Your video, The "first man-made biological leaf", has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

I'm pretty sure he meant to say that the temperatures on Mars are *raising* exactly as they are here. That's an incredibly common argument against man made global warming. He left out one incredibly important word, but I can chalk that up to simply misspeaking rather than being completely oblivious about science.

He could still be wrong, of course, but let's not take things out of context and attack him for stumbling a bit over words (assuming that's what this is). If we do that, then only people who are excellent with words will ever be elected. I would like to see more scientists and engineers elected, and in my experience they stumble over words more often than most.

Because we can look at the type of carbon, and volcanic carbon is heavier than fossil fuel carbon. When measured, the heavier carbon barely makes a dent compared to the fossil fuel carbon.

It's called science. Learn it. Love it.

(We should also note, when lead was a popular anti-knock component of gasoline, a "scientist" who was funded by the gas companies said there was nothing to worry about. Turns out, he was grossly wrong. But he was getting paid to say it wasn't. Much like any junk scientist out there today. Hence why out of peer-reviewed articles, 100% agree that climate change is happening. Only 97% have come to the definitive conclusion it's man-made. Because the scientific method IS being used, this amazingly complex issue is slowly becoming clearer, and there will be ones who will try to find causes others haven't investigated, and if their studies bear out in the peer review cycle, then it's accepted and the theory is altered. Until those 3% come to the table with facts to support their hypothesis, their ideas won't be accepted. Again, it's called science, and this is how it works.)

NdGT has made his position on AGW clear many times. It's real, it's happening and it's man made.

And centuries ago, the religious and cultural consensus was that the earth was flat, which was then disproved by scientific evidence. These days, science is peer-reviewed, so a large part of it is consensus. Just not the consensus of idiots on fox or morons who read right wing conspiracy blogs. It is the consensus of educated scientists who have researched the topic.

The simple fact is, if you don't believe in AGW, then you don't believe in the scientific method.

He never states that global (fill in the term du jour) is scientific fact. That is what the poster hopes you'll assume.
Further, consensus is not science. Centuries ago, the consensus was that the earth was flat and the sun revolved around the earth.
If you accept that global 'whatever' is man made, and the gov't s of the earth can do something about it, you have more faith than a whole peck of popes.

"Architecture of Happiness" - Man-made island near amsterdam has been added as a related post - related requested by Trancecoach on that post.

You are correct, I did not go to your link. In the past they have consistently been un-scientific right wing propaganda sites masquerading as science or news, so I don't bother anymore.
As has been pointed out, May to October IS winter in the south. What's ignored is that the reason the ice MAY have not melted as fast last summer in the North is that the heat that normally sits on the pole moved south and cause our heat waves all summer (well, yours, it stayed 70deg here). What was ignored was that it also didn't freeze as fast this winter because the cold that normally sits there was also moved south, causing our harsh winter. If you counted the entire year, it shrank....again....like it has for the last 20+ years.
One tiny incomplete data set is not climate. One season in one place is not a full data set. In the last decade, the trend has been for polar ice to melt FAR faster than it re-freezes, to the point of allowing a North West Passage and a lack of pack ice that's eroding the northern tundra.
It's way easier to have a significant increase AFTER there was a larger significant decrease in ice. It's no where near normal levels, even if your link is correct that this one season it increased (and I think it's likely either wrong or you misinterpreted it).
Science has said for decades that the polar ice will melt, and it is doing so. Your contention that it's increasing it asinine in my view, and flies in the face of over 100 articles I've read that said the exact opposite.
I did the most important thing a person can do to slow the rate of increase of climate change, I didn't have children. (you are correct, your ilk has denied the issue long enough that no one can stop climate change, it's happening now and will get worse for the next 100+ years even if we stopped adding CO2 today) That means as long as the food lasts another 40 years, I'm good and screw the rest of you. I also see the futility of petitioning the government or populace to get off their ass and stop screwing up the planet, that time came and went in the 70-80's, it's FAR too late to fix the problem, and some like you still sit back and say 'there's no issue to fix'. I only hope you have children that will blame you when they can't eat or drink anymore because of lack of food and water.

For some, everything is a 'debate' about 'state control' because that's all they think about.
You are wrong, most climate scientists are clearly in the 'climate change is happening and it's man made' camp, I've never met one that wasn't, and I know hundreds of scientists. The right wing has you by the brain banana and you would rather believe your party than science, because science wont' just tell you what you want to hear. To me that's sad and dangerous.
4%! Whoever told you that was a bold faced liar.

This seems like a straw man "attack" to me.

Anyway, you should stop eating meat right now. No more meat. It's a good follow up to not having children. If "global warming" is the reason you did not have children, then I must acknowledge your belief in man-made global warming and commitment to not contributing to it. But stop the meat eating. That also contributes greatly to greenhouse gases, second only to population.

And, yes, for CO2 alone, to stay a current levels (not to mention decrease the levels), humanity would have to cut down 60% to 80%. Not happening. To decrease levels it would need negative levels. Certainly not happening.

No, I'm not asking for a "physics class." Nothing will be resolved and no one convinced of anything through the comments section. This is simply mental masturbation.

Good luck getting 350,000,000 people reduce their carbon footprint by commenting about your opinions on videosift.

I'm glad you do your little part in slowing down the increase of greenhouse gases. Like you say, it won't do much, but at least you are doing something. But relying on the government? That won't do anything. Too bad, because I also would like clean air. It may take a few generations for people to get on with a more realistic program than "petitioning their congressmen." (So maybe not having children is not that great for the environment as clearly the current generations are not getting anywhere with this.) Do whatever you are going to do or not (just like everyone else). And good luck. Who cares other than you?

If you think you know how to stop greenhouse gases to levels you like, then go ahead and do it. Or tell someone who can do something about it. See if you can convince the climate scientists who are skeptical (not the deniers) about man-made global warming. If you have some solid research, you might make a difference!

@shatterdrose, I won't even go into the "politics" of all this. Everything that involves politicians, you can count as a failure already. But, hey, I wish you luck with that.

AT this point, it's clear to me that we're not having a serious conversation. Good luck to you in getting your "representatives" to do what you want them to do and stopping global warming.

Have a blast.

If you have your own research on climate change, or your own scientific commentary, I may be willing to take a look at it. Otherwise, everyone has an opinion and commenting won't change anyone's mind.

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.

I grow my own plants, well, as many as I can in an apartment. I bike everywhere I can. I eat some meat, but it consists very little of my diet. I produce a grocery bag of trash a week and most of that is organic waste.

Oh, you mean I should stop living in a first world country and go back to the stone-age! I get it now. You mean, I should completely and utterly give up everything because it may cause some pollution? Very illogical of you. I believe that is another one of those fallacies people are chiding you for.

By acknowledging the climate change is man-made, we can make better strides to actually bring about meaningful changes. One person reducing their carbon footprint isn't going to make much of a difference, but 350,000,000 people will.

Or, if politicians like Marco Rubio, who I shutter to think belongs to my state, would stop denying climate change we could actually have a dialogue about actual changes we can make, not ad reductionist claims like some people here on the sift are making. (I.E., you.)

Um, as for the state getting out of the way . . . The reason we have any clean air is because of their standards. For instance, it took a government mandate to eliminate lead from gasoline. Lead, which is highly toxic and one of the leading causes of anti-social behavior in convicted felons of violent crimes. I'm sure the free-market would have solved that issue on it own, however, in a much shorter period of time. *Thinks about that for a while.*

So you want to move away from the AGW and just say the climate is changing?

Basic premise flaw: if we humans aren't creating it, then there's nothing we can do. I give you, case in point, climate change deniers. Such as our Marco Rubio. Humans aren't causing it, therefore, we shouldn't impose any regulations on oil and gas. (I believe they did something similar back in the leaded gasoline days. May what short memories we have.)

By the way, saying since California has environmentalists that having the worst air pollution thus makes environmentalism a mute point would be called Fallacy of Composition. Because, let's not forget basic math: California population is greater than oh, I think 49 other states and contains the counties largest ports (major source of air pollution), the majority of the countries cars, the majority of semi trucks and trains originate here, they house dozens of oil refineries and there's this little itty bitty nascent issue of these Rocky Mountain things people keep talking about. Or, this "valley" people make fun of. I hear it's right next to these mountains.

So, really, the logical argument would be, because of the increasingly dire air pollution in California, more and more people are become environmentally aware and are slowly changing their habits to reduce future smog, but without increasing government intervention, larger corporations will continue their practice so long as it returns a profit. So, as a result, the larger corporations are spending millions lobbying politicians who have been passing favorable laws much to the angst of the growing environmental movement.

And no, that doesn't require overthrowing the government and going to an all berries diet. Nor me writing a book about my efforts.

Hmm.. 0.01 percent of about 12,000 climate scientists "reject" that climate change is man made? Is that so? And the other 99.09% all agree that it is man-made? Is this a fact?
(BTW, are you a vegetarian? If not, then you probably don't care very much about the issue. Are you also an anarchist? Because, if not, you're supporting the states, which are the worst polluters throughout the world. If you are truly concerned about climate change -- and even if you just want clean air -- you should actually do something about it... you know.. rather than freaking out simply for the sake of it. Of course you're welcome to do that on your own or with all the other supposedly concerned individuals who none-the-less pollute as much or more than any man-made climate change "denier").

If the state got out of the way, we'd be much closer if not already there with clean energy sources. Man-made climate change or not, who really likes to smell car exhaust? Or driving behind some dirty truck? Because, however convinced you may be about man-made climate change, people are not going to stop driving, or riding on airplanes, or buying plastic (and I doubt you're an exception, but I could be wrong about that). And people are not going to stop using heat or stop having children either.

Belief in man-made climate change alone is irrelevant. California with all its supposed "environmentalism" is one of the dirtiest states when it comes to air quality. So really, what difference does it make that 74% or whatever number of climate scientists think there is evidence that substantiates man-made climate change and 26% do not?
(And by the way, a scientific truth is not based on a majority vote).

If you're not making these changes in your own life, then perhaps you could just write a paper and send it to "some" climate change scientists for peer review.

I'm all in favor of not polluting.

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.)

This is the paper that is being cited, and you'll note that if you read it, you'll see that the experts had no position as to whether "man-made global warming is occurring" or not. They don't know and so, as scientists, they don't make any claims one way or the other. Of the minority who thinks or claims that they "know," most said that it is occurring.

That is totally different from saying "97% of all climate experts agree" on whatever... But, y'know, reading may be too much work for most people. If you are truly concerned about "climate change," then reduce/eliminate your own carbon footprint. Become vegetarian, walk and take public transportation, reuse bags, bottles, and containers, etc.. If you are not concerned about it, then you might as well ignore the whole topic and let the meteorologists do what they do.

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.

@gorillaman

Why would we need to quintuple resources by 2100 if population is only forecast to grow 50%? There is no shortage of potential arable land and more would be made room for if food prices were to rise (bringing them back down).

As I said before, I'm not debating environmental damage and climate change need to be addressed. But you address it directly, you don't attempt to reduce the world population to <1Bn ... somehow, like you propose.

No, corporations primarily do cause environmental harm, particularly climate change:

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/nov/20/90-companies-man-made-global-warming-emissions-climate-change

That's why changing their incentives directly through taxes or emission schemes is the best approach. I would almost say that attempting to reduce your carbon footprint at a individual level is an exercise in self masturbatory indulgence, which while gratifying is completely insignificant. It's the by-products of all the everyday products that you consume during the industrial process that create the vast majority or pollutants.

3rd paragraph - I've already addressed everything there several times here. You simply are not acknowledging the facts:

http://priceofoil.org/2013/11/26/new-analysis-shows-growing-fossil-reserves-shrinking-carbon-budget/
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/interactive/2013/nov/26/why-fossil-fuel-reserves-growing-oil-carbon

Does our current reliance on carbon based energy precipitate environmental issues with regards to global warming in the future? Obviously, but an international agreement on raising the cost of it, to reduce our reliance on it, is more likely than an agreement on enforced family size limits.