Sahara Desert Snow Storm

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Kenomac

It must drive you to drink (copious amounts of beer) to now know that more than half of America is now "intentionally uninformed."

Originally Posted by Tayana42

Less than half by 2,900,000 votes.

Originally Posted by Kenomac

True, if you're counting illegal aliens and dead people.

How about just counting members of the electoral college?

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by Exile

Really? What you've consistently been trying to say comports with adoxo's comments?? I thought adoxo cautioned about over-reliance on the use of the term "settled" when it comes to this area of science, and suggested that "prevailing theory right now" would be a more accurate way of describing the state of the science rather than relying on any claimed "consensus." But isn't your use of the well-worn arguments that the science is "settled" and the "consensus" is overwhelming exactly the way you've justified the use of the term "denier," namely as a one-size-fits-all descriptor for those who raise questions or disagree?

I have consistently presented the current scientific consensus on the issue, which is as adoxograph says, points firmly towards AGW. I have stated (agreeing with you I think) that the scale of human contribution is less certain in the data. But the reality of human-driven climate change is the best prevailing theory right now. We can quibble with the use of the term scientific consensus. There is a scientific consenses as to the validity of the theory of evolution, quantum mechanics and general relativity. These are the "prevailing theor(ies) right now.”

Originally Posted by Exile

Or maybe I read your recent post incorrectly and "denier" is reserved for those who not only question or disagree, but who are also right-wingers from the USA -- or perhaps just religious nuts (same thing, right?). You did also invoke these well-worn bogeymen, right?

This is a statistical fact which emerged in global survey data examining the attitudes and beliefs of people around the world. You and I discussed this at length in a previous AGW thread. I assumed you would recall. I can dig it out for you if need be.

Originally Posted by Exile

Well . . . maybe I just misinterpreted your comments . . . but I could have sworn that you likened the certainly of the current level of climate science to the well-established safety & effectiveness of vaccinations, as well as to the now incontrovertible link between smoking & cancer.

Yes, and I think these are still a good analogies. Those involved in climate research are as clear in their expression that AGW is real, and is happening now. This is the "prevailing theory right now."

Originally Posted by Exile

Maybe we should just leave use of the term "denier" to its common usage prior to the latest talking points generated by the CC movement. You know, the Iranian mullahs who deny the Holocaust; those who deny that the Spanish Inquisition ever took place. Do you really think that those who accept that humans play a role in CC but question the alarmism and extent of human vs. natural impacts are in the same category? That would include an awful lot of highly respected climate scientists who are noted skeptics!

This is unnecessarily inflammatory Exile, and I would have thought beneath you. I hope you can take a moment to step this back. No one anywhere has made anything close to such a suggestion.

As I’ve said many, many times; science is a living process. It never stops, and all truths are contingent on current data, research and theory. Unlike absolutes found in politics and religion, nothing is 100% settled in science. In science a theory evolves from a hypothesis based on observable/measurable and reproducible data or outcomes. Over time, and with continued supporting data and predictive outcomes, theories become established — but always contingent — scientific truths. In the extreme case a theory can rise to the level of law, but that’s not what we’ve got here.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

I have consistently presented the current scientific consensus on the issue, which is as adoxograph says, points firmly towards AGW. I have stated (agreeing with you I think) that the scale of human contribution is less certain in the data. But the reality of human-driven climate change is the best prevailing theory right now. We can quibble with the use of the term scientific consensus. There is a scientific consenses as to the validity of the theory of evolution, quantum mechanics and general relativity. These are the "prevailing theor(ies) right now.”

I cannot agree that the "best" prevailing theory on AGW equates with the current level of scientific evidence surrounding evolution, quantum mechanics, or general relativity, or that it justifies the types of dramatic remedies for AGW that some propose. The "best" amongst a set of poorly developed theories on AGW doesn't necessarily make it reliable.

I think if you look back on your posts in just this thread it may become more apparent how much certainty you ascribed to AGW. You are certainly not alone, and obviously there is support for this from the more alarmist faction of the scientific community and the media, but I don't think that view represents the majority of actual scientists who otherwise agree on the basic existence of AGW. But then adopting the more alarmist mantra is the only logical way to analogize to other areas of science & medicine which have largely incontrovertible evidence supporting their well-accepted conclusions.

Feel free to correct if I'm wrong, but it is my understanding that almost every climate scientist -- including well-known skeptics -- are in agreement that GW is attributable to a combination of natural and human influences. This almost universal agreement becomes less cohesive on the extent of human vs. natural influences as you acknowledge, and devolves further when it comes to the timing & extent of AGW impacts. So just referring to the "scientific consensus on AGW" is vague at best and misleading at worst since it entails so many levels. In fact, I've never understood why belief or non-belief in the mere existence of AGW is anything more than academic without a reasonable scientific consensus/prevailing theory about such impacts. As recently commented upon, there isn't much debate about whether humans have had an impact on the planet! The issue is whether impacts from burning fossil fuels pose a serious long-term threat and, if so, whether there is anything that can be realistically done to offset it. You and others may feel that fossil fuel consumption is ipso facto immoral, unsustainable, or unwise, but that position has nothing to do with the current level of certainty surrounding climate science.

The one predicted impact that seems to have some consistency within the mainstream scientific community is the "official" IPCC prediction that avg. temps are estimated to rise 2ºC over the next 100 years (with a wide variance of higher or lower avg. temps possible). So, for example, if I accept that estimate but question how much is attributable to a natural warming cycle vs. man-made influences, ask whether there have been other, pre-industrial warming cycles in Earth's history with similar rates of warming, or question why 2ºC is really all that dangerous for humans or the planet, am I too a "denier?" I don’t see how this is logically analogous, for example, to someone deciding to take up smoking by relying on anecdotal incidents of a few lifelong smokers not getting cancer (or heart disease).

This is a statistical fact which emerged in global survey data examining the attitudes and beliefs of people around the world. You and I discussed this at length in a previous AGW thread. I assumed you would recall. I can dig it out for you if need be.

Yes I recall some of our debate surrounding the objectivity of the survey questions and the survey's overall goals. But the larger point is what is to be accomplished by the singling out of certain groups for their "position" on a scientific issue as complex as CC, and then trying to link it to their religion, politics, or nationality? An effort to shame them into pronouncing their support for AGW and voting accordingly? An attempt to prove superior moral standing based on a more virtuous level of concern for the planet? Marginalizing them as ignorant, uneducated, or stupid perhaps? And the purpose of this exercise would be what? I’m not trying to single you out — we've read & heard this over & over, including serious impugning of professional bias (w/o evidence) of highly respected climate scientists in the skeptical camp who happen to have conservative religious beliefs! Wouldn’t it be more effective to try and bring these people into the fold, or at least not ostracize them? You can argue about the legitimacy of these “surveys” all you want, but what is really going on here seems pretty transparent, and entirely unproductive to the stated goals I should add.

Yes, and I think these are still a good analogies. Those involved in climate research are as clear in their expression that AGW is real, and is happening now. This is the "prevailing theory right now."

So which of the many facets of prevailing AGW theory "right now" have the same level of scientific certainty as the health benefits of vaccinations and the link btwn. smoking & cancer? The basic, widely accepted theory that AGW is real? OK, I might go along with that one. How about humans vs. natural forces having a significant role? Maybe. A dominant role? Still a good analogy?? Certainly debatable. Future potential impacts, dramatic weather anomalies, rising seas, droughts, floods, melting glacial ice, dying coral reefs? Same level of certainty?

This is unnecessarily inflammatory Exile, and I would have thought beneath you. I hope you can take a moment to step this back. No one anywhere has made anything close to such a suggestion.

What part is inflammatory? You do recognize where the term "denier" comes from, right? Is this not being deliberately used as an attempt to marginalize those who question the prevailing theory of AGW, whatever that actually means? Is denying the Holocaust, the Inquisition, that the world is round, the smoking/cancer link, etc. really the same as questioning whether the hype & alarmism surround CC is legitimate? C'mon Mike, we all know why “denier" is used, and that’s exactly what is inflammatory, not my challenging it.

As I’ve said many, many times; science is a living process. It never stops, and all truths are contingent on current data, research and theory. Unlike absolutes found in politics and religion, nothing is 100% settled in science. In science a theory evolves from a hypothesis based on observable/measurable and reproducible data or outcomes. Over time, and with continued supporting data and predictive outcomes, theories become established — but always contingent — scientific truths. In the extreme case a theory can rise to the level of law, but that’s not what we’ve got here.

Agreed, and well put. But I respectfully don't see you applying the current level of certainty/uncertainty surrounding climate science objectively into your otherwise accurate description of the scientific process. But enough said on my part. I don't question your sincerity or good intentions, only your bias (that we all have). But I am starting to think that life in a climate that may eventually become a few degrees warmer would be healthier than living in the midst of our current human climate of hyper-politicalization & intolerance.

[tuffr2]

Still, what ever human effect has you have to agree to eliminate this effect humans will need to stop many facets of their life.

Are you willing to stop any activity that adds to the issue?

I am talking about will you still cook? Will you still flick a switch and expect a light to turn on? Will you use any form of power at all?
Now remember, if you stop driving a car a ride a horse, that horse may fart...thus adding to the issue.

Oh, we have to get rid of all the cows as they add to the issue.

Do you realize what really needs to happen for a human not to be a problem? What energy is used to build an electric car? Heat a house? Cool a house?

I am willing to reduce may carbon food print but I really want to stay warm in the winter and cool in the summer.

I say we work on warp drive to get off this planet.

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by Exile

Agreed, and well put. But I respectfully don't see you applying the current level of certainty/uncertainty surrounding climate science objectively into your otherwise accurate description of the scientific process. But enough said on my part. I don't question your sincerity or good intentions, only your bias (that we all have). But I am starting to think that life in a climate that may eventually become a few degrees warmer would be healthier than living in the midst of our current human climate of hyper-politicalization & intolerance.

Exile, I can’t extract out all your specific comments from your previous post, but let me address a couple:

You have misread my explanation of a scientific consensus as meaning the "prevailing theory right now.” I did not say AGW had the same status in science as those examples. Since you are quibbling about my use of “scientific consensus” I was merely pointing out they all hold the position of being the "prevailing theory right now,” which is a term you appear to prefer. I’m not sure how you would measure which is the bestest theory across different fields; is the theory of general relativity better than the theory of evolution?

NO, I did not raise the finding that AGW denial is strongly correlated with those on the right in the USA simple to demean or insult. I raise it b/c this points to a systematic bias that has nothing to do with the science. The global survey was revealing in that it finds that no other country has such a strong correlation between politics and climate change beliefs. I point this out b/c the USA is the second largest emitter of green house gasses, and in the parlance of other political discourse, if you can’t even name the problem how can you address it?

I categorically deny your assertions regarding my intentions. Instead of ascribing your own assumptions to my statements, how about asking if something is unclear. I do not call people stupid, nor have I said my position is “morally superior.” I do point out it takes a certain level of intentionality to ignore the findings of the majority of climate scientists. This is why I cannot think of a better term than “denier.” And I have never, ever heard the equation of climate denier to holocaust denier. I have never heard anyone use it in such a way. You are the first person to suggest this to me.

Through all these discussions my position is to stand with the major findings of actual climate scientists. My bias is that I believe in science. If the data, facts and theories shift, so will my position.

[Kenomac]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

The global survey was revealing in that it finds that no other country has such a strong correlation between politics and climate change beliefs. I point this out b/c the USA is the second largest emitter of green house gasses, and in the parlance of other political discourse, if you can’t even name the problem how can you address it? .

Problem, what problem? There are many of us who view so-called "Greenhouse gases" as the solution if it will help warm the earth. I personally don't see any downside to warmer temperatures.

Plants love CO2, they gobble it up. Animals eat plants, and we eat plants, tasty animals and breath the oxygen given off by plants. What's not to like?

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by Kenomac

Problem, what problem? There are many of us who view so-called "Greenhouse gases" as the solution if it will help warm the earth. I personally don't see any downside to warmer temperatures.

Plants love CO2, they gobble it up. Animals eat plants, and we eat plants, tasty animals and breath the oxygen given off by plants. What's not to like?

I know what you're doing Ken. Don't you have a patient to sedate, or perhaps a jug of beer to drink ? [emoji6]

[smj]

Originally Posted by Kenomac

True, if you're counting illegal aliens and dead people.

Ken, dig a large hole in the sand and stick your head in it, we will both be better of[emoji56]

[Kenomac]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

I know what you're doing Ken. Don't you have a patient to sedate, or perhaps a jug of beer to drink ? [emoji6]

Nope Mike, I honestly believe what I write, just as much as I'm sure you believe what you write. As a matter of fact, when you write something inflammatory calling people like me and others here on CF "deniers," I find it to be trolling in nature.

You see.... it works both ways. I could have written something similar to your above statement and directed it towards you personally such as "Mike, don't you have a pot to stir?" but I didn't.

So who's trolling who?

Now back to the lovely snowscapes on the Sahara.

[adoxograph]

Originally Posted by Kenomac

Problem, what problem? There are many of us who view so-called "Greenhouse gases" as the solution if it will help warm the earth. I personally don't see any downside to warmer temperatures.

Plants love CO2, they gobble it up. Animals eat plants, and we eat plants, tasty animals and breath the oxygen given off by plants. What's not to like?

Brilliant post Kenomac, but I doubt many will get the real meaning of it.

If you leave emotions (which are usually running high in discussions like this) and believes out of it, what is left? A rather large dataset. If you look closely at the data, it shows that the third rock of our sun is getting warmer. Why? Have a closer look at the energy output of the dominant species on this planet. Since about 150 years we burning fuel like there is no tomorrow.

Saying the A in AGW is not a major factor is wishful thinking of someone living in LaLa land and as naïve as claiming other natural factors have not an impact. Unfortunately, there is not one single cause to blame for all of this.

However, what does it mean? Is it a catastrophic event? Will it cause that we all die of heatstroke? Will all the coastal cities we built get flooded? Will the sky fall down? Will we all live on run down trimarans or decommissioned oil tankers in the future? That’s the other side of LaLa land.

As a species, we do not have a very good record of looking after the only planet we know of that can support us. Honestly, who here on CF thinks that the human species is living within their means? The solution? I have none, but I think trying to reduce the impact I as an individual have on my surroundings could be a good start.

And here lies the problem. We rely on the leading cast of our species to provide solutions.

Yeah, right. History shows that this approach has always worked …

[Kenomac]

Originally Posted by smj

Ken, dig a large hole in the sand and stick your head in it, we will both be better of[emoji56]

Sorry, 'not going to bite on that stinky rotten bait.

[Kenomac]

Originally Posted by adoxograph

Brilliant post Kenomac, but I doubt many will get the real meaning of it.

If you leave emotions (which are usually running high in discussions like this) and believes out of it, what is left? A rather large dataset. If you look closely at the data, it shows that the third rock of our sun is getting warmer. Why? Have a closer look at the energy output of the dominant species on this planet. Since about 150 years we burning fuel like there is no tomorrow.

Saying the A in AGW is not a major factor is wishful thinking of someone living in LaLa land and as naïve as claiming other natural factors have not an impact. Unfortunately, there is not one single cause to blame for all of this.

However, what does it mean? Is it a catastrophic event? Will it cause that we all die of heatstroke? Will all the coastal cities we built get flooded? Will the sky fall down? Will we all live on run down trimarans or decommissioned oil tankers in the future? That’s the other side of LaLa land.

As a species, we do not have a very good record of looking after the only planet we know of that can support us. Honestly, who here on CF thinks that the human species is living in their means? The solution? I have none, but I think trying to reduce the impact I as an individual have on my surroundings could be a good start.

And here lies the problem. We rely on the leading cast of our species to provide solutions.

Yeah, right. History shows that this approach has always worked …

Thanks mucho,

I try to keep things simple.

I just finished watching a brilliant nature show called "Moving Art" underwater slow motion film. Awesome. Some of these folks on CF need to get out more, and dive down under the surface to see what's actually there... instead of always taking someone else's word for everything.

Keep up the great posts and it's great to have you onboard.

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by Kenomac

Nope Mike, I honestly believe what I write, just as much as I'm sure you believe what you write. As a matter of fact, when you write something inflammatory calling people like me and others here on CF "deniers," I find it to be trolling in nature.

You see.... it works both ways. I could have written something similar to your above statement and directed it towards you personally such as "Mike, don't you have a pot to stir?" but I didn't.

So who's trolling?

Now back to the lovely snowscapes on the Sahara.

Chill out my friend. I was trying to be funny, or at least light. The clue was in the .

[Kenomac]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

Chill out my friend. I was trying to be funny, or at least light. The clue was in the .

I was also trying to be funny.... maybe we should both keep our day jobs.

You used the wrong emogie. Should have been this one

Oh crap... it looks like I used the wrong damn emogie too, I didn't mean to use the whistling guy, I thought I used the green happy face. or should i've used the

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by adoxograph

...Saying the A in AGW is not a major factor is wishful thinking of someone living in LaLa land and as naïve as claiming other natural factors have not an impact. Unfortunately, there is not one single cause to blame for all of this.

This is what the science is telling us; the A is a “significant” contributor to the GW (I use “significant” in the scientific sense, not the vernacular). What is uncertain is how significant, or rather at what scale.

Originally Posted by adoxograph

However, what does it mean? Is it a catastrophic event? Will it cause that we all die of heatstroke? Will all the coastal cities we built get flooded? Will the sky fall down? Will we all live on run down trimarans or decommissioned oil tankers in the future? That’s the other side of LaLa land.

Agreed (as I keep saying). The effects of GW are real, but what will it mean for human civilization? I don’t know — no one does. But we’re going to find out.

Originally Posted by adoxograph

As a species, we do not have a very good record of looking after the only planet we know of that can support us. Honestly, who here on CF thinks that the human species is living within their means? The solution? I have none, but I think trying to reduce the impact I as an individual have on my surroundings could be a good start.

This has been my only real response; to lower my own impact on this planet. In the end we only control ourselves and what we do. I choose a lower impact life, in part, in response to the broad range of environmental issues I see around me (of which GW only one, and not necessarily the most prominent).

Originally Posted by adoxograph

And here lies the problem. We rely on the leading cast of our species to provide solutions.

Yes, which is why it’s important for our leaders to get it right. It is possible for broad regional or planetary action to happen. We’ve seen it in the past with efforts around pollution, around acid rain, around ozone depletion. It can be done, but only if the political will exists.

Personally, I believe the best response is for everyone to act individually. If we all cut our resource usage by simply living the way our grandparents did (smaller homes, less stuff, less consumption, less energy usage, etc), we’d do a lot to mitigate many of the environmental issues facing the planet, not just GW.