Proof of Global Warming?

[Silvio Manuel]

Can anyone point me in the direction of a site on the Net that has to do with PROOF of Global Warming or "Climate Change" or whatever they're trying to turn it into now?

As far as I know it's a fairly tenuous theory, very much unproven, except for some computer modeling. Modeling that is shaky at best, and at worst has been repeatedly exposed to be unreliable or flat-out useless... in the sense that it doesn't work when matched against past climate, and has not reliable predicted future climate (now that years have passed since prior predictions).

I'm aware that the infamous 'hockey stick' graph bandied about the U.N. is basically ****e and that NASA has been seen to make some very dubious "errors" in their conclusions, some due to climate model errors like the unbelievable Y2K error they had in one of their programs.

From the modest amount of research on the net that I've done it seems that a few factors could explain away or mitigate what many of the climate scare folks are claiming:

-Previous ice ages and warm ages 1000's of years ago certainly had nothing to do with anthropogenic carbon emissions

-Solar emissions account for far, far more energy in the overall climate cycle than any human influence

-Carbon emissions (i.e. from the oceans) may well be a product of warming, not a cause

-Worldwide economic damage from attempts to prevent carbon emissions may very well be worse (stunting economic and technological growth) over a given time period that it would be if we did not attempt to reduce carbon emissions

-Cap and trade systems likely will eat up large amounts of the world's wealth without there necessarily being any direct benefit

-The Climate Change movement may very well be backed by hardcore environementalists who might to some degree be OK with the reduction of pollution that may come with anti-carbon measures, even if the Earth is going into a cooling rather than a warming phase at present.

-As a general point, it's pretty scary that Carol Browner has such a key environmental job in the Obama administration, being as though she's a proponent of a world gov't that would fight global warming.

** The really preposterous thing would be if we are in fact going into a Global Cooling Phase (re: reduced sun activity), yet rearrage the world economy to prevent warming, thus launching ourselves into an even more rapid and damaging ice age! heh!!

For the record, I'm a Green Party member, or at least used to be until very recently, and consider myself to be solidly to the left of center on most issues.

Thanks for your feedback...

-SM

[Stalins Organ]

[Sergei]

"Climate Change" or whatever they're trying to turn it into now?

fairly tenuous theory, very much unproven

Modeling that is shaky at best, and at worst has been repeatedly exposed to be unreliable or flat-out useless...

infamous 'hockey stick' graph bandied about the U.N. is basically ****e and that NASA has been seen to make some very dubious "errors" in their conclusions

-The Climate Change movement may very well be backed by hardcore environementalists

Well, that really sounded like you're just trying to sincerely and without reservations seek more information and take it without prejudging, instead of just trying to pick a fight with anyone who isn't buying the message payed for by the industries.

While we're at it, how about discussing evolution? I heard it's also an unproven theory. Just for some reason the scientists disagree.

[Other Means]

I'm a sceptic now, says ex-NASA climate boss.

[Stalins Organ]

He's a skeptic that it's man made - not that it's happening at all.

And even if it isn't man made we probably need to understand how it is happening, and what it's long term efects are likely to be, and whether we can do anythign about it.

[Silvio Manuel]

Well, that really sounded like you're just trying to sincerely and without reservations seek more information and take it without prejudging, instead of just trying to pick a fight with anyone who isn't buying the message payed for by the industries.

While we're at it, how about discussing evolution? I heard it's also an unproven theory. Just for some reason the scientists disagree.

Well, you have my apologies for coming off as sounding a bit too slanted, I certainly am not looking to pick a fight.

From what I've read, it seems very likely that warming has been happening, probably at least up until the late 1990's, and *possibly* up until now. I definitely am far from being convinced that it's man-made.

Given the radical steps that are now being seriously discussed as a solution to man-made global warming, I feel that the burden of proof is a very heavy one for the global warming crowd. It seems like the mainstream media practically always act as if it's a foregone conclusion that global warming is happening AND is man-made. Which is shocking to me because even light research on my part seems to show that it's a foregone conclusion that the global warming movement (a) doesn't have proof of causality and ( don't seem to CARE that they don't have proof and yet still want to revolutionize the world's economy for this anyway.

[Other Means]

No. He's a sceptic because scientific principles of transparency have not been met and base data has been amended.

I'm agnostic on the issue - it just seems to me to be taken as proved when really I think it isn't.

I think that due to the base data, most of which is supplied by Hansen, has been altered:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/11/19/nasa_giss_cockup_catalog/

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/08/15/goddard_arctic_ice_mystery/

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/06/05/goddard_nasa_thermometer/

And yes, I get all my opinions from The Register. What's wrong with that?

[Sergei]

It's not like any amount of evidence will convince the nay-sayers, unless someone builds a 1:1 replica of Earth to test things on or we let things go without intervention. And I have no faith whatsoever on the "skeptics". It's obvious where their funding comes from.

[Silvio Manuel]

I also don't like where the 'skeptical' POV's funding comes from. But if that is put aside, I don't see how the radical steps they are taking can be justified with the current 'evidence', or lack thereof.

As far as sources of funding go, I would have to say I dislike the 'skeptical' side's sources more - Big Oil and the like. But I worry that some the global warming 'believer' side's sources aren't a whole lot better - only because they apparently either (a) don't look with a critical eye at the issue of proof, or even a solid theory and/or ( don't care what the consequences for the world's culture and economy will be, as long as pollution is reduced.

[Bergerbitz]

Actually, I've been listening to Gwynne Dyer's "Climate Wars" radio documentary on CBC Radio's "Ideas" program. Parts 1 and 2 are available as podcasts and they are very interesting to listen to as they deal with the potential political and social instability as climate change could potentially take the stuffing out of the world's food supply.

He has a book on the subject by the same name. I haven't got it yet, but I likely will.

It doesn't have a lot of info to debunk the climate change theories, but there are some solutions out there and they are readily usable solutions if we collectively put them into action. You'll hear those near the end of the second part of the radio documentary.

[dieseltaylor]

Sometimes you have to go with a theory because to do nothing is worse. It is immaterial whether the warming is man-made or "natural" in that respect.

The assumption that the greening is bad for the economy is rubbish. A well known fact is how war generates economic activity so if viewed as a war to change energy supplies, reduce dependence on oil, kick start multiple industries there is an awful lot of reasons to think it a good idea given the depression. Think of it as a TVA/New Deal for the 2010's.

I love the hubris of those who extol mans power to do anything but who would also believe that the current 6.75billion humans have no effect on the earth in a detrimental way. Similarly I suspect that they would also see no problem in feeding and accomodating the 9 billion humans expected to be alive 2040-2050 and therefore feel no forward planning is required.

Perhaps I am being cynical but I feel the idea of leaving the job to Haliburton or someone in 2039 is perhaps not ideal and despite firms and most politicians working in time frames of 5 years or less this matter is too important and too big to be left for "absolute" proof to be agreed on.

[Speedy]

Climate change? Yeah it's happening the Earth's climate has been constantly changing for the last 4 billion odd years.

Man made global warming ha you wont find any proof of that.

[hoolaman]

I always find it a little baffling that global warming and "climate change" is predicted to make every single place on earth worse!

Surely odds are that some formerly miserable places will become quite nice, along with all those formerly nice places becoming miserable?

[Speedy]

Funny thing is warming at the moment will actually benefit more people.

[luderbamsen]

Man-made global warming is a highly politicized subject, though that doesn't make it any less wrong. Or right.

First the facts: Well, there aren't any. There are theories. Objectively, it is very likely that human activity does have some influence on the climate. The big question is how much? Nobody knows. Those who claim they do (whatever side they lean to) either don't have a clue what they're talking about, or are lying through their teeth. The graph that correlates global warming with CO2 emissions makes no more sense than the one that correlates global warming with the number of pirates.

Dieseltaylor advocates erring on the side of caution. That is, with all due respect, silly. "Dogs cause cancer in humans. Well, probably not, but the consequences are too dire if we don't err on the side of caution, so we should eradicate dogs from the face of the Earth".

That doesn't mean he's wrong about the rest though. Lower emission standards will NOT bankrupt the global economy. Mankind has adjusted to the abolition of slavery (suddenly you had to pay people to pick cotton/harvest sugar canes etc.), industrialisation (massive growth in production) and the massive destruction of two world wars. Surely we can adapt to skimping a bit on fossil fuels and spending some money on alternative energy research. If anything, the secondary benefits (less reliance on fossil fuels, new technologies) would likely outweigh any gains from lower emissions.

Which pretty much brings us to the end of the reasonable part of the debate and straight into the politics.

As others have noted, the fossil fuels energy industry is only too happy to throw money at anyone with any shred of credibility (and some without) willing to question the prevalent CO2-causes-global-warming sentiment, whether their opinion is based on decades of scientific research or reading tea leaves. Just as how the fast-food industry will support anyone who says eating burgers three times a day doesn't make you fat.

But where do the environment movements (for lack of a better term) get their money from? The tooth fairy? No, from contributors. So they need to sell their message too. Why do you think it's called "Climate Change" and not "Global Warming" these days? Because "Climate Change" stir up images of hurricanes, tsunamis, desert storms and a new ice age. "Support our cause! Be afraid of the dangerous, unknown climate change! Think of the children! Give us your wallet! (or credit card number)". In comparison, "Global Warming" sounds a bit lame, attractive even, especially on a cold January day like this. What do you think gets the most contributions? A lengthy, reasoned discourse laying out all the pro/con facts, or shock tactics? It's no different than when wildlife conservation organisations asking for money show you a picture of a sad panda, rather than some discusting poisonous centipede that's probably even more threatened from extinction. They're selling a product just as much as Big Oil is.

Now, I'm not saying Al Gore is wrong (I don't know, and neither does anyone else, including himself) or insincere. But one should not be blind to the massive political capital (and a nice bit of personal wealth) his "Inconvenient Truth" [sic] has brought him. Not bad for a failed presidential candidate with a political future in tatters. Same goes for various other less well-known politicians and environmentalists.

I guess I'm saying make your own mind up. Your guess is as good as anyone else's. Just don't believe any old crap someone's trying to sell you.

[Other Means]

I honestly think the best thing for the world would be for everyone to move to a nuclear/hydrogen economy.

Even if it meant building large reactors in existing open cast mines and putting a roof over them. Nuclear power can be dangerous. But everything is dangerous - it just needs to be managed.

[volfrahm]

If the world's first clean coal plant in Germany, which is built by a Swedish company, succeeds, then the coal lobby in the U.S. will rejoice, as the U.S. will be the king of coal for centuries to come.

[Runyan99]

Climate change? Yeah it's happening the Earth's climate has been constantly changing for the last 4 billion odd years.

Yeah this seems to get lost on a lot of people. As far as I know the planet has undergone climate apocalypse several times in the past, and the idea that we can stop or prevent it from happening in the future seems like vanity. Much of the religion of Global Warming seems based on the myth or supposition of 'normal' being a permanently benign and temperate climate.

If the climate changes, we'll just have to adapt or die. Hell you cannot even get people in the USA to switch from analog TV to digital on schedule. You think humans are going to act collectively on some climate agenda? I doubt it.

[Stalins Organ]

Yes it's happened a lot - and some of those changes have had massive impacts on local or global human populations - mini-ice ages turning Europe into a dark hole, wet and warming weather wiping out the Aztecs (the most popular theory is now that they were wiped out by an endemic disease that raged out of control due weather changes completely coincidentally with the arrival of the Spanish - Europe is off the hook for that one!).......hands up all those who want any of those kinds of scenarios to happen again in the forseeable future?

[Silvio Manuel]

This link is quite good

http://www.kusi.com/weather/colemanscorner/38574742.html

I had no idea that Gore first learned about the Global Warming theory at Harvard from the guy who created it, and the same fellow later testified before Congress saying that Govt should not act too quickly and more climate observations should be made over 10-20 years, to prevent unnecessary disruption of our culture and economy.

[JonS]

I always find it a little baffling that global warming and "climate change" is predicted to make every single place on earth worse!

I don't know about worse, but certainly 'different'. Hence 'change'.

The funny thing is that species tend to optimise for their current environment. Damn that Darwin, but there it is.

Species can, and of course do, adapt when the environment changes, but tend to do so slowly. Climate change is predicted to happen too quickly for that.

So, objectively, the north and south poles getting warmer could be seen as a Good Thing ... for humans. But it'll kinda suck for all those animals, plants, and insects that have spent the last million-odd years evolving to cope with cold, ice-coated places.

Similarly, if what we currently call the tropics were to get cooler and more variable, that'll probably make life more pleasant for tourists, but it'll suck for plants and fish and animals that currently like - and depend on! - the warm, even temps.

Even landforms tend to 'evolve' to the climate. If a currently dry region becomes wetter - great, the people will have more water to drink and wash their cars with, but an awful lot of what they used to call home is going to be turning the new rivers brown, and washing out to sea. Likewise, if a currently very cold location heats up, an awful lot of what is currently held together by that cold is going to fall down.

It doesn't matter whether a place gets hotter, colder, drier, wetter, windier, or calmer. The problem is that it'll be different to what the flora and fauna there depend on. The change may well be better for people, but it's going to be worse for everything else. Which means it'll be worse for people, too.

[balance: OTOH, Scotland and Greenland(?) were warm enough a while ago to grow grapes. To be sure there will be some places that make out like bandits due to slight improvements in the climate ... but there'll still be substantial upheavals to go through to benefit from those changes. The sheep and cattle farms in Scotland aren't going to turn into world class vineyards overnight. Or for free.]

[Wicky]

Plus imagine the resulting turmoil as human populations migrate en mass away from regions made uninhabitable by 'climate change' into other countries...

[dieseltaylor]

Dieseltaylor advocates erring on the side of caution. That is, with all due respect, silly. "Dogs cause cancer in humans. Well, probably not, but the consequences are too dire if we don't err on the side of caution, so we should eradicate dogs from the face of the Earth".

Herr Hitler is re-arming Germany. I do not think it necessarily correct though to expedite arms expenditure or research. After all caution and anticipating contingencies is silly.

We Europeans might feel that having Mr. Putin turning off and on the gas tap for Europe means that action is required - and digging coal or relying on oil is perhaps shortsighted. That additionally Europe could generate new industries AND reduce emissions which have a reasonable likelihood of affecting the earth atmosphere tends to make it fairly no-brainer in my book.

To return to my comment that it is irrelevant whether we can currently "prove" that the agreed warming over the last 100 years is man made or natural. What needs to be thought through is the effects of dislocation of global trade that will occur if weather becomes more extreme, temperature rises reduce plant productivity, low lying lands are flooded.

Given how interdependent many countries now are on other regions of the world it is foolish to think that the West would be unaffected.

[akd]

I don't know about worse, but certainly 'different'. Hence 'change'.

The funny thing is that species tend to optimise for their current environment. Damn that Darwin, but there it is.

Species can, and of course do, adapt when the environment changes, but tend to do so slowly. Climate change is predicted to happen too quickly for that.

So, objectively, the north and south poles getting warmer could be seen as a Good Thing ... for humans. But it'll kinda suck for all those animals, plants, and insects that have spent the last million-odd years evolving to cope with cold, ice-coated places.

Similarly, if what we currently call the tropics were to get cooler and more variable, that'll probably make life more pleasant for tourists, but it'll suck for plants and fish and animals that currently like - and depend on! - the warm, even temps.

Even landforms tend to 'evolve' to the climate. If a currently dry region becomes wetter - great, the people will have more water to drink and wash their cars with, but an awful lot of what they used to call home is going to be turning the new rivers brown, and washing out to sea. Likewise, if a currently very cold location heats up, an awful lot of what is currently held together by that cold is going to fall down.

It doesn't matter whether a place gets hotter, colder, drier, wetter, windier, or calmer. The problem is that it'll be different to what the flora and fauna there depend on. The change may well be better for people, but it's going to be worse for everything else. Which means it'll be worse for people, too.

[balance: OTOH, Scotland and Greenland(?) were warm enough a while ago to grow grapes. To be sure there will be some places that make out like bandits due to slight improvements in the climate ... but there'll still be substantial upheavals to go through to benefit from those changes. The sheep and cattle farms in Scotland aren't going to turn into world class vineyards overnight. Or for free.]

They aren't going to cease being cattle and sheep farms overnight either, and life on Earth has dealt with much more extreme changes over the last million odd years than even those forecast by the most simplistic and biased "climate models" coopted to serve the interests of the AGW political/social movement.

This is really just more argument from the "ideal" climate is the climate today, not yesterday and not tomorrow position, which has no rationale basis. The climate can either warm, go into stasis, or cool. The Earth has been recovering from the Ice Age for thousands of years, so the climate suddenly going into stasis for thousands of years would actually be the "upheaval." Recovery from the Ice Age has been overall "good" for life on Earth (particularly humans), so suspension of recovery (warming) could in the end lead to a net loss of potential for future life.

Of these possible futures (climate warming, not changeing or cooling) getting colder would be the real threat to life, species diversity and human culture, as it has been in the past (speculative theories on the demise of the Aztecs aside). Plants like warmth, CO2 and water. Warm means more food, cold less.

Re: precautionary principle. Please explain how this is any different than the much denigrated "One Percent Doctrine"? Isn't the real truth here not whether or not the precautionary principle holds intrinsic value, but whether you agree or disagree with the precautions to be taken in each particular case it is invoked?

[luderbamsen]

Herr Hitler is re-arming Germany. I do not think it necessarily correct though to expedite arms expenditure or research. After all caution and anticipating contingencies is silly.

We Europeans might feel that having Mr. Putin turning off and on the gas tap for Europe means that action is required - and digging coal or relying on oil is perhaps shortsighted. That additionally Europe could generate new industries AND reduce emissions which have a reasonable likelihood of affecting the earth atmosphere tends to make it fairly no-brainer in my book.

To return to my comment that it is irrelevant whether we can currently "prove" that the agreed warming over the last 100 years is man made or natural. What needs to be thought through is the effects of dislocation of global trade that will occur if weather becomes more extreme, temperature rises reduce plant productivity, low lying lands are flooded.

Given how interdependent many countries now are on other regions of the world it is foolish to think that the West would be unaffected.

I'm sorry but the cautionary principle is still silly. And you can't equal historical facts and half a century of hindsight with acting upon guesswork. If you must, invading the Soviet Union just in case Stalin was up to no good would make a better analogy.

But it's irrelevant. As I noted, there are plenty of perfectly valid reasons to reduce reliance on fossil fuel without resorting to climate disaster scaremongering, based on more wild ass guesses than anything else. For one thing, being less in the pocket of Putin, Chavez, House of Saud and whomever is in charge in Nigeria these days would make a good start.