http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/pr...jim_hanse.html

I will. Then I would have the answer to my question.

Re: other variables comment

Dude, Hansen is modeling something with a fairly high error rate, of course there's variables that he doesn't know about.

That's exactly what I said, isn't it? (edit: okay maybe not exactly, but the graph shows that forcing is what is important)

The important thing is that the forcings were close. We know the forcings for GHGs very well, so the fact that Hansen's model predicted temperatures fairly well shows that his model gets feedbacks mostly right. And feedbacks are what you want to know about when you are looking at future warming.

So guys vote for Republicans as the lesser of two evils, adopt your arguments wholesale from various Republican pundits, conservative thinktanks, right wing blogs, Fox News... but don't dare call anyone of you a Republican. You're all firm independents who have simply happened by chance to align yourselves with an arbitrarily selected part of the Republican party platform.


With regard to this thread, I wonder if the Republican party will ever regret making "discrediting science" a major element of their platform. I understand that MMGW-producing industries are a big funding source for them, but man, look at the posts by ikes and JohnWilkes and guids, etc.
What do you think MMGW deniers teach their children about science?

I'd love to see a poll as to how many ppl in this forum actually voted for a republican in the last 5 years based on some talking points they saw on fox news.

I spend a lot of time on this forum and have almost no idea what you are talking about. If anything the "talking points" come from mises.org, certainly not Rush/Hannity/Fox/ANY of those things. Maybe if you count the CATO Institute as a right-wing think tank but even that is pretty disingenuous IMO.

Someone link the most recent poll by Nielsio.

I have no idea what you are talking about.

The knowledge that CO2 is a greenhouse gas is a minor and relatively unimportant part of AGW theory,on its own it causes minor warming and isn't a problem it is only when you add the supposed major positive feedback effects that any of the dire predictions come about.

If the feedbacks are limited then all of the predictions of impending catastrophe fall apart.

Jones has said that he has deleted most of the data that was used to produce his temperature series making it impossible for anyone to replicate it to prove or disprove its validity.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EFffc...eature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ozI8TW4he8&NR=1

Ah. I see. You're not interested in understanding the issue at all. You pick one organization out of the entire list to discredit and then skip past.

The simple matter is, even if we take action now, we're going to have huge jumps in temperatures. Meanwhile the usual "independents" on 2+2 continue to ignore massive scientific evidence while cherrypicking a few graphs and throwing out the typical "global cooling" myth.

I weep for our children.

Most of what you say is reasonable. The only part I disagree with is that MMGW supporters (RE: nonscientists) have some sort of burden to provide you (or anybody) with evidence. Their main argument is appeal to authority and that is fine, but it should be stated clearly. When MMGW supporters use ridiculous rhetoric and wonder how anybody could deny MMGW then it is fair to ask for evidence and they will almost always fall short, but I think that is sort of a side argument. Its pretty clear that tons of people are wrong on practically all sides of this debate.

What, the original station data? Those should still be held by the station.

But even if you threw out CRU completely, you'd still have NASA's temp analysis. (They both show the same long term trend).

Or, skeptics could create their own global temperature data set from original station data.

As I was wondering if the earth's heat radiation, which should correlate with greenhouse gas concentration if the model is right, was measured from space. I googled it and came accross this recent paper, using such data and finding that the earth has been cooling from 2001-2008:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/08/1...ion-imbalance/

Even if one didn't believe there was MMGW because they couldn't comprehend it...

Are you going to tell me the believers are smart because they listen to and believe an idiot politician like Al Gore or a terrible human being like Rachel Carson?

My favorite is the scientists who would take out full page ads in the Wall Street Journal wanting to debate private jetster Al Gore, and he would obviously never accept.

If MMGW was put on trial... it would lose. I hope this happens, I would love to see all the environmentalists eat it

And EVEN IF the weather...oops sorry, I mean even if climate change was 110% from c02 (a non toxic pollutant) THERE IS NO WAY IN GOD'S NAME THAT OUR CORRUPT CROOKED LOSER FILLED EMPLOYED GOVERNMENT IS GOING TO BE ABLE TO FIX IT.

China and India aren't going to comply anyway, so who cares? And good for China and India... i'd rather see millions and millions of more people over there come out of poverty then not be able to do what they are gonna do in the name of the "green" i mean, "red" social justice/reparation movement.

Environmentalists already caused hundreds of deaths and all the destruction in New Orleans when Katrina hit and more lives would have been saved in 9/11 if they didn't get asbestos banned from the towers when they were built. Why do we listen to these killers on global warming?

The peer review process = put on trial.

I'm not going to lie, I was skeptical about MMGW for a while, especially after hearing about the "hockey stick" problem. The Weather channel guy coming out against global warming didn't help either, although he's just a glorified meteorologist and not a research scientist so I just thought it was more suspicious than anything else. But now that SO MANY organizations have concurred that MMGW is a real, man-made problem, it seems incredibly unlikely that they are all wrong to me.

So congrats, appeal to authority has finally won me over on this issue. However, that doesn't mean I think we should really do anything about it other than perhaps continue funding nanotech research.

When they flipped on eggs for the fourth time, I stopped listening to them.

They both show an upward but different trend as do the satellite services which is what makes his actions farcical.

It really doesn't make a difference to the grand scheme of things if he has screwed up his adjustments a bit as NASA did, it just demonstrates the mindset that is present in many Climate Change proponents.

Eggs are difficult to study since they break so easily.

Not an appeal to authority!!!!11!!!!!!! This forum abuses this term on a regular basis and my pet project for the next few days will be trying(likely in vain) to prevent this torture of logic.

The appeal to authority is very strictly a claim that an argument made by someone is correct SOLELY due to who they are(i.e. that because someone is an authority they are automatically correct and no additional information is required). Believing that an argument is MORE LIKELY to be true because it is advanced by an expert is not fallacious. It's actually perfectly normal.

Uncertainty wavering in one direction or another before eventually making a decision based on the weight of the evidence is how everyone makes decisions.

Making credibility determinations when your skills are insufficient to judge the merits of the issue is the only way you could form an opinion on this issue. One side says X, the other side says NOT X, they can't both be right. You aren't in a position to form an independent opinion.

What if those organizations were not actually independent of each other?

Jones and Wigley had to change the original data. A tree putting a weather station in the shade, a new parking lot giving off heat next to data gathering point, no data station at location til 1940 are some good reason to change /add data. But now it will be hard to see if Jones and Wigley correction/additions to their data makes sense.

Since 1890 seems to be a starting point for alot of pro GW arguement, is there any good data collection going back that far that has been gone over of others?

That is an other problem I have with some supporters of GW. Some claim they are right because they are right.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/

I think the apparent disparity in the rate of belief in MMGW between liberals and libertarians is facinating. Theoretically, whether CO2 emissions can and will increase the world's temperature is firmly in the realm of the objective; ideological beliefs should have little to do with it. Yet this doesn't seem to be the case.

Of course, it's certainly possible that many libertarians on here do believe in MMGW but simply aren't speaking up.