Support NeoGAF

[Liu Kang Baking A Pie]

I don't understand what some of you want. If climate change isn't really happening, what are you arguing about? What does it hurt for people to believe in what almost every scientist agrees on? What do you get out of being willfully ignorant?

 

[Kosmo]

http://www.nature.com/news/2011/111020/full/news.2011.607.html

Well, how do we solve this discrepancy? That is a 12-14% variation in the numbers.

I don't understand what some of you want. If climate change isn't really happening, what are you arguing about? What does it hurt for people to believe in what almost every scientist agrees on? What do you get out of being willfully ignorant?

It only hurts when you want my money to fund your pet projects (aka Solyndra) and those scientists have a vested interest (aka grant money) perpetuating that there is an issue.

 

[marrec]

I'm saying the current amount of data is not sufficient to make that very specific claim.

Also, I believe that "global average temperature" should not be a comprehensive meaningful statistic. If melting Arctic/Antarctic ice is the primary concern, then I would mostly care of the temperature recordings in the Arctic and Antarctica. And when it comes to ice sea, the claims of ice loss have been highly exaggerated or misinterpreted. Antarctica's ice has shifted from side of the continent to the other in the last few decades and the "reported Arctic sea ice loss" has been exaggerated, particularly by NASA's climate division, as one can see by their own satellite images.

I'm saying that based on numerous independent studies, the most resent one being BEST, that very specific claim has to be accepted. If one continues to accept that very specific cliam then it would seem to me that no amount of evidence provided could convince you otherwise.

I'm not speaking to the meaningfulness of the statistic, or Arctic ice melt.

We can talk about the causes and effects of Global Climate Change after we nail down whether you actually believe the climate has changed in a very significant manner that is scientifically proven and accepted.

Well, how do we solve this discrepancy? That is a 12-14%

We solve the discrepancy by you posting where NatGeo got it's .8 number from.

 

[Joel Was Right]

Look at the comments on the link in the OP

 

[Liu Kang Baking A Pie]

It's interesting watching people who exist only because Earth has an atmosphere and can trap heat and gas discredit the ability of the Earth to do that.

 

[Kosmo]

I'm not speaking to the meaningfulness of the statistic, or Arctic ice melt.

We solve the discrepancy by you posting where NatGeo got it's .8 number from.

What is your specific concern about Arctic ice melt?

And the link: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/12/1206_041206_global_warming.html

Average temperatures have climbed 1.4 degrees Fahrenheit (0.8 degree Celsius) around the world since 1880, much of this in recent decades, according to NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies.

 

[sixteen-bit]

That's depressing.

 

[Mudkips]

Let me ask you directly.

Do you agree with the scientific consesus that there is a 0.9 degree rise in global temperatures over the last 60 years?



I ask you both the same question.

I'll put it even more simply, do you believe the 'Hockey Stick' graph is an accurate representation of global temperatures?

Way to beg the question. I can't agree/disagree with a scientific consensus that doesn't exist.
I can't agree that there is a .9 degree rise in temperature because of the inaccuracy and unreliability of the data.
I can't agree with a similarly-flawed hockey stick graph.
I do agree that the climate is changing.
I do not agree that it is a problem.
I do not agree that it is caused to any significant degree by people.
I do not agree that we could have a significant effect on reverting the change.
I do not agree that reverting the change is desirable (as I do not agree that it is a problem), presuming we could revert the change.
I do not agree with the vast majority of proposed "solutions" to the "problem" would help, presuming that it actually is a problem.
I do agree we should reduce consumption and pollution.

You can imagine instrumented data to mean whatever you like. I'll use the definition those of us in reality have settled upon.

The Berkeley Surface Temperature study was conducted because Richard Muller was skeptical of the methodology used to derive the increase in instrumental temperature data over the past few decades. It uses raw data and applies its own methodology as detailed on the site you didn't read. The length of time this instrumental data covers is not trivial, unless of course it suggests something you don't want to believe, in which case I'm sure it must be deficient in some way.

Willful ignorance is shameful.

"Instrumented data" is any data measured with (get this!) an instrument.
A time span of decades is indeed trivial. Life on Earth has been around for a tad longer than that.
If you want to make a claim about the status of the environment, you must consider the environment's history.
The methodology is a joke as far as drawing the sort of conclusions they draw, as I detailed and you ignored.

The right side is on the high ground I see. Good.

Think of it this way: Is there anything wrong with trying to be on the safe side and at least try to steer towards a greener future? I don't think so.

On the other hand there is something wrong putting your hands up and saying "You know what? I've taken the economic and practical consideration into account and there is no way to make going greener worth a go".

That's just nonsense. There is no real argument for acting against going green but there is a real discussion about how much can be done and when.

There's nothing wrong with being green. I'm all for it.
The problem lies in the fact that much of what is labelled as "green" isn't actually green. If we wanted to help the environment we'd be building hydroelectric dams and nuclear power plants and investing in better broadband networks and telling pharmaceutical companies to stop contaminating our water.
The other problem is that most of the proposed solutions, such as carbon taxes/caps/trades, are nothing but financially and politically motivated distractions that do nothing to help the environment.

What so many people don't understand is that I and so many others who are maligned as "deniers", are for protecting and improving the environment. We disagree with the baseless doom and gloom claims and are against the proposed political "solutions" and the backwards motion with things like putting corn into gasoline or building "clean" coal plants.

 

[KHarvey16]

"Instrumented data" is any data measured with (get this!) an instrument.
A time span of decades is indeed trivial. Life on Earth has been around for a tad longer than that.
If you want to make a claim about the status of the environment, you must consider the environment's history.
The methodology is a joke as far as drawing the sort of conclusions they draw, as I detailed and you ignored.

In climatology instrumental data means directly measured data from thermometers. Period.

The purpose of the study was to measure the rise in global temperature since 1950. They conclude that it has. What conclusion did you think they were drawing? How would they data they have be insufficient to do this? What part of the methodology outlined in their study do you disagree with, and why?

 

[marrec]

What is your specific concern about Arctic ice melt?

And the link: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/12/1206_041206_global_warming.html

I don't want to speak to that currenly, mostly because I'm about to head home from work and I don't want to misspeak in my hurry. I'd love to go over my overall concern with Global Warming later though.

And the discrepancy is easily solved, that article is from 2007, the BEST study is from October of 2011.

 

[Mudkips]

In climatology instrumental data means directly measured data from thermometers. Period.

The purpose of the study was to measure the rise in global temperature since 1950. They conclude that it has. What conclusion did you think they were drawing? How would they data they have be insufficient to do this? What part of the methodology outlined in their study do you disagree with, and why?

In science, "instrumented" means "instrumented", period. As for everything else, you're clearly ignoring all my posts in this very thread.

 

[KHarvey16]

In science, "instrumented" means "instrumented", period. As for everything else, you're clearly ignoring all my posts in this very thread.

Bullshit, answer the questions. Reference their methodology and exlplain the issue. It better be a damn good explanation too since every scientific body of merit in the world disagrees with you. Make it count and be very clear.

 

[marrec]

Way to beg the question. I can't agree/disagree with a scientific consensus that doesn't exist.

I am not begging the question, just wanting to be fully informed of your position before continuing.

The fact that you fail to realize the vast majority of scientists around the world all agree on this issue makes me loath to continue the debate.

I can't agree that there is a .9 degree rise in temperature because of the inaccuracy and unreliability of the data.
I can't agree with a similarly-flawed hockey stick graph.

Again, the BEST study shows that the data is reliable and accurate. To continue to disagree in the face of so much evidence is concerning.

I do agree that the climate is changing.
I do not agree that it is a problem.
I do not agree that it is caused to any significant degree by people.
I do not agree that we could have a significant effect on reverting the change.
I do not agree that reverting the change is desirable (as I do not agree that it is a problem), presuming we could revert the change.
I do not agree with the vast majority of proposed "solutions" to the "problem" would help, presuming that it actually is a problem.
I do agree we should reduce consumption and pollution.

At least you aren't totally unreasonable. Its easy to say 'We should reduce consumption and pollution!' then poop on everything people suggest to do about reductions. I agree that 'Green' energy has created a secondary market that a large number of very unscrupulous people are taking advantage of... but that doesn't change the facts.

 

[Segnit]

There's nothing wrong with being green. I'm all for it.
The problem lies in the fact that much of what is labelled as "green" isn't actually green. If we wanted to help the environment we'd be building hydroelectric dams and nuclear power plants and investing in better broadband networks and telling pharmaceutical companies to stop contaminating our water.
The other problem is that most of the proposed solutions, such as carbon taxes/caps/trades, are nothing but financially and politically motivated distractions that do nothing to help the environment.

What so many people don't understand is that I and so many others who are maligned as "deniers", are for protecting and improving the environment. We disagree with the baseless doom and gloom claims and are against the proposed political "solutions" and the backwards motion with things like putting corn into gasoline or building "clean" coal plants.

I appreciate your frank acceptance of the fact that environment matters. You'll be surprised how many people do not hold at least that basic view.

But strictly speaking you and I have nothing to argue against. I am not a doom and gloom sort. For me it's rather simple, pollution sucks. Let's stop polluting the air we breathe and through technology let's try to minimize our pollution footprint.

Trying to tackle man made pollution of any type is costly. It will cost all nations money and almost everyone stands to lose. Will some people make money in the process? Sure. So long as you can make a bet, you can make money. To say that "some people will make money so let's do nothing" is not a realistic stance because one day you'll be on the wrong side of the "I told you so".

 

[Something Wicked]

I'm saying that based on numerous independent studies, the most resent one being BEST, that very specific claim has to be accepted. If one continues to accept that very specific cliam then it would seem to me that no amount of evidence provided could convince you otherwise.

And currently there is no data that exists to make such claims as many climatologists do.

For ground temperature readings I would want close to a 100 sensors around each weather station and a weather stations to cover each square mile of this planet to obtain accurate "global mean temperatures" within a fraction of a degree (F and C). Now, that's not all too feasible, so unless global mean temps start differing by 5, 10, 15 degrees year-to-year, decade-to-decade, or century-to-century, then current methods of on ground gathering of global mean temps are not going to provide much useful data, since such data is will always be within the range of "the noise."

That's why I would only be concerned about sea ice loss/gain, and from current data, I see nothing of much concern.

Bullshit, answer the questions. Reference their methodology and exlplain the issue. It better be a damn good explanation too since every scientific body of merit in the world disagrees with you. Make it count and be very clear.

That's a completely fabricated statement.

 

[Liu Kang Baking A Pie]

"I disagree with almost all scientists because I say so."

 

[siddx]

My boss admitted to me she doesn't believe in climate change or evolution recently. I think she is an awesome person who has achieved incredible things starting her own business and providing a truly good service to the community. But when she said she didn't believe in those two things, my perception of her was severally damaged.

 

[CiSTM]

http://sites.google.com/site/globalwarmingquestions/ipcc
Check it out.

 

[Liu Kang Baking A Pie]

http://sites.google.com/site/globalwarmingquestions/ipcc
Check it out.

Holy shit. What is the end game of the people that made this? What do they want? It's like climate change denial has turned into its own metagame where you just pick apart every little thing without knowing why you're doing it.

 

[KHarvey16]

That's a completely fabricated statement.

No it isn't. No national science agency disputes man made global warming and any well regarded large scientific body supports it as well. This isn't an argument for why it is true, but an argument for why your position must be supported strongly.

 

[CiSTM]

Holy shit. What is the end game of the people that made this? What do they want? It's like climate change denial has turned into its own metagame where you just pick apart every little thing without knowing why you're doing it.

Given that you find many peer reviewd papers from respected journal sites so it would seem they know what they are talking about. ICPP did a lot of corrections in their lates report that is coming out this month based on these types of "fringe scientists"

Edit. Misread your post. They are doing it because that's how science work. They want to prove the mistakes ICPP has done by testing their hypothesis, so far many of these "fringe" studies have been right and ICPP has done corrections.

 

[Something Wicked]

My boss admitted to me she doesn't believe in climate change or evolution recently. I think she is an awesome person who has achieved incredible things starting her own business and providing a truly good service to the community. But when she said she didn't believe in those two things, my perception of her was severally damaged.

Why do people need the crutch of evolution to solidify their views on AGW? It's a lovely tactic of attaching an obvious and easy to understand scientific theory like evolution to a highly controversial one like AGW. However, it demonstrates to me that one does not understand the specific science and statistics behind AGW, since it requires more than a 3rd grade science education, unlike understanding the basics of evolution.

Your boss is an idiot on evolution; however she is correct in being skeptical on "climate change," even though she likely cannot scientifically explain why (unlike me and others in this thread).

If you want to debate with idiots, be my guest. But, while this is pretty damn condescending to say, if you want to debate at the big boy's and girl's table, you're going to need to further educate yourselves on statistics, chemistry, thermodynamics, fluid dynamics, and certainly the history of science.

No it isn't. No national science agency disputes man made global warming and any well regarded large scientific body supports it as well. This isn't an argument for why it is true, but an argument for why your position must be supported strongly.

There are many members within the American Chemistry and American Physics Societies who are completely against the released positions of management of the organizations. There is much disagreement over AGW within many other agencies throughout the world as well.

 

[ViperVisor]

It is instructive to know who has funded these skeptics’ research. Over and over again, the names include Phillip Morris (on the tobacco issues), the right-wing Scaife, Olin, Adolph Coors Foundations, Exxon Mobil (which dispensed 8 million dollars to 40 different organizations to challenge the science on global warming), the Heritage Foundation, The American Enterprise Institute, The Heartland Institute, and the George Marshall Institute. Of the 56 environmentally skeptical books published in 1990, for example, 92% were linked to one or other of these right-wing foundations. Many of the scientists who became the skeptical voices against the need for some governmental regulations against environmental harms were old-style cold-warriors who had worked on nuclear weapons and the Star Wars Initiatives of the Reagan administration. Fred Singer, Fred Seitz, William Nierenberg, Robert Jastrow, Stephen Milloy show a decided pattern. Part of their argument appeals to normal scientific uncertainties to undermine the status of actual scientific knowledge.

Something Wicked would make those once legitimate Science guys who became whores/hacks proud.

 

[KHarvey16]

There are many members within the American Chemistry and American Physics Societies who are completely against the released positions of management of the organizations. There is much disagreement over AGW within many other agencies throughout the world as well.

Read what I wrote again and ask yourself if your response is meaningful in any way.

Also, in climatology there is no controversy over AGW. There are one or two competent dissenters but the vast majority agree with the overarching summary that global warming is happening and humans are responsible.

 

[soepje]

.

 

[Neo C.]

This thread is mind numbing. There are climate change deniers all over the world, but why are those in the US so vocal? Is it because US people don't take science seriously? Or is it the school and the education system? Or is it because of the oil lobby and other corporations?

 

[zoleristec]

This thread is mind numbing. There are climate change deniers all over the world, but why are those in the US so vocal? Is it because US people don't take science seriously? Or is it the school and the education system? Or is it because of the oil lobby and other corporations?

All three.

 

[rCIZZLE]

I'm sure it's been said but why can't the people who don't believe just not watch?

 

[Alpha-Bromega]

This thread is mind numbing. There are climate change deniers all over the world, but why are those in the US so vocal? Is it because US people don't take science seriously? Or is it the school and the education system? Or is it because of the oil lobby and other corporations?

all three, as well as the fact that they are the biggest polluters in the history of the earth and would have to change their disgusting lifestyles in order to rectify this

 

[Gaborn]

I accept that global warming is happening (because the data clearly shows it) but I have yet to see a credible solution to the issue. The Kyoto Protocol that was so popular under Clinton would have exempted India and China's economies and forced the US to spend billions on cutting emissions. It's not even clear it would have reduced total greenhouse gases considering the developing countries exempted.

If we believe that it is a serious problem then there should be a serious solution but the proposals I've seen have mostly been about cutting what's left of the industrial base out of developed nations.

 

[shuyin_]

My boss admitted to me she doesn't believe in climate change or evolution recently. I think she is an awesome person who has achieved incredible things starting her own business and providing a truly good service to the community. But when she said she didn't believe in those two things, my perception of her was severally damaged.

I believe in climate change. I just don't belive in the near-future apocalyptical consequences usualy associated with it.

Regarding evolution, if she doesn't believe in evolution what does she believe then? God made us from dirt?

all three, as well as the fact that they are the biggest polluters in the history of the earth and would have to change their disgusting lifestyles in order to rectify this

You are talking bullshit. Every nation on Earth uses oil as fuel, not just the US. I'm an European and we pollute just as much as the US.

Regarding the 'would have to change their disgusting lifestyles in order to rectify this' part, you may know that peak oil will be reached soon (some even theorize it has been reached already). So whether they want it or not, they will need to find alternatives, probably less polluting ones. So the future is actually good from this pov.

 

[Ushojax]

If we believe that it is a serious problem then there should be a serious solution but the proposals I've seen have mostly been about cutting what's left of the industrial base out of developed nations.

There won't be any real solution to it. Developing countries and corrupt Western governments will never be able to come to an enforceable agreement regarding emissions, and if they ever did, it would be minor damage limitation at best. There is simply no appetite for effective climate change policy in most of the world, from either the public or governments, not until there is some kind of catastrophe.

 

[Gaborn]

There won't be any real solution to it. Developing countries and corrupt Western governments will never be able to come to an enforceable agreement regarding emissions, and if they ever did, it would be minor damage limitation at best. There is simply no appetite for effective climate change policy in most of the world, from either the public or governments, not until there is some kind of catastrophe.

Which is why the implications of not cutting emissions significantly need to be heavily studied and carefully reviewed and why incidents like the Himalayan glacier data mistake are so devastating. For anyone who questions climate change incidents like that speak to a willingness to twist the science to push some nebulous "agenda." I think in reality it was probably a simple mistake although one that should never have been made in the first place, but it is crucial that any scientific information disseminated to the public be accurate and reflect the best data we have, otherwise people start to become even more dismissive of proposed solutions.

 

[Zaptruder]

And currently there is no data that exists to make such claims as many climatologists do.

For ground temperature readings I would want close to a 100 sensors around each weather station and a weather stations to cover each square mile of this planet to obtain accurate "global mean temperatures" within a fraction of a degree (F and C). Now, that's not all too feasible, so unless global mean temps start differing by 5, 10, 15 degrees year-to-year, decade-to-decade, or century-to-century, then current methods of on ground gathering of global mean temps are not going to provide much useful data, since such data is will always be within the range of "the noise."

So basically, you deny the data and the methodology because of your inability to grasp the merit and validity of data and methodology used.*

I dunno man. You don't seem like an altogether all that unintelligent guy. But you know how statistics and the like work right? You don't actually need a sample size near the size of a population group to get accurate data pertaining to said population groups.

That same extrapolative technique works just as well if not better with global temperature due to the way in which the data is gathered.

*But I'm sure there are many other things that you can readily accept without the need to resort to obfuscatory and unfeasible data collection methods, or even a full set of usable and applicable data...

 

[e_i]

It looks like it'll still air (1st quarter 2012)

http://www.treehugger.com/climate-change/Digging-Beneath-the-Surface-of-Frozen-Planet.html

 

[Edmond Dantès]

Discovery will show all seven episodes of Frozen Planet.

Discovery Channel extricated itself from a political ice storm by announcing it would air all seven episodes of "Frozen Planet," a wildlife and natural history series co-produced with the BBC.

The program -- which explores life in the earth's polar regions and the environmental effects of rising temperatures -- will premiere March 18 and air on subsequent Sundays, Discovery said Tuesday.

Four years in the making, the series was produced by the same documentary team behind the channel's critically acclaimed series "Planet Earth." Discovery said the U.S. version of "Frozen Planet" will be narrated by actor Alec Baldwin.

"Frozen Planet" is currently running on the BBC in Britain and generating huge ratings.

Controversy erupted last month when reports surfaced that Discovery was considering ditching the seventh episode of the series, which delves into the thorny issues of global warming. That episode, "Frozen Planet: On Thin Ice," includes on-camera shots of British naturalist Sir David Attenborough, who narrates the British version, discussing what shrinking glaciers and rising temperatures mean for people and wildlife that live in the region as well as the rest of the planet.

Activists launched an online petition urging Discovery Channel to run the entire series, including "On Thin Ice." The channel is owned by Maryland-based Discovery Communications.

The ruckus surprised Discovery executives, who had not screened all of the episodes until last week.

"Up until today we had not made any programming or scheduling decisions, and today we made our announcement," said Katherine Nelson, Discovery Channel spokeswoman.

Source

Good decision by Discovery.