The psychology and sociology of the International Global Warming Debate

[Turtle]

...Now I must leave and shovel more global warming off my driveway. That is if my truck will start after -13 this morn. BTW, a drive past Minnesota Valley Wildlife Refuge Jan 1st allowed me to observe the muskrat dens. Geezus Krist, they were almost 4 foot tall. Sign of a bad winter that never fails. Predicted by small furry animals and given to anyone who takes the time to look, free of charge.

 

Minnesota Valley National Wildlife Refuge - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

first, and on the psychology of all this, i see a disconnect cedars inasmuch as you play crex meadows eco-goddess and it's good, but when climate scientists talk about taking steps to protect things, it's bad. :shrug: (mind you, i find your eco-goddess-hood of crex meadows an endearing quality, and i consider myself eco-god of lechtenberg )

 

on the "it's cold so no global warming", definitlydisturbd is also on that track of concern/questioniong. another psychological disconnect from the science. :naughty: i'm currently enjoying unseasonably warm weather myself here in washington state.

 

Experts: Cold snap doesn't disprove global warming - Yahoo! News

...Whatever happened to global warming?

 

Such weather doesn't seem to fit with warnings from scientists that the Earth is warming because of greenhouse gases. But experts say the cold snap doesn't disprove global warming at all — it's just a blip in the long-term heating trend.

 

"It's part of natural variability," said Gerald Meehl, a senior scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo. With global warming, he said, "we'll still have record cold temperatures. We'll just have fewer of them."

...

But recently, this air flow has become bent into a pronounced zigzag pattern, meandering north and south. If you live in a place where it brings air up from the south, you get warm weather. In fact, record highs were reported this week in Washington state and Alaska. ...

 

more: >> Meteorologists: Global Warming and Cold Weather Go Hand-In-Hand | News | English

... People in Europe are shivering, while people in North Asia and parts of Australia are sweltering. Scientists say these weather extremes are to be expected and neither phenomenon can be used as a case for or against global warming.

 

Secretary-General of the World Meteorological Organization, Michel Jarraud, says people should not confuse local weather variability with climate change.

 

Just because people in Geneva and elsewhere in Europe are shivering does not mean global warming has stopped. He says the trend toward global warming is still there. ...

 

last year: >> Exceptionally cold and snowy winter does not mean global warming going away. - swissinfo

[REASON]

What is the psychology of people who think the following thoughts:

"Saying it is natural variability is not an explanation."

 

I can answer that considering I've said it.

 

First of all, to acknowledge that there is "natural variability" occurring is to acknowledge that there are changes occurring, so all the speculative bloviation about the secret agenda of climate scientists and their control over the temperature records seems a bit contradictory.

 

Secondly, anyone who has an interest in science understands that saying something is "natural" is not a good scientific explanation in-and-of itself because it doesn't do a good job of answering the question "why."

 

Why does the sun rise in the East, move across the sky and set in the West? Because it's been doing that as long as anyone can remember. It's natural.

 

While that explanation is completely true, it is unsatisfying to the inquiring mind because it doesn't explain why. So in regard to climate change or the observed warming we are experiencing on a global level, those that are science oriented aren't going to be satisfied with the simple explanation that there is evidence that is has been warmer in the past. What are the factors that contributed to that warming? What was the effect on plant and animal life? Are the same processes at work now? Could our actions be having an impact? What are the potential hazards and risks?

 

In a nutshell, the fact that the planet has been warmer in the past does not discount AGW here in the present. So to believe that we don't have to be concerned or change what we're doing simply because it's been warm in the past is naive and unscientific.

 

That's the way I see it anyway.

[Cedars]

My interpretation is different. I see it as saying that we see nothing unusual when natural variability is accounted for, but when we remove natural variability, we see warming. This, to me, means that anthropogenic warming mechanisms are showing an increase. This is an analysis, and not a deliberate attempt to skew the data to show warming.

Amazing. Deliberately remove nature from climate to show a warming that doesnt exist (currently) and you still deny an attempt to skew the data.

 

Fact is, and this is a fact the scientists of climate agree with, THERE IS NO WARMING CURRENTLY. Of course they did not state this publically did they? Only via the whistleblower were we commoners alerted to this fact, a fact the skeptics had been trying to point out, only to be maligned by the believers.

 

snipped Trenberth quote

 

But here we are, Trenberth admits there has been no warming but stating We cant call it natural because we cant explain what the processes are behind it because our info systems are not up to par.

 

Systems which have been used to assigned a 90% probability (omg its all cuz of people). Systems which did not predict a leveling off/cooling. Systems obviously not up to the complex nature of climate in a decade, let alone 50-100 years.

 

"The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't. "

Of course, there is the possibility that they are just flat out wrong on AGW. Similar to the religions, they cant all be right, but they all can be wrong.

 

 

It appears that Kevin is simply raising some valid questions regarding the science behind energy budget.

On this we agree. Now please take the time to find me a quote where Trenbreth states this fact publicly (before climategate).

 

Ah yes, the unwashed masses may become skeptical of the 'science'. Too bad. Thats the price ya pay if you predict the end of the world and it doesnt happen.

 

The first is to look at the difference between the observed and expected anthropogenic trend relative to the pdf NOTE:May have meant PDO for unforced variability. The second is to remove ENSO, volcanoes and TSI variations from the observed data.

 

Yet here it is, ENSO for 2008. Cooling. Natural event.

 

State of the Climate | El Niño/Southern Oscillation Analysis | Annual 2008

 

2009:

State of the Climate | El Niño/Southern Oscillation Analysis | January 2009

 

2007:

State of the Climate | El Niño/Southern Oscillation Analysis | Annual 2007

 

I dont need to find the sunspots for you and show thats like zero'ed out. Another natural event we need to remove from the Facts Of Life so the AGW crowd can show warming. How will they do that? Oh yeah, the models and guessing. You will take that answer on faith. I wont.

 

The fact that we can not account for what is happening in the climate system makes any consideration of geoengineering quite hopeless as we will never be able to tell if it is successful or not! It is a travesty!

 

As I said, They wont know if their attempts to play climate god will work. Ah such tragedy.

 

Seems to be plenty of messy psychology for amature Freuds to ponder.

[BrianG]

The issue is global warming, will continues man made [ce]CO_2[/ce] emissions cause a catastrophic global warming sense. In this manner, climate change is problematic. http://johnrlott.tripod.com/PragerClimateChange.mp3

[Erasmus00]

But again, I ask, why does it matter whether or not its happening if the course of action isn't harmful? How can anyone (other than oil companies) argue against moving away from fossil fuels?

 

If its happening, and we restrict CO2 emissions and we do avoid a catastrophe, great, planet saved.

 

If its not happening and we restrict CO2 emissions- we give less money to countries that aren't too fond of us, our oil reserves will last longer, and the counties and companies that create efficient technologies make money hand over fist. Whats the downside?

[freeztar]

But again, I ask, why does it matter whether or not its happening if the course of action isn't harmful? How can anyone (other than oil companies) argue against moving away from fossil fuels?

 

If its happening, and we restrict CO2 emissions and we do avoid a catastrophe, great, planet saved.

 

If its not happening and we restrict CO2 emissions- we give less money to countries that aren't too fond of us, our oil reserves will last longer, and the counties and companies that create efficient technologies make money hand over fist. Whats the downside?

 

I agree, Erasmus. Perhaps some of the resistance is based on economical fears. Since oil is cheap and available, switching to more expensive energy production will hurt economies world wide. I'm not sure how true this is, but I've heard the objection many times. Of course, people tend to conveniently forget long-term costs.

[BrianG]

But again, I ask, why does it matter whether or not its happening if the course of action isn't harmful? How can anyone (other than oil companies) argue against moving away from fossil fuels? ... Whats the downside?

 

The customers might be unhappy if they drove down to the gas pumps, and couldn't tank up. People might get cold in the winter, without heating fuel. If you flipped a light switch and nothing happened, you might see a downside to moving away from fossil fuel. Try watching the traffic on your street and count the number of battery and hydrogen fuel cell cars and trucks. I'm willing to bet every vehicle you see uses fossil fuel. If we couldn't move our goods or go where we want, because we don't want to use coal, oil and gas, that would be a negative outcome.

 

If the price of fossil fuels increase, customer's see that as a bad change. Fossil fuel drives our economy, we don't have to compete with any other species to use it. Its energy rich and cheaper than alternatives.Electric Power Monthly . Why begrudge oil exporting countries the vital goods they supply to the markets, they can't eat sand?

[freeztar]

Amazing. Deliberately remove nature from climate to show a warming that doesnt exist (currently) and you still deny an attempt to skew the data.

 

They were performing analysis. What happens when we remove this? What happens when we add this? That sort of thing.

 

If you can show a published paper where they deliberately removed "nature" (without saying they did so) to show warming where there was none, then you have a very valid point. Otherwise, it seems a little brash to shout "conspiracy" when all that was being done is analysis behind (previously) closed doors.

 

As far as the analysis goes, this is what it suggests to me. If you take all variables and sum them, you see no significant warming. If you account for all natural sources of warming (which is quantifiable) and remove those influences from the data (leaving only human caused warming), you show a warming slope. This suggests two things immediately to me. One, human influences are causing an increase in warming. Two, the natural influences dwarf human influences so much that they can not be distinguished when all influences are summed.

 

Now, if you want to harp on that last point, then that seems reasonable to me. But, to say that they are genuinely skewing the data is disingenuous, imho. In any case, we don't know what model they are working with, what factors/variables are being discussed, etc. If we had that information, then we could discuss their analysis shortcomings or strengths, but it seems difficult to do with such little information.

 

Fact is, and this is a fact the scientists of climate agree with, THERE IS NO WARMING CURRENTLY. Of course they did not state this publically did they? Only via the whistleblower were we commoners alerted to this fact, a fact the skeptics had been trying to point out, only to be maligned by the believers.

 

Actually, many scientists have been pointing this out for a few years. The explanation is that we are in a small cooling period right now. When we get back to the warming period, it is predicted to be even hotter than the last warming period. Iirc, this has to do with ocean currents (La Nina/Nino?), but I'm not sure. I'll try to find some sources if you'd like.

 

Here we go:

 

Using this method, and by considering both internal natural climate variations and projected future anthropogenic forcing, we make the following forecast: over the next decade, the current Atlantic meridional overturning circulation will weaken to its long-term mean; moreover, North Atlantic SST and European and North American surface temperatures will cool slightly, whereas tropical Pacific SST will remain almost unchanged. Our results suggest that global surface temperature may not increase over the next decade, as natural climate variations in the North Atlantic and tropical Pacific temporarily offset the projected anthropogenic warming.

Access : Advancing decadal-scale climate prediction in the North Atlantic sector : Nature

 

But here we are, Trenberth admits there has been no warming but stating We cant call it natural because we cant explain what the processes are behind it because our info systems are not up to par.

Nobody is denying that we don't need more and better observations. Heck, the more the merrier. But making a jump from "we need more data" to "climate science is bunk" is a big stretch and I don't think that is what Trenberth is implying at all.

 

Systems which have been used to assigned a 90% probability (omg its all cuz of people). Systems which did not predict a leveling off/cooling. Systems obviously not up to the complex nature of climate in a decade, let alone 50-100 years.

Which predictions/systems are you referring to?

 

Of course, there is the possibility that they are just flat out wrong on AGW. Similar to the religions, they cant all be right, but they all can be wrong.

Sure. And there is a possibility that we could be wrong about the big bang and evolution. Though, that possibility is very small. :happybirthday:

 

On this we agree. Now please take the time to find me a quote where Trenbreth states this fact publicly (before climategate).

Which fact? That global warming is occurring?

 

Ah yes, the unwashed masses may become skeptical of the 'science'. Too bad. Thats the price ya pay if you predict the end of the world and it doesnt happen.

 

I'm not aware of any "end of the world" predictions by scientists in peer-reviewed journals. Can you point me to one?

 

Yet here it is, ENSO for 2008. Cooling. Natural event.

Yes, and the reasons are explained. This does not refute AGW at all.

 

I dont need to find the sunspots for you and show thats like zero'ed out. Another natural event we need to remove from the Facts Of Life so the AGW crowd can show warming. How will they do that? Oh yeah, the models and guessing. You will take that answer on faith. I wont.

A bit presumptuous on your part. I wouldn't take such a description on faith. If I was shown good science, the yes, I would favor the theory.

 

As I said, They wont know if their attempts to play climate god will work. Ah such tragedy.

The same could be said of the opposite camp. If we continue to pollute, ah such a tragedy.

 

Seems to be plenty of messy psychology for amature Freuds to ponder.

Indeed.

[Erasmus00]

The customers might be unhappy if they drove down to the gas pumps, and couldn't tank up. People might get cold in the winter, without heating fuel. If you flipped a light switch and nothing happened, you might see a downside to moving away from fossil fuel.

 

This assumes we reduce emissions by simply stopping to sell such things. Further, you've taken it to an illogical extreme. This is a silly assumption. Innovation is how to reduce emissions- more efficient cars use less gas. Imagine the happy customer who spends half of what he used to filling up. Imagine the customer who switches to high efficiency bulbs and finds his electricity is cheaper, etc. Reducing emissions should be an opportunity to innovate!

 

Consider simply requiring a switch to high efficiency appliances in the home. I did this recently, and found my electricity bill greatly reduced, with no change in my overall lifestyle. These appliances (while more expensive initially) pay for themselves.

 

If the price of fossil fuels increase, customer's see that as a bad change. Fossil fuel drives our economy, we don't have to compete with any other species to use it. Its energy rich and cheaper than alternatives.Electric Power Monthly . Why begrudge oil exporting countries the vital goods they supply to the markets, they can't eat sand?

 

No one is suggesting we move a way from fossil fuels entirely. Simply using less power (switching to high efficiency appliances, better mileage cars, etc) is the easy start- and would dramatically lower our emissions, and save everyone money. The added money can't help but be a boon to the economy. And again- the companies that develop innovative approaches to these problems will make an incredible amount of money.

 

Further, oil production will level off and then slow eventually, and the cost will go sky high, especially as China's demand grows and grows. Why wait until a crisis to look for a solution?

 

The reason to begrudge oil exporting companies their vital goods is that the region is, generally, a bit religiously inclined to hate us. The US is financing the enemy in a war against us.

[Cedars]

They were performing analysis. What happens when we remove this? What happens when we add this? That sort of thing.

 

If you can show a published paper where they deliberately removed "nature" (without saying they did so) to show warming where there was none, then you have a very valid point. Otherwise, it seems a little brash to shout "conspiracy" when all that was being done is analysis behind (previously) closed doors.

No thats not what it was about. Clearly it was an attempt to figure out a way to impress upon the masses that warming is continuing.

 

Tom Wigley wrote:

 

Dear all,

 

At the risk of overload, here are some notes of mine on the recent lack of warming. I look at this in two ways. (snipped part of repeat)

 

Both methods show that what we are seeing is not unusual. The second

 

method(removing the reality of natural variations) leaves a significant warming over the past decade.

 

Tom.

Wow, by that logic, if we removed the 1997-98 el Nino event, we wouldnt have any spike. Oh and if we remove the changed wind pattern, we can ignore the arctic ice melt too!

 

"The winds causing this trend in ice reduction were set up by an unusual pattern of atmospheric pressure that began at the beginning of this century," Nghiem said.

NASA - NASA Examines Arctic Sea Ice Changes Leading to Record Low in 2007

 

Hey, is that all it takes to be a climate scientist? Remove inconvenient truths?

 

Actually, many scientists have been pointing this out for a few years. The explanation is that we are in a small cooling period right now. When we get back to the warming period, it is predicted to be even hotter than the last warming period. Iirc, this has to do with ocean currents (La Nina/Nino?), but I'm not sure. I'll try to find some sources if you'd like.

First, the scientists that have been pointing out the lack of warming/cooling are not associated with the IPCC, EAcru, hadley, real climate or any of the pro-agw crowd.

Now its gone on long enough that even that bunch cannot deny the decline any longer. Its too obvious. Whats changed? It certainly isnt the amount of c02.

 

Here we go:

Access : Advancing decadal-scale climate prediction in the North Atlantic sector : Nature

Nice try but you fail. Trenbreths name is not on that paper. Heres my original request:

Now please take the time to find me a quote where Trenbreth states this fact publicly (before climategate).

IIRC, trenberth was a major factor in Landsea resigning his position on the IPCC for Trenberth mouthing off about increased hurricane activity and intensity.

 

- Prometheus: Chris Landsea Leaves IPCC Archives

 

Nobody is denying that we don't need more and better observations. Heck, the more the merrier. But making a jump from "we need more data" to "climate science is bunk" is a big stretch and I don't think that is what Trenberth is implying at all.

Climate science became bunk when the focus was placed on AGW. You cannot ignore the natural variations and assign a 90% certainty that the (perfectly normal) increase in temperature (during an interglacial period) is because of soccer moms and cowboy wannabe's in the SUVs. We have 3-5 degrees C to go before hitting the peak temps of the last interglacial (Eemian).

 

I'm not aware of any "end of the world" predictions by scientists in peer-reviewed journals. Can you point me to one?

Google James Hansen and Tipping point.

 

Yes, and the reasons are explained. This does not refute AGW at all.

Don J. Easterbrook | Research: Facts about CO2 and global warming

[freeztar]

No thats not what it was about. Clearly it was an attempt to figure out a way to impress upon the masses that warming is continuing.

I can't take what you say on faith. Can you prove this?

 

Wow, by that logic, if we removed the 1997-98 el Nino event, we wouldnt have any spike. Oh and if we remove the changed wind pattern, we can ignore the arctic ice melt too!

C'mon Cedars. This is hyperbole.

No one is ignoring natural events.

 

First, the scientists that have been pointing out the lack of warming/cooling are not associated with the IPCC, EAcru, hadley, real climate or any of the pro-agw crowd.

Now its gone on long enough that even that bunch cannot deny the decline any longer. Its too obvious. Whats changed? It certainly isnt the amount of c02.

 

I'm slightly amused that this "AGW group" upsets you so much.

 

Consider this: if they said the decline is natural, then people would be saying, "see! AGW is fake, it's just natural occurrences!". People might not care for the climatologists explanations for how the variability occurs naturally so long as the era of "climate gods" is over. :happybirthday:

 

Nice try but you fail. Trenbreths name is not on that paper. Heres my original request: Now please take the time to find me a quote where Trenbreth states this fact publicly (before climategate).

To do that right you have to have a Donald Trump emoticon. :)

But seriously, I didn't try because I was unsure of what you were asking. I thought I made that clear with my questions. :cheer:

What is "this fact", in the quote above?

It helps to know what I'm looking for before I go searching for it. :cry:

 

IIRC, trenberth was a major factor in Landsea resigning his position on the IPCC for Trenberth mouthing off about increased hurricane activity and intensity.

Ok. Then why should I look for a quote from him for you?

 

Climate science became bunk when the focus was placed on AGW. You cannot ignore the natural variations and assign a 90% certainty that the (perfectly normal) increase in temperature (during an interglacial period) is because of soccer moms and cowboy wannabe's in the SUVs. We have 3-5 degrees C to go before hitting the peak temps of the last interglacial (Eemian).

Would 3-5 degrees warmer be optimal?

I only ask because the "soccer mom" reference reminds me off right-wing talking points. Another one, from Neil Boortz is that scientists can not tell us what the optimal climate should be. Do you have an opinion on this?

 

I think it is silly. It implies that scientists have arbitrarily set a standard climate for the world and since it is not matching up with expectations, we must change to ameliorate things. This is not the case. In fact, scientists are happy to observe the experiment. If carbon emissions suddenly vanished, then perhaps climatologists would again vanish far from the spotlight. I'm quite sure most of them don't care for the limelight, especially now.

 

Google James Hansen and Tipping point.

google not even close to an end of the world scenario

 

Don J. Easterbrook | Research: Facts about CO2 and global warming

 

Sorry folks for going off-topic. To get back on topic, this last link seems perfect. :eek:

I'm not sure what Cedars was trying to point me to as the link takes you to a page with four different articles written by Ron J. Easterbrook who is a Geologist at Western Washington University. I decided to choose the Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide article to see what Don had to say.

 

It's tempting to argue against his "science" that CO2 lags warming, but instead I think the psychology of his arguments are more appropriate fodder.

 

He repeatedly demonstrates the relative lack of abundance of CO2 compared with other atmospheric gases. This "downplaying" is a setup for the idea that CO2, especially the Anthropogenic sort, causing warming is ludicrous. How could it when it makes up so little of the atmosphere? :D

[BrianG]

... It implies that scientists have arbitrarily set a standard climate for the world and since it is not matching up with expectations, we must change to ameliorate things. This is not the case. In fact, scientists are happy to observe the experiment. If carbon emissions suddenly vanished, then perhaps climatologists would again vanish far from the spotlight...

 

An observation is not an experiment. This often repeated claim that our fossil fuel use is an experimental test of the greenhouse effect isn't supported. We call our use of oil, coal and gas, life. We use these fuels to keep warm, move, give us light and communicate.

[freeztar]

An observation is not an experiment.

 

Good! :happybirthday:

 

You are one hundred percent correct. Now, can you have an experiment without an observation?

 

This often repeated claim that our fossil fuel use is an experimental test of the greenhouse effect isn't supported.

 

Interesting. Which part isn't supported: The fact that we are emitting greenhouse gases, or the fact that we can measure them?

 

We call our use of oil, coal and gas, life. We use these fuels to keep warm, move, give us light and communicate.

 

Who is this "we"?

Life has never required burning oil, coal, or gas. People, and life in general, got by just fine without such things. Nonetheless, nobody is calling for an armistice on energy. We have other methods that, while not perfect, can replace the deleterious methods we employ now, with potential short term gains on top of the obvious long term gains.

[BrianG]

duplicate post

[BrianG]

"This often repeated claim that our fossil fuel use is an experimental test of the greenhouse effect isn't supported."

...Interesting. Which part isn't supported: The fact that we are emitting greenhouse gases, or the fact that we can measure them?...

 

An experiment requires controls, if we burn more heating oil and emit more [ce]CO_2[/ce] when it's cold, we can't say [ce]CO_2[/ce] causes cooling. We emit [ce]CO_2[/ce] because we live, with every breath. We can measure our greenhouse gas emissions, but measurement alone does not make fossil fuel use an experimental test of the greenhouse gas effect.

[Cedars]

I can't take what you say on faith. Can you prove this?

You dont need faith. It is their words as they conspire to create a warming that doesnt exist in the timeframe.

 

However, when the raw data, from tax payer funded temperature data stations is not produced on request (FOI) and you are given an adjusted set of data, with the processes used to adjust the data also being withheld from outside scrutiny, combined with reasonable doubts about the accuracy of these stations, a significant portion of which have issues, while the experts are declaring, absolutely, warming is occuring, and its because of people, natural variability does not account for it, and you believe it, well then yes, you are operating in the realm of faith.

 

 

Consider this: if they said the decline is natural, then people would be saying, "see! AGW is fake, it's just natural occurrences!". People might not care for the climatologists explanations for how the variability occurs naturally so long as the era of "climate gods" is over.

Whats wrong with not believing bad/incorrect scientific assumptions?

-Rollseyes-

I will still watch the weather on tv or the www. I still want to know if it might rain. I like to know an arctic cold front is approaching. Makes me groan and dread the morning commute but I still prefer to know its coming.

 

But seriously, I didn't try because I was unsure of what you were asking. I thought I made that clear with my questions. :)

What is "this fact", in the quote above?

It helps to know what I'm looking for before I go searching for it. ;)

 

Ok. Then why should I look for a quote from him for you? :shrug:

Because you declared:

"Actually, many scientists have been pointing this out for a few years. The explanation is that we are in a small cooling period right now. When we get back to the warming period, it is predicted to be even hotter than the last warming period. Iirc, this has to do with ocean currents (La Nina/Nino?), but I'm not sure. I'll try to find some sources if you'd like."

 

And while there have been some, I pointed out its not the CRU/climategate/ipcc crew who were pointing this out and asked you to find me a Trenberth quote publicly made to this effect. But you didnt.

 

Would 3-5 degrees warmer be optimal?

I only ask because the "soccer mom" reference reminds me off right-wing talking points. Another one, from Neil Boortz is that scientists can not tell us what the optimal climate should be. Do you have an opinion on this?

Optimal? My climate varies greatly in a year. I can see temps of 100 all the way down to -25 f in a typical year. I adapt to the climate condition. That is the natural climate event I live it and accept.

 

Soccer mom - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

I like how you ignored the 'wannabe cowboy' part of the quote. Why, doesnt that fit your stereotype of a right winger?

 

I think it is silly. It implies that scientists have arbitrarily set a standard climate for the world and since it is not matching up with expectations, we must change to ameliorate things. This is not the case. In fact, scientists are happy to observe the experiment. If carbon emissions suddenly vanished, then perhaps climatologists would again vanish far from the spotlight. I'm quite sure most of them don't care for the limelight, especially now.

Doesnt seem to be correct, your assumption about climate scientists. Hence the email exchange regarding the lack of warming. No pondering that maybe they misunderstood the causes of the warming. No discussion that MAYBE the sun has more of an effect than the IPCC declared, etc.

google not even close to an end of the world scenario

Tipping point = point of no return.

You asked for one, I produced, yet still you cling to your faith that AGW is all about science.

 

Heres another:

Warming will 'wipe out billions' - Scotsman.com News

 

"Professor Kevin Anderson is the Director of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research and holds a joint chair in Energy and Climate Change at the School of Mechanical, Aerospace and Civil Engineering at the University of Manchester and School of Environmental Sciences at University of East Anglia. "

 

Tyndall at Manchester gateway

 

Sorry folks for going off-topic. To get back on topic, this last link seems perfect. :)

I'm not sure what Cedars was trying to point me to as the link takes you to a page with four different articles written by Ron J. Easterbrook who is a Geologist at Western Washington University. I decided to choose the Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide article to see what Don had to say.

 

It's tempting to argue against his "science" that CO2 lags warming, but instead I think the psychology of his arguments are more appropriate fodder.

 

He repeatedly demonstrates the relative lack of abundance of CO2 compared with other atmospheric gases. This "downplaying" is a setup for the idea that CO2, especially the Anthropogenic sort, causing warming is ludicrous. How could it when it makes up so little of the atmosphere? ;)

Ah yes, a simple geologist using the correlation is not causation logic and provides evidence that similar warmings have occurred without the C02 input.

 

Some peer reviewed publications:

 

Easterbrook, D.J., 2005, Causes and effects of abrupt, global, climate changes and global warming: Geological Society of America.

 

Sherard, C.A., Easterbrook, D.J., Evenson, E.B., Gosse, J., Ivy-Ochs,S., and Kovanen, D.J., 2004, Late Pleistocene alpine glacial oscillations in the North Cascades, WA and Sawtooth Mts., ID and their relationship to global climatic changes, Geological Society of America.

 

Easterbrook, D.J., 2003, Synchronicity and sensitivity of alpine and continental glaciers to abrupt, global, climatic changes during the Younger Dryas, 2003, Geological Society of America.

 

He has clues about climate. He doesnt work for big oil. He has no motive one way or another. And he does not agree with the co2 theory of the current warming. Co2 is a minor greenhouse gas and is an insignificant portion of the atmospheric greenhouse gasses, with h2o being the dominant ghg factor.

 

38 parts in 100 k. Take a screen and count out 10K squares and fill in 4 (because 3.8 is too picky). Now add in the h20 squares, 200 for 2%, 400 for 4% (water content varies) knowing h20 covers 85% of the same heat spectrum co2 does.

 

It is a silly theory. Co2 is a minor factor in warming.

[Michaelangelica]

listen now | download audio

 

A major problem for Darwin was understanding the evolution of cooperative behaviour. Robert May discusses the evolution of cooperation, in relation to climate change and other problems. Is it better to cooperate, or to cheat! And then do we punish those who cheat? Robert May looks at various games which illustrate the problems of cooperation. He equates the rise of religious fundamentalism with a resistance for the need to change.

 

Show Transcript | Hide Transcript

Transcript

 

Robyn Williams: Lord Martin Rees's predecessor, as President of the Royal Society of London, was Bob May. He's an Australian. Now Lord May, he's Professor of Zoology at Oxford, and he was also Chief Scientist in Britain. Here is Robert May addressing one of the problems Darwin identified, which is now probably at the core of our future prospects.

 

Robert May: Darwin in his time had three problems. Seeing as we knew nothing about nuclear forces, the sun couldn't have been burning long enough for the time that geology needed. Secondly the way current ideas about inheritance in his time, blending wouldn't maintain the variability we actually see. And thirdly, the problem of how you evolve altruistic, cooperative associations seem to him a difficult problem. And we've solved the first two, but we haven't got beyond that to a significant degree. And I'm going to talk a little bit more about evolution of cooperation and where we are and some of the problems in relation specifically to climate change, although the implications go wider.

The evolution of cooperative behaviour - Science Show - 2 January 2010

Lord May. Robert May was at Sydney High School and then the University of Sydney, after which he went to Harvard and became Vice President in charge of research at Princeton, then Chief Scientist in Britain and President of the Royal Society.

Be flexible and adapt, or be rigid and fit into present circumstances - the eternal choice.

Can we adapt as a society quickly enough when cooperation is so vital?