Global warming and politics

[kevm14]

Skip to 2:10 here and start.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4cxdzm2fnA4

"Global warming" on other planets in our solar system. Because of sun activity. And also because climates change even on planets we don't inhabit.

[kevm14]

Weather Channel Founder wants to sue Al Gore for fraud.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6l1Cp3MYCQ

I should research where this went. Probably nowhere.

[kevm14]

45 minute interview with Dr. Patrick Moore, PHD in Ecology.

Wiki page on the guy:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_M ... mentalist)

Patrick Moore (born 1947) is a Canadian activist, and former president of Greenpeace Canada. Since leaving Greenpeace, Moore has criticized the environmental movement for what he sees as scare tactics and disinformation, saying that the environmental movement "abandoned science and logic in favor of emotion and sensationalism."[4]

And with that intro, here is the interview:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZDK1aCqqZkQ

[kevm14]

And with that intro, here is the interview:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZDK1aCqqZkQ

Good stuff particularly at 28:15.

You will find that nearly all that do believe it's catastrophic are publicly funded. The private sector would never fund this kind of crap./quote]

You can believe it's natural. You can believe it's partly man-made. Or you can believe it's fully man-made. But that doesn't mean it's catastrophic.

But it has warmed - that's a different issue. Whether it is good or not is another question. And whether it is man-made or not is another question. These are other questions. Some people just wrap that whole thing up into one big ball and say 'humans are causing catastrophic climate change and it's proven' but none of those other steps are actually proven.

The IPCC has discarded the hockey stick graph. The reputable scientists that are on the side of human caused climate change, because they're employed by the IPCC whose only mandate is to look at human caused climate change, and so if the IPCC said it isn't caused by humans, that would be self-abolition, so they are inherently conflicted by their own mandate - that's the worst problem with this at the international level.

EDIT:

Tornados are down. Hurricanes are down. Drought is down. Flooding is down. Worldwide.

Today the US has the lowest level of drought, 7.4% then since they started the drought index.

[kevm14]

What I have learned so far:
- CO2 is a pretty damn weak greenhouse gas
- Higher CO2 PPM in the air would actually be better for agriculture, forests, plants, etc.
- Warmer is generally better for mankind - we do not thrive when everything freezes over.
- Warmer climate generally brings wetter weather, which is the opposite of drought.
- It's the sun. Much stronger correlation between sunshine and the temperature curve than there is between CO2 and the temperature curve.
- This is probably because CO2 generally follows temperature - simple gas law, warmer temps release CO2 from oceans, for example.
- Temperatures haven't risen for the past ~18 years, and we have passed several apocalyptic predictions in that time. Why would you believe anything more they have to say?

[kevm14]

The Great Global Warming Swindle

Originally broadcasted March 8, 2007 on British Channel 4.

A documentary, by British television producer Martin Durkin, which argues against the virtually unchallenged consensus that global warming is man-made. A statement from the makers of this film asserts that the scientific theory of anthropogenic global warming could very well be "the biggest scam of modern times."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52Mx0_8YEtg

Wow, surprised the BBC let this air. Good for them.

[kevm14]

20 page paper entitled: Climate Consensus and ‘Misinformation’: A Rejoinder to Agnotology, Scientific Consensus, and the Teaching and Learning of Climate Change

http://www.climaterealists.org.nz/sites ... 5B1%5D.pdf

Bedford and Cook (2013), in agreement with Bedford (2010), outline their position as follows:
(1) There is an overwhelming consensus within the scientific community [that] …the Earth’s global average temperature is increasing, and human emissions of greenhouse gases, especially carbon dioxide, are the main cause (p. 2020),
(2) Despite this very strong consensus, the general public, especially in the United States of America, perceives substantial disagreement among scientists on these fundamentals (p. 2020),
(3) A campaign of obfuscation regarding climate change science has been undertaken since the late 1980s, funded in part by the fossil fuels industry (p. 2020), and
(4) A careful examination of the claims made in popular literature or films regarding human-induced climate change could be a useful critical thinking exercise and test of content knowledge for students (pp. 2020–2021).

The climate consensus in (1) is the standard definition—which, significantly, does not explicitly encompass the notion that any policy action should be taken to mitigate our influence on the climate. However, the literature does not evidence a ‘‘very strong’’ consensus as defined by (2). There is, however, general agreement among scientists that there is a greenhouse effect; that our emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases enhance it; and that some consequent warming may be expected. The general public correctly perceives these basic climatological tenets, which are tenets not because there is a consensus about them but because they have been demonstrated by measurement and experiment

If the definition of agnotology is accepted, then a priori either faction in a polarized scientific debate may be guilty of circulating misinformation calculated to obfuscate or to mislead. Just as the fossil fuel industry has a vested interest in questioning whether consensus stands part of the scientific method, whether there is a consensus, and whether— even if there were a consensus—there are more cost-effective methods to mitigate global warming today than to adapt to any net-adverse consequences tomorrow, so too do the environmental lobby and large sections of the academic community have a vested interest in maintaining that argument from consensus is scientific, that there is an overwhelming consensus, and that we must act to mitigate climate change regardless of the cost. These considerations underpin the original concern of Legates et al. (2013) that agnotology has the strong potential for misuse whereby a ‘manufactured’ consensus view can be used to stifle discussion, debate, and critical thinking.

2 Climate or Climate Change?
Climatology is the study of the climate of the Earth—its causes, interactions, variability, and feedbacks. It is subdivided into a number of major areas of study (Landsberg and Oliver (2005) including physical climatology (mass or energy exchanges at the Earth’s surface), dynamic and synoptic climatology (atmospheric motion and its concomitant thermodynamics), regional climatology (why climate varies over space), and applied climatology (use of climate science to solve agricultural, transportation, and design issues, for example). Climate change transcends all four of these subdivisions in that virtually all climatologists agree that climate is never stationary; but rather, is in a constant state of change on time-scales ranging from hours to eons.

Unfortunately, more time is spent in teaching about climate change than about the Earth’s climate. Students are taught as early as the first grade that carbon dioxide causes temperatures to rise; so much emphasis is put on the transfer of energy by electromagnetic radiation that students are often unaware that more energy is transferred to the atmosphere by latent heat than by longwave radiation. The effect of failing to teach climate science is that climate merely becomes average weather and climate change is the dynamics of how carbon dioxide will change this average or normal condition. Moreover, it also leads to a misunderstanding— whether innocent or intentional—of how questions are viewed by scientists and other respondents. The question ‘‘Do you believe in climate change?’’ for example, can yield a biased picture if the scientist uses the strict scientific definition of climate change while the questioner often views ‘climate change’ as being synonymous with ‘anthropogenic global warming.’

That last quote is worth a close read.

[kevm14]

The Great Global Warming Swindle

Originally broadcasted March 8, 2007 on British Channel 4.

A documentary, by British television producer Martin Durkin, which argues against the virtually unchallenged consensus that global warming is man-made. A statement from the makers of this film asserts that the scientific theory of anthropogenic global warming could very well be "the biggest scam of modern times."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52Mx0_8YEtg

Wow, surprised the BBC let this air. Good for them.

Watching now. This is going to be good.

[kevm14]

Point 1 (starting around 17 minutes): using weather balloon data and satellite data we can see that the troposphere is not warm as we would expect if the greenhouse effect were responsible for the slight warming since 1940

Point 2 (around 22 minutes): Temp rise happens first, then hundreds of years later, CO2 rises. There's that correlation vs causation thing.

[bill25]

I wasn't going to touch this thread... Then this came up on MSN:
http://www.msn.com/en-us/weather/topsto ... spartanntp

I agree climate change is politicized and it shouldn't be. I don't really care what is causing the "extreme weather" and overall warming, but it seems like we should figure out if we can mitigate the impact. Overpopulation is probably more of a problem than anything. More water required, more animals to be fed for our food, more trash/waste/pollution etc. Isn't there a whole thing about the honey bees too?

I think the biggest problem is that the politicizing is making it impossible to actually understand what is actually happening without bias.