You can also find a report on the same findings in the latest Economist. Not that it will matter to the holdouts for who denying AGW is faith.
[quote=“MikeN”]Oooooops! When GW denialism comes back to bite the Koch Bros. in the ass:
So, can those still running around refusing to face facts at least admit that Global Warming is happening, and that climatologists are right? [/quote]
Mick, I can only speak for myself… I don’t deny that the Earth is getting a bit warmer. I am simply not certain a) that man is primarily responsible for the warming and b) don’t believe that we should be applying Kyoto-type approaches to the “problem”.
It would be nice to see some recognition once and a while that most people, at least on this site, do not deny the rising temps.
The temperatures are rising, but is it natural or a man-made phenomena? I don’t think there is any conclusive evidence. Many of us that are skeptical on global warming are conservationists. I don’t have a vehicle, I use public transport, I recycle, and think it is great that oil companies and other corporate bodies are looking at alternative energies or conservation practices (e.g., reusing water during oil extraction).
What I don’t like is government solutions to global warming. Look at the EU system where credits are given free to polluting companies (they can cash these in) and where the costs of creating credit-tracking bureaucracies have far outweighed any minor benefit. 
I also think it’s really dirty when governments such as the Obama admin give $500 million and fast track loans for questionable clean-tech/green tech companies (e.g, Solyndra), especially when they were big Dem political contributors 
[quote=“Cornpone Hercules”]The temperatures are rising, but is it natural or a man-made phenomena? I don’t think there is any conclusive evidence. Many of us that are skeptical on global warming are conservationists. I don’t have a vehicle, I use public transport, I recycle, and think it is great that oil companies and other corporate bodies are looking at alternative energies or conservation practices (e.g., reusing water during oil extraction).
What I don’t like is government solutions to global warming. Look at the EU system where credits are given free to polluting companies (they can cash these in) and where the costs of creating -credit tracking bureaucracies have far outweighed the minor benefit.
I also think it’s really dirty when governments such as the Obama admin give $500 million and fast track loans for questionable clean-tech/green tech companies (e.g, Solyndra), especially when they were big Dem political contributors [/quote]
Yes. Yes. Yes.
Me too. I don’t have a car and my wife rides a bicycle and I walk.
Not that I’m trying to lambast you but, if it keeps getting a little warmer, year on year, decade after decade… Then what? Me thinks it will be too hot. I think it is fair to say that man is adding to this ‘warming effect’ I see no point in arguing about what extent this impact is and it wether it’s inevitable. Do we need evidence? Rather take action first and ask these question later! The environment will come to no harm if we reduce energy consumption but, the reverse is not true.
I think any carbon offsetting is bollocks. You can’t ‘offset’ carbon! Dumbest idea I ever heard TBH. Carbon reduction fine no problem.
I dont accept the science behind global warming should be viewed from a political perspective, I know it is politicized, but it is quite possible to look at this objectively. For those who are particularly dismissive of the idea of anthropogenic global warming, I point them to Richard Lindzen, praised by the skeptics like Lord Mockton or Senator Inhofe as the greatest climate scientist, of course he is a skeptic himself, but no matter, he’s certainly well qualified, probably more so than most of the alarmist scientists.
The point being, he openly states we should be warming due to increases of CO2, he argues the extent that we will warm due to positive feedback is exaggerated, based on models that are to simple to factor in things like ENSO or a dozen other factors making them fairly useless and concludes the small amount of AGW that should be and is occurring doesn’t constitute a crisis.
So when AGW is rejected out of hand by someone, and I point to the most respect scientist in the skeptic community who openly admits it is real and the only debate is on the extent, I wonder what exactly that person is basing their beliefs on.
On this, it is very political, loads of money to be had, I was reading China and USA opposition to Europe’s proposal to bring in a carbon tax on airlines. Apparently its going to cost the industry about 23 billion US over the next 8 years.
I agree, these are the same politicians who just mismanaged Europes and USA’s economy’s. So to be clear, I fully get the arguments from those who say, the costs are tremendous and need to be viewed from what actual good is going to be achieved.
What I don’t get, is a complete rejection to entertain the possibility that the vast majority of scientists are right, and the one that boggles the mind is when they reject even what the skeptical scientists believe and then come out with comments like this.
The irony is strong in this one.
Don’t worry about that.
I dunno. I’m just saying that I don’t think its certain at all that the Earth is warming due to anything man is doing, and 2) that I don’t think there is much we can do to make the earth warmer or colder. The Earth has been both much warmer and much colder before, without any input from man.
Well, then. We disagree.
It depends on what we plan to do. How much is it gonna cost and what benefits will be had?
[quote=“Tigerman”]
I dunno. I’m just saying that I don’t think its certain at all that the Earth is warming due to anything man is doing[/quote]
Are you suggesting CO2 is not a greenhouse gas? Or that CO2 concentrations have not increased?
Even the skeptical scientists accept these as facts and we SHOULD see temperature rises as a result.
I’m not suggesting anything, except that I am not convinced that the current warming is due to man’s actions.
True or False: The Earth has been both much warmer and much colder before, without any input from man.
I think the scientists who study this know more than the laymen, so it doesn’t matter too much what we think due to our political views. If multiple studies conclude with similar results it’s time to sit up and take notice whatever the subject may be. Sticking our head in the sand and hoping things will be okay is not useful. Remember, scientists get things right an awful lot more than they get things wrong. Global warming has been studied for decades now, it’s not something that can be explained away by simple experimental errors and the facts keep pointing more to manmade factors as being at least part of the cause.
I think you guys might be missing the point. It doesn’t matter in the slightest whether climate change is man-made or not. What’s important is that we are using waaaay too much energy - I mean, way more than we need to use - to achieve the things we want to do. That’s going to get very, very expensive very soon, and a little while after that it’s going to become impossible. CO2 emission is an unpleasant side-effect of energy waste, but the waste itself is going to become a real big problem when we can’t physically keep it going anymore.
I agree entirely, but I fear coal supplies and oil sands will delay that realization for decades at least.
[quote=“Cornpone Hercules”]
Many of us that are skeptical on global warming are conservationists. I don’t have a vehicle, I use public transport, I recycle, and think it is great that oil companies and other corporate bodies are looking at alternative energies or conservation practices [/quote]
I don’t think I’m missing the point at all.
Again, I think your being quite alarmist here. The US Energy Information Agency believes 90% of the Iraq remains unexplored for oil. Untapped and unexplored oil and gas resources off the U.S. coast contain an estimated 44.4 billion barrels of oil and 183.2 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. Furthermore, large areas of Saudi also remain unexplored. Then, there are the huge reserves of Canada’s oil sands. With conservation, with people using more efficient appliances/cards/houses etc., and above all, with a commitment to seek new untapped resources, things will be ok.
I’m not suggesting anything, except that I am not convinced that the current warming is due to man’s actions.[/quote]
Indeed you are, to state humans actions are having no effect on our climate is to challenge the laws of physics as we know it. I’ve been trying to bring you guys towards what the skeptical scientists believe, and thats not even mainstream, really, thats how far gone the right wing political news has gone.
True or False: The Earth has been both much warmer and much colder before, without any input from man.[/quote]
Of course. The earth has experienced ice ages, polar reversals, more recently a medieval warm period, and cooler periods.
You seem intrigued I would use the word “should”, but in fact the climate is quite complex, and there really is no argument that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, or that we are increasing that.
What you need to understand is that, most of the predictive forcing are not from CO2 and that is where the debate is. Saying you dont think we are contributing to warming at this point is really like saying you doubt ohms law, or want to question the theory of gravity, and yet have nothing to counter the vast body of evidence that substantiates the claim.
Im going to bump this. I really want to know what the logic is behind someone who says they are not convinced temperature increases have been influenced by man.
I can justify my logic. Three simple steps.
Anthropogenic Climate Change: Revisiting the Facts
In other words, we expect to see an increase in temperature as CO2 increases, which it has, and we have had temperature increases also. There is the natural variability argument, but not much is there to substantiate that claim.
So, to those who claim anthropocentric greenhouse warming is a myth. Why do you believe that, or should we just bracket you along side 911ers , the flat earth society and someone who makes ridiculous claims like the moon is made of cheese and then runs off with their tail between their legs when called out on their absurdity.
Yep. 
Seriously Mick, there are real scientists on Fcom and in case you haven’t noticed they have long abandoned this thread. Talk to some of them and they will tell you they are tired of dealing with fools and agenda pushers.
Chewy you miss the point about peak oil which is basically that the large and easy to access quality light crude deposits have almost all been extracted, either in very remote regions or deep under the ocean or in smaller lower quality deposits or in the oil sands of Canada what’s left is a lot more expensive to extract. There are multiple conflicting studies out there as to how much oil is left, it’s possible that many overestimate stocks rather than underestimate as some countries are thought to inflate their reserve capacity. With energy demand still increasing globally it creates huge pressure on pricing and is obviously putting strain on many consumers and governments , some say it is a major reason for the current recession in the US and Europe although I don’t entirely agree with that it’s definitely a factor. Commodity producing countries are all doing very well, of course this could change drastically too.
[quote=“Mucha Man”]
Seriously Mick, there are real scientists on Fcom and in case you haven’t noticed they have long abandoned this thread. Talk to some of them and they will tell you they are tired of dealing with fools and agenda pushers.[/quote]
I have a Masters in Science. Do you?
[quote=“Mick”]In other words, we expect to see an increase in temperature as CO2 increases, which it has, and we have had temperature increases also. There is the natural variability argument, but not much is there to substantiate that claim.
So, to those who claim anthropocentric greenhouse warming is a myth. Why do you believe that, or should we just bracket you along side 911ers , the flat earth society and someone who makes ridiculous claims like the moon is made of cheese and then runs off with their tail between their legs when called out on their absurdity.[/quote]
Mick,
That’s a fairly aggressive assertion and comment, coming from you… 
I don’t believe in conspiracies, nor do I think the Earth is flat. I do believe in evolution.
I don’t, however, believe in the infallibility of either the Pope or of scientists.
I don’t pretend to understand all the science. But, I do understand that it is
KNOWN
that the earth has been both much cooler and much hotter than it is now, all without any input from man. I also understand that based on models and computer calculations, the Earth is
EXPECTED
to get hotter and that scientists and some politicians claim that there is a direct causal link between man’s industrialization and resultant greenhouse gasses and global warming/climate change.
IMVHO, what we
KNOW
[b]
[/b] what we don’t know (
EXPECT
).
- I’m not convinced that man is the primary cause of GW/CC.
- I don’t think that Kyoto-type accords are the best way to deal with GW/CC.
So, go ahead and sue me… 
Nice. Got your shot in, didn’t you!
But most of the world’s leading climate scientists do believe so, wouldn’t you agree? I tend to believe them more than you, or to money backed lobbies trying to stave off carbon taxes or other restrictions, and spewing out anti GW/CC propaganda.