right-wing talking point, in which case you should worry a lot.
OK, so we have a self-proclaimed grandmother on this thread. Where’s Jack Lacton’s uncle when we need him?
I say we put frankbi’s ferret in the jungle and see how it does. We’ll give it a cage to protect it from the hoards of ANIMAL LIFE there.
Then, as part of the experiment, we’ll put it somewhere in Antarctica. We’ll give it a cage there too. There’ll probably be a 150 degree temp difference. In which climate do you think Mr. Ferret will flourish?
And Mike, you didn’t answer my question. Nobody really can. We of course know what the best temp probably isn’t, but put several scientists in different rooms and ask them the best temp question, and you’ll get a lot of different answers. [1]
I’m still willing to bet that if I make it 50 more years, we won’t all be at risk of extinction from global warming, and life will proabably be better for most people–just as it is now compared to 50 years prior. [2] But of course the true Believers will say disaster will strike in another 50 years, then 100, then 1000. Yes someday, we will indeed probably all die. But I think the decendants of Frank’s ferret may outlive us, because at least they know that more animals and people die from cold weather than warm–and that there’s nothing better than a tasty little animal to curb you appetite.
Hey Frank—your ferret loves meat,too.
Oh yeah, and frankie, I may be a denialist, but it’s still up to you to prove this point. Put a sweater on your ferret–they HATE the cold.
http:// magus71.wordpress.com/
—-
I dont quite understand the environmentalist push to stabilize the climate… I believe it is safe to say that even without human help, the global climate is in constant change. Evolution comes about from these needs to adapt to changing conditions. Necessity is the mother of invention and all. I’m not saying what humans do is good… but how can you tell regular climate change from human contribution? how can you quantify human endeavour so readily and have no absolute grading system for natural climate change?
—-
So you’re saying we should deliberately create a catastrophe, so that the human race can ‘adapt’ just to handle this catastrophe.
Is there a sort of catastrophe that only adversely affects denialist idiots? Now that is the kind of catastrophe the world needs.
i am asking what environmentalists think about the natural change of the earth…
by the way… i would appreciate being allowed to ask a question without being attacked like that. I may not know as much about this as you do… but I think answering my question takes less energy than fuming about ignorance I am admitting to having by asking a question in the first place…
No, you’re not.
well i am asking now then.. please answer that question, “what do environmentalists think about the natural change that the earth undergoes”
Then just ask the question without throwing in a bunch of dubious “facts”. You claim that catastrophes are good because the catastrophes will cause mankind to evolve to ‘adapt’ to them.
And pointing out this claim is an “attack”? Well, so be it then. Boo hoo.
“And pointing out this claim is an “attack”? Well, so be it then. Boo hoo.”
do i deserve to be talked to like an infant…. and you said catastrophe, not me…
and again, the question: “what do environmentalists think about the natural change that the earth undergoes?”
I already replied in my blog, but I’ll say the same thing here as well. From an analysis of temperature trends alone, you obviously can’t determine causation.
For causation, I’d suggest the following. First, there needs to be theoretical plausibility. This is clearly there: the greenhouse effect. Then you can check if the effect is measurable in nature. I’ve argued the effect is provable statistically using a detrended cross-correlation analysis on historical CO2 and temperature data. At this point we haven’t even made any assumptions about how it all works. We just know that there’s cause and effect.
Then you can get into the explanatory models, climate sensitivity and so on. The purpose of the models is to try to explain what has happened in the past as closely as possible, and to predict the future. (It’s kind of cool to find that they really do match reality – see my CO2-only 150-year temperature hindcast).
Very interesting aticle 🙂 Thanks 🙂
evolution requires change : x2 [1]
though don’t expect much from this fanatic narrowminded clique their beliefs are so ingrained logical questions only provoke knee jerk attacks
oh the humanity.
It’s as if science has only one theory; Newton was ridiculed too. It takes a strong mind to break from the crowd. [2]
Not many of those here. [3]
—-
They also laughed at Bozo the clown.
“what do environmentalists think about the natural change that the earth undergoes?”
And if you get an answer to that question of yours, what are you going to do with it? Let me guess: you’ll just ignore the answer and go on spewing your daily quota of inactivist talking points.
thanks for answering my quesion
can I please get an answer back….
“what do environmentalists think about the natural change that the earth undergoes?”
running tally :
Comebacks against me : 4
Answer to question : 0
—-
Well, I’m not an “environmentalist”, but any climate change that produces bad results is bad. Any climate change that produces good results is good.
But isn’t that obvious?
Now maybe you can tell us how catastrophes — um, I mean “changing conditions” — are good because mankind will evolve in response to these “changing conditions”.
Also, maybe you can tell us what you think of Greenfyre’s demonstration that global warming has “ended” several times in the last century or so. If there was no global warming in the first place, then why the talk about global warming “ending”?
So what’s the argument again? Climate changes, so there’s no problem?
Again:
“Your Honour, the evidence clearly shows that the defendant is guilty of murder.”
“But Your Honour, every day people die.”
Also, I wonder if dianna1808 will ever come back to this blog. I was intending to ask her more questions about her life and how it was like to live under the constant threat of a nuclear war.
Thank you Mike, I appreciate the links, they do explain a lot 🙂
—-
1. What is the end all of Believers? 2. What will indicate that humans have finally dealt with their tampering with the climate? 3. If climate change by humans is ended, what happens next? 4. The earth still changes climate naturally overtime, what happens then (assuming the scenario of human involvement in climate change is over)?
—-
We’re somewhat off-topic, but I can remember it well. It wasn’t nice.
For a while the tests just seemed to get bigger and bigger (e.g. the Tsar Bomba), and then the number of nuclear countries started increasing (China, India, Pakistan, Israel & South Africa). And then we had the Cuban Missile Crisis.
I was very young at the time, but of course that meant I was also highly impressionable. It really did scare me a lot.
At the same time we started to have serious environmental degradation. Cities in America and Europe were prone to “killer smogs”, and Scandinavian forests were dying from the emissions from UK chimney stacks (the UK was known as “the dirty man of Europe”, as we were still an industrial nation back then).
And, of course, we had wars or civil wars going on all over the world.
All in all, it was a depressing time.
I had decided that I didn’t want any children. I didn’t see any point in bringing more people into a world that was (in my eyes) clearly falling apart.
Eventually I was persuaded otherwise – my wife’s maternal instinct was more powerful than my personal feelings. 🙂
And I’m glad – I have two children that I love very dearly.
To try and bring this back to the topic – I’m not sure that there’s a good parallel between Climate Change and the Cold War.
The threat of a Nuclear War isn’t going away. Just think about North Korea and Iran. The science is out there, pretty much anyone (with enough money) could build a nuclear bomb if they wanted to, but if anyone exploded one then retaliation would be swift (assuming that the perpetrator could be identified).
Nuclear war will happen or it won’t.
Climate change is gradual and insidious, and real (as seen by the graph at the top of the page).
Just a stupid question here. If we are causing global warming, why is it that Mars, and Venus are warming up?
As far as I know there are no SUVs there.
Could it be the change in activity on the Sun?
—-
Klausrl: Mars has planet-darkening dust storms. Earth doesn’t. If solar irradiance is relatively constant (which it has been for at least 30 years! There’s even some evidence of a slight decline!), one would expect Mars to warm due to the sun and the Earth to not.
Please do not rehash old Denier talking points. Do some rudimentary looking first. Sample arguments that have long been debunked, plus links to the peer-reviewed scientific literature on the subject, can be found here.
Question: I just finished reading about the little Ice Age and the shutdown of the thermohaline cycle in the ocean and it got me thinking about our Roman ancestors. This may seem like a stupid question, but things got very cold for from 1300 to the early 19th century when Tambora blew it’s top. Things have been getting warmer ever since. Before the little Ica Age began there were vineyards in what is now Britain. Was the world hotter then than it is now? Are we still coming out of the little Ice Age?? Do we know what the world temperature was during Roman occupation of the British Isles?
—-
Good post Mike.
A bit of encouragement….the links you provide to counter the nonsense from deniers are great sources of education for me. It’s a curious thing…the more they deny…the more I learn…and it certainly isn’t anything from them.
I’ll leave you with a quote I stumbled across quite some time ago :
“It is difficult to convince a man of something when his paycheck depends on his not understanding it.”—Upton Sinclair
—-
Mars, Venus, and the Earth (along with all the other planets) have elliptical orbits. This means that at some point during their orbit they are closer to the Sun than at other points.
In our case, perihelion (our closest approach to the Sun) happens at about January 3rd, This results in a global warming of about 0.1 degrees Celcius, compared with aphelion (about the 4th July).
Astronomy happens to be one of my hobbies. If Klausrl (or anyone else) would like to point me to a paper showing how any of the planets temperatures have changed with time then I’ll gladly look at the changes in terms of it’s orbit.
I’ll echo Brian D’s comment – solar insolation has marginally declined in the last three solar cycles, but nine of the ten warmest years on record happened in Cycle 23.
—-
Andrew: There are vinyards in England today. That should be cause enough to be skeptical of any claim that points to historical English grape-growing as remarkable. It makes for a good narrative but doesn’t hold up under scrutiny (just like its partner myth, that “Greenland used to be green!” — in truth, it was a PR stunt by Eric the Red. It did grow colder later, but it wasn’t ever green when it was named.)
We can piece together how warm things were through the use of proxy data. This is a very complex field (it’s called “paleoclimate”), but the basic idea is to look at things that leave records over long periods of time that are themselves sensitive to what you’re looking at. These can then be weighted and integrated to give a picture of how temperatures changed over a large area over an extended period of time. (Details on this process can be found at Open Mind; just search for “PCA”, which stands for “principal components analysis”, the technique used here. It’s about four posts long.)
This was covered in the IPCC AR4, and it looks like this. More recent papers have weeded out some of the problems (most notably the use of bristlecone pine tree rings as proxies), but the general conclusion is the same — the modern warming is rapid and beyond natural variability. Even the “Medieval Warm Period” wasn’t warmer than recent temperatures, and the rise into that period was much more gradual.
For a longer look at the range of temperatures, see here and here. Note that they’re on dramatically different horizontal scales, and the first one’s going *backwards*. Pay attention to the vertical scales; they *are* on the same axis. If it helps you line things up, the spike on the second labelled “Younger Dryas” can be seen on the first graph. The take-home summary is that *all* of human civilization occurred in a very narrow temperature band, and the current science predicts we’ll dramatically overshoot that, potentially to temperatures hotter than we’ve seen in the last hundred thousand years. What do you think that’d do to agriculture and water distribution? And the consequences of that resource starvation on a highly-populated world?
For more on the “We’re just coming out of the Little Ice Age” meme, see the links to the right, under “Debunking Nonsense”; several address this claim directly and provide links to the relevant science. For more on the potential consequences of climate change, you can go off the deep end with official reports like this (the online and print versions cover different material) and this, or you could start with a lay-audience version of similar material (I’d recommend Climate Wars, by Gwynne Dyer, for this purpose).
Andrew,
I’m growing grapes at 57.7N (North East Scotland).
Admittedly, they’re under glass, but I’m also growing tomatoes in the open.
The Romans didn’t have greenhouses, and they turned back when they looked at Scotland and built Hadrian’s Wall instead.
The big problem is that the Romans didn’t have thermometers. Even if they had, it wouldn’t be conclusive since the “Empire” only spanned part of Europe, not the entire planet.
The only thing we’ve got for that period is proxy data, and that indicates that we’re warmer now than we have been for at least 1,300 years.
Sorry, Brian D – I didn’t see your reply before I posted mine.
But it would seem that we agree.
S2:
Interesting and scary period indeed. Anyone should be alarmed…
Quite true… as you mention, a nuclear war may be possible, but AGW is already happening.[1]
—-
I do see a possible Cold War parallel, but it only shows up if you adopt the perspective of an American capitalist with experience in both elements. It involves noticing that the environmentalists in a capitalist society are calling for a change in business as usual, a slowdown of industry. In the Cold War, this would have resulted in a tactical advantage for the communists and thus, in the mind of our American capitalist, the environmentalists were anti-American and should be ignored as business-as-usual goes on. This escalated the scale of the potential threat (i.e. nuclear war) almost in a feedback loop. (This analogy can be extended to climate, too — what with permafrost and arctic sea ice the way they are, we’re practically on the Cuban Missile Crisis of climate change, although it’s harder to think in climate-relevant timescales than calendar dates.)
The differences between the two conflicts are severe — namely, the threat isn’t externalized (that is, it’s not “those other guys”, but rather “brought about by me”) and the empirical evidence has essentially switched sides — but the thinking persists. I mean, look at Frank’s meticulous documentation of the enviro-as-communist meme, which seems to have originated during that era and promoted by folk who seem to still think they’re fighting that battle.
As a thought experiment, think of what form this debate would be taking had the Cold War ended with the demise of capitalism. (I know, I know, this didn’t and wasn’t likely to happen, and though I’m on the left I’m no communist, but that’s why this is just a thought experiment). Under such a scenario, state policy would likely have continued industrialization, potentially leading to a similar climate crisis. Would the state deny science in an effort to defend its foundational assumptions, and if so how would the strength of that denial be compared to the capitalists of today shouting that the free market can handle the problem that isn’t happening?
evolution requires change,
Don’t be too upset with franki’s attack. It’s just the way he and his ferret are.
My use of the term “best for the earth” implies, at least for non-environazis [1]–“necessary for humanity”. The arguments that local conditions don’t matter when it comes to glabal warming is a not true. Locality always matters. People live locally, not globally. [2]
franki, as far as evolution’s statement about the earth naturally evolving, you have assumed this will be a catastrophy, as you put it. The burden is on you to prove that we’re all gonna die in a fiery hell-storm. [3] You haven’t done it and neither has anyone else. You want us to fly in a plane on which you’ve only shown me one wing. And guess what–in 50 years we’ll still be here.
http:// magus71.wordpress.com/
—-
So much for all the complaining about being called “deniers”.
Good post. I have added you to the blogroll over at Globalisation and the environment and done a brief review post.
http://globalisation-and-the-environment.blogspot.com/2008/12/greenfyres-dubunking-climate-change.html
—-
[…] Global Warming is over! once every decade or so … It’s true, just like the Deniers say, Global Warming is over … again, and again, and again. Not as often as […] […]
Wow.
I see that this discussion of climate crisis challenges us not only to critically relate theory to action, but also to think morally.
I think I am seeing a fundamental absence of relatedness among those who deny the reality and responsibilities of human-caused climate change. This absence is also present in the tone of discussion.
Of course, most important social changes are not won by individual conversions or positive relationship-building with those who most need to change. That’s not to say that these things don’t happen, or that it’s not an important part of the process at some point: but early on , it’s just not there. We can consider one specific example. The feminist movement did not effect social change via individual conversions in the hearts of men (sorry, guys): gains were made by the collective struggle of women.
We know material resources are limited. With or without the climate crisis, resources for the near future are already insufficient. Any current economic perspective will say this, so it is neither new nor radical.
In other words, in addition to all the outcomes of climate change accurately identified by GreenFyre, we had already arrived at the problem of insufficient resources and already need to address questions about equality and responsibility and sustainability, in a finite world.
The real problem at this point really has nothing to do with questions regarding the science: there are some and I’m finding these questions very interesting, but they do not alter the basic facts.
The problem is that individuals raised in a society that values materialism and individualism over all else, really don’t have any experience that helps them reflect on questions about what we should do.
—-
Ok I stand corrected, the Sun has no effect of temperature, Thanks Guys.
—-
Ya got to make it real simple for me, like last year when solar flare were going nuts, and now nothing.
Well just seems like that could be having some effect on things.
But I’ll leave it to the brains, and get back to work now.
—-
Nothing personal, I really would like to know these thing, but If my question is too stupid for you to deal with, I understand.
—-
Oh, quit it with the fake persecution, Klaus.
It’s a false dilemma, thinking that temperature must be entirely due to the sun or not at all. If you’d look at the science, summarized in the IPCC reports, you’d see that it’s a mixture of assorted forcings. Solar forcing does not account for the rise in temperatures we’ve seen for at least 30 years.
No one except Deniers who throw up straw men claim the scientists ignore the sun. In fact, it’s precisely because the sun tracks so well with temperatures for so long that the sharp, sudden break from the trend around 1975ish cannot be due to the sun.
(By the way, last year’s solar activity was normal (i.e. low and decreasing, as expected at the end of a solar cycle). I don’t know what you’re basing your “flares going nuts” claim on — especially since the meme at the time was that since the solar cycle was low, we’d be going into an ice age, which is of course erroneous.)
Mike: Thanks for your comments. This subject is very confusing for those of us that can’t give it our lives. There is much information in conflict.
I will attempt to look closer at the subject, even if some people (not you) seem intent on putting down anyone that’s not a believer yet.
Sort of like trying to sort out religion. I got the “it’s true because it’s in the book” line, and finally walked away from the whole thing.
Thanks from a kind of “nut & bolts” guy.
—-
I’d like to know where my “childish Straw Man” is.
What will it take for you to change your mind on this whole global warming farce? [1]
The hair-splitting analysis is ridiculous. The inductive reasoning required in the Global Meltdown scenario would have David Hume pulling his wig off. Nobody can claim to have enough experience to really know what is going to happen, but so far there’s simply no evidenc of a catastrophic occurance about to boil all of humanity from the face of the earth. [2]
Now, when things start to cool off, your response is: “We knew that was going to happen. It’s happened all through history.” [3]
Yeah.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/03/global_warming_swindle.html [4]
http://www.freemarketproject.org/articles/2008/20080725183719.aspx [5]
http://www.boston.com/news/science/articles/2006/08/30/mits_inconvenient_scientist/ [6]
Need I say more?
http:// magus71.wordpress.com/
—-
“…just as the woman’s movement began with various support and self-education groups, I think we first need to do the basic education, at least as part of building resistance.”
Yes, and part of what the women’s movement was good at was creating space for learning, and for budding activists. Brian D please consider an apology to klausrl.
In terms of a discussion of the women’s movement and the environmental movement, there are some differences worth noting:
1) The women’s movement has relied on the authority of our experiences as women. We are the experts on it.
2) The personal is the political. We have an analysis that is able to be concrete and find meaning in our immediate experience, but is also connected to the broader context and the social roots of the problem.
3) We are losing not gaining ground, and have not successfully maintained some important gains.
However, my brothers, some issues call for a struggle over ideas, others call for unity, and climate change is the latter.
Each one teach one 🙂
—-
Again, not meaning to beat a dead theory but:
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2008/12/07/skepticism_on_climate_change/
http:// magus71.wordpress.com/
—-
I agree I was out of line with the ‘false persecution’ claim. I withdraw that from my earlier post. I still stand by the rest of it, although it may come out blunter than anticipated. (As I’ve said before, my tact filter is firmly pointed inward.)
—-
Brian D:
Cool. 🙂
Mike,
My point was not about the Heartland Institute; it was to point out that you and your ilk are trying to monopolize truth.[1] There can be no dissent, else you be labeled a Denier– like a Holocaust Denier. Is THAT what you’re implying, Mike? [2]
There are many experts who disagree. i’m no expert, but I’m pretty good at sniffing out ideological mumbo-jumbo. I also know there’s enough questions out there from real scientists as to the truth about Global Warming.
So, I completely support your right to eat only organic, drive only hybrid, never read the Bible, and avoid fluoride, [3] but your bad science [4] ends where my genetically-altered, gas-guzzling, Bible-thumping, tap-water-drinking rear end inhabits space and time.
http:// magus71.wordpress.com/
—-
Magus, how many times do we have to say it: The label “Denier” does NOT stem from your conclusions, only your actions. If we were to defend climate science by screaming persecution by corporate conspiracies, list off weathermen or gardeners as our experts of choice, shift the goalposts when asking for counterevidence, and defend ourselves with logical fallacies, we’d be in exactly the same camp as those labeled Deniers, even though the conclusions are totally different.
I don’t know about you, but in Canada, the term “Denier” doesn’t automatically link to the Holocaust. The more common term is “Denialist”, as in one who engages in denialism. It’s usually qualified (i.e. “DDT denialist”, “evolution denialist”), but it’s understood to refer to people who give skepticism a bad name. In nearly every case, a denialist has reached a conclusion *before* looking at the evidence for whatever he’s denying, usually ideologically-inspired (many evolution denialists are Young Earth Creationists, for instance), and make little if no effort to educate themselves on the truth of what the evidence actually says (case in point with evolution again, but try asking any evolution denialist what evolution actually says. Many will confuse it with abiogenesis or even the Big Bang, which the theory of course says nothing about, describing the diversity of life, not its origins. This is possibly because their ideology has framed the problem as Evolution Versus God, therefore in their mind evolution must fit the same role God fits to them, therefore it must explain the origin of creation. Red Alert, Critical Reasoning Error!).
(Example in climate change denialism: Look through the comment threads here and see how many of the folk opposed to action seem to think that climate science says that temperature is solely dependent on carbon dioxide and not at all dependent on the sun, or that each year must be hotter than the last regardless of ENSO. The science says nothing of the sort, but they still cling to that.)
In your case, you mention “many experts” and “questions from real scientists” without ever mentioning a single one of them or providing a link to substantiate your claims. Mind if I ask who, and what peer-reviewed literature they’ve published that supports your point?
For the record, I oppose the current methods used to certify something organic (essentially it’s paying more for less yield of less nutritious food), do not oppose genetic modification (I oppose Monsanto’s corporate practices, but that’s not the same), couldn’t care less about flouride, and I’ve read the Bible cover-to-cover (which is probably the primary reason why I’m not a Christian). Pretty much the only part of your stereotype that fits me is the “hybrid” part, and even that’s off (I ride a bicycle everywhere I need to go). I also have friends who are incredibly conservative, Evangelical, pro-business, cornucopian (i.e. soon to be known as “peak oil deniers”) and anti-government… who see the proposed changes as good, due to the decreased dependence on foreign fuel and the incredible business opportunities that are forming as part of the green movement. Your point being?
Forgive me if I don’t accept your “ideological mumbo-jumbo” detector as a legitimate means of judging what is “bad science”. I’m reasonably certain that’s the same method that known shill, scammer, and professional denialist Steve Milloy uses, but it doesn’t share the same end of time and space as the scientific method.
—-
Brian, really. Please don’t argue that the word Denier is not meant to be derogatory, only descriptive. You know better.
“The label “Denier” does NOT stem from your conclusions, only your actions.” What actions? [1]
Here’s a quote from frankbi, on this string: “So you’re saying we should deliberately create a catastrophe, so that the human race can ‘adapt’ just to handle this catastrophe.
Is there a sort of catastrophe that only adversely affects denialist idiots? Now that is the kind of catastrophe the world needs.”
THAT’s what I mean…. Denialist idiots. OK. [2]
Read some of th elinks I posted. There ARE names of scientists there. Are you implying that no real scientists dispute what’s being produced here? [3]
And again, it has nothing to do with whether you accept my mumbo-jumbo detector; it has everything to do with the trillions of dollars people who believe this stuff want to spend, the huge amounts of pressure they want to place on all “evil” industry–all based of VERY debatable evidence. [4]
And since I have only a passing interest in this issue, but a severe interest in truth, [5] I’ll let someone who IS an expert and who is also a denier do some talking for me: http: //agw-heretic.blogspot.com/ [6]
http:// magus71.wordpress.com/
—-
Mike,
6) “I have degrees in computer science and meteorology, which instantly makes my opinions on global climate change more credible than those of Al Gore. Just a thought.”
Those are his reported credentials. Jus’ sayin’.
magus “Denier” 71
http:// magus71.wordpress.com/
—-
Gore’s Law: As an online climate change debate grows longer, the probability that denier arguments will descend into attacks on Al Gore approaches one.
Your ‘expert’ manages it on his about page. What does that tell you about his understanding of the problem?
—-
Has anyone else noticed that the rise in worldwide temperature roughly follows the increase in computing capacity? What if the cause is all the electrical consumption from PCs?
Jaybird: Cum hoc, ergo propter hoc. By what mechanism do you suggest the two are related? Without that mechanism, I could simply reference this long-established and respectable study as contrary evidence.
That said, given how most electricity production worldwide stems from burning fossil fuels (source: International Energy Agency), there’s a chance there’s at least a physically justified correlation between computer power and temperature. It’s just nowhere near as strong as including all greenhouse gasses from all sources, and mixing them with other known forcings (such as the sun), which is what the IPCC does.
magus71: re. “ends where my genetically-altered, gas-guzzling, Bible-thumping, tap-water-drinking rear end inhabits space and time”.
There’s nothing like a visual to reinforce a point.
I appreciate a number of your concerns, but it really is very important to recognize the limits of consumption and to re-vision things. We are already dealing with climate shocks and serious sustainability issues. The expansionist practices of the West have created a completely unwieldy international economic framework. Sound familiar? Think Roman Empire, minus climate crisis. Had they understood and responded appropriately to the limits on their resources, things might have gone a little better, my friend.
Brian’s discussion of ‘denialist’ is worth pondering. It’s used by some progressives in relation to an analysis of well-oiled reactionary propaganda of various sorts; but I like ‘denier’ to describe your refusal to accept the truth, because it suggest the personal behaviours (e.g. blaming others, emotionally-charged rants, tangential points) and conceit that generally accompanies an episode of denial.
Unlike Brian, I don’t make any distinction between your conclusions and your actions. If you aren’t doing anything about the problem and are spending time denying, then I think it’s fair to say you are choosing not to change and creating obstacles to change for others.
You are correct, magus71: ‘denier’ is a pejorative description. It is often necessary, in life, to make judgments.
Martha, Martha, Martha,
I’m sure you, being a Progessive (Progethhhive) [1] would agree that your truth is not always my truth.
You see, I’m not appologizing for my words here. Others were shamed into feeling bad for disagreeing with the others posting, who called them bad names. I like bad names.
And as most Progrethhhives, you don’t have much of a sense of humor. My, “blaming others, emotionally-charged rants, tangential points” has been just that; hyperbolic humor to make a point.
And oh boy–here we go with the Roman Empire comparisons again. I used to buy into that, because in many way the US resembles the Roman Empire (Read: Pax Americana). However, if we are to go that route, we have about a thousand years left. [2] Well, depends on how you look at it (just like global warming). The Western empire falling around 476 when Germanic tribes sacked the city, Eastern falling in 1453 to the Ottomans.
I digress.
But Martha–don’t judge me: I live in Europe, use public transportation, and am an environmentalist. That is, I want my children to have clean water, healthy food etc.
We’re NOt gonna die from global warming. Promise. [3]
http:// magus71.wordpress.com/
—-
http://aphilosopher.wordpress.com/2007/05/03/global-warming-denial/ [1]
Like he says, both sides have good points. He thinks we’re responsible for the warming.
I’m not sure, and I’m not sure that the change predicted would have cataclysmic results. [2]
Uncle.
http:/ /magus71.wordpress.com/
—-
“It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe of scientists who don’t buy into anthropogenic global warming.”
— U.S Government Atmospheric Scientist Stanley B. Goldenberg of the Hurricane Research Division of NOAA.
“Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly. … As a scientist I remain skeptical.”
— Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, the first woman in the world to receive a PhD in meteorology and formerly of NASA who has authored more than 190 studies and has been called “among the most preeminent scientists of the last 100 years.”
Warming fears are the “worst scientific scandal in the history. … When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.”
— UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist.
“The [global warming] scaremongering has its justification in the fact that it is something that generates funds.”
— Award-winning Paleontologist Dr. Eduardo Tonni, of the Committee for Scientific Research in Buenos Aires and head of the Paleontology Department at the University of La Plata.
“CO2 emissions make absolutely no difference one way or another. … Every scientist knows this, but it doesn’t pay to say so. … Global warming, as a political vehicle, keeps Europeans in the driver’s seat and developing nations walking barefoot.”
— Dr. Takeda Kunihiko, vice-chancellor of the Institute of Science and Technology Research at Chubu University in Japan.
“For how many years must the planet cool before we begin to understand that the planet is not warming? For how many years must cooling go on?”
— Geologist Dr. David Gee the chairman of the science committee of the 2008 International Geological Congress who has authored 130 plus peer reviewed papers, and is currently at Uppsala University in Sweden.
“Many [scientists] are now searching for a way to back out quietly [from promoting warming fears], without having their professional careers ruined.”
— Atmospheric physicist James A. Peden, formerly of the Space Research and Coordination Center in Pittsburgh.
“Creating an ideology pegged to carbon dioxide is a dangerous nonsense. … The present alarm on climate change is an instrument of social control, a pretext for major businesses and political battle. It became an ideology, which is concerning.”
— Environmental Scientist Professor Delgado Domingos of Portugal, the founder of the Numerical Weather Forecast group, has more than 150 published article
and…http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=595F6F41-802A-23AD-4BC4-B364B623ADA3
Sorry folks, but it’s just not looking good. I’m headed off to conjure up some more emotional arguments.
http:// magus71.wordpress.com/
—-
Magus, you posted this after Mike began addressing it. Please focus on topic (and see my reply there.)
Magus71, let’s quote your comments to me, above:
Actually, let’s not.
Look, my brother. Such blatant sexism is not our topic, here, so I wont address it with you — except to say that I can’t help but wonder if it is part of the trouble.
Regarding the topic at hand., thanks for the link you provide to a philosophy site that comments on climate change. Since I have an M.A. in philosophy, let me tell you what it says.
It doesn’t say that both sides have good points: it says that the quality of the evidence and reasoning suggests that those who claim human-caused climate change is real are the ones with the good points. The site demonstrates a classically philosophical openness to argumentation; but cautions that there are good opinions and bad opinions, so any opinion won’t do.
Your opinion is bad. It is not bad because it is different from my own: it is bad because it demonstrates very little consideration of (quality) evidence and a very inadequate understanding of the concepts and arguments that frame the discussion.
I am sure you know about and understand lots of things.
Bad news, my brother: equality with women, philosophy, and climate science do not seem to be on your list of strengths. 😦
Martha,
The scientists that I’ve quoted know more about climate change than you and I combined. They all disagree with you. [1]
Maybe you’re the denier….
And I have no idea what you are talking about when you say “equality with women.” What exactly are you referring to that stems from this whole conversation? [2]
And my opinion is not bad. it’s in line with many scientists. [3] The ones you don’t read about because they don’t see things the way you do–because YOU’RE the idealogue. This is part of the whole Progethhhhhhive ethos. And to admit you may be wrong would cause what I like to call a “ideology quake”. That is–you’d have to rethink everything you believe, and that’s very difficult for anyone. [4]
My friend (Dr. Labossiere) whom I’ve known for 17 years admits that he thinks humans are in part responsible for temp. increase. He also has stated to me (in face to face conversations) that the commonly held belief may be wrong, that there is supportive evidence for opposite beliefs. [5] The truth is not yet clear. And that’s the position I hold.
Just because I refuse to drink your grape Kool-Aid doesn’t mean my opinions are bad. [6]
http:// magus71.wordpress.com/
—-
Magus 71
Of course there is debate about facts and their relation to theory. Moreover, some view theory as impartial, and others see it as a crucial part of struggles to change things for the better.
But we need an understanding of things that is realistic in the context of the world around us. Those of us who examine scientific opinion and theory in relation to the history of science and the current state of interests, culture, and knowledge, are very interested in these questions – and I encourage you to continue your reading and critical reflection on these matters.
Theory helps us explain things. Analysis is involved when causal questions cannot be answered by observations and information, alone. It requires us to have a grasp of theories. Theory is at work in our everyday lives, all the time, from the time we get up and make breakfast to the time we turn off a light for bed. It is the main influence on how we perceive reality.
Of course, a vision of the future is always done from some point of view, just as a look at the past is interpreted from some point of view.
I feel we must become conscious of the ways the past has shaped us, in order to shape the future. Theory helps us explain the world, and it helps us envision the future. But we need an understanding of things that is realistic, in the context of the world around us. Analysis is involved in this.
The story of how we came here, and the story of where we go next, is a matter of perspective. You’re right, there, if that’s your point. However, as your philosopher friend clearly states, the current evidence and reasoning (theory) does not leave much room for the sort of position you are holding on climate change. You point out that it may not be happening; but that explanation does not fit the current events or analysis (i.e., scientific, cultural, historical, economic, and political) very well.
Feel free to maintain an unreflective and myopic view.
You have one less person who is listening.
Has anyone else noticed that the rise in EDIT [spam comment postings?]
—-
Hi Mike
Might be time to come up with some real world steps to take.
Still not sure about all the facts, but you will get more people on board with step they can take.
It seems to many of the general population, that the end result is to send a few people lots of money, then they will take care of it.
There is common ground in what your doing, and things that would help persons like me even if your ideas turn out to be in error.
Many people in the global warming fold, are letting prefect stop good. That is to say there are little things we could be doing now that help even if your wrong, lets start with those.
For example. If I could reduce the fuel use on my truck, that would save me cash, and the truck would not be “green” but greener. It’s not practical for the Freightliner to be solar or wind powered at this point, but if someone has an idea as to how to make it a little better, I’m listening.
I guess what I’m looking for here, is someone to act as a conduit, between the theory people, and the nuts and bolts people.
Just a thought. There are a lot of tinkers out here that are ready to take and idea and try it. Lets just not fall into the trap of waiting for the world government to solve everything. If you have practical ideas, share them, and us nuts and bolts types will fiddle with them.
Best regards
—-
Anybody?
Warming and cold period have happened many years before there were any SUVs,factories,jets planes or even before there was any progress its happened in the past today we just have a bunch of scandal mongers in the media and the various eco-freak groups as well as liberal politicians like rich spoiled brats like AL GORE and nit wits like DAVID SUZUKI
—-
Well, as I’ve mentioned before, and Brian D put succintly:
Mad Bluebird
Is it fair to say that you believe that you must defend citizens and government from infiltration by threats to free-enterprise?
You know, it’s hard to talk with someone who is avoidant of basic realities, such as the end of peak oil (it’s non-renewable, you know) and the effects of human activity over time.
Do you believe that people who rely on the ocean and have experienced and observed the devastating impact of human activity on oceanlife, are liars?
Do you believe that people who rely on the land and have experienced and observed significant changes with unprecedented speed, are liars?
The science is supported by the experience of people who know and undestand nature.
I encourage you to be more aware.
[…] But I’d like to direct you to Greenfyre’s, which Alexa suggests folks aren’t reading (yet). I was first taken by the blog of biologist Mike Kaulbars when I saw the post “Global Warming is… […]
[…] exist! [yes, I’m joking. But this is how the political right "thinks", when they bother.] Greenfyre points out: “As any fool can see climate change ended at least 15 times in the last 150 […]
[…] their last desperation argument. According to deniers, we get global cooling once every decade. https://greenfyre.wordpress.com/2008/12/0… Nice links by the way. Although when I click them, it registers 1,292 record highs and 642 record […]
[…] the recent spade of ‘global warming is over’ articles over the past few months I figured this article by Greenfyre is particularly […]
[…] reading (yet). I was first taken by the blog of biologist Mike Kaulbars when I saw the post “Global Warming is over! once every decade or so …” which had this great […]
nice blog and have lots of stuff here……
http://www.envrionment.blogspot.com
[…] every peak year is followed by a slightly cooler period “Global Warming is over! once every decade or so …“ […]
I didn’t have time to read through all the comments so I’m sorry if I’m repeating someone.
1) I don’t like this term ‘denier’, [1] Despite your links, it is clearly designed to subtly push connotations of Holocaust denial [2] i.e. to distinguish the good guys and bad guys.
2) Am I right in thinking that your source for this particular article is the home of Climate Gate? Is [3]
3) Just a thought it might make easier reading to place the source credit directly under the image?
There’s a whole handful of peer reviewed literature to show us that the MWP exceeded current temperatures by along way. [4] WE may now just be experiencing a lull in a longer period of warming but that, really, tells us nothing about the causes of the warming. Using Occam’s Razor and the total lack of evidence that co2 drives climate, it would appear to be natural causes. [5]
—-
Steady on old boy, can’t we debate a scientific issue without personal attacks?
1) I don’t think it is accurate in pragmatic or moral terms. ‘Pragmatic’ because ‘denier’ implies someone answering a charge or refusing to accept strong evidence. You and I both know the climate change evidence is not settled, and the onus of proving a charge is on those making the claim. Moreover, I don’t “deny climate change”, I am sceptical of the idea that it is changing **due to human activity**.
And morally, it is another case of the left wing devising terminology that is designed to demonise the opposition rather than defeat them with evidence. In this case, it’s a subtle attempt to associate us with Holocaust Denial, which is disgusting. Your reply to the previous poster on this issue was a total non-sequitar.
2) But why use a source that has been discredited and exposed as using ‘fudge factors’ in their own programming comments?
3) Actually this was a good natured suggestion on making your blog a little more readable. I get feedback on my blog and thank the person who gave it.
4) I’m working on the ‘Occam’s Razor’ basis that the Earth could be in a cycle of warming as a balancing mechanism following the MWP and LIA. My source of data showing the long term cycle is the publication:
Craig Idso and S. Fred Singer, Climate Change Reconsidered: 2009 Report of the
Nongovernmental Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC), Chicago, IL: The Heartland Institute, 2009.
The chapter in question is chapter 2, and the authors cite their own sources at the end.
5) Your reply is not logical. I’m not disputing the Greenhouse Effect, I sceptical of claims that co2 is driving climate, given the total lack of evince that it has done so in the past. To argue that I deny the GE because of my view here is to suggest that it’s established that there is no other balancing or feedback mechanism to he co2 that enters the troposphere.
I’m not a scientist and I’m new to the real in-depth discussions of global warming. I appreciate you can address visitors to your own blog as you wish, but It would be useful to me and probably other readers if you could communicate a little less aggressively and more scientifically.
[…] Greenfyre’s: Global Warming is over! once every decade or so… […]
…and two years later, it’s getting worse and worse, and nobody is talking about it any more. Can’t believe it. Really sad.
[…] the recent spade of ‘global warming is over’ articles over the past few months I figured this article by Greenfyre is particularly […]