Ogre Forums

xavier wrote:Humans possess an arrogance unique among all creatures, that we somehow have the ability to affect something so massive in any meaningful way. We also have a tendency towards instant gratification, which leads us to believe things happen on a much smaller scale than global history -- in other words, we can't fathom eons and epochs, and the idea that we are simply still coming out of the last Ice Age is incomprehensible to many; it's just too large a scale for many to understand.

This is not to say that we should pollute away -- I am all for reducing industrial emissions and clear-cutting, because, well, I like to breathe fresh air. I don't need a "manufactured" emergency to desire those things.

QFT. Couldn't have said it better myself.

No offense to anybody, but I think that comes off as a bit ignorant to think that we as humans can't affect the planet (something so massive) in a meaningful way. We have smog, we have acid rain, we have habitat loss and environmental ecosystems becoming more tainted with our pollutants, species becoming endangered and/or extinct, etc. If large scale increase in temperature and frequent natural disasters are the only things that you consider as meaningful changes you need to open your eyes a bit.

Word.

KungFooMasta wrote:No offense to anybody, but I think that comes off as a bit ignorant to think that we as humans can't affect the planet (something so massive) in a meaningful way. We have smog, we have acid rain, we have habitat loss and environmental ecosystems becoming more tainted with our pollutants, species becoming endangered and/or extinct, etc. If large scale increase in temperature and frequent natural disasters are the only things that you consider as meaningful changes you need to open your eyes a bit.

Species come and go entirely without human intervention. It's happened since the dawn of life on this planet, and will continue long after we're gone. I'm not talking about introducing non-indigenous species or killing all the bison in North America (a favorite pastime of the "native Americans" over the span of their time on this continent) -- I mean wholesale destruction on the level of the dinosaurs, as well as ecological touch-and-go at the bottom of the ocean. Neither of those have a thing to do with humans. And you would be hard-pressed, in the majority of cases of species coming and going, human cause at play.

The world has been coming to an end ever since they started clear-cutting the rain forest -- at least that's what we've been hearing. Turns out not to be the case. Why? Because Mother Nature is a far more powerful force than mankind, no matter how arrogant we are in our self-worth as a species.

mankind have become, since the last century, very powerful. today we are 7 billions, 50 years ago we were 3 billions, soon we'll be 9 billions. today we build powerful machines, are able to modify the DNA of any living thing, are extracing natural resources until scarcity, destroying entire rain forests as you mention. today mankind is even able to end radicaly life on earth, a few new gen nukes are enough.
hey, mankind is now a force of the nature in itself.

when you play with google earth, isn't it amazing to see how humans could modify its surface? isn't it crazy to see enlightened cities on satelite photos at night ?

the way I see things, is that mankind turned out to be a disease for the nature. yeah, I think we are a special kind of virus. now there are the people who admit it, and the ones that can't...

Well, i think that we aren't the "disease" that most catastrophists depict
We could launch ALL of our nukes over a perfect grid, and still nature would regrow in few years... not centuries, it has been proven that vegetable life returns normal after no more than 20 years.
Just go check chernobyl, it is now one of the most naturally-rich and biodiverse places in the whole Ukraine, just because men have "retreated" for 30 years.

so, as xavier said nature is balanced, species go and species come every day... and the human race is not that powerful.
So, the problem is THAT: men could as well be one of the few species to be extinguished by the climate changes, or at least severely harmed, as it is obvious that the average man has higher environment requisites than a jellyfish.
Famines, hurricanes, seas height increase would leave completely unharmed the "nature" while causing enormous damages to us.

And in the end of the whole story, i dont give a **** for nature, the point of ecology is our survival

_tommo_ wrote: And in the end of the whole story, i dont give a **** for nature, the point of ecology is our survival

not sure I would go *that* far...we kind of have to live here, and one can easily turn around the end of that sentence and say "so therefore it's absolutely critical that we end all carbon dioxide emissions immediately, to ensure *our* survival". In fact, they have.

The biggest problem with this entire issue is one of politics and control -- some scientists have broken the first (and in some cases, second) rule of the scientific method, and for some reason, their opinions turn into (potential) policy around the globe.

_tommo_ wrote:And in the end of the whole story, i dont give a **** for nature, the point of ecology is our survival

should this be considered as a proof we are a disease?

xavier wrote:The biggest problem with this entire issue is one of politics and control -- some scientists have broken the first (and in some cases, second) rule of the scientific method, and for some reason, their opinions turn into (potential) policy around the globe.

I can agree that bad or biaised scientists exists, and that they make errors. They have only a part of the truth, and they admit that themselves. We as programmers are not that much different actualy.
but when all (or 'almost every') scientist agree on something, I tend to think they are not wrong.
when I read the greenhouse gas article on wikipedia, I tend to think it's serious work.
but when I watch O'Reilly on Fox News, I tend to be more careful

That's the whole point of the email scandal -- not *nearly* all (or every) scientist agrees. Those who disagree have systematically had their views and analyses dropped from the "official" policy recommendations made to governments worldwide.

I would also caution against comparing the business of climate science to the business of software engineering -- last I checked, we (as a group) neither produce nor recommend policy that can be enacted into law and enforced at the point of a gun.

Lastly, I would ask why one bothers to watch any talking head on TV.

KungFooMasta wrote:No offense to anybody, but I think that comes off as a bit ignorant to think that we as humans can't affect the planet (something so massive) in a meaningful way. We have smog, we have acid rain, we have habitat loss and environmental ecosystems becoming more tainted with our pollutants, species becoming endangered and/or extinct, etc. If large scale increase in temperature and frequent natural disasters are the only things that you consider as meaningful changes you need to open your eyes a bit.

None taken. I am not arrogant enough to think that we can't ever change the climate. I think the bad arrogance is when we think we are are doing it all the time, when it rarely actually happens. Like xavier, I am not advocating destroying the environment, indolence or apathy. All are equal evils in this topic, and thusly should be avoided. What I do think, however, is that scientist don't really know squat. Ever check the weather on the news? They are still wrong a good percentage of the time, and this is the top of the line, best equipment, best science we have today. That, to me, points at our (their) arrogance at thinking we actually know what's going on.

I wholeheartedly agree that climate change on small scale happens all the time. Cut down rain forests and things are going to change. I just don't buy into the doom and gloom crap that is "trendy" nowadays. Just like any good philosophy student learns, it's good to question things. For me that means not holding the OPINIONS of others above what I see with my own two eyes. Scientists write opinions. Facts prove themselves. Scientists serve a good purpose in our world, but they all want to make their mark, so they expect that they can spend a couple months on something and change the world's opinion of it. The world was here a hell of a long time before Humans were here, and we still don't even know how we got here. How the heck, then, can we think we know how the world works? Whether I view this world from religious eyes or scientific, I am still not stupid enough to think that I understand it . Therefore, global warming is impossible to prove, and is therefore MOOT.

The climate changes on its own without our help. What we need to worry about is what we CAN control, not what we can't. As soon as the scientists quit thinking we cause everything going on, they can then be able to notice what effects we really do have. At that point, hopefully, we will begin to work with the world's natural changes, adding our own little minuscule additions (which ironically are most likely reductions (in emissions, etc.) that will work with the world's cycles. Our concept of homeostasis doesn't really fit the planet, because it fluctuates much more than we "think" it does. This is only because we haven't lived here long enough. One day maybe ....

Well put.

xavier wrote:This is not to say that we should pollute away

It rhymes!

OK someone make a rap out of that. You are to become a multi-millionaire with that line I am telling you... Yo.

This graph shows the CO2 and temperature rates since the last 400 000 years, until 1950.
This data has been mesured using air bubble contained in ice core, providing data of all these years.

First of all we can observe the co2 rate in the air has always been varying, which is obviously caused by natural factors. these are caused mostly by volcano activity, buring forests, and others biological and géological origins.
So yes, human activity hasn't always been influencing the atmosphere composition.
We can also observe that each time co2 reached a high rate, an ice age occured then.

someone above mentioned that geology is a chaotic system, which is true of course, it is a complicated level of determinism, where all the correlations involved are way above human comprehension.

however, the co2 rate has never reached 300ppm. according to wikipedia the co2 rate today is 387ppm, and it was around 280ppm in 1950. This could be considered as a huge variation in a very short time period.
Besides the natural factors, human activity since the last century involves a lot of energy consumption, such as oil. to this we could add the exploitation of Rain forests (which absorbs Co2) caused a very important loss of total surface. massive energy consumption, and massive natural resource exploitation are very likely to disturb the natural balance.
humans have become an important influence in the fluctuation. the developement of countries like china, india, and others, will surely inforce this tendency.

syd wrote: however, the co2 rate has never reached 300ppm. according to wikipedia the co2 rate today is 387ppm

Except that you quote a Wikipedia article which in turn cites another Wikpedia page as its source. That page in turn provides no link to the original report mentioned, but instead provides links to analyses of, opinions of, and lectures about, the report.

Syd's Wikipedia Article wrote: 2007 assessment report compiled by the IPCC noted that...

Note that even if your page cited the IPCC report directly, this is the same organization that is under fire for the leaked emails. That in itself is enough to view those numbers and their analysis with a great deal of skepticism (at best).

so? what are you trying to prove? that the current rate is not 387ppm??
I don't know anything about the emails from IPCC you're talking about. however, this organisation was created in 2007, way after the issue was observed and mesured. they've been created only for the UN needs. there are plenty of other sources.

here is another article

As of March 2009[update], carbon dioxide in the Earth's atmosphere is at a concentration of 387 ppm by volume.

here it refers to these data from this source

syd wrote:so? what are you trying to prove? that the current rate is not 387ppm??

I am simply skeptical of anything the IPCC "produces" -- see below.

I don't know anything about the emails from IPCC you're talking about. however, this organisation was created in 2007, way after the issue was observed and mesured. they've been created only for the UN needs. there are plenty of other sources.

Second sentence is wrong:

IPCC website wrote: The IPCC is 21 years old

http://www.ipcc.ch/organization/organiz ... istory.htm


First sentence means that either news is suppressed in your country, or you have missed it through rampant apathy:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125883405294859215.html

here is another article

As of March 2009[update], carbon dioxide in the Earth's atmosphere is at a concentration of 387 ppm by volume.

here it refers to these data from this source

Thanks for the link. That said, I repeat -- no one is arguing that the average temperature has risen over the past 100 years, nor that there are increased levels of various industrial emissions in the atmosphere. The argument is over whether the latter has any causal effect on the former (indeed, if the former actually has any real effect) -- and if the recent evidence is to be believed, that there is real cause for the reasonable doubt that has persisted throughout the debate.

Here's a link for you, also complete with citations, explaining the skepticism much more eloquently than can I:

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=1188

xavier wrote:First sentence means that either news is suppressed in your country, or you have missed it through rampant apathy

or people like me don't give a **** to this kind of organized controversy.
what an arrogant assumption... you call that 'debating'?

xavier wrote:Here's a link for you, also complete with citations, explaining the skepticism much more eloquently than can I:

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=1188

don't you have anything more serious? this article doesn't look scientific at all, this is not science, but lobbying.

Patrick J. Michaels wrote:The national media have given tremendous play to the claims of Vice President Al Gore, some federal scientists, and environmental activists that the unseasonably warm temperatures of this past summer were proof positive of the arrival of dramatic and devastating global warming. In fact, the record temperatures were largely the result of a strong El Niño superimposed on a decade in which temperatures continue to reflect a warming that largely took place in the first half of this century.

what a neat scientist introduction... I googled el nino

El Niño-Southern Oscillation is a periodic change in the atmosphere and ocean of the tropical Pacific region.

well... is this really the cause of global warming? your guy is funny!
hey calm down guys, global warming is caused by el nino

Patrick J. Michaels wrote:Moreover, carbon dioxide is increasing in the atmosphere at a rate below that of most climate-change scenarios because it is being increasingly captured by growing vegetation.

it is being increasingly captured by growing vegetation??
how comes 'increasingly', there are more vegetation?
as I showed, the co2 concentration hasn't been decreasing at all.

The second most important human greenhouse enhancer -- methane -- is not likely to increase appreciably in the next 100 years.

hey does he even know where methane comes from?? it comes from the meat insdutry, which is not likely going to decrease it's production.
and methane isn't absorbed easily.

And perhaps most important, the direct warming effect of carbon dioxide was overestimated. Even global warming alarmists in the scientific establishment now say that the Kyoto Protocol will have no discernible impact on global climate.

is this science?? the graph above proves the correlation between Co2 and temperature, secondly the Kyoto's protocol failed, the objectives were not reached by most countries, and thirdly the total co2 emissions increased with the rise of new industrialised countries.
the argument doesn't implie the idea, this is in no way a honest logic.

this is not a scientific article, it's politics.

I looked closer at the Cato institute, and as I guessed, it gets its fund from powerful corporations, corporations that want to spread out their own 'truth'. (mentionned in the french wikipedia article). as I said, the cato institue is not about science, it's lobbying.
and I just realised VictorMoran perfectly demonstrated it below.

so xavier... don't you have anything better? something serious to point out?

syd wrote:

xavier wrote:First sentence means that either news is suppressed in your country, or you have missed it through rampant apathy

or people like me don't give a **** to this kind of organized controversy.
what an arrogant assumption... you call that 'debating'?

First, I wasn't aware we were "debating" -- second, so you believe that there is nothing to the scandal, that everything has always been above-board with these people and that there has been no organized effort to suppress dissenting views?

xavier wrote:Here's a link for you, also complete with citations, explaining the skepticism much more eloquently than can I:

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=1188

don't you have anything more serious? this article doesn't look scientific at all, this is not science, but lobbying.

Well, considering that the person who wrote the paper is one of the scientists involved on the wrong side of the dissent suppression effort, I'd say your summary dismissal of anything he has to say on the matter puts you squarely on the side of those who would wish to suppress dissent.

Patrick J. Michaels wrote:Moreover, carbon dioxide is increasing in the atmosphere at a rate below that of most climate-change scenarios because it is being increasingly captured by growing vegetation.

it is being increasingly captured by growing vegetation??
how comes 'increasingly', there are more vegetation?
as I showed, the co2 concentration hasn't been decreasing at all.

Your response to this exposes your ignorance and bias -- the point is not that CO2 levels are decreasing, it's that much like the predicted temperature increases, they are not increasing at the levels predicted by the models. The point is that the models so many of these so-called "experts" who have got the most attention within policy circles, are wrong, and that policy recommendations based upon them are equally wrong.

In other words, if you are going to enact worldwide climate-related legislation (that even according to those on your side of the climate change debate will wreak wholesale destruction on the global economy) on the basis of computer models that have repeatedly been demonstrated as inaccurate at best -- you had first better make goddamned sure that (a) the problem that you are trying to "solve" first really exists, and (b) that the "solution" proposed will actually have an effect. The paper I provided quotes NOAA scientists as agreeing that the full provisions of the Kyoto Protocol (to name one) would have little actual effect on global climate change. And yet how many nations signed up to that piece of shit on the basis of popular ignorance espoused by those such as yourself?

so xavier... don't you have anything better? something serious to point out?

I should ask you the same thing, since the best you can do is Wikipedia links. In fact, all I have got from yourself, Victor and Vectrex is Wikipedia and Youtube. And yet you have the balls to ask me for "something serious"?

You are free to peruse the sources used in the policy recommendation -- just as I am examining the sources used in your "evidence".

FWIW, Cato makes no attempt to try to hide its goals -- they advocate free-market, small-government solutions, and are a fiscally conservative, socially liberal organization. It's called "Libertarian" over here. They accept no government funding, which cannot be said for the sources you seem to favor. I'll not even bother to point out who funds the many studies that favor the notion of anthropogenic climate change...

xavier wrote:*

Well, you repeatedly ask scientists to be "sure". But as you pointed out they do know that their tools are inaccurate at best.

So what do you advice? Just wait and hope that they were wrong?
But if they are right for just a minimal part, then you are 20 years behind of schedule to solve the problems, and could as well be too late.

I think it's good that scientists are trying to make a collective front to give satisfacting directions to politics, better to """sacrifice""" some economy than taking a risk to spend one PIL and half (according to last projections) to fix the damages when it's too late.

On the "sacrifice" subject: i do think that paradigm shifts like that aren't a real "sacrifice" for economy... it's like saying IBM PCs were sacrificed to microsoft, that phone is being sacrificed to internet, or what else.
There is a fixed amount of energy and resources to be provided, so the money behind it just moves to the current lobbies (that love to spread the idea that ecology gonna get YOU fired) to other new industries.
I guess someone has to produce air filters, optimizing programs, solar panels and electric cars right?

_tommo_ wrote:

xavier wrote:*

Well, you repeatedly ask scientists to be "sure". But as you pointed out they do know that their tools are inaccurate at best.

So what do you advice? Just wait and hope that they were wrong?
But if they are right for just a minimal part, then you are 20 years behind of schedule to solve the problems, and could as well be too late.

I think it's good that scientists are trying to make a collective front to give satisfacting directions to politics, better to """sacrifice""" some economy than taking a risk to spend one PIL and half (according to last projections) to fix the damages when it's too late.

This is not a bad idea, nor is it something we're saying we shouldn't do. It's just that we don't need to get all swept up with the tides and feel like we're all on the brink of destroying the planet. Conserving and being energy conscious are all great things, just don't lose our heads over it. If I can't afford to get a Prius, don't hate me . I'll get one one day when I don't feel like the car companies are trying to bully me. If you want me to be better, put those things within reach. The current crap going on here is a joke. I may not agree with the scientists, but I am reasonable and know when something does make good sense.

_tommo_ wrote:

xavier wrote:*

Well, you repeatedly ask scientists to be "sure". But as you pointed out they do know that their tools are inaccurate at best.

No, I ask that incredibly damaging governmental action not be based on "science" polluted by politics. The IPCC itself is a perfect example -- their purpose can be summed up as "find out how mankind is damaging the climate". The problem with that mission is that the fundamental premise is flawed, or at best presupposes an outcome (and a political one at that). This is a complete abrogation of the scientific method, and goes a long way towards explaining why efforts exist (note the present tense) to suppress dissenting opinions in official publications -- if you find out that the anthropogenic assumption is wrong, your funding dries up. It also explains why so many people mistakenly believe that "all scientists agree" on this issue -- if you only ever hear one side of a debate, wouldn't you also reach this conclusion?

The inaccuracies in the models is a separate sub-issue, and simply muddy the waters further, making it *less* important that we base policy on what is essentially handwaving.

I think it's good that scientists are trying to make a collective front to give satisfacting directions to politics, better to """sacrifice""" some economy than taking a risk to spend one PIL and half (according to last projections) to fix the damages when it's too late.

Except that the "sacrifice" being discussed is not "some". I am going to assume that you live in a developed nation -- the "sacrifices" being proposed will have the effect of dragging the entire community of developed nations back towards third-world status.

I guess a better way to phrase it is, how much are "you" willing to "sacrifice"? 30% of your salary? 50%? 70%? At what point do you just say "fuck it, this isn't worth it" and either join the dole queue, or go work in a country that hasn't decided essentially to shut down their entire economy on the basis of a theory?

Or, instead of forcing everyone in the world immediately into a lowest-common-denominator status by fiat and force of law, you could let (or even encourage) free-market innovation to solve the problems, as has been done through much of the past century with virtually every technological advancement we enjoy today.

Hey look - no matter which one of you is "correct" in that argument of yours, probably nobody is quite correct, but any ways, do you think letting a huge cloud of smoke up in the sky is a good idea?

Consider the scene which I am sure many of us is familiar with: some person kills himself or herself by starting his or her car in a garage with all garage doors and windows closed. Let's the engine run and sits there and dies. This is the effect of producing a cloud of smoke in a small-scale.

When you do it outside, you just have a bigger garage. Eventually the result is the same.

It doesn't matter what the temperature was 400,000 years ago and what it is today - we still should not let that cloud of smoke be created because it is harmful to us any ways no matter the temperature and all the rest of the "smoke-screen" don't let the smoke-screen of the temperature argument cloud your judgement on what is a good idea to do in practice and what is not a good idea to do in practice. Simply inhaling smoke is a bad idea, it will kill you. In a bigger garage, like in the atmosphere of the Earth, it will just take a longer time than in those movies many of us have seen where the guy or the gal commits suicide by car emissions.

xavier wrote: First, I wasn't aware we were "debating" -- second, so you believe that there is nothing to the scandal, that everything has always been above-board with these people and that there has been no organized effort to suppress dissenting views?

if these dissending views are from the same kind of guys than Patrick J. Michaels, suppressing dissending views were perfectly a professionnal scientist behavior.

syd wrote: Patrick J. Michaels wrote: The national media have given tremendous play to the claims of Vice President Al Gore, some federal scientists, and environmental activists that the unseasonably warm temperatures of this past summer were proof positive of the arrival of dramatic and devastating global warming. In fact, the record temperatures were largely the result of a strong El Niño superimposed on a decade in which temperatures continue to reflect a warming that largely took place in the first half of this century.

what a neat scientist introduction... I googled el nino:
El Niño-Southern Oscillation is a periodic change in the atmosphere and ocean of the tropical Pacific region.

well... is this really the cause of global warming? your guy is funny!
hey calm down guys, global warming is caused by el nino

you didn't answered anything about this. so, you agree global warming is caused by el nino ??

xavier wrote: Well, considering that the person who wrote the paper is one of the scientists involved on the wrong side of the dissent suppression effort, I'd say your summary dismissal of anything he has to say on the matter puts you squarely on the side of those who would wish to suppress dissent.

man... how do you manage to agree with him? his article doesn't has serious content. I haven't looked at his report, but given his article, he doesn't even deserve any more time spent...

xavier wrote:Your response to this exposes your ignorance and bias -- the point is not that CO2 levels are decreasing, it's that much like the predicted temperature increases, they are not increasing at the levels predicted by the models. The point is that the models so many of these so-called "experts" who have got the most attention within policy circles, are wrong, and that policy recommendations based upon them are equally wrong.

In other words, if you are going to enact worldwide climate-related legislation (that even according to those on your side of the climate change debate will wreak wholesale destruction on the global economy) on the basis of computer models that have repeatedly been demonstrated as inaccurate at best -- you had first better make goddamned sure that (a) the problem that you are trying to "solve" first really exists, and (b) that the "solution" proposed will actually have an effect. The paper I provided quotes NOAA scientists as agreeing that the full provisions of the Kyoto Protocol (to name one) would have little actual effect on global climate change. And yet how many nations signed up to that piece of shit on the basis of popular ignorance espoused by those such as yourself?

the current scientific knowledge is too weak to build any model on such topic. I don't care about models. what I care about is the graph shown above. You'll find this same graph coming from many different sources. These data are measurements of the past. it shows co2 and temperature have a very close correlation, a tight relationship. current levels of co2 have reached a level never seen. you don't need to be a scientist to understand why the last decade has been the hotest decade of the entire earth history.

FWIW, Cato makes no attempt to try to hide its goals -- they advocate free-market, small-government solutions, and are a fiscally conservative, socially liberal organization. It's called "Libertarian" over here. They accept no government funding, which cannot be said for the sources you seem to favor. I'll not even bother to point out who funds the many studies that favor the notion of anthropogenic climate change...

I really don't see what makes "private" funding more trustful...
and when they conclude climate change is caused by el nino, you just don't need to wonder much more

Xavier, This 'debate' only exists in the US. Here in Europe, I haven't seen anyone contesting any of these.
Even here in this thread, the only people contesting it are americans. hey we have an international audience here.
Is there anyone here in this forum, not american, that believe global warming is fiction??
I know the US quite well, I've been living there for 3 years, I just know why this subject has so much controversy out there. Car industry, Oil industry don't want to hear anything about it. The traditionnal Christian point of view (thinking about creationists) may not help too.



As tommo points out, rather than denying it, isn't it time for a paradigm shift ?

xavier wrote: Except that the "sacrifice" being discussed is not "some". I am going to assume that you live in a developed nation -- the "sacrifices" being proposed will have the effect of dragging the entire community of developed nations back towards third-world status.

I guess a better way to phrase it is, how much are "you" willing to "sacrifice"? 30% of your salary? 50%? 70%? At what point do you just say "fuck it, this isn't worth it" and either join the dole queue, or go work in a country that hasn't decided essentially to shut down their entire economy on the basis of a theory?

Or, instead of forcing everyone in the world immediately into a lowest-common-denominator status by fiat and force of law, you could let (or even encourage) free-market innovation to solve the problems, as has been done through much of the past century with virtually every technological advancement we enjoy today.

you are showing here that your opinions aren't based on your logic, but your interests. you are desperately trying to find anything that could invalidate what you call "theory", to ease you mind. you are just scared of the consequences that are ahead of us. so we are

syd wrote:

syd wrote: Patrick J. Michaels wrote: The national media have given tremendous play to the claims of Vice President Al Gore, some federal scientists, and environmental activists that the unseasonably warm temperatures of this past summer were proof positive of the arrival of dramatic and devastating global warming. In fact, the record temperatures were largely the result of a strong El Niño superimposed on a decade in which temperatures continue to reflect a warming that largely took place in the first half of this century.

what a neat scientist introduction... I googled el nino:
El Niño-Southern Oscillation is a periodic change in the atmosphere and ocean of the tropical Pacific region.

well... is this really the cause of global warming? your guy is funny!
hey calm down guys, global warming is caused by el nino

you didn't answered anything about this. so, you agree global warming is caused by el nino ??

I didn't answer it because (a) it's a strawman in the context you presented it. You clearly don't understand the paper as a whole, so there's not much point in responding to your comment.

xavier wrote: Well, considering that the person who wrote the paper is one of the scientists involved on the wrong side of the dissent suppression effort, I'd say your summary dismissal of anything he has to say on the matter puts you squarely on the side of those who would wish to suppress dissent.

man... how do you manage to agree with him? his article doesn't has serious content. I haven't looked at his report, but given his article, he doesn't even deserve any more time spent...
[/quote]

What sort of content are you expecting? It's a paper explaining why and how the actual observations do not match the models used to argue for anthropogenic climate change. That seems pretty clear to me...

xavier wrote:Your response to this exposes your ignorance and bias -- the point is not that CO2 levels are decreasing, it's that much like the predicted temperature increases, they are not increasing at the levels predicted by the models. The point is that the models so many of these so-called "experts" who have got the most attention within policy circles, are wrong, and that policy recommendations based upon them are equally wrong.

In other words, if you are going to enact worldwide climate-related legislation (that even according to those on your side of the climate change debate will wreak wholesale destruction on the global economy) on the basis of computer models that have repeatedly been demonstrated as inaccurate at best -- you had first better make goddamned sure that (a) the problem that you are trying to "solve" first really exists, and (b) that the "solution" proposed will actually have an effect. The paper I provided quotes NOAA scientists as agreeing that the full provisions of the Kyoto Protocol (to name one) would have little actual effect on global climate change. And yet how many nations signed up to that piece of shit on the basis of popular ignorance espoused by those such as yourself?

the current scientific knowledge is too weak to build any model on such topic. I don't care about models. what I care about is the graph shown above. You'll find this same graph coming from many different sources. These data are measurements of the past. it shows co2 and temperature have a very close correlation, a tight relationship. current levels of co2 have reached a level never seen. you don't need to be a scientist to understand why the last decade has been the hotest decade of the entire earth history.

First, you continue to make the mistake of extrapolating localized data to long-term trends -- not only is this incorrect, it's been debunked many times over. On that basis, I could just as easily claim that the fact that it's snowing in Houston, TX this week means that global warming is over, and we're entering a cooling down period now. If I did so, you would call that ludicrous, and you would be right to do so. The same goes for claiming temperature measurements over a ten-year period as "proof" of a trend in climate change.

Second, the facts demonstrate your ignorance in this matter -- indeed, the scientists at the center of this email controversy state that they cannot explain why temperatures over the last ten years have not risen (and by all accounts have expressed great frustration at their inability to correlate CO2 and temperature on that basis).

one of the emails wrote: From: Kevin Trenberth (US National Center for Atmospheric Research). To: Michael Mann. Oct 12, 2009
"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... Our observing system is inadequate"

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/enviro ... uotes.html

Finally, one thing is clear: you don't need to be a scientist to jump to the conclusions you have; populist mythology and pseudo-science seems to be enough for you. You don't care about models because you don't understand them, or how they are used, or why. I'll try to explain. These models are used by scientists to predict what will happen in the future given a particular scenario. The paper I linked demonstrates that the models do not match observed reality. Why is this a problem? Because policy is guided by these models -- in order to figure out what (indeed, if) policy must be enacted, you need to know what is going to happen in the future. If the models are inaccurate (and most of them are), you end up making bad policy that (a) will have no effect on the outcome, (b) will have an adverse effect on the outcome, or (c) didn't need to be made in the first place. So you actually should be caring about the models, because *that* is what is driving policy.

Xavier, This 'debate' only exists in the US. Here in Europe, I haven't seen anyone contesting any of these.

Then you should be disappointed in your news media. On the other hand, Europeans seem to be more accepting and unquestioning of government control over their lives, so I am not surprised to hear a European say that they are satisfied with whatever the government tells them.

I know the US quite well, I've been living there for 3 years

Is this just a mistake in translation, or did you contradict your statement from above? Do you live in Europe or America?

Car industry, Oil industry don't want to hear anything about it

I like how you people think that this is something cooked up by the auto or energy industries. The fact is, auto manufacturers will make what people want to buy, regardless where it gets its energy. Energy producers will produce what people want to use, regardless of the source. If the world went solar tomorrow, BP (to name one) would simply shift resources to their solar division from their oil and gas divisions and continue as if nothing changed. The fact is, coal, oil and gas right now are by far the cheapest sources of energy on the planet, and even with all of the exploration costs, the cheapest to harvest and deliver. This is what people demand, this is what they deliver. It's called a "market-driven economy". We could go on about the resistance *from the environmentalists* to actual alternative energy initiatives within the private sector, but that's a different topic.

. The traditionnal Christian point of view (thinking about creationists) may not help too.

What has that got to do with anything, other than exposing more of your apparent bias?

As tommo points out, rather than denying it, isn't it time for a paradigm shift ?

To what? Wrecking the global economy to make you and your friends feel better about yourselves, with no guarantee (and even evidence to the contrary) that such an action will have any significant effect? Man, talk about arrogance...