Global Warming? My A$$ Its Cold Outside

[RedskinRat]

How we know Global Warming is real

Although I see how it's now being used as a bludgeon by the EPA to enforce some odd rules.

[RobH4413]

Originally Posted by RedskinRat

How we know Global Warming is real

Although I see how it's now being used as a bludgeon by the EPA to enforce some odd rules.

Facts. I love them. This is dead on.

I find it interesting that it's actually thermal expansion of water that causes sea level rise, and not the melting of ice caps.

[RobH4413]

Grabbed this off Michael E. Mann's ( an American physicist and climatologist) facebook page. I'm a weather nerd so this is right up my alley. Sorry it's long.

Some additional thoughts about terminology: "Denial" vs. "Skepticism" in the Climate Change Debate.

This is a topic I explore in some detail in my book "The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars" (http://bit.ly/sRasaq), particularly in Chapter 6, "A Candle in the Dark" (which pays homage to Carl Sagan's masterful discussion of true skepticism vs. fake skepticism/antiscience/denial in "The Demon-Haunted World").

My view is that far more damage is likely done to the discourse on climate change by pretending that those who deny the existence of the problem are simply "skeptics" and labeling them as such (or using similar euphemisms). Doing so simply provides cover for bad faith attacks on the science, and potentially leads those in the middle (or are much more likely to be be potentially part of any meaningful progress in climate change mitigation) to stay on the sidelines rather than engage, believing that the threat has been exaggerated or overstated.

Work by Ed Maibach and others (see e.g. this piece: http://www.minnpost.com/environment/2011/11/why-arent-we-more-worried-about-global-warming) has shown that the single greatest obstacle to progress on this issue is in fact the belief by those in the middle that scientists are *not* in agreement" on the reality of the problem, despite the overwhelming consensus that actually exists.

Allowing the forces of antiscience to continue to frame themselves as "skeptics" plays right into that fallacy, and arguably does far more damage than alienating those who actively deny the science (what are often referred to as "climate change deniers") by calling them out for their denial. Yes, deniers don't like being called deniers (just as fools don't like being called fools, etc). But not calling them out for what they are is potentially a far greater threat to progress than alienating those who are (a) unlikely to change their mind and therefore (b) unlikely to actively work toward any truly meaningful mitigation efforts.

It is telling in that regard that President Obama yesterday in his Inauguration speech chose to call out those who "deny" the science of climate change despite the overwhelming evidence. This implies that his administration, his advisers and speechwriters, etc. have come to the same realization: That the continued denial of the problem by some poses a far greater threat than does offending those who are engaged in that denial, and unlikely to be part of any meaningful solution (i.e. carbon emissions regulations).

[FRPLG]

Originally Posted by RobH4413

Facts. I love them. This is dead on.

I find it interesting that it's actually thermal expansion of water that causes sea level rise, and not the melting of ice caps.

Not too sure where I stand totally but I have read enough to know this...the entire debate has been politicized and there is unbelievable bias on each side. Too often "facts" on each side are not actually real facts but suppositions masquerading as facts. The facts seem to be this...warming is happening although its extent is debated. Why that warming is happening isn't positively known. Those who believe it is caused by humans base there beliefs on models. Models made by humans...who believe in man-made warming. Even they'll admit the models aren't right. How wrong they are matters. If they're just wrong in terms of degree then they're basic theories are correct but skeptics accurately point out that only one of the myriad of reasons they believe the models are wrong has to be right to totally invalidate the theories. Alas, some more reasonable skeptics make some good points. If you're a denier then you're definitely wrong because the skeptics don't have more scientifically proven causes either.

[RobH4413]

Originally Posted by FRPLG

Not too sure where I stand totally but I have read enough to know this...the entire debate has been politicized and there is unbelievable bias on each side. Too often "facts" on each side are not actually real facts but suppositions masquerading as facts. The facts seem to be this...warming is happening although its extent is debated. Why that warming is happening isn't positively known. Those who believe it is caused by humans base there beliefs on models. Models made by humans...who believe in man-made warming. Even they'll admit the models aren't right. How wrong they are matters. If they're just wrong in terms of degree then they're basic theories are correct but skeptics accurately point out that only one of the myriad of reasons they believe the models are wrong has to be right to totally invalidate the theories. Alas, some more reasonable skeptics make some good points. If you're a denier then you're definitely wrong because the skeptics don't have more scientifically proven causes either.

Right, But my argument here is that the "Skeptics", side of the argument is given equal air time and validity for a variety of reasons. One of those reasons being the media's pattern or tenancy to provide a point, counter-point format. Ie, giving two sides of an issue equal air time and validity when their needs to exist a discrepancy between the two to actually present the facts more objectively. Would it make much sense to discuss the moon landing with equal breath to the conspiracy theorists? No.

Obviously there are outside pressures influencing this- and I think it's to credit your point about this issue being so heavily politicized... but from a purely scientific standpoint- this is a non-issue. The overwhelming majority of climatologists have a consensus.

[FRPLG]

Originally Posted by RobH4413

The overwhelming majority of climatologists have a consensus.

You should do some research on this point because it is the one point that helped me switch from being a real skeptic to a firm believer. I have since fallen back into the middle area. There are a lot of actual climatologists (not just scientists) who would greatly dispute the notion that there is any consensus about causation. The "consensus" that is so always discussed is really the consensus of scientists who aren't climatologists or only focus on certain parts of the discussion.

My feeling is that reducing greenhouse emissions in smart practical ways is a good idea since a) it won't hurt anything b) let's just do it to be on the safe side and c) there are some potential political benefits. But based on my reading..which I try to do on this a lot...there are a good many climatologists who dispute greatly the notion that humans are appreciably warming the earth and they have just as much science on their side.

[BaltimoreSkins]

Originally Posted by RobH4413

Facts. I love them. This is dead on.

I find it interesting that it's actually thermal expansion of water that causes sea level rise, and not the melting of ice caps.

Thermal expansion is probably one of the strongest indicators of global warming. Since the specific heat of water is high compared to surrounding surfaces it takes a much larger amount of heat to raise the temperature of water.

FRPLG,

You are correct. Any short term weather pattern is not and should not be used as evidence. I guess I did a poor job of stating that. Maybe a little bias on my part. :cheeky-sm

[firstdown]

Yes, I am a denier.

[NC_Skins]

Originally Posted by firstdown

Yes, I am a dummy.

Fixed. :cheeky-sm



Most people still trying to deny global warming are doing so that they can continue profiting from destroying the planet. Either that, or they aren't educated enough to understand science and most likely believe everything that corporate media tells them.

[FRPLG]

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

Fixed. :cheeky-sm



Most people still trying to deny global warming are doing so that they can continue profiting from destroying the planet. Either that, or they aren't educated enough to understand science and most likely believe everything that corporate media tells them.

There are dummies all over. The are also smart people who know what they're talking about. On both sides of the issue.

[NC_Skins]

Originally Posted by FRPLG

There are dummies all over. The are also smart people who know what they're talking about. On both sides of the issue.

Oh I know, I'm just teasing FD a bit.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

Fixed. :cheeky-sm



Most people still trying to deny global warming are doing so that they can continue profiting from destroying the planet. Either that, or they aren't educated enough to understand science and most likely believe everything that corporate media tells them.

You don't think Al and his buddies have not profitted from global warming. Trillions have been made of global warming and there are trillions more that will be made so that argument deos not flush. Its corporate media that has pushed global warming so that also does not work.

Just to be clear most all agree the earth is in a warming cycle we just disagree with the cause.

[Schneed10]

This is one issue where there's a serious generational gap. Being older makes you stupid in this arena. 30 somethings and younger came up with global warming being heavily taught in Earth science classes in middle schools and high schools, the science behind the concept is so basic that 7th graders get it easily. 60 somethings have barely even heard of the concept.

Being old and curmudgeonly, naturally the old heads dismiss media reports they've never heard about.

I used to be with it, then they changed what "it" was!

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

This is one issue where there's a serious generational gap. Being older makes you stupid in this arena. 30 somethings and younger came up with global warming being heavily taught in Earth science classes in middle schools and high schools, the science behind the concept is so basic that 7th graders get it easily. 60 somethings have barely even heard of the concept.

Being old and curmudgeonly, naturally the old heads dismiss media reports they've never heard about.

I used to be with it, then they changed what "it" was!

The older generation is still stuck on all that science about global cooling.

[Alvin Walton]

Its a cycle like FD said.
Unless its not true the Great Lakes were covered in glaciers......