• What lines of evidence attribute CO2 to global warming but do not depend on climate models?

    Best answer: Yes Mike, this is a point that I made long ago. The simple truth is; there is no conclusive, empirical evidence supporting the theory that CO2 has a *significant* effect on global temperature. It’s perfectly reasonable to conclude that if you increase the amount of a greenhouse gas in the atmosphere, you’ll get *some* warming. But... show more
    Best answer: Yes Mike, this is a point that I made long ago. The simple truth is; there is no conclusive, empirical evidence supporting the theory that CO2 has a *significant* effect on global temperature. It’s perfectly reasonable to conclude that if you increase the amount of a greenhouse gas in the atmosphere, you’ll get *some* warming. But the important question is: how much? And we have no empirical evidence to support any of the answers we’re getting for that question. As you point out, Jeff M’s links are simply evidence that CO2 is behaving as a greenhouse gas. However, CO2 on its own will only have a minor effect on temperature. To get to the predicted catastrophe, we have to include feedbacks, and the results of these feedbacks are simply model predictions. We can test the effects of CO2 in the laboratory, so we can fairly accurately model the direct effects of CO2 in the atmosphere. But to suggest we can take this one, fairly well-understood, aspect of the climate and then suddenly accurately model the hugely complex *entire* atmosphere is arrogant beyond belief. Essentially, pegminer hit the nail on the head with his “You mean like saying that an autopsy may show a bullet wound, but that is not a line of evidence that it caused a death?” analogy. In Global Warming-land, a post-mortem would work like this: Pathologist examines body, the body is dead, the body has a bullet wound, bullet wounds can kill people, and therefore the cause of death is a bullet wound. No further examination required. No actual evidence to link the bullet wound to the cause of death is required. Anyone who suggests that the bullet wound may not be the cause of death is attacked, called names and associated with gun manufacturers. Well that’s me convinced then. For a theory to be accepted it need to be proved with reference to concrete observations of the real world. In other words, the Warmists need to make predictions about how the climate will change that we can then compare to actual *independent* observation of the climate. And so far, of course, they’re not doing too well. The Warmists appear to be finally accepting that Hansen’s 1988 predictions were wrong (what does that say about their constant claims in the past that he was “extremely accurate”?) Bizarrely, though, they seem to be trying to claim that he *was* right after all, if we correct his predictions, with the benefit of hindsight, now that we have the right answer. Um? OK then. So, if I’m allowed to edit my prediction once I know the correct answer, does that mean I can claim to be able to accurately predict the winning lottery numbers? This is, of course, nonsense. Hindcasting is *not* the real trick. Editing your incorrect answers, once you know the real answer is *not* the real trick. What the Warmists need to do is make predictions and then compare them to independent observations. If they’re consistently correct, then that adds weight to the accuracy of their theory. Sadly, how many of them predicted the slowing in the warming rate (or even cooling: HADCRUT, RSS) in the 21st century so far. None, right? So the theory, in its present form, is wrong. Q.E.D.
    18 answers · Global Warming · 7 years ago
  • I need help with a debate I'm doing for school on Global Warming (doesn't exist side)?

    Best answer: OK, despite what you might think, it’s actually quite easy. Step one: Establish the Default Position The first thing you have to do is point out the obvious fact that it is *not* your job to prove them wrong. Rather, it is *their* job to prove that they’re right. Remember, it’s not you who’s asking them to hand over their... show more
    Best answer: OK, despite what you might think, it’s actually quite easy. Step one: Establish the Default Position The first thing you have to do is point out the obvious fact that it is *not* your job to prove them wrong. Rather, it is *their* job to prove that they’re right. Remember, it’s not you who’s asking them to hand over their hard-earned cash. That’s what they’re doing and if they want your money, they have to demonstrate that they’re correct. So if they say “Prove us wrong” you simply respond with “I don’t have to, I’m happy to keep my money in my pocket unless you can prove there’s something to worry about.” If they say “What do you say is causing it then?” you respond with “I don’t care, but I’m not paying you anything unless you can prove that your theory is correct.” Thus, you must establish that the “Default Position” is that there is no problem and that it is up to the alarmists to demonstrate otherwise. Step two: Ask for Evidence. Remember, this is supposed to be a *scientific* debate. Science works on empirical evidence; so ask for the unequivocal, empirical, scientific evidence that supports the following: -That mankind’s CO2 emissions have had a *significant* effect on global temperature. -That global temperature will rise as much as predicted in the future as a result of mankind’s CO2 emissions. -That any warming that does occur will cause harmful events. (If the warming isn’t going to be harmful, we don’t need to do anything.) -That it would be cheaper to try and prevent those harmful events *now* rather than simply dealing with them *if* and when they happen. Now, you have to be careful here and make sure any evidence that they provide *is actually* evidence for what you’re asking for. For example: Evidence that the world is warming (Temperature records, ice caps melting, etc., etc.) is *not* evidence that mankind is causing it. Evidence that the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is rising is *not* evidence that it’s causing *significant* warming. Evidence that mankind is causing the rise in CO2 is *not* evidence that it’s causing *significant* warming. Evidence that CO2 is a greenhouse gas is *not* evidence that it’s causing *significant* warming. Evidence that the extra CO2 in the atmosphere is indeed behaving in exactly the way that they predicted is *still not* evidence that it’s causing *significant* warming. While it’s perfectly reasonable to assume that the extra CO2 will cause *some* warming, the $64,000 questions are: “How much?” and “Should I be worried?” and *that’s* what you need evidence for. And remember, it’s unequivocal, empirical, scientific evidence that you’re asking for, and Climate models are *not* empirical. Many aspects that affect the climate of planet Earth are poorly understood. What values do we use in the climate models for those poorly understood aspects? Answer? We guess. And guesses, let’s be clear, are merely expressions of bias. If you want to predict a catastrophe, you guess at values that produce that result. And vice versa. Finally, you can also point out that there is evidence to suggest that there is less cause for alarm than the alarmists are suggesting. For example; CO2 is rising as fast as ever, but there’s been no warming at all for the last decade. According to the temperature data from the Climate Research Unit in the UK (the data that the IPCC uses) the trend since 2001 is -0.05 per decade (note the minus sign). (Other temperature data sets show warming, of course, but this just demonstrates the high degree of uncertainty in this debate – You need more certainty before you’ll part with your money!) Also, the high temperature rise predicted by the alarmists is a result of amplification by climate feedbacks – the most significant of which is water vapour. However, the water vapour feedback is supposed to cause a tell-tale hotspot high in the atmosphere that not one, but three separate sources of temperature data say is simply *not* there. So that’s real, observation evidence from multiple sources that suggests that the alarmists’ predictions are wrong. End of scare.
    13 answers · Global Warming · 8 years ago
  • Can anyone find this paper?

    Best answer: I think this is it: http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/reprint/climate_feedback_erbe.pdf This is a reprint from the SPPI site, but the pdf ends with the comment… “Revised on July 24, 2009 for publication to Geophysical Research Letters” So I think that’s the place to look for the original. Also, a quick... show more
    Best answer: I think this is it: http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images... This is a reprint from the SPPI site, but the pdf ends with the comment… “Revised on July 24, 2009 for publication to Geophysical Research Letters” So I think that’s the place to look for the original. Also, a quick comment to Paul: you’ve commented several times recently about your claim that Lindzen believes smoking is harmless. I did a search and found numerous sites mentioning that he thinks *passive* smoking is harmless, but not one supporting your claim. Could you provide a source, please? ::EDIT:: In response to Paul’s response to me... So, I’m an idiot, am I? How’s *that* for ad hominem. But still no link provided, I see? Well, that’s what you expect from Global Warming Lairs, unfortunately.  Here’s what Michael Crichton had to say on the subject of second-hand smoke... “...with a catchy name, a strong policy position and an aggressive media campaign, nobody will dare to criticize the science, and in short order, a terminally weak thesis will be established as fact. After that, any criticism becomes beside the point. The war is already over without a shot being fired. That was the lesson, and we had a textbook application soon afterward, with second hand smoke. In 1993, the EPA announced that second-hand smoke was "responsible for approximately 3,000 lung cancer deaths each year in nonsmoking adults," and that it " impairs the respiratory health of hundreds of thousands of people." In a 1994 pamphlet the EPA said that the eleven studies it based its decision on were not by themselves conclusive, and that they collectively assigned second-hand smoke a risk factor of 1.19. (For reference, a risk factor below 3.0 is too small for action by the EPA. or for publication in the New England Journal of Medicine, for example.) Furthermore, since there was no statistical association at the 95% confidence limits, the EPA lowered the limit to 90%. They then classified second hand smoke as a Group A Carcinogen. This was openly fraudulent science, but it formed the basis for bans on smoking in restaurants, offices, and airports. California banned public smoking in 1995. Soon, no claim was too extreme. By 1998, the Christian Science Monitor was saying that "Second-hand smoke is the nation's third-leading preventable cause of death." The American Cancer Society announced that 53,000 people died each year of second-hand smoke. The evidence for this claim is nonexistent. In 1998, a Federal judge held that the EPA had acted improperly, had "committed to a conclusion before research had begun", and had "disregarded information and made findings on selective information." The reaction of Carol Browner, head of the EPA was: "We stand by our science....there's wide agreement. The American people certainly recognize that exposure to second hand smoke brings...a whole host of health problems." Again, note how the claim of consensus trumps science. In this case, it isn't even a consensus of scientists that Browner evokes! It's the consensus of the American people. Meanwhile, ever-larger studies failed to confirm any association. A large, seven-country WHO study in 1998 found no association. Nor have well-controlled subsequent studies, to my knowledge. Yet we now read, for example, that second hand smoke is a cause of breast cancer. At this point you can say pretty much anything you want about second-hand smoke. As with nuclear winter, bad science is used to promote what most people would consider good policy. I certainly think it is. I don't want people smoking around me. So who will speak out against banning second-hand smoke? Nobody, and if you do, you'll be branded a shill of RJ Reynolds. A big tobacco flunky. But the truth is that we now have a social policy supported by the grossest of superstitions. And we've given the EPA a bad lesson in how to behave in the future. We've told them that cheating is the way to succeed.” (http://www.michaelcrichton.net/speech-al... ) Hear, hear! Comment on antarcticice’s comments on Monckton... Yet again, typically ad hominem attacks (can you see a pattern forming?) For me, the proof of the pudding is in the eating; and the truth is that no Global Warming Lair will dare to enter into a public debate against Monckton. If he’s so easy to refute, why don’t you challenge him? (Get ready for the excuses!) And I had to laugh at Dana’s final paragraph. He doesn’t “trust a word SPPI says”, but accepts everything RealClimate says without a nanosecond of critical thought. That’s why he’s a Global Warming Lair! ::EDIT 2:: More, in response to Paul... On the subject of Lindzen and smoking, you say “He said that there was little relationship between smoking and lung cancer in a Newsweek interview.” OK, thanks for that Paul. However, given that, as you see it, “an idiot with a search engine is not infallible”, you’d have thought you might have helped me out and found the link for me. But apparently not. Still, I tried really, really hard and managed to find 5 articles on Newsweek which referred to Lindzen, only one of which mentioned smoking. So, one assumes, this is the article you are talking about: http://www.newsweek.com/id/78772 Unfortunately, there is no direct quote from Lindzen on the subject of smoking, only the following from the author... “Lindzen clearly relishes the role of naysayer. He'll even expound on how weakly lung cancer is linked to cigarette smoking.” But, I reiterate, that is *not* a direct quote from Lindzen. It is what the article’s author, Fred Guterl, says. As I pointed out above, I “found numerous sites mentioning that he thinks *passive* smoking is harmless”. Now, I base my conclusions on *evidence*. I’m aware that that is not a concept that you are familiar with, but it’s what I use. So, I have a plethora of quotes saying that Lindzen has doubts about a link between *passive* smoking and lung cancer, while you have one quote from the author of an article in Newsweek who is summarising Lindzen’s comments. Now, I look at this evidence and the conclusion I draw is that this Fred Guterl has probably misunderstood, or misquoted what Lindzen said. You, on the other hand, ignore any and all evidence that contradicts your belief that Lindzen thinks there’s no link between smoking and cancer, and absolutely believe it based on one Newsweek comment that the evidence suggests is wrong. Well, that’s why you’re a Global Warming Lair, I suppose.
    4 answers · Global Warming · 9 years ago
  • Greenpeace admits false warnings of Arctic melting?

    Best answer: Sod 2030, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing, convened by Senator John F. Kerry of Massachusetts, just got told: “In four years, the Arctic is projected to experience its first ice-free summer—not in 2030, but in 2013.”... show more
    Best answer: Sod 2030, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing, convened by Senator John F. Kerry of Massachusetts, just got told: “In four years, the Arctic is projected to experience its first ice-free summer—not in 2030, but in 2013.” (http://www.americansecurityproject.org/p... ) How’s THAT for scaremongering!!!? As ever with Global Warming - Don't believe the hype.
    8 answers · Global Warming · 9 years ago
  • How much longer will the denier 'global cooling' arguments last?

    Best answer: Glad to oblige, Dana. Yes, you’re quite correct; the cooling has indeed ended... Current trend from 2001= -0.00101349⁰C per year. At least on the GISS dataset it has. However, as usual, it’s a very different story on the other 3 datasets... HADCRUT3 (Variance adjusted): -0.0101491⁰C per year. HADCRUT3 (Unadjusted):... show more
    Best answer: Glad to oblige, Dana. Yes, you’re quite correct; the cooling has indeed ended... Current trend from 2001= -0.00101349⁰C per year. At least on the GISS dataset it has. However, as usual, it’s a very different story on the other 3 datasets... HADCRUT3 (Variance adjusted): -0.0101491⁰C per year. HADCRUT3 (Unadjusted): -0.0108147⁰C per year. RSS: -0.0156383⁰C per year. UAH: -0.0128856⁰C per year. So where does that leave us? You can only claim that the cooling has ended if you quote the minority dataset. The consensus is that it is still there at a rate of at least -1⁰C per century.
    13 answers · Global Warming · 9 years ago
  • Are the climate modelers inputing data to get a desired result?

    Best answer: As WeatherRusty says, some of the parameters that go into these models are know, but many are not. With the one that are not known, the modeller simply guesses. It may be an educated guess, but it’s still a guess. And if they don’t like the results they get... they just guess again. These models are a lot like the famous Drake... show more
    Best answer: As WeatherRusty says, some of the parameters that go into these models are know, but many are not. With the one that are not known, the modeller simply guesses. It may be an educated guess, but it’s still a guess. And if they don’t like the results they get... they just guess again. These models are a lot like the famous Drake equation. Michael Crichton puts it eloquently in his speech “Aliens Cause Global Warming” (http://www.michaelcrichton.net/speech-al... )... “In 1960, Drake organizes the first SETI conference, and came up with the now-famous Drake equation: N=N*fp ne fl fi fc fL Where N is the number of stars in the Milky Way galaxy; fp is the fraction with planets; ne is the number of planets per star capable of supporting life; fl is the fraction of planets where life evolves; fi is the fraction where intelligent life evolves; and fc is the fraction that communicates; and fL is the fraction of the planet's life during which the communicating civilizations live. This serious-looking equation gave SETI an serious footing as a legitimate intellectual inquiry. The problem, of course, is that none of the terms can be known, and most cannot even be estimated. The only way to work the equation is to fill in with guesses. And guesses-just so we're clear-are merely expressions of prejudice. Nor can there be "informed guesses." If you need to state how many planets with life choose to communicate, there is simply no way to make an informed guess. It's simply prejudice. As a result, the Drake equation can have any value from "billions and billions" to zero. An expression that can mean anything means nothing. Speaking precisely, the Drake equation is literally meaningless, and has nothing to do with science.” I recommend reading the whole speech (I wonder if any Global Warming loonies will comment along the lines of “Aliens cause Global Warming? That’s just crazy!”) Climate models are just the same; there are a huge number of parameters that go into them and many are not known. Take water vapour, for example. Water vapour is a greenhouse gas and as the world warms, the atmosphere can hold more water vapour. More water vapour means more warming, because it’s a greenhouse gas. BUT, more water vapour in the atmosphere also means more clouds, and clouds can have a cooling effect. So which wins? The warming effect of water vapour, or the cooling effect of clouds? Nobody knows for sure. So, what multiplier value gets used for water vapour? You’d assume about 1, so it has little or no effect, yes? Nope, it’s about 2.75! So, the warming caused by CO2 gets multiplied by about 2.75 due to the effects of water vapour, despite the fact that nobody is actually sure what the effects of water vapour will be. It could be negative! Thus, as with the Drake equation, above, these models are nothing more than an expression of the modeller’s own prejudices. Oh, and we can’t talk about models without mentioning that, given that the climate has been cooling for the last 8.5 years, they are all, currently, completely wrong. Every last one of them. As ever with Global Warming - don’t believe the hype. :::EDIT::: Comment to caerbannog... Regarding Arrhenius, you say that his calculation of how much a doubling of CO2 would warm the Earth was “remarkably accurate”. Um? How can you possibly say that? CO2 *hasn’t* doubled yet, so we don’t know what the effect of a doubling of CO2 will be. What you mean is; his calculation matches today’s calculation, but then make the gross assumption that today’s calculation is perfectly accurate. Given the fact, mentioned above, that the models are all currently *over* estimating temperature rise, the actual *observed evidence* (you know, the real world!) seems to be proving both Arrhenius and whatever calculations you’re comparing him to, to be wrong.
    13 answers · Global Warming · 9 years ago
  • Does anybody actually dispute any of the science in my global warming wiki article?

    Best answer: OK, I’ll bite. Right, I had a read of this after you gave me the link last week (sorry, I got busy at work and didn’t have the time to reply any further. This gives me that chance…) Actually, I don’t have much of a problem with your little wiki. It’s a well referenced piece of work. There were a couple of bits that made me go hmm?... show more
    Best answer: OK, I’ll bite. Right, I had a read of this after you gave me the link last week (sorry, I got busy at work and didn’t have the time to reply any further. This gives me that chance…) Actually, I don’t have much of a problem with your little wiki. It’s a well referenced piece of work. There were a couple of bits that made me go hmm? I still don’t accept that the stratosphere is cooling; beyond the effects of volcanic activity the stratosphere has done largely nothing for 30 years. And also your claim that the warming since 1978 is “the greatest warming in recent history” is blatantly untrue. Based on comparisons of 5-year means from HADCRUT3 we find that 1976-2006 = 0.52°C rise. 1909-1939 = 0.56°C rise. So, not *actually* “the greatest warming in recent history”, then? The problem is though; I got to the end and just thought: “Yes, and…?” Why should I be worried? We’re back to: A) CO2 has risen and mankind is the major cause of that rise. B) CO2 is a greenhouse gas. C) Given A) & B) above, we should expect to see some warming. The sixty-four-thousand-dollar questions are: How much? And: Will it cause any problems? And *this* is where the whole AGW theory falls down in a big heap, because the truth is no one has the slightest idea how much of the recent warming is down to man. No one has the slightest idea how much warming we will get in the future. And no one has the slightest idea what the results of any warming that does happen will be. The truth is we are in the middle of a generally warming trend that started at the coldest point of the Little Ice Age, over 200 years ago. We’ve been warming at a pretty steady rate since then, punctuated by approximately 30-year warming and cooling cycles. The current (allegedly mankind CO2 induced) 30-year warming period was right on schedule and was (as pointed out above) actually *less* severe than the 1910ish – 1940ish warming. Finally, right on schedule for the commencement of the next cooling phase we’ve had 8.5-years of cooling at a rate not seen since the end of the last cooling phase in the early ‘70s. So, can someone please explain exactly what I’m supposed to be worried about?
    21 answers · Global Warming · 9 years ago
  • Are people willing to give up on the idea that there is a man-made global warming "consensus"?

    Best answer: The truth is that “consensus” is the work of politics. It is irrelevant in science. The greatest scientists in history were great precisely because they broke with the consensus, but were subsequently proved correct by good, old fashioned, hard evidence. When the evidence is there, you don’t need a consensus – you’ve got evidence.... show more
    Best answer: The truth is that “consensus” is the work of politics. It is irrelevant in science. The greatest scientists in history were great precisely because they broke with the consensus, but were subsequently proved correct by good, old fashioned, hard evidence. When the evidence is there, you don’t need a consensus – you’ve got evidence. Consensus is only needed when there is a lack of hard evidence. “No, we can’t prove it, but we’ve had a vote and the Global Warming Alarmists won.” Well, that’s me convinced then. Not! Oh, and a note to Dana (and I’m willing to accept that I’ve probably just misunderstood you here, but…) you say that: “The Oregon Petition's 30,000 signatories make up 0.1% of the scientific field in the United States.” Um? I look at that (and again, I may be misunderstanding) and I conclude that:- if 30,000 is equal to just 0.1% of “the scientific field in the United States” then 100% of “the scientific field in the United States” must equal 30,000,000. Yes? So, as I understand it, the current population of the United States is approximately 300,000,000. So are you saying that 1 in 10 of every man, woman and child in the USA is engaged in “the scientific field” (i.e. is a scientist in Climate Science or related fields)? I find that slightly hard to believe.
    13 answers · Global Warming · 9 years ago
  • Are recent extreme weather events due to global warming?

    Best answer: This is one of the many myths about AGW. We are constantly fed propaganda that AGW will cause more extreme weather events – especially hurricanes. But the truth is that these storms are caused by the difference in temperature between the equator and the poles. And, we are told, that the theory of AGW suggests that the poles will warm... show more
    Best answer: This is one of the many myths about AGW. We are constantly fed propaganda that AGW will cause more extreme weather events – especially hurricanes. But the truth is that these storms are caused by the difference in temperature between the equator and the poles. And, we are told, that the theory of AGW suggests that the poles will warm faster than the equator– thus *reducing* the temperature difference and also, therefore, reducing the intensity of tropical storms. But that’s not what we getting told, is it? The Global Warming Liars keep telling us that hurricanes are getting worse. The truth is, however, that there has been no change in the number of land-falling hurricanes in the last century. So the Global Warming Liars then say that if you look at both land-falling *and* non-land-falling hurricanes, then the trend *is* upwards. Well, we now have satellites to spot hurricanes out in the Atlantic that would have been missed in the days before satellites existed, so *of course* the trend is upward! At the end of the day, it’s just blatant dishonesty. Why do people believe this stuff? As ever with Global Warming - don't believe the hype.
    5 answers · Global Warming · 10 years ago
  • Do "skeptics" have a single popular theory to which they attribute global warming?

    Best answer: Again, first we need to define “Global Warming”. In this answer I’m assuming you mean Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming. Dana asked a similar question to this one a while ago that I’d have liked to have answered, but, since he’s blocked me, I couldn’t. So, your question gives me the chance to answer it. For me, it’s not about... show more
    Best answer: Again, first we need to define “Global Warming”. In this answer I’m assuming you mean Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming. Dana asked a similar question to this one a while ago that I’d have liked to have answered, but, since he’s blocked me, I couldn’t. So, your question gives me the chance to answer it. For me, it’s not about offering one single ‘Eureka’ cause that immediately proves the theory wrong. Clearly, in such a hugely complex and poorly understood area of science, I doubt there is one answer. Rather, I suspect that the whole Global Warming ‘bubble’ will burst due to a multitude of little things. The global temperature trend itself, for example, has a 15% variation in the trends since 1980 (Highest (RSS) compared to lowest (UAH)). Some of the data is controlled, and “adjusted”, by people who have a vested interest in the resulting trend in that adjusted data – and people who have a disturbing reluctance to share the methods / reasons behind those adjustments. On top of that, we know (via M&M) that these adjustments *have* in the past contained errors and those errors have been in the direction of exaggerating the temperature. Given all this, I feel that it is reasonable, indeed sensible, to maintain a healthy scepticism regarding the temperature data. It may well be warming, but how much? And should I be worried? Furthermore, a common ‘proof’ that the climate models are correct is that the only way they can get the right results (i.e. the same as the global temperature data) is if they include the effects of CO2. But if the global temperature data is exaggerated, then so are the climate models’ estimations of the effects of CO2. Yes? So this is one example where the ‘Alarmists’ may be slightly wrong. But there are other examples. So, I expect that the whole Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming bubble will burst, because, once it is accepted that the planet has failed to warm as fast as the ‘Alarmists’ predicted (as is happening currently, of course), then the whole scare-fest will unravel fairly quickly and it will suddenly be ‘discovered’ that some, or all, of the below were true: a) The global temperature record was exaggerated. b) The effects of CO2 on temperature were exaggerated. c) The effects of positive feedbacks were overestimated. d) The effects of negative feedbacks were underestimated. e) The negative effects of warmer climate were overestimated. f) The positive effects of warmer climate were underestimated. g) The costs of mitigating anthropogenic warming were underestimated. h) The costs of adapting to anthropogenic warming were overestimated. Also bear in mind that all these issues have a *compound effect* on each other. So, for example, if the effects of CO2 on temperature have been overestimated, then there will be less warming as a result. *But*, if the effects of positive feedbacks on temperature have *also* been exaggerated, then there will be *even less* warming, because less CO2 induced warming will result in less positive feedback, which itself is causing less warming. So the overall effect is *greater* than the sum of the two errors individually. If we compound the 15% variation in temperature trends to all six of the above areas, we get the following... a) 15% error. b) 33% error. c) 52% error. d) 75% error. e) 101% error. f) 131% error. g) 166% error. h) 206% error. So, based on this example of everything being out by just 15%, our estimations of the need to act on CO2 are overestimated by more than 200%! And the best bit? No individual can be held responsible for an error in their work as small as 15%. So no one will ever be held accountable! For what it’s worth, that’s my “theory” on what is ‘causing’ “Global Warming” In twenty, thirty, forty,... years, when people are asking the question “How did they get it so wrong?”, the above will be the answer.
    12 answers · Global Warming · 8 years ago
  • What colors do a color blind person have trouble distinguishing?

    Best answer: The biggest problem colours with my colour blindness are green/brown. I can’t tell the difference between them at all. I know that the trunk of a tree is darker than the leaves of a tree (on an Oak tree, for example), so if I see green/brown and it’s a dark colour, I assume it’s brown. Conversely, if I see green/brown and it’s a... show more
    Best answer: The biggest problem colours with my colour blindness are green/brown. I can’t tell the difference between them at all. I know that the trunk of a tree is darker than the leaves of a tree (on an Oak tree, for example), so if I see green/brown and it’s a dark colour, I assume it’s brown. Conversely, if I see green/brown and it’s a light colour, I assume it’s green. Obviously therefore, dark green and light brown cause me problems. The best way to describe it is that, if you got a shade of green and brown that were *exactly* the same shade (so that a black & white photo of them would show them as exactly the same shade of grey) then I see them as exactly the same colour. I still see them as a colour (so *not* grey) but they look like the same colour. I also have problems with blue; I don’t really understand mauve or purple. It’s all just blue, light blue and dark blue. One thing that my friends always think is weird is that on a bright sunny day, I see a lush grass lawn as bright orange! In the shade it will look green, but in the sunlight it’ll look bright orange!
    6 answers · Biology · 8 years ago
  • Is it okay to break the law in the name of addressing climate change?

    Best answer: Indeed. As the bleating of the Global Warming Alarmists sounds increasingly like the pronouncements of religious loons, I wonder (and worry) how long it will be before we have the first Global Warming terrorist attacks in an effort to “save humanity” from the “evil” non-believers.
    Best answer: Indeed. As the bleating of the Global Warming Alarmists sounds increasingly like the pronouncements of religious loons, I wonder (and worry) how long it will be before we have the first Global Warming terrorist attacks in an effort to “save humanity” from the “evil” non-believers.
    23 answers · Global Warming · 8 years ago
  • How do skeptics and believers come to be?

    Best answer: As I’ve said before, personally, I was converted from “Casual Believer” to sceptic by the Michael Mann & co “Hockey Stick” graph. Perhaps it was naive of me, but I’d always held science as above the petty squabbles of other areas of life, so full of rhetoric and hyperbole. Science was science! It was based on facts. Cold, hard,... show more
    Best answer: As I’ve said before, personally, I was converted from “Casual Believer” to sceptic by the Michael Mann & co “Hockey Stick” graph. Perhaps it was naive of me, but I’d always held science as above the petty squabbles of other areas of life, so full of rhetoric and hyperbole. Science was science! It was based on facts. Cold, hard, demonstrable facts. In science, if you claim 1+1=3, someone is going to check your calculations and point out that, actually, 1+1=2. Or so I thought.... Then, along came MBH98/99. I was shocked. Not so much that the work was so bad – anyone can make a mistake (though this was rather a large and dodgy one) - but because no one seemed to notice. Isn’t the peer review process supposed to spot dodgy science like this? That’s the whole purpose of peer review, isn’t it? But it didn’t spot it, did it? And it continues to this day. Talk to a Global Warming Liar about MBH98/99 and the usual response you get is something along the lines of “Other studies have supported his results, so it’s OK” Is it? So, just because others produced similar results, the methods he used, however bad (or even possibly fraudulent) are irrelevant, are they? Oh, OK. So, to use an analogy, since other people get money from a bank all the time, if I use a gun to get some, that’s OK, is it? Hardly! I feel that the correct response should be something along the lines of: Yes it was bad science, so ignore it and move on. But that’s not what gets said and that fact leaves me smelling a small furry rodent. And, of course, there are many other examples of this less-than-honest attitude. Put simply, if it’s all so absolutely, scientifically proved beyond any doubt whatsoever, then simply show us the undeniable empirical evidence and that will be the end of the debate! But it doesn’t happen, does it? Why not? And instead of producing the undeniable empirical evidence, they just label the sceptics as morons. Oh well, that’s me convinced then! Not! I’m not a sceptic because I’m an idiot. I’m a sceptic because I have yet to be convinced. So convince me. Oh, and no, calling me names does *not* convince me. As for others, I believe that the vast (and I mean *vast*) majority of the general public simply go along with whatever viewpoint suites their personal outlook on the world. I confess that while in my “Casual Believer” state I was doing the same. Science was my religion, so it must be correct, and I quite like the world anyway, so we should look after it. I still believe we should look after the Planet, but we shouldn’t be lied to in an attempt to get us to do it. It’s an awful lot like politics. Ask people exiting a polling station why they voted for whoever they voted for (as in ask them which specific policies they agreed with) and most wouldn’t have a clue! In fact, most wouldn’t even be able to state a single specific policy of the party they just voted for. The same is true of Global Warming. Ask most people what convinced them and you would get the most inane of answers. They just go along with it because it “feels” right. Or, could it be that there is a general feeling that believers are “good” and sceptics are “bad”. That’s what the “Denier” moniker is intended to achieve, of course. Comment to Trevor... Would you accept that, if Global Warming were (just for sake of argument) proved conclusively to be utter nonsense tomorrow, then an awful lot of Climate Scientists are going to be out of work, yes? If yes, then how would you respond to the suggestion that (given the above) some Climate Scientists may be inclined to “feather their own nest” by “laying it on slightly thick”? Not that you’d do that, of course, but is it possible that others, less scrupulous than yourself, might do it? Also, what’s your opinion of the methods used in MBH98/99 and, assuming you agree that they were less than perfect, do you distance yourself from it? If so, do you also distance yourself from those people who peer reviewed it, but failed to highlight its shortcomings? Finally, do you distance yourself from those people who continue to support it? (Which is just about everyone, remember!) P.S. On a side note, Dana makes this claim that Lindzen “also disputes the link between smoking and cancer.” I discussed this with another user some time ago and pointed out that, after an extensive search, I had found numerous references to Lindzen disputing a link between *passive* smoking and cancer, but not one suggesting he thinks there’s no link between smoking and cancer. Could anyone provide me with a reference that I’d missed to prove this claim? Once again, I apologize for choosing not to accept claims made in the absence of evidence. It’s a nasty habit of mine, I know. :-)
    13 answers · Global Warming · 8 years ago
  • Was this person right to apologise for using the phrase climate denier?

    Best answer: You’ve asked another question on the same subject (http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=Au5e2zM_xlrEjg_6IbPG0HlnKXRG;_ylv=3?qid=20100330022357AAiT2X6 ) so see my answer to that one, but to answer this one.... Yes, of course he should have apologised – for the reasons mentioned in the questions linked to above. To... show more
    Best answer: You’ve asked another question on the same subject (http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/ind... ) so see my answer to that one, but to answer this one.... Yes, of course he should have apologised – for the reasons mentioned in the questions linked to above. To comment on Tom’s answer.... Tom is basically attempting to claim that it’s a perfectly reasonable term to use, so what’s the problem? It’s actually the Global Warming Deniers themselves who are using it as propaganda to “twist” the situation in an attempt to “poke at the climate change community”. Really? So why not stop using the term and remove that opportunity to “twist” things? Remember, it’s the Global Warming Liars who are using the term “denier”, not the sceptics. Isn’t Tom trying to have his cake *and* eat it, here? For me, the simple truth is this... I don’t like the term “denier” because of the Holocaust Denier connotations it evokes. Thus, I request that “denier” not be used – please use the (perfectly adequate) term “sceptic” instead. Now, that request should be a no-brainer, shouldn’t it? If there’s no deliberate motive for the use of the word “denier”, then what difference does it make? If we sceptics don’t like it, just use a different word. End of problem. But they don’t, do they? Why not? Because, of course, there *is* a deliberate motive to the use of the word. And that motive is an attempt to deride the sceptics by attempting to make the public associate sceptics with Holocaust Deniers. It is low, underhand and typical of the propaganda used in politics - *not* science. It does, therefore, speak volumes about the strength (or, rather the lack thereof) of their theory. As ever with Global Warming - Don't believe the hype.
    8 answers · Global Warming · 9 years ago
  • Have the alarmists cooked the books?

    Best answer: It’s this issue of honesty that, fundamentally, makes me the sceptic that I am. Let’s be very clear about this; allowing other scientists to check your work is one of the foundations of scientific endeavour. It’s supposed to ensure that errors can be spotted and corrected. It’s important! And yet, here we have a situation where a... show more
    Best answer: It’s this issue of honesty that, fundamentally, makes me the sceptic that I am. Let’s be very clear about this; allowing other scientists to check your work is one of the foundations of scientific endeavour. It’s supposed to ensure that errors can be spotted and corrected. It’s important! And yet, here we have a situation where a scientist is refusing to release his data *specifically because* he’s afraid people will find he’s made a mistake. That’s *not* how science is supposed to work. So, the question has to be asked: Why is this happening in Climate Science? Bob, above, says “There's a mountain of confirming data that says the temperature data is correct.” And that may well be true. But, if that’s the case, then what is Phil Jones afraid of? We are told by the Global Warming Liars that the science is certain and the data irrefutable. But, if that’s the case, then wouldn’t the Global Warming Liars be saying “Here! Have all the data you want! It’s irrefutable! You won’t find any problems with it!” But, that’s not what they’re saying, is it? They’re refusing to allow sceptics to look at it? It does rather beg the question: “Why?” doesn’t it? Any honest, objective person can’t help but be left feeling suspicious. (So what does that tell us about the honesty and objectivity of the people here saying it’s not a problem?) You also bring up the question of Mann, which is another excellent example of why any honest person should be sceptical of the whole Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming theory. On one side we have the Global Warming Liars who “peer reviewed” the Mann, et al, Hockey-Stick Graph and claimed it was wonderful and should be published, used in the IPCC’s 3rd (2001) report (and displayed no fewer than 6 times – the only graphic reproduced that many times) and even used on the IPCC’s logo. Then along come M&M, who do a decent job of checking it (despite resistance from Mann & co), find the problems with it and bring those problems to the attention of the world. Yet, incredibly, we are expected to continue to trust the Global Warming Liars who covered up Mann & co’s dodgy science and ignore (and label as Flat-Earth Climate Change Deniers) the very people who alerted us to those problems. Um? Am I missing something? As ever with Global Warming - Don't believe the hype.
    10 answers · Global Warming · 9 years ago
  • In the light of Copenhagen, can we now add another parameter to the Drake Equation?

    Best answer: Very good! LOL On a serious note, can I assume that you’ve read Michael Crichton’s excellent speech on this subject? In the unlikely event that you haven’t, it’s here: http://www.michaelcrichton.net/speech-al... Enjoy!
    Best answer: Very good! LOL On a serious note, can I assume that you’ve read Michael Crichton’s excellent speech on this subject? In the unlikely event that you haven’t, it’s here: http://www.michaelcrichton.net/speech-al... Enjoy!
    14 answers · Global Warming · 9 years ago
  • What do you think of Bob Carter's essay?

    Best answer: I agree with Carter. It’s yet another clear example of the similarity between a belief in Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming and religion. Speak to a religious person and tell them that God doesn’t exist and you will almost invariably get the response: “Prove that God doesn’t exist.” Again, the null hypothesis *should be*... show more
    Best answer: I agree with Carter. It’s yet another clear example of the similarity between a belief in Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming and religion. Speak to a religious person and tell them that God doesn’t exist and you will almost invariably get the response: “Prove that God doesn’t exist.” Again, the null hypothesis *should be* that God doesn’t exist and therefore it is up to the believers to provide evidence to the contrary, to support their chosen beliefs. A very similar thing is happening with Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming. The null hypothesis *should be* “Everything is natural unless proved otherwise”. *That* should be the default position and it is a requirement of anyone wishing to depart from that default position to provide empirical evidence to support it. Instead, a theory is simply invented, and it is suddenly the scpetics’ job to disprove this new null hypothesis. Remember, there is a total lack of hard, empirical evidence to support the theory that mankind’s production of greenhouses gases is the most significant factor in the warming we have experienced over the last 100 years or so. Obviously, the Global Warming Lairs claim that the evidence does exist, but they have completely failed to provide this evidence, despite repeated requests for it. The closest anyone here on Yahoo! Answers has come to providing it, was Global Warming Lair extraordinaire Dana who offered: “The evidence is in the IPCC report. Read it yourself, lazyass.” Well, that’s me convinced then! Not. Another common tactic on the part of the religious is the “worship of gaps”. These people look for gaps in our current scientific knowledge (the usual one being something to do with the origins of the universe) and when science, honestly, answers that we’re not sure of the answer to that one, then the faithful immediately claim the gap as their own: “It must be God!”, they proclaim. Once again, exactly the same thing is happening in Global Warming. Keith P does exactly that in his answer: “WHAT natural process is causing the climate to warm?” he asks. So, if the sceptics’ answer is “We don’t know”, does that miraculously mean that Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming is, by default, correct? Hardly. Keith P’s claim makes him no better than some centuries past priest claiming that lightning comes from God. That our complete lack of knowledge of electricity (at that time) precluded anyone from offering a plausible alternative explanation, did not in any way prove that the priest was correct in his “it must be God” claim. Exactly the same is true today of Global Warming. So, I’ll ask yet again... Please prove conclusive, empirical evidence to support the claim that mankind’s production of CO2 was the major cause of the warming of the 20th century. Any advance on “The evidence is in the IPCC report. Read it yourself, lazyass.”? I’m not holding my breath. As ever with Global Warming - don’t believe the hype.
    9 answers · Global Warming · 9 years ago
  • What evidence is there for climate change/global warming?

    Best answer: Well, before your question can be answered, you need to make clear what it is you’re actually asking. Is your question literal; i.e. are you asking for evidence that the globe is warming? Or (as I suspect) are you actually asking for evidence of *Anthropogenic* Global Warming; i.e. that the warming is caused by mankind? Clarify... show more
    Best answer: Well, before your question can be answered, you need to make clear what it is you’re actually asking. Is your question literal; i.e. are you asking for evidence that the globe is warming? Or (as I suspect) are you actually asking for evidence of *Anthropogenic* Global Warming; i.e. that the warming is caused by mankind? Clarify your answer, so that we know what it is that you’re asking for evidence of, and we’ll give you relevant answers.
    10 answers · Global Warming · 9 years ago
  • Who is responsible for QA(Quality Assurance), i.e. testing, the GCM's (Global Climate Models), who SHOULD be?

    Best answer: Yes, I couldn’t agree more. I wonder what the result would be if these GCMs were put through the same double-blind tests that drugs companies have to go through. One team supplies the GCM. Another team supplies the parameters to go into it. And a third team runs the model to produce the result. None of the teams have any knowledge... show more
    Best answer: Yes, I couldn’t agree more. I wonder what the result would be if these GCMs were put through the same double-blind tests that drugs companies have to go through. One team supplies the GCM. Another team supplies the parameters to go into it. And a third team runs the model to produce the result. None of the teams have any knowledge of who they are working with. I can’t help but think that the whole Global Warming panic would disappear almost overnight if this were to happen – which is why the Global Warming Lairs are making sure it never does, of course. Hardly very scientific. Would you happily take a drug on the strength of the claims and promises of the manufacturer? Of course you wouldn’t. You’d insist that the drug is properly tested first. That’s science. With Global Warming, you are expected to trust the word of the people involved. That’s religion. As ever with Global Warming - don’t believe the hype. :::EDIT::: Response to Dawei. You raise a very interesting point in your middle paragraph that applies to many aspects of Global Warming, not just computer models. What you’re saying is that, all things being equal, around 50% of the “problems” with any data will show too much warming, while around 50% of the time they will show too little warming, or even cooling. Is that what you’re saying? The problem with the issues you mention is that, in Global Warming, the “bugs”, “mistakes”, “errors” etc, are only ever found when they throw up anomalous data that shows too little warming. If the result of the data is the warming that was expected, then the attitude is just “That’s what we expected, so that’s fine.” And no one checks the data. Think about it; how many times have you heard of data in the area of Global Warming being flagged as anomalously too high? It almost never happens – and when it does, it’s the sceptics that find it, not the alarmists. But, as you point out, it should be a 50/50 split, shouldn’t it? Take the ARGO data as a recent example. It initially showed rapid ocean cooling, so the data was checked and checked until errors were found. After correction the result was still slight cooling, so the checks continued. I’m not actually sure what the current situation is, but realclimate.org is saying that the ARGO data now shows warming – though I’ve seen a recent paper that says it’s showing cooling still. Regardless, the point is; had the data showed warming as expected, or even higher than expected, do you honestly think that the problems would have been found? Just look at the GISS “corrections” to the global temperature data. All things being equal, the positive corrections should be matched by similar negative corrections, but that’s not the case is it? The “corrections” amount to a shocking +0.5⁰F! So, in summary, what you’re saying is absolutely correct, but, sadly, Global Warming “science” (I use the word very loosely) is so corrupt that the errors are only ever spotted (or even looked for) if they result in data that contradicts the Global Warming hypothesis. Are you comfortable with that situation Dawei? As a final comment, I note with astonishment that (at the time of editing) I have 2 thumbs down for the first part of my answer. So at least two people think it would be a bad idea to have double-blind tests done on CGMs to ensure that the predictions they are making are accurate. I rest my case!
    8 answers · Global Warming · 9 years ago
  • Is there any data to support the claim that the planet has been cooling for 10 years?

    Best answer: OK. Haven’t had time to post for ages, but, OK, I’ll bite. Well, the statement that 'the planet has been cooling for 10 years' is actually not true, of course. But then, since it’s not true, no one who knows anything about the subject is actually saying it, because it would be a lie. Proof (based on the least squares trend... show more
    Best answer: OK. Haven’t had time to post for ages, but, OK, I’ll bite. Well, the statement that 'the planet has been cooling for 10 years' is actually not true, of course. But then, since it’s not true, no one who knows anything about the subject is actually saying it, because it would be a lie. Proof (based on the least squares trend line for the given data over the last 120 months)… GISS = +0.0148 per year. HADCRUT3 (unadjusted) = +0.005 per year. HADCRUT3 (variance adjusted) = +0.0044 per year. MSU (Lower Trop) = +0.0054 per year. UAH (Lower Trop) = +0.007 per year. So, clearly no cooling there (but as I pointed out, no one is saying there is). However, I think you’ll find you’re on thin ice to claim that there’s no cooling trend, even if you generously let us cherry pick the anomalously hot 1998 as a starting point. (With, typically, the suspicious exception of your beloved GISS data set) Proof (based on the least squares trend line for the given data over the last 137 months)… GISS = + 0.0093 per year. HADCRUT3 (unadjusted) = -0.0018 per year. HADCRUT3 (variance adjusted) = -0.0015 per year. MSU (Lower Trop) = -0.0068 per year. UAH (Lower Trop) = -0.0062 per year. Note all the minus signs, with, as noted, the exception of the GISS data. Now, to be fair, the values are very small (although they’re anything up to -0.7 per century), but the point is, you’re wrong (as ever). Anyway, it’s all irrelevant, because, as I said above, no one is claiming significant cooling over the last *10* years. I think you’ll find the sceptics have been saying it’s been cooling since 2001. So, what does the data show this time… (based on the least squares trend line for the given data over the last 101 months) GISS = -0.0023 per year. HADCRUT3 (unadjusted) = -0.012 per year. HADCRUT3 (variance adjusted) = -0.011 per year. MSU (Lower Trop) = -0.016 per year. UAH (Lower Trop) = -0.014 per year. So, these results show cooling, on all measures, at a rate of up to 1.6°C per century. What does this prove? Well, not much really, beyond the fact that it’s interesting that none of the “oh so accurate” climate models predicted this 8.5 year cooling phase. And remember, the current warming phase has only been going on for about 30 years, so 8.5 years constitutes almost 30% of that time. And second, it yet again highlights the dishonestly of the Global Warming Liars who are desperately trying to convince everyone that it isn’t happening. This is exactly what Dana is doing in this question, of course. As ever with Global Warming - don't believe the hype.
    20 answers · Global Warming · 9 years ago