To be sure, it does not take "studies" and "experts" to "prove" that smog turns healthy breathable air into unhealthy unbreathable air.

But, again, the consensus among proponents of man-made global warming pretty much all agree that the cause is greenhouse gases. And the consensus is also that cattle accounts for the main source of greenhouse gases. I honestly don't see how anyone concerned with man-made global warming can ignore this and, therefore, not be vegetarian (i.e., be congruent in their behaviors and beliefs).

I recommend reading "Hot Talk, Cold Science", endorsed by respected physicist the late Frederick Seitz, William Harper professor of Physics at Princeton, Richard Lindzen, meteorologist at MIT, written by physicist Fred Singer.

If you want to know where Prof. Singer is coming from, read this (and skeptics are not "deniers"- that's just a slur).

But before you freak out, let me restate, it matters not; clean air is good either way; do things that contribute to clean air (like end the state -- > good luck with that!).

(Better to read and have these discussions with actual working climate scientists than to bother with Internet pundits either way.)

There is also "consensus" as to the three types of "deniers." If anyone calls me a "denier," I'd be curious as to which of the three types of "deniers" you think I belong to (as indicated in the Singer article linked above). And you can then give me your scientific explanations as to why my stance is not valid.

This is something worth keeping in mind (from Singer):

"I have concluded that we can accomplish very little with convinced warmistas and probably even less with true deniers. So we just make our measurements, perfect our theories, publish our work, and hope that in time the truth will out."

The warmistas matter as much as the deniers. And the bottomline remains: what are you going to do about it anyway? As has been shown over and over, your "votes" don't count for much (or anything at all). So, what are you going to do about this (other than fume and get your panties in a twist on videosift)? The same is true with the "deniers." And the skeptics (i.e., true scientists).

Science also doesn't work by consensus. No real scientist will say otherwise. You either prove/falsify some hypothesis or you don't. You don't determine the truth in science by "consensus." Scientific consensus, as has been said, is itself unscientific.

There is no "consensus" on the acceleration speed of falling objects. There is no "consensus" on whether the Earth is orbiting the sun. There is no "consensus" on water being made up of H2O. These you can measure and find out for yourself. (In fact, Galileo had less than 5% "consensus" on whether the Earth orbits the sun at the time of his experiments. Facts matter. "Consensus?" Not so much.)

But,

“If the science were as certain as climate activists pretend, then there would be precisely one climate model, and it would be in agreement with measured data. As it happens, climate modelers have constructed literally dozens of climate models. What they all have in common is a failure to represent reality, and a failure to agree with the other models. As the models have increasingly diverged from the data, the climate clique have nevertheless grown increasingly confident—from cocky in 2001 (66% certainty in IPCC’s Third Assessment Report) to downright arrogant in 2013 (95% certainty in the Fifth Assessment Report).”

Still, this does not in any way equate "denial" of man-made global warming or whatever other "climate change." That is simply an unfounded conflation made up by the propagandists which so many here take on as gospel.

And it still does not let anyone "off the hook" about actually doing something that matters if you care about it so much.

Let me know if anyone finds any "errors" in the science of the NGIPCC articles and studies that I posted above.

Then I point you to somewhere which requires reading:

http://motherboard.vice.com/blog/now-just-001-percent-of-climate-scientists-reject-global-warming

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/the-curious-wavefunction/2014/01/10/about-that-consensus-on-global-warming-9136-agree-one-disagrees/

http://www.independentaustralia.net/environment/environment-display/only-1-of-9136-recent-peer-reviewed-authors-rejects-global-warming,6094

I could go all day. But, of course, this study isn't without it's detractors, who honestly do have a claim, if substantiated. (I've read the math on it, and the 97% is indeed an accurate sum, however, it is misleading in the sense that it only accounts for papers that state a stance and don't outright deny climate change is solely anthropogenic.)

Perhaps you found your info on Forbes.com, a decidedly unbiased site whose solely interested in getting to the bottom of the facts, regardless of political ideology. (sarcasm)

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/05/22/after-oklahoma-city-tragedy-shameless-politicians-unsheath-global-warming-card/

Or we could try a different route and try a group dedicated to statistics:

http://stats.org/stories/2008/global_warming_survey_apr23_08.html

"Eighty-four percent say they personally believe human-induced warming is occurring, and 74% agree that “currently available scientific evidence” substantiates its occurrence. Only 5% believe that that human activity does not contribute to greenhouse warming; the rest are unsure."

Now, we should work on your use of the word "some".

"some
səm/Submit
determiner
1.
an unspecified amount or number of.
"I made some money running errands"
2.
used to refer to someone or something that is unknown or unspecified.
"she married some newspaper magnate twice her age"
pronoun
1.
an unspecified number or amount of people or things.
"here are some of our suggestions"
2.
at least a small amount or number of people or things.
"surely some have noticed"
adverbNORTH AMERICANinformal
1.
to some extent; somewhat.
"when you get to the majors, the rules change some""

Don't worry, none of those came from a .gov link.

Bottomline: who cares? None of the people who are attacking me here are going to do anything of any impact on the climate. It's just "talk, talk, talk" anyway. Do you buy plastic? If so, then who cares what you think about the environment?

These are not rhetorical or trivial questions! I expect answers! (not really)

Pragmatically, are you personally contributing to clean air or are you contributing to smog? I walk to work, I don't have children, I don't consume beef, and when I do use vehicles, I take public transportation and drive a hybrid. What do you do? What are your theoretical opinions contributing to anything of value? If you just want something more to freak out about (without actually contributing anything in any positive way), then you can enjoy your worry and stress and get your panties in a bunch on videosift. I have no interest in it.


And speaking of "geniuses:"

@9547bis said: "Denying basic physics is a bit harder, you see."

So, other than parroting something you read on a government website, can you in fact explain the "physics" you are so convinced of? What are the "physics" that "prove" man-made greenhouse gases are the reason for global warming? And why do the warming models invariably prove to be inaccurate (according to physics)?

So, you know which is "bigger" between 5 and 15. I'm not as impressed with yourself as you seem to be. But perhaps you can explain the "physics errors" in this report?

Or this one.

This section specifically deals with the "physical science." What is it that you know that the experts don't. Perhaps you can demonstrate the scientific errors with which you disagree, and point out where they're inaccurate?

Or perhaps you don't understand anything that you aren't repeating from what some government hack tells you...

Something you failed to recognize is that "data" requires a rationalist theory by which to interpret it. Many people have not been getting that kind of education (as Google's HR knows), so the "data" can then be interpreted any which way to suit pre-conditioned biases and vested interests. That's not "science." In fact, that's where so-called "authorities" come in: the propagandists and those paid to tell "the people" how to interpret the "data."

Who amongst those taking issue with my posts (@dannym3141) follows this epistemological "method" of reading the "data" and interpreting it, and who simply repeats what some "authority" tells them is the case?

(And lest you think "the people" are innocent victims, know that they seem more like willing participants; the extent to which they can be "victimized" depends on the extent of their own personal vices: anger, greed, pride, envy, laziness, etc. I'm looking at you @ChaosEngine.)

There is really no consensus that I can find as to whether the oceans are warming up consistently, whether that has to do with atmospheric conditions, and whether greenhouse gasses are the cause (if indeed it is happening).

You completely misread my post (big surprise). This is another one of those distinctions that make no pragmatic difference. What does distinguishing between"believers" and "deniers" do for cleaning the air (and cleaning the environment)? Do "believers" contribute less to smog, greenhouse gasses, pollution, etc.? I remember driving to NYC from Boston and noticing the filthy brown/grey cloud enveloping the city as visible as you approached it. Is that because all NYC dwellers are "climate change deniers?" How about the L.A. smog? These are real problems, much more so than some "climate change believers" whose predictive models keep proving to be inaccurate.

Of course, as is pointed out here, "denier" is simply a shaming slur, and "climate change" is yet another tool in the hypocrite's toolbox to "prove" how much we need the rulers to save you from the weather.

Meteorology has many many variables that need to be considered, making it next-to-impossible to conduct experiments under controlled conditions in order to prove or falsify your theories. The pragmatic response then, is to ask what are you (going to) do(ing) about it (with it being whatever the article says)?

(In other words, it looks like the Prius came into being about 135 years too late.)

Bottom line is, if "man-made catastrophic climate change" is not happening, then society needs to stop listening to politicians and other hypocrites. If "man-made catastrophic climate change" is happening, then society needs to stop listening to politicians and other hypocrites if it wants to put a stop to it. And also take a good look at their own behaviors and contributions to waste and pollution because "belief" or not makes ZERO DIFFERENCE; only actual behavior makes a difference.

While the "overwhelming evidence" for human caused climate change remains underwhelming, in ether case, I'll do what helps the most people to limit greenhouse gases: stop consuming beef (since "we the people" have little to no power over the major causes of climate change: U.S.A.'s and China's governments).

Still, while it's worth doing what we can to diminish greenhouse gases, it's probably wise to get a better understanding of the meteorological conditions affecting the planet from sources other than televised comedy shows.

(Surely, someone somewhere has an explanation, say, for this, but I doubt televised comedy shows have the time, expertise, or attention spans to adequately address a complex issue).

Have you read any super-depressing articles lately? If not, try this one: http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/22790-the-vanishing-arctic-ice-cap

Nothing new, really. Just another reminder that we're thorougly bummed.

"The 40-year lag between emissions of greenhouse gases and consequent rise in global-average temperature suggests our planetary fate was sealed decades ago."

It would have ruined my day, but a coworker brought some delicious cheese cake along, so everything's in balance.

Lumberjack porn babies!
Used to be only manly men could split wood, now any fat-ass with 40K and a hemorrhoid cushion can turn a new-growth forest into greenhouse-gas pellets in a week

^ What Mr. Chomsky neglected to mention here was scale & production cost vs payoff.

Yes anyone can grow their own strawberries but how many could you ever hope to produce in the average back garden/greenhouse? Probably not enough to let you eat Strawberries everyday I'd bet, and you certainly would'nt pull much of a profit selling them to people at a domestic scale (the key issue here).

Pot however....... even a modest indoor backroom grow can easily net between 30-90oz when dried (alot!). And this can easily be repeated up to 3-4 times a year.

Tobbacco by comparison yields very little for the space and time taken. There's a reason basically no-one home grows tobbaco, you need a huge farm and large scale processing to produce a profitable quantity. Hence it being the preserve of big business and thus legal (plutocrats sure know how to lobby!).


For what its worth though, I do think the Hemp fiber thing was probably the bigger factor in legislation, but what Chomsky is alluding to here is also pretty valid I think.
Pot is a massive cash crop that is seemingly always in demand and relatively easy for a consumer to produce in their own garden/backroom.

There would be a profit in industrial production (always going to be plenty lazy people), but combined with the hemp industry and the effect it tends to have on people (makes you think!) I can totally see why the establishment fears it so much.
It'd be slow, but legal Pot would start eroding the very foundations of the elites power as it's much more profitable for the lower and middle class of society than the Plutocrats at the top and the scale is huge.

A more equal distribution of wealth/economic power is bad for Plutocracy!

If people don't want to plant vegetable gardens, then what about habitat for something to live in? Lawns are a wasteland for native plant, animal, fungal, and bacteria species.
Also, I don't buy the carbon sink thing. Powered lawnmowers put out a lot of CO2. Also, a lot of cut grass decays... and that releases greenhouse gasses as well.
Oh.. and 'pesticides' were mentioned, but what about herbicide and fertilizer run off?
OhX2... and lawns are reeeaaaally ugly!

I don't know if we'll ever get to an "I told you so" on the anthropogenic cause, but within 10 years or so I think even the hardest of hard core Fox News watchers will have to stop denying that climate change is happening. At that point they will still deny that giant multi-billion dollar corporations and massive farming of the rain forests have anything to do with it, they'll stick to their "it is a natural" cycle, feedback loops be damned, and continue saying "follow the money" when they point to who is saying it is man made, while ignoring their own advice and following the money to who is saying it isn't man made. Even if they do believe it man made, they'll say it won't matter as a large number of the deniers are evangelicals who say Jesus is coming again soon and he'll whisk them away before it gets too bad. I know because I've heard them say this very line, they use this line to say it doesn't matter who somebody votes for as well, though they still follow Fox and vote as the Republican right tells them to vote... Anyhow I think part of the problem is a lack of basic understanding of science, not understanding what a theory is and how it comes about, and the fact it got politicized (and unfortunately for those of us who accept the scientific facts, Gore may have done more harm than good by being a bit more alarmist in some areas and mis-representing some facts for the deniers to point to and say see the whole thing is false). I used to be a skeptic, but then I followed the research trail back on both sides, saw who was saying what exactly, and it became clear that we are screwed...

TLDR: They may come to accept climate change is happening, but still won't accept that humans have much if anything to do with it.

>> ^alcom:

Superstorm Sandy is another example of society's march past the greenhouse tipping-point like the lemmings that we are. I laid it our in arguments in this video, where I was vehemently opposed by doubt-fuelled, fear monger, climate change deniers:
http://videosift.com/video/Climate-Change-Latest-science-update
We're so close to that "I told you so" moment. By that time unfortunately, the methane feedback loop will probably be well under way.

Superstorm Sandy is another example of society's march past the greenhouse tipping-point like the lemmings that we are. I laid it our in arguments in this video, where I was vehemently opposed by doubt-fuelled, fear monger, climate change deniers:
http://videosift.com/video/Climate-Change-Latest-science-update

We're so close to that "I told you so" moment. By that time unfortunately, the methane feedback loop will probably be well under way.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/30/opinion/the-conversion-of-a-climate-change-skeptic.html?_r=2&pagewanted=all

Speaking of, here is a new modeling based in a statistical model instead of climate models directly. They concluded that warming is indeed happening, perhaps not as large as other models though. They even attribute the last 250 years of warming as man made, even as they were previous warming skeptics. Ironically, climate and weather are some of the hardest things model and yet, most important for continued life on this planet. With more and more studies showing CO2 being a large issue, it is a cry that is quickly becoming hard for the skeptic to ignore.

On that note, did you know that without the atmosphere, the earth would be −18°C? The Greenhouse effect keeps us alive, but as we can see with Venus, it can also make us dead. But there are about 8123918237912837 *citation needed* things that effect the weather/climate as well, so always best to be vigillant in that area.

@bmacs27 Cell phones don't launch you to a higher standard of living more than a fully integrated energy system. Refrigeration, transportation, fertilizer, steel production, manufacturing, iron ore reprocessing, food production, water purification, medicine distribution/production/manufacture ect. These things require TONS of energy, something a cellphone charger stove is not. A phone charging stove, IMO, will confer very little improvement to the standard of living to the their world. "Worthwhile" is a pretty arbitrary idea, though, so there isn't a "right" answer per say. But I would wager greater quality of life would be had if you used all the money from these stove thingies into an energy infrastructure; having access to clean water and a electrical grid might be better than a marginally cleaner stove.

Particulate matter is usually the risk associated with burning coals and woods from coal and wood ash. Greenhouse isn't the issue (the CO2 in plants will go back into the air via decomposition), it is the junk that goes into your lungs. Less is good, but electric stoves (or gas) would be better as you can move the source of smoke to some distant place. I don't know the economics of small village towns, so perhaps this has a place as a stopgap until there is serious economic development, but it isn't a very big step...so I am trying some googlefu to see how much they plan to spend over there on these. If it is like 10k bucks or something, then ya, those 200 people or so you help is niceish, if they plan to spend millions, or they are charging them instead of handing them out, then other developments would be far better. As someone who has burned wood to heat a house as the primary source, it isn't fun, even if it was 50% better, using money to buy a better stove would of been silly compared to just using gas or electric provided there was an system for doing so. I think money would be better spent developing those systems instead of vesting money in a dead end technology (burning wood). One might liken it to fixing up that old car that keeps breaking down, it is a money trap...best to go get a better car if you could.

Even so, I think I might get one in the future for camping. Could be fun to mess with the TEG and main container to perhaps tweak some higher power levels out of it!

It's not even that I am 'doubting' the proxy measures. I am directly observing that the proxy measures DO NOT register the last 100 years as particularly unusual or abnormal. In fact, the more accurate and improved the proxy reconstructions have become, the more normal the last 100 years appears in those reconstructions.

The proxy reconstructions are as much 0.6 degrees cooler than instrumental records at the exact same point in time. I am objecting to a laymen like in the video coming along and saying the instrumental record's warmth is unprecedented over the last 2k years. Sure the proxy records don't show temperatures as high as the instrumental record in the last 2k years. The proxy records don't even show temperatures as high as the instrumental record in the last 10. The proxy records fail to recreate the temperatures observed in the instrumental record.

Is that making sense or clear what I am talking to?


In reply to this comment by Peroxide:
hmmm, I was aware that we only have thermometric readings of temperature for the last 100-150+ years. So basically you are doubting the ability of tree rings, pollen identification in sediments, and other methods of temperature reconstruction.

If I may reiterate my point, which I made rudely in the video post, I would say that you might be interested to know that if you go back further than 2k years, as in, more than 10k, there are temperature changes that were even greater than 1 degree, however, homo-sapiens was not around to endure them. Irregardless of previous temperature deviation, science tells us that our "freeing-up" of carbon dioxide, and creation of methane, are the culprits of the current temperature increase.

How does our ability to measure the last 2k years change that? or change the fact that we are heading for a 6 degree increase (which would not be uniform, for instance the poles have already warmed more than by 0.8 degrees, while the tropics may have warmed by less than 0.8 degrees)?

I fail to see that you have any point outside of that our estimations going back past 150+ years may be slightly off.

"It is obviously true that past climate change was caused by natural forcings. However, to argue that this means we can’t cause climate change is like arguing that humans can’t start bushfires because in the past they’ve happened naturally. Greenhouse gas increases have caused climate change many times in Earth’s history, and we are now adding greenhouse gases to the atmosphere at a increasingly rapid rate." -s.s.