Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. (Vol 5)
Discussion
Isn't it interesting when climate scientists retire and their grants run out, suddenly their tune often changes?
"Very often, when I talk to the public or the media about global warming (a low-frequency positive trend in global temperature in the last 120 years or so), they ask me the unfortunate question if I “believe” in global warming. And I say “unfortunate” because when we are dealing with a scientific problem “believing” has no place. In science, we either prove or disprove. We “believe” only when we cannot possibly prove a truth. For example, we may “believe” in reincarnation or an afterlife but we cannot prove either.
One may argue that when we are dealing with a scientific problem, such as global warming, for which we cannot obtain unquestionable experimental confirmation as to what is causing it (for the simple reason that we cannot repeat this experiment; we only have one realization of climate evolution), we may form an opinion based on the existing scientific evidence in hand, current knowledge, possible theories and hypotheses. But we should be skeptical of claims that the science of a complicated and unpredictable system is settled.
Nobody argues that the temperature of the planet is not increasing in the last 120 years or so. Yes, the temperature is increasing overall. But there are a lot of questions regarding why that is.
In the current state of affairs regarding global warming, opinion is divided into two major factions. A large portion of climate scientists argues that most, if not all, of the recent warming is due to anthropogenic effects, which originate largely from carbon dioxide emissions from the burning of fossil fuels. Another portion is on the other extreme: Those who argue that humans have nothing to do with global warming and that all this fuss is a conspiracy to bring the industrial world down.
The latter group calls the former group “the catastrophists” or “the alarmists,” whereas the former group calls the latter group “the deniers.” This childish division is complemented by another group, the “skeptics,” which includes those like me who question the extreme beliefs and try to look at all scientific evidence before we form an opinion (by the way, the former group also considers skeptics to be deniers).
In the realm of deniers, skeptics and believers, science has been compromised. I usually don’t bother with pseudo-scientists, media and ignorant people abusing the freedom of the Internet by writing and posting nonsense comments. But I have grown wary of what is going on with the debate on the overblown and misdirected issue of global warming — a case in point being “Meet the Press” host Chuck Todd saying he will no longer give time to global warming “deniers” and also that the “science is settled.”
The fact that scientists who show results not aligned with the mainstream are labeled deniers is the backward mentality. We don’t live in the medieval times, when Galileo had to admit to something that he knew was wrong to save his life. Science is all about proving, not believing. In that regard, I am a skeptic not just about global warming but also about many other aspects of science.
All scientists should be skeptics. Climate is too complicated to attribute its variability to one cause. We first need to understand the natural climate variability (which we clearly don’t; I can debate anybody on this issue). Only then we can assess the magnitude and reasons of climate change. Science would have never advanced if it were not for the skeptics. All model projections made for the 21st century failed to predict the slowdown of the planet’s warming despite the fact that carbon dioxide emissions kept on increasing. Science is never settled. If science were settled, then we should pack things up and go home.
My research over the years is focused on climate variability and climate dynamics. It is my educated opinion that many forces have shaped global temperature variation. Human activity, the oceans, extraterrestrial forces (solar activity and cosmic rays) and other factors are all in the mix. It may very well be that human activity is the primary reason, but having no strong evidence of the actual percent effect of these three major players, I will attribute 1/3 to each one of them.
Two final points. First, all the interactions of humans with the environment are part of our technological evolution. During this evolution, we could not go directly from living in the dark ages to a clean energy technology. There was no other way but to use fossil fuels and other pollution-producing agents. Is this enough to ruin the planet by altering the climate system, a system that has undergone major changes throughout the ages?
Second, while we should try our best to take care of our planet, global warming is not the only urgent planetary emergency. Overpopulation, poverty, infectious diseases and the effect of globalization in spreading them, the water crisis, energy and food availability and safety, political instability and terrorism, the global economy, even cyber security, are far more urgent problems with potentially catastrophic results for humanity."
Anastasios Tsonis is emeritus distinguished professor at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee. He is the author of more than 130 peer reviewed papers and nine books.
"Very often, when I talk to the public or the media about global warming (a low-frequency positive trend in global temperature in the last 120 years or so), they ask me the unfortunate question if I “believe” in global warming. And I say “unfortunate” because when we are dealing with a scientific problem “believing” has no place. In science, we either prove or disprove. We “believe” only when we cannot possibly prove a truth. For example, we may “believe” in reincarnation or an afterlife but we cannot prove either.
One may argue that when we are dealing with a scientific problem, such as global warming, for which we cannot obtain unquestionable experimental confirmation as to what is causing it (for the simple reason that we cannot repeat this experiment; we only have one realization of climate evolution), we may form an opinion based on the existing scientific evidence in hand, current knowledge, possible theories and hypotheses. But we should be skeptical of claims that the science of a complicated and unpredictable system is settled.
Nobody argues that the temperature of the planet is not increasing in the last 120 years or so. Yes, the temperature is increasing overall. But there are a lot of questions regarding why that is.
In the current state of affairs regarding global warming, opinion is divided into two major factions. A large portion of climate scientists argues that most, if not all, of the recent warming is due to anthropogenic effects, which originate largely from carbon dioxide emissions from the burning of fossil fuels. Another portion is on the other extreme: Those who argue that humans have nothing to do with global warming and that all this fuss is a conspiracy to bring the industrial world down.
The latter group calls the former group “the catastrophists” or “the alarmists,” whereas the former group calls the latter group “the deniers.” This childish division is complemented by another group, the “skeptics,” which includes those like me who question the extreme beliefs and try to look at all scientific evidence before we form an opinion (by the way, the former group also considers skeptics to be deniers).
In the realm of deniers, skeptics and believers, science has been compromised. I usually don’t bother with pseudo-scientists, media and ignorant people abusing the freedom of the Internet by writing and posting nonsense comments. But I have grown wary of what is going on with the debate on the overblown and misdirected issue of global warming — a case in point being “Meet the Press” host Chuck Todd saying he will no longer give time to global warming “deniers” and also that the “science is settled.”
The fact that scientists who show results not aligned with the mainstream are labeled deniers is the backward mentality. We don’t live in the medieval times, when Galileo had to admit to something that he knew was wrong to save his life. Science is all about proving, not believing. In that regard, I am a skeptic not just about global warming but also about many other aspects of science.
All scientists should be skeptics. Climate is too complicated to attribute its variability to one cause. We first need to understand the natural climate variability (which we clearly don’t; I can debate anybody on this issue). Only then we can assess the magnitude and reasons of climate change. Science would have never advanced if it were not for the skeptics. All model projections made for the 21st century failed to predict the slowdown of the planet’s warming despite the fact that carbon dioxide emissions kept on increasing. Science is never settled. If science were settled, then we should pack things up and go home.
My research over the years is focused on climate variability and climate dynamics. It is my educated opinion that many forces have shaped global temperature variation. Human activity, the oceans, extraterrestrial forces (solar activity and cosmic rays) and other factors are all in the mix. It may very well be that human activity is the primary reason, but having no strong evidence of the actual percent effect of these three major players, I will attribute 1/3 to each one of them.
Two final points. First, all the interactions of humans with the environment are part of our technological evolution. During this evolution, we could not go directly from living in the dark ages to a clean energy technology. There was no other way but to use fossil fuels and other pollution-producing agents. Is this enough to ruin the planet by altering the climate system, a system that has undergone major changes throughout the ages?
Second, while we should try our best to take care of our planet, global warming is not the only urgent planetary emergency. Overpopulation, poverty, infectious diseases and the effect of globalization in spreading them, the water crisis, energy and food availability and safety, political instability and terrorism, the global economy, even cyber security, are far more urgent problems with potentially catastrophic results for humanity."
Anastasios Tsonis is emeritus distinguished professor at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee. He is the author of more than 130 peer reviewed papers and nine books.
deeps said:
Isn't it interesting when climate scientists retire and their grants run out, suddenly their tune often changes?
“Often”Show me half a dozen...
I’d say “I’ll wait” but I probably won’t live that long.
And while you’re at it how are you doing vis-à-vis comprehending the difference between spelling and grammar?
Evening classes are available.
robinessex said:
Who cares about what might happen 100s of years in the future
That sort of sums up the drivel posted here by old blokes who have saliva running out the side of their mouth and need matron to "change them". It reminds the religious people who criticised Galileo just because they could not accept new fangled science.Most of this anti climate change stuff comes from the good old US of A of course where they still think everyone owning guns is how to protect yourself.
Ahem.
I'm not actually sure why this gets so much attention compared to other science. I don't recall the Ozone layer back in the day having daft old PH folk (retd) saying it was all poppycock.....
In summary
1. Have keyboard
2. Someone in the USA says it's a fake like moon landings and WTC.
3. Fits with worldview.
4. Uses keyboard.
5. Man diaper gets refreshed.
deeps said:
Isn't it interesting when climate scientists retire and their grants run out, suddenly their tune often changes?
"Very often, when I talk to the public or the media about global warming (a low-frequency positive trend in global temperature in the last 120 years or so), they ask me the unfortunate question if I “believe” in global warming. And I say “unfortunate” because when we are dealing with a scientific problem “believing” has no place. In science, we either prove or disprove. We “believe” only when we cannot possibly prove a truth. For example, we may “believe” in reincarnation or an afterlife but we cannot prove either.
One may argue that when we are dealing with a scientific problem, such as global warming, for which we cannot obtain unquestionable experimental confirmation as to what is causing it (for the simple reason that we cannot repeat this experiment; we only have one realization of climate evolution), we may form an opinion based on the existing scientific evidence in hand, current knowledge, possible theories and hypotheses. But we should be skeptical of claims that the science of a complicated and unpredictable system is settled.
Nobody argues that the temperature of the planet is not increasing in the last 120 years or so. Yes, the temperature is increasing overall. But there are a lot of questions regarding why that is.
In the current state of affairs regarding global warming, opinion is divided into two major factions. A large portion of climate scientists argues that most, if not all, of the recent warming is due to anthropogenic effects, which originate largely from carbon dioxide emissions from the burning of fossil fuels. Another portion is on the other extreme: Those who argue that humans have nothing to do with global warming and that all this fuss is a conspiracy to bring the industrial world down.
The latter group calls the former group “the catastrophists” or “the alarmists,” whereas the former group calls the latter group “the deniers.” This childish division is complemented by another group, the “skeptics,” which includes those like me who question the extreme beliefs and try to look at all scientific evidence before we form an opinion (by the way, the former group also considers skeptics to be deniers).
In the realm of deniers, skeptics and believers, science has been compromised. I usually don’t bother with pseudo-scientists, media and ignorant people abusing the freedom of the Internet by writing and posting nonsense comments. But I have grown wary of what is going on with the debate on the overblown and misdirected issue of global warming — a case in point being “Meet the Press” host Chuck Todd saying he will no longer give time to global warming “deniers” and also that the “science is settled.”
The fact that scientists who show results not aligned with the mainstream are labeled deniers is the backward mentality. We don’t live in the medieval times, when Galileo had to admit to something that he knew was wrong to save his life. Science is all about proving, not believing. In that regard, I am a skeptic not just about global warming but also about many other aspects of science.
All scientists should be skeptics. Climate is too complicated to attribute its variability to one cause. We first need to understand the natural climate variability (which we clearly don’t; I can debate anybody on this issue). Only then we can assess the magnitude and reasons of climate change. Science would have never advanced if it were not for the skeptics. All model projections made for the 21st century failed to predict the slowdown of the planet’s warming despite the fact that carbon dioxide emissions kept on increasing. Science is never settled. If science were settled, then we should pack things up and go home.
My research over the years is focused on climate variability and climate dynamics. It is my educated opinion that many forces have shaped global temperature variation. Human activity, the oceans, extraterrestrial forces (solar activity and cosmic rays) and other factors are all in the mix. It may very well be that human activity is the primary reason, but having no strong evidence of the actual percent effect of these three major players, I will attribute 1/3 to each one of them.
Two final points. First, all the interactions of humans with the environment are part of our technological evolution. During this evolution, we could not go directly from living in the dark ages to a clean energy technology. There was no other way but to use fossil fuels and other pollution-producing agents. Is this enough to ruin the planet by altering the climate system, a system that has undergone major changes throughout the ages?
Second, while we should try our best to take care of our planet, global warming is not the only urgent planetary emergency. Overpopulation, poverty, infectious diseases and the effect of globalization in spreading them, the water crisis, energy and food availability and safety, political instability and terrorism, the global economy, even cyber security, are far more urgent problems with potentially catastrophic results for humanity."
Anastasios Tsonis is emeritus distinguished professor at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee. He is the author of more than 130 peer reviewed papers and nine books.
You started off biased then went none biased and then went biased again and then increased the scope of the problem to fit a bigger world view."Very often, when I talk to the public or the media about global warming (a low-frequency positive trend in global temperature in the last 120 years or so), they ask me the unfortunate question if I “believe” in global warming. And I say “unfortunate” because when we are dealing with a scientific problem “believing” has no place. In science, we either prove or disprove. We “believe” only when we cannot possibly prove a truth. For example, we may “believe” in reincarnation or an afterlife but we cannot prove either.
One may argue that when we are dealing with a scientific problem, such as global warming, for which we cannot obtain unquestionable experimental confirmation as to what is causing it (for the simple reason that we cannot repeat this experiment; we only have one realization of climate evolution), we may form an opinion based on the existing scientific evidence in hand, current knowledge, possible theories and hypotheses. But we should be skeptical of claims that the science of a complicated and unpredictable system is settled.
Nobody argues that the temperature of the planet is not increasing in the last 120 years or so. Yes, the temperature is increasing overall. But there are a lot of questions regarding why that is.
In the current state of affairs regarding global warming, opinion is divided into two major factions. A large portion of climate scientists argues that most, if not all, of the recent warming is due to anthropogenic effects, which originate largely from carbon dioxide emissions from the burning of fossil fuels. Another portion is on the other extreme: Those who argue that humans have nothing to do with global warming and that all this fuss is a conspiracy to bring the industrial world down.
The latter group calls the former group “the catastrophists” or “the alarmists,” whereas the former group calls the latter group “the deniers.” This childish division is complemented by another group, the “skeptics,” which includes those like me who question the extreme beliefs and try to look at all scientific evidence before we form an opinion (by the way, the former group also considers skeptics to be deniers).
In the realm of deniers, skeptics and believers, science has been compromised. I usually don’t bother with pseudo-scientists, media and ignorant people abusing the freedom of the Internet by writing and posting nonsense comments. But I have grown wary of what is going on with the debate on the overblown and misdirected issue of global warming — a case in point being “Meet the Press” host Chuck Todd saying he will no longer give time to global warming “deniers” and also that the “science is settled.”
The fact that scientists who show results not aligned with the mainstream are labeled deniers is the backward mentality. We don’t live in the medieval times, when Galileo had to admit to something that he knew was wrong to save his life. Science is all about proving, not believing. In that regard, I am a skeptic not just about global warming but also about many other aspects of science.
All scientists should be skeptics. Climate is too complicated to attribute its variability to one cause. We first need to understand the natural climate variability (which we clearly don’t; I can debate anybody on this issue). Only then we can assess the magnitude and reasons of climate change. Science would have never advanced if it were not for the skeptics. All model projections made for the 21st century failed to predict the slowdown of the planet’s warming despite the fact that carbon dioxide emissions kept on increasing. Science is never settled. If science were settled, then we should pack things up and go home.
My research over the years is focused on climate variability and climate dynamics. It is my educated opinion that many forces have shaped global temperature variation. Human activity, the oceans, extraterrestrial forces (solar activity and cosmic rays) and other factors are all in the mix. It may very well be that human activity is the primary reason, but having no strong evidence of the actual percent effect of these three major players, I will attribute 1/3 to each one of them.
Two final points. First, all the interactions of humans with the environment are part of our technological evolution. During this evolution, we could not go directly from living in the dark ages to a clean energy technology. There was no other way but to use fossil fuels and other pollution-producing agents. Is this enough to ruin the planet by altering the climate system, a system that has undergone major changes throughout the ages?
Second, while we should try our best to take care of our planet, global warming is not the only urgent planetary emergency. Overpopulation, poverty, infectious diseases and the effect of globalization in spreading them, the water crisis, energy and food availability and safety, political instability and terrorism, the global economy, even cyber security, are far more urgent problems with potentially catastrophic results for humanity."
Anastasios Tsonis is emeritus distinguished professor at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee. He is the author of more than 130 peer reviewed papers and nine books.
PS Well written, a joy to read grammatically !
Edited by Gandahar on Saturday 12th January 14:39
durbster said:
This is your field, apparently, so what do you make of that?
Interestingly it would indicate (absent other factors) that conservatives are more intelligent and scientific, following the dictum nullius in verba.Which is counter intuitive of course given many scientific institutions such as Universities where scientists may be found in large numbers are inherently left wing.
Gandahar said:
You started off biased then went none biased and then went biased again and then increased the scope of the problem to fit a bigger world view.
PS Well written, a joy to read grammatically !
You appreciate deeps didn’t write that, it’s a cut ‘n paste straight from the Washington Times.PS Well written, a joy to read grammatically !
The professor quoted also states that there IS global warming (don’t tell Robinessex) and that humans are responsible for at least 1/3 of it.
gadgetmac said:
Gandahar said:
You started off biased then went none biased and then went biased again and then increased the scope of the problem to fit a bigger world view.
PS Well written, a joy to read grammatically !
You appreciate deeps didn’t write that, it’s a cut ‘n paste straight from the Washington Times.PS Well written, a joy to read grammatically !
The professor quoted also states that there IS global warming (don’t tell Robinessex) and that humans are responsible for at least 1/3 of it.
BUGGER
so I can cut and paste it? I am too trusting for the political debate. Thanks for the correction.
Getting back to the main political part of it, if you look at my frivolous and slightly rude post above that I do think it is very problematic that most of the anti AGW people are based in the USA. Statistically you would hope a scientific counter-point would be globally based as this is a global question.
Being on the political thread my assumption is that climate change, the political debate, is being driven from only a small part of the globe.
They're either more clever than us or more stupider than us.
Time will tell.I should probably post this on the scientific thread, but what the hell.... global sea ice still very low
gadgetmac said:
You appreciate deeps didn’t write that, it’s a cut ‘n paste straight from the Washington Times.
The professor quoted also states that there IS global warming (don’t tell Robinessex) and that humans are responsible for at least 1/3 of it.
What a mess, deeps makes it look like it’s his but he’s quoting someone else.The professor quoted also states that there IS global warming (don’t tell Robinessex) and that humans are responsible for at least 1/3 of it.
Why was he even quoting it? It goes against his arguments completely.
It’s certainly not evidence of retired scientists changing their mind as he suggests.
Gandahar: You thinking deeps posted it is entirely understandable as he didn’t make it clear from the very start of his post that what was to follow was an extract from someone/somewhere else and not his own creation.
Misrepresentation is the deniers weapon of choice around these parts.
Well, that and diversion onto “grammar” etc
Misrepresentation is the deniers weapon of choice around these parts.
Well, that and diversion onto “grammar” etc
gadgetmac said:
Gandahar: You thinking deeps posted it is entirely understandable as he didn’t make it clear from the very start of his post that what was to follow was an extract from someone/somewhere else and not his own creation.
Misrepresentation is the deniers weapon of choice around these parts.
Well, that and diversion onto “grammar” etc
I thought that the inverted commas and the guys name at the end is good enough. Grammar you see!Misrepresentation is the deniers weapon of choice around these parts.
Well, that and diversion onto “grammar” etc
El stovey said:
gadgetmac said:
You appreciate deeps didn’t write that, it’s a cut ‘n paste straight from the Washington Times.
The professor quoted also states that there IS global warming (don’t tell Robinessex) and that humans are responsible for at least 1/3 of it.
What a mess, deeps makes it look like it’s his but he’s quoting someone else.The professor quoted also states that there IS global warming (don’t tell Robinessex) and that humans are responsible for at least 1/3 of it.
Why was he even quoting it? It goes against his arguments completely.
It’s certainly not evidence of retired scientists changing their mind as he suggests.
Of course whilst the text deeps quotes was originally written in the Washington Times it was reprinted in climatedepot.com which is funded by Exxon Mobile to the tune of hundreds of thousands of dollars. I wonder whether deeps lifted it from the Times or Climatedepot...I think we all know the answer to that one...
Deeps does have a penchant for quoting from all of TB’s favourite blogsites, WUWT being deeps main source but Marc Morano connected sites being a close second.
dickymint said:
gadgetmac said:
Gandahar: You thinking deeps posted it is entirely understandable as he didn’t make it clear from the very start of his post that what was to follow was an extract from someone/somewhere else and not his own creation.
Misrepresentation is the deniers weapon of choice around these parts.
Well, that and diversion onto “grammar” etc
I thought that the inverted commas and the guys name at the end is good enough. Grammar you see!Misrepresentation is the deniers weapon of choice around these parts.
Well, that and diversion onto “grammar” etc
Climate activists offer self-cure via immigration, it's amazing!.
IPCC lead author Michael Oppenheimer claims that agw will lead to mass migration to the United States due to alleged future lower crop yields in Mexico by 2080 (PNAS paper). Doomed!
He forgot about future climate states being unpredictable, but there's more...
Climate activist Bill McKibben claims that due to global warming, immigration to the United States will occur but this will reduce global warming because striving immigrants would have fewer children after arrival (LA Times). Saved!
McKibben has a book on the shelves telling Americans to have smaller families to offset global warming, yet the family / population thing has already been revealed as another crock (Desrochers and Szurmak).
This is all crystal clear settled science, so policymakers have a doddle on their hands.
:
IPCC lead author Michael Oppenheimer claims that agw will lead to mass migration to the United States due to alleged future lower crop yields in Mexico by 2080 (PNAS paper). Doomed!
He forgot about future climate states being unpredictable, but there's more...
Climate activist Bill McKibben claims that due to global warming, immigration to the United States will occur but this will reduce global warming because striving immigrants would have fewer children after arrival (LA Times). Saved!
McKibben has a book on the shelves telling Americans to have smaller families to offset global warming, yet the family / population thing has already been revealed as another crock (Desrochers and Szurmak).
This is all crystal clear settled science, so policymakers have a doddle on their hands.
:
Gandahar said:
deeps said:
Isn't it interesting when climate scientists retire and their grants run out, suddenly their tune often changes?
"Very often, when I talk to the public or the media about global warming (a low-frequency positive trend in global temperature in the last 120 years or so), they ask me the unfortunate question if I “believe” in global warming. And I say “unfortunate” because when we are dealing with a scientific problem “believing” has no place. In science, we either prove or disprove. We “believe” only when we cannot possibly prove a truth. For example, we may “believe” in reincarnation or an afterlife but we cannot prove either.
One may argue that when we are dealing with a scientific problem, such as global warming, for which we cannot obtain unquestionable experimental confirmation as to what is causing it (for the simple reason that we cannot repeat this experiment; we only have one realization of climate evolution), we may form an opinion based on the existing scientific evidence in hand, current knowledge, possible theories and hypotheses. But we should be skeptical of claims that the science of a complicated and unpredictable system is settled.
Nobody argues that the temperature of the planet is not increasing in the last 120 years or so. Yes, the temperature is increasing overall. But there are a lot of questions regarding why that is.
In the current state of affairs regarding global warming, opinion is divided into two major factions. A large portion of climate scientists argues that most, if not all, of the recent warming is due to anthropogenic effects, which originate largely from carbon dioxide emissions from the burning of fossil fuels. Another portion is on the other extreme: Those who argue that humans have nothing to do with global warming and that all this fuss is a conspiracy to bring the industrial world down.
The latter group calls the former group “the catastrophists” or “the alarmists,” whereas the former group calls the latter group “the deniers.” This childish division is complemented by another group, the “skeptics,” which includes those like me who question the extreme beliefs and try to look at all scientific evidence before we form an opinion (by the way, the former group also considers skeptics to be deniers).
In the realm of deniers, skeptics and believers, science has been compromised. I usually don’t bother with pseudo-scientists, media and ignorant people abusing the freedom of the Internet by writing and posting nonsense comments. But I have grown wary of what is going on with the debate on the overblown and misdirected issue of global warming — a case in point being “Meet the Press” host Chuck Todd saying he will no longer give time to global warming “deniers” and also that the “science is settled.”
The fact that scientists who show results not aligned with the mainstream are labeled deniers is the backward mentality. We don’t live in the medieval times, when Galileo had to admit to something that he knew was wrong to save his life. Science is all about proving, not believing. In that regard, I am a skeptic not just about global warming but also about many other aspects of science.
All scientists should be skeptics. Climate is too complicated to attribute its variability to one cause. We first need to understand the natural climate variability (which we clearly don’t; I can debate anybody on this issue). Only then we can assess the magnitude and reasons of climate change. Science would have never advanced if it were not for the skeptics. All model projections made for the 21st century failed to predict the slowdown of the planet’s warming despite the fact that carbon dioxide emissions kept on increasing. Science is never settled. If science were settled, then we should pack things up and go home.
My research over the years is focused on climate variability and climate dynamics. It is my educated opinion that many forces have shaped global temperature variation. Human activity, the oceans, extraterrestrial forces (solar activity and cosmic rays) and other factors are all in the mix. It may very well be that human activity is the primary reason, but having no strong evidence of the actual percent effect of these three major players, I will attribute 1/3 to each one of them.
Two final points. First, all the interactions of humans with the environment are part of our technological evolution. During this evolution, we could not go directly from living in the dark ages to a clean energy technology. There was no other way but to use fossil fuels and other pollution-producing agents. Is this enough to ruin the planet by altering the climate system, a system that has undergone major changes throughout the ages?
Second, while we should try our best to take care of our planet, global warming is not the only urgent planetary emergency. Overpopulation, poverty, infectious diseases and the effect of globalization in spreading them, the water crisis, energy and food availability and safety, political instability and terrorism, the global economy, even cyber security, are far more urgent problems with potentially catastrophic results for humanity."
Anastasios Tsonis is emeritus distinguished professor at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee. He is the author of more than 130 peer reviewed papers and nine books.
You started off biased then went none biased and then went biased again and then increased the scope of the problem to fit a bigger world view."Very often, when I talk to the public or the media about global warming (a low-frequency positive trend in global temperature in the last 120 years or so), they ask me the unfortunate question if I “believe” in global warming. And I say “unfortunate” because when we are dealing with a scientific problem “believing” has no place. In science, we either prove or disprove. We “believe” only when we cannot possibly prove a truth. For example, we may “believe” in reincarnation or an afterlife but we cannot prove either.
One may argue that when we are dealing with a scientific problem, such as global warming, for which we cannot obtain unquestionable experimental confirmation as to what is causing it (for the simple reason that we cannot repeat this experiment; we only have one realization of climate evolution), we may form an opinion based on the existing scientific evidence in hand, current knowledge, possible theories and hypotheses. But we should be skeptical of claims that the science of a complicated and unpredictable system is settled.
Nobody argues that the temperature of the planet is not increasing in the last 120 years or so. Yes, the temperature is increasing overall. But there are a lot of questions regarding why that is.
In the current state of affairs regarding global warming, opinion is divided into two major factions. A large portion of climate scientists argues that most, if not all, of the recent warming is due to anthropogenic effects, which originate largely from carbon dioxide emissions from the burning of fossil fuels. Another portion is on the other extreme: Those who argue that humans have nothing to do with global warming and that all this fuss is a conspiracy to bring the industrial world down.
The latter group calls the former group “the catastrophists” or “the alarmists,” whereas the former group calls the latter group “the deniers.” This childish division is complemented by another group, the “skeptics,” which includes those like me who question the extreme beliefs and try to look at all scientific evidence before we form an opinion (by the way, the former group also considers skeptics to be deniers).
In the realm of deniers, skeptics and believers, science has been compromised. I usually don’t bother with pseudo-scientists, media and ignorant people abusing the freedom of the Internet by writing and posting nonsense comments. But I have grown wary of what is going on with the debate on the overblown and misdirected issue of global warming — a case in point being “Meet the Press” host Chuck Todd saying he will no longer give time to global warming “deniers” and also that the “science is settled.”
The fact that scientists who show results not aligned with the mainstream are labeled deniers is the backward mentality. We don’t live in the medieval times, when Galileo had to admit to something that he knew was wrong to save his life. Science is all about proving, not believing. In that regard, I am a skeptic not just about global warming but also about many other aspects of science.
All scientists should be skeptics. Climate is too complicated to attribute its variability to one cause. We first need to understand the natural climate variability (which we clearly don’t; I can debate anybody on this issue). Only then we can assess the magnitude and reasons of climate change. Science would have never advanced if it were not for the skeptics. All model projections made for the 21st century failed to predict the slowdown of the planet’s warming despite the fact that carbon dioxide emissions kept on increasing. Science is never settled. If science were settled, then we should pack things up and go home.
My research over the years is focused on climate variability and climate dynamics. It is my educated opinion that many forces have shaped global temperature variation. Human activity, the oceans, extraterrestrial forces (solar activity and cosmic rays) and other factors are all in the mix. It may very well be that human activity is the primary reason, but having no strong evidence of the actual percent effect of these three major players, I will attribute 1/3 to each one of them.
Two final points. First, all the interactions of humans with the environment are part of our technological evolution. During this evolution, we could not go directly from living in the dark ages to a clean energy technology. There was no other way but to use fossil fuels and other pollution-producing agents. Is this enough to ruin the planet by altering the climate system, a system that has undergone major changes throughout the ages?
Second, while we should try our best to take care of our planet, global warming is not the only urgent planetary emergency. Overpopulation, poverty, infectious diseases and the effect of globalization in spreading them, the water crisis, energy and food availability and safety, political instability and terrorism, the global economy, even cyber security, are far more urgent problems with potentially catastrophic results for humanity."
Anastasios Tsonis is emeritus distinguished professor at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee. He is the author of more than 130 peer reviewed papers and nine books.
PS Well written, a joy to read grammatically !
Edited by Gandahar on Saturday 12th January 14:39
My research over the years is focused on climate variability and climate dynamics. It is my educated opinion that many forces have shaped global temperature variation. Human activity, the oceans, extraterrestrial forces (solar activity and cosmic rays) and other factors are all in the mix. It may very well be that human activity is the primary reason, but having no strong evidence of the actual percent effect of these three major players, I will attribute 1/3 to each one of them.
Right that's very 'fair' - like handing out sweets to children - but hardly scientific.
Diesels were once a good idea from mileage and efficiency / emissions considerations. Diesel good!
Diesels are now portrayed as dirty and VWgate has hit home. Diesel bad!
UK diesel sales have dropped from over 1,000,000 in 2017 to only 750,000 in 2018.
As a result, average carbon dioxide emissions have increased by 3% to 124.5g/km (SMMT),
That's the way to do it!
Fortunately carbon dioxide has been on a long holiday.
Diesels are now portrayed as dirty and VWgate has hit home. Diesel bad!
UK diesel sales have dropped from over 1,000,000 in 2017 to only 750,000 in 2018.
As a result, average carbon dioxide emissions have increased by 3% to 124.5g/km (SMMT),
That's the way to do it!
Fortunately carbon dioxide has been on a long holiday.
gadgetmac said:
Oceans are warming at an unprecedented rate, 40% faster than REAL scientists previously thought...
https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=oceans+warming+f...
Just had climate scientists from Southampton Uni on Sky TV explaining it all.
Cooling in some areas but warming in even more areas as the stored energy in the seas increases.
Cue “adjustocine” bullshine from the usual suspects
zeke is lying. where did they get the data pre argo bouys ? even the argo bouys do not provide either the accuracy or precision they claim. anyone that thinks we know ocean heat content down to 2000m to single digit zettajoule figures is an idiot,and anyone claiming they do is a liar, ergo zeke hausfather is a liar. far too intelligent a man to believe what he is saying either , so liar it is. https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=oceans+warming+f...
Just had climate scientists from Southampton Uni on Sky TV explaining it all.
Cooling in some areas but warming in even more areas as the stored energy in the seas increases.
Cue “adjustocine” bullshine from the usual suspects
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff