Are Scientists Overestimating — or Underestimating — Climate Change, Part I

http://climateprogress.org/ ^

[chessplayer]

A study by Stephen Schwartz of Brookhaven National Lab to be published in the Journal of Geophysical Research (JGR) has the denyers and doubters delighted.

[chessplayer]

As to be expected, Schwartz`s paper is coming under scathing attack as being the work of an incompetent fool.

http://julesandjames.blogspot.com/2007/08/schwartz-sensitivity-estimate.html

[xcamel]

FReepmail me to get on or off

Click on POGW graphic for full GW rundown

New!!: Dr. John Ray's
GREENIE WATCH

Ping me if you find one I've missed.

---

[Uncle Miltie]

[sauropod]

review

[Always Right]

The only studies that actually get peered reviewed are the ones which are negative towards the catastrophic global warming. Pro global warming studies are rubber stamped.

[Paleo Conservative]

We’re all gonna die!

[chessplayer]

Well, James Hansen has said all of Creation is in peril of man-made GW. And they say AGW isn`t a religion. lol

[chessplayer]

I don`t get this one. Now climateprogress is claiming the papers authors themselves are admitting their work is a bunch of hooey.

“The authors pretty much acknowledge their result is wrong.”

http://climateprogress.org/2007/08/18/who-are-the-denyers-and-court-jesters/

[Always Right]

“The authors pretty much acknowledge their result is wrong.”

The guy is a mindless idiot. He could not read and comprehend the study so he is waiting for 'comments'. Just the typical liberal who can't think for himself and then ridicules everyone who has a mind of their own.

[Publius6961]

Are Scientists Overestimating — or Underestimating — Climate Change, Part I

Neither.

Computer models are wild guesses to 8 decimal places.

Just saying.

[Luke Skyfreeper]

I challenge the conventional wisdom (on this board) that man-induced global warming is a myth.

I freely admit I haven't seen all of the evidence on both sides of the issue (and don't have time to and don't want to) but the articles referenced appear credible in support of human-induced global warming, and the entire attitude on this board has for some time now seemed to me to be suspiciously like a bandwagon that about a zillion people have jumped onto simply because they just don't want human-induced global warming to be true.

Declaring something to be a particular way simply because that's the way you want it is not an intelligent position. It's garbage when the libs declare 9/11 to be an inside job because they wish it had been, and it's garbage when conservatives declare a particular scenario to be reality out of wishful thinking as well.

I withhold judgment on the issue until and unless I understand the whole thing well. Which isn't going to happen, because I don't have time to study it to that degree.

[reformedliberal]

Actually, I believe I have read that the scientists who are not alarmists think that human influence might rise to somewhere in the vicinity of 4%.

When you consider that Earth has been warmer without human industry or even high population, that all the planets in our solar system are observed to be warming and that climate cycles are well-known, well-documented and becoming more and more understood, why would you insist that the reason has to be human action or even existence?

Since there are beneficial aspects to warming, there is probably a percentage of humans who would welcome it, even though, reluctantly, they would have to look at the data we have right now and concede that a straight line increase in temperature on a global scale is probably not happening and likely will not happen.

Tell us why you are so convinced that any perceived global warming must be anthropogenic. You state:

“I freely admit I haven’t seen all of the evidence on both sides of the issue (and don’t have time to and don’t want to) but the articles referenced appear credible in support of human-induced global warming,(...)”

and then you state:
“I withhold judgment on the issue until and unless I understand the whole thing well. Which isn’t going to happen, because I don’t have time to study it to that degree.”

You admit to having no knowledge, having no desire to obtain any knowledge, but you castigate people, many of whom do have knowledge, have read the information and are capable of assessing it, often from a scientific POV, simply because, as you state:

” the articles referenced appear credible in support of human-induced global warming, (...)”

How would you be capable of assessing the credibility of any scientific study on either side of the issue, let alone evaluate the data as presented?

[El Cid]

Re: 11

...and the entire attitude on this board has for some time now seemed to me to be suspiciously like a bandwagon that about a zillion people have jumped onto simply because they just don't want human-induced global warming to be true...

I admit it - I have been extremely suspicious (and negative) about this 'Global Warming' hoo-hah from the start primarily because the people pushing it are 'watermelons' (green on the outside/red on the inside). They have seized on this 'claim' with an unnatural zeal (come on -- a 1.6 degree rise in 100 years -- if I believe in the reliability of the measurements -- which I don't... Big whoop...) whose only solution is - guess what - to redistribute the wealth of the United States (about the only Nation that works for a living anymore) through some benighted governmental agency. Your tax dollars at work again...

Yes, I come to the table with prejudices built in because the folks pushing this from the start weren't the climatologists (although some have climbed on board in recent years), but socialists and their fellow camp followers. And my prejudices notwithstanding - we all know that there are fluctuations in climate. An inconvenient truth is that 'Greenland' was called 'Green' for a reason (yes, I know, I know, ...Lief Ericsson just called it 'Green' to get some more tourist action ... right...), and wine vineyards flourished in England. Temperatures go up, temperatures go down. We make do. A 1.6 degree rise (if true) in 100 years means zilch ('hockey sticks', and whatever hobgoblins get pulled out of the sack) notwithstanding...

We are in greater danger from the watermelon crowd than we are from temperature fluctuations. These people are out to destroy lives, in their zeal to control the world.

[William Tell]

Luke Skyfreeper said: "I withhold judgment on the issue until and unless I understand the whole thing well. "

I don't think you understand what is happening. The global warming alarmists are well on their way to restricting YOUR use of conventional fuels because of their judgement that man-made global warming is a looming catastrophe for humankind.

All this, without an explanation for what caused the end of the last ice age. These same idiots were supporting the myth of a coming ice age just thirty years ago.

I think that any rational person would judge the whole issue as socialist nonsense. If you fail to identify your enemies, they will overwhelm you.

[gbs]

So why bother to post?? Seems like you have better things to do.

[Luke Skyfreeper]

why would you insist that the reason has to be human action or even existence?

If you maintain this is my position, then you profoundly misread my post.

I'm simply stating that I'm a skeptic both as concerns global warming and the confident dismissal of global-warming that now seems to permeate this board. I haven't made my mind up. But half of the people here act as if they are either Nobel-Laureate scientists who've studied the entire body of research professionally for years and are able with a wave of their hand to completely dismiss any research in favor of human-induced global warming, or have a brother-in-law who is.

Nor am I denying that the human-induced global warming (can I abbreviate this to just HIGW?) is being pushed to the max by a bunch of loons, among others.

Here's the dynamic: Some members of a group start confidently pooh-poohing a particular belief. They don't necessarily have to possess evidence that they're right and the people holding the belief are wrong. Others chime in. Before you know it, it becomes fashionable in the group to hold the opposite belief. Not long after, groupthink takes over.

We are better than this. We are conservatives. We're capable of independent thought. The no-HIGW scenario is just too darn convenient for me. It smacks of something has simply become fashion and groupthink in this particular social pond.

All I am saying is: FReepers shouldn't necessarily allow themselves to be lulled into groupthink.

Here we have a scenario of possible detrimental (and potentially very detrimental) effects, if HIGW is true. And IF it's true (note I'm not saying it is), then it might well be appropriate to do something about it, if possible. Because conservatives ought to be caretakers of the earth as well. If that sounds too "green" for you, then look at it this way: God gave man and woman dominion over the earth. It is therefore our responsibility not to screw it up for our grandchildren. And if there are allegations that that's what's happening, we shouldn't just deny them out of hand because we don't like them, without truly confirming beyond any real doubt that the allegations are, in fact, false.

[Luke Skyfreeper]

you castigate people, many of whom do have knowledge, have read the information and are capable of assessing it, often from a scientific POV

And I'm not castigating scientists or other intelligent people who have truly assessed all of the information from a scientific point of view. I'm castigating people who jump on the anti-HIGW bandwagon like some of the liberals jump on the pro-HIGW bandwagon. Hope that makes sense.

[Luke Skyfreeper]

More than that, really. It’s those who jump on the bandwagon without any real knowledge and then act as if those who are not anti-HIGW (i.e., those who don’t conform to their opinion )are idiots.

It just bothers me to feel that groupthink seems to be taking over on this particular issue on FR.