In Slap At Obama, GOP-Led House Moves To Block Steep Cuts To Greenhouse Gas Emissions

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: SlapMonkey

I cited elementary science fair projects because they show how simple the concept of radiative forcing is to verify, something you completely ignore and instead rant about CO2 temperature lag, in my opinion you are just regurgitate rhetoric you get from the AGW/science denying websites.

Never have mammals thrived in a CO2 rich world, your belief that because Earth had high CO2 levels in the past so there is nothing to worry about is void of logic, unless you think our species ability to thrive is not important.

It truly takes some mental gymnastics for a reasonably intelligent person to down play the 40% rise of CO2 that we are not only observing, but can attribute using science to burning petroleum and coal.

We are changing the chemistry of the atmosphere and oceans, and some of you just want to put on the blinders and pretend this is not a problem.

Smaller scale so of course its going to be more extreme. SOme experiments dont scale up so well. If man is meant to die off its going to happen regardless of what you or I do. SO sit back.. dont worry so much and just live till you cant.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
I never said I don't do that though. You are assuming that I don't.

Well, to be fair, the appearance is that you don't, judging by how you react and respond to people in threads like this. And since I have nothing left on which to base my ideas, I go with what I've got.

And the reality is that you haven't said that you don't, either--at least not to me or that I've seen.

Because you don't trust my integrity to honestly read your sources. Believe it or not, I've had my mind changed by posters on these forums posting quality evidence that I was unable to refute.

That's an admirable quality, and I've done the same on ATS. My problem is that to get to the actual source of the data that I would post, it takes quite a bit of finding and searching, as I don't have a 'favorites' folder containing them all, and I'd certainly not want to link through "denier" sites--I prefer to get to the source. So, you'll have to excuse my laziness, I guess, but I just don't have the energy or desire to seek it all out for you today. One day I will, though, I'm sure.

Which you don't believe that I do.

No, the real time data shows that something is happening--something I attribute arbitrarily to about 95% being part of our natural cycle. But I was discussing the alarmist and hyperboles put for by the loudest (and most extreme) of the AGW crowd, like dying polar bears, and ice-free North Poles, and shrinking ice in the Antarctic at an alarming rate (when the average has been shown to be an increase in land ice mass). Hurricane predictions aren't coming true. Claims that there will no longer be any snow are not true.

Hyperbole by politicians and keyboard warriors is one thing, but what about the predictions made by actual scientists that ARE accurate and not only accurate are being shown to be under reported? I know I posted a link to that somewhere in this thread a few times.

As opposed to all the hyperbole and rhetoric from the denier crowd talking about hockey sticks and carrying snowballs into Congress or comparing weather to climate? My favorite is the continual claim that climate scientists are pushing AGW for the money, but when you point out all the money being dumped into denying the science, you get crickets.

Don't pretend like the denier camp isn't full of its own levels of ridiculous hyperbole and rhetoric either.

I don't care about the denier camp, as I'm not a part of it. I do, however, use critical thinking in reviewing the data (and the sources and often times who funds it) in order to make an opinion of my own.

But to be completely honest, I've been following this AGW argument for more than 15 years now, and when it comes to pointing out that 'climate isn't weather' and vise versa, that originated from the AGW folks (from my experience). And even though you seem to dismiss it, it's a valid point of concern when people mix up the two.

Reality always lands in the middle of the extremes, that's why I get angry at people who quote me politicians like Al Gore's words on climate change instead of the actual scientists on the matter.

That's good, but my point was that it is the people like Al Gore who propose the alarmism in the midst of a massive, almost cult-like following from a "bully pulpit." That's worth noting, because even while spouting off all of his claims for the future, there was scientific evidence that he was wrong, just as there is evidence and observational data that he was (and is) wrong.


That's why I get frustrated (not angry) when people dismiss that point, because the average person on the street only knows about "global warming" or "climate change" because they hear it often enough from people with non-scientific backgrounds who regurgitate things that can be traced back to alarmist predictions made from bully pulpits.

I'm not say that it doesn't happen on the denier side, too, but the AGW alarmism came before a large voice of skepticism, so it set in well before the spirit of researching and seeing if it was even true.

Fine. Let's try this approach then. What's the harm in trying then? If we are all wrong about it and there is nothing to be done, would you have rather we did nothing or go out swinging?

The harm in trying is that we don't fully understand the global climate mechanism, its catalysts, the origins of its drivers, its cyclical nature, etc. You play the what-if game, but what if going out swinging was what cause catastrophe instead of stopped it? What if we just happen to live in a time where the rise in temp and CO2 just happens to be dramatic and contemporary with each other, and "fixing" that would dick up the cycle for the future? What if it would prematurely sent it tumbling in the opposite direction because we set something into motion that we didn't understand?

But more appropriately, what if we just learned to adapt to our changing environment, making changes along the way (without forcing or stealing people's money to do it) and just seeing how that works out in the centuries to come? Why does our modern society either need an immediate fix with immediate results or determine that we're just not doing enough?

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
Well, to be fair, the appearance is that you don't, judging by how you react and respond to people in threads like this. And since I have nothing left on which to base my ideas, I go with what I've got.

And the reality is that you haven't said that you don't, either--at least not to me or that I've seen.

Well to be fair, I don't enter conversations expecting to give people my whole life history either.

That's an admirable quality, and I've done the same on ATS. My problem is that to get to the actual source of the data that I would post, it takes quite a bit of finding and searching, as I don't have a 'favorites' folder containing them all, and I'd certainly not want to link through "denier" sites--I prefer to get to the source. So, you'll have to excuse my laziness, I guess, but I just don't have the energy or desire to seek it all out for you today. One day I will, though, I'm sure.

Well I'll be waiting. Especially if you are going to go above and beyond and not use denier websites. Someone posting evidence from the source itself instead of a partisan news website would be a wet dream to me.

I don't care about the denier camp, as I'm not a part of it. I do, however, use critical thinking in reviewing the data (and the sources and often times who funds it) in order to make an opinion of my own.

But to be completely honest, I've been following this AGW argument for more than 15 years now, and when it comes to pointing out that 'climate isn't weather' and vise versa, that originated from the AGW folks (from my experience). And even though you seem to dismiss it, it's a valid point of concern when people mix up the two.

I've yet to see a supporter of AGW confuse climate with weather. Like even once. I've seen TONS of deniers do it though. Can't say it hasn't happened though. I'm sure there are people who believe AGW that don't actually understand the difference between climate and weather, but the deniers appear to be more vocal and proud of that misunderstanding.

As far as it being a valid point of concern. No, it is a point that one should reeducate the person on the differences, but trying to argue that the climate isn't changing because it was cold out yesterday should be laughed at if they refuse to actually learn the differences.

That's good, but my point was that it is the people like Al Gore who propose the alarmism in the midst of a massive, almost cult-like following from a "bully pulpit." That's worth noting, because even while spouting off all of his claims for the future, there was scientific evidence that he was wrong, just as there is evidence and observational data that he was (and is) wrong.

Well there wouldn't be a need to be so alarming if there wasn't a concerted effort to deny the science at all costs. I only see it as a push back from the denial camp.

That's why I get frustrated (not angry) when people dismiss that point, because the average person on the street only knows about "global warming" or "climate change" because they hear it often enough from people with non-scientific backgrounds who regurgitate things that can be traced back to alarmist predictions made from bully pulpits.

I'm not say that it doesn't happen on the denier side, too, but the AGW alarmism came before a large voice of skepticism, so it set in well before the spirit of researching and seeing if it was even true.

I remember the large voice of skepticism when Al Gore was talking about climate change too. I lived in the 90's too mate.

The harm in trying is that we don't fully understand the global climate mechanism, its catalysts, the origins of its drivers, its cyclical nature, etc. You play the what-if game, but what if going out swinging was what cause catastrophe instead of stopped it? What if we just happen to live in a time where the rise in temp and CO2 just happens to be dramatic and contemporary with each other, and "fixing" that would dick up the cycle for the future? What if it would prematurely sent it tumbling in the opposite direction because we set something into motion that we didn't understand?

Wait what? You are trying to say that less pollution (CO2 output in this case) could screw the climate up worse than it is now? I mean it's a possibility I guess, but I really don't see a problem with trying to have cleaner energy. Your concerns sound alarmist in nature actually.

But more appropriately, what if we just learned to adapt to our changing environment, making changes along the way (without forcing or stealing people's money to do it) and just seeing how that works out in the centuries to come? Why does our modern society either need an immediate fix with immediate results or determine that we're just not doing enough?

Because that is a route that shirks responsibility. Even you admitted that we have SOME effect on the climate. So we ARE responsible to a degree, we just disagree on what that degree is. Doing nothing is the most irresponsible thing we could ever do.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
Well I'll be waiting. Especially if you are going to go above and beyond and not use denier websites. Someone posting evidence from the source itself instead of a partisan news website would be a wet dream to me.

Well, pull out the plastic mattress cover and get the washer ready for the sheets, because that's generally how I do things when I post up data.

Generally. Sometimes I post the link from the secondary site if links to the original studies are in there.

I've yet to see a supporter of AGW confuse climate with weather. Like even once. I've seen TONS of deniers do it though. Can't say it hasn't happened though. I'm sure there are people who believe AGW that don't actually understand the difference between climate and weather, but the deniers appear to be more vocal and proud of that misunderstanding.

As far as it being a valid point of concern. No, it is a point that one should reeducate the person on the differences, but trying to argue that the climate isn't changing because it was cold out yesterday should be laughed at if they refuse to actually learn the differences.

I do laugh at people who do that. But even so, I'm amazed that you claim that you haven't seen an AGW supporter use that point before. Of course, to be fair, I think that it was started by AGW supporters to use on 'deniers' who would make the claim in italics, and then deniers grabbed onto it to argue claims and predictions made by AGW folks, and then now it's mostly used by deniers.

Kind of like how the claim of "The End Is Nigh" was used by religious crazy people, and now it's used by AGW folks to secure research funding (that's a light-hearted jab at the ribs...don't bite my head off because of it).

Well there wouldn't be a need to be so alarming if there wasn't a concerted effort to deny the science at all costs. I only see it as a push back from the denial camp.

Even if that's how you see it (I see it as having been the tactic all along), it's not a good tactic to use, as it undermines any layers of truth that may be contained in the predictions and claims. Even the boy who cried wolf was right at one point, but people stopped believing him by then.

Wait what? You are trying to say that less pollution (CO2 output in this case) could screw the climate up worse than it is now? I mean it's a possibility I guess, but I really don't see a problem with trying to have cleaner energy. Your concerns sound alarmist in nature actually.

No, I didn't say that at all, I said "What if," because we don't have a proper, complete, thorough understanding of the catalysts of natural climate change.

I agree that cleaner energy is a great thing, and I've already stated as much in this thread...maybe not to you, but to someone.

Because that is a route that shirks responsibility. Even you admitted that we have SOME effect on the climate. So we ARE responsible to a degree, we just disagree on what that degree is. Doing nothing is the most irresponsible thing we could ever do.

Adapting is neither 'shirking responsibility' nor is it 'doing nothing,' as you claim.

SOME affect doesn't equate to a dramatic effect, and if all we have done is nudged the earth into the direction it was already heading slightly prematurely, I don't think (although I don't KNOW) that this is a catastrophic thing--it's certainly not resulting in the absurd alarmist claims that have been ongoing for decades now. Now all the claims like to seem to rest on what will happen in a century instead of a decade or two--a time so far out that non of use will (most likely) be alive to see if the predictions are accurate. It's a safe way to be alarmist...talk about shirking responsibility

And regardless, I don't think that the world governments have a right to think that raping citizens' wallets and bank accounts in order to do something about what I see to be 95% a naturally occurring cycle is an appropriate way to go about it.

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
Well, pull out the plastic mattress cover and get the washer ready for the sheets, because that's generally how I do things when I post up data.

Generally. Sometimes I post the link from the secondary site if links to the original studies are in there.

I'm ok with that since I do that too.

I do laugh at people who do that. But even so, I'm amazed that you claim that you haven't seen an AGW supporter use that point before. Of course, to be fair, I think that it was started by AGW supporters to use on 'deniers' who would make the claim in italics, and then deniers grabbed onto it to argue claims and predictions made by AGW folks, and then now it's mostly used by deniers.

Maybe it's perception bias. You never know. I'm not afraid of acknowledging my biases. I just still haven't seen a proponent of AGW make that mistake.

In any case, anyone (AGW supporter or otherwise) who makes such a comparison should either be reeducated on the matter or laughed at if they refuse to update their thinking.

Even if that's how you see it (I see it as having been the tactic all along), it's not a good tactic to use, as it undermines any layers of truth that may be contained in the predictions and claims. Even the boy who cried wolf was right at one point, but people stopped believing him by then.

You can't blame the words of politicians on the scientists. The scientists can only present the science, its usually the politicians who add all the extra rhetoric to it. That is why I get so frustrated with people who insist on talking about politicians or what politicians want when talking about CC. I don't care about them. I care about the science.

No, I didn't say that at all, I said "What if," because we don't have a proper, complete, thorough understanding of the catalysts of natural climate change.

I agree that cleaner energy is a great thing, and I've already stated as much in this thread...maybe not to you, but to someone.

We ARE getting a clearer and clearer picture though.

Adapting is neither 'shirking responsibility' nor is it 'doing nothing,' as you claim.

SOME affect doesn't equate to a dramatic effect, and if all we have done is nudged the earth into the direction it was already heading slightly prematurely, I don't think (although I don't KNOW) that this is a catastrophic thing--it's certainly not resulting in the absurd alarmist claims that have been ongoing for decades now. Now all the claims like to seem to rest on what will happen in a century instead of a decade or two--a time so far out that non of use will (most likely) be alive to see if the predictions are accurate. It's a safe way to be alarmist...talk about shirking responsibility

I'm curious about something. If you think that humans can have a small effect on the climate, what is keeping us from have a major effect on it? Right now Humans account for a 30% increase in CO2 in the air. At what percentage would you agree that we are having a considerable effect on the climate? 50%? 75%? 100%? I mean, to me, 30% is a pretty large percentage. Almost 1/3rd. Yet you don't think that translates to a considerable effect.

As for your predictions being a century out, you can't blame science for trying to be realistic. Yes we won't see the worst of things for a century or so, but that's how things work in science. Rarely do changes like this happen overnight. However, the fact that it is a mere century that this is taking place in instead of a millennium or longer should be noteworthy. Many layman look at the century time frame and scoff, but when you put things into perspective, a century isn't really that long when discussing climate change.

And regardless, I don't think that the world governments have a right to think that raping citizens' wallets and bank accounts in order to do something about what I see to be 95% a naturally occurring cycle is an appropriate way to go about it.

This is a discussion of the solution for climate change. It would be great if the AGW denial camp would stop scoffing at the solutions the Democrats are pushing and saying, "well because Democracts are pushing a Democratic solution to this "problem" it is therefore not real and just a Democrat conspiracy." No, if you don't want to believe AGW is real or, as in your case, a significant threat to humanity then don't enter the solutions conversation. If you want to believe the science then you can enter the solutions conversation so as to pitch alternative solutions that are more agreeable, but using the solutions from believers as a roundabout way to disprove climate change is intellectually dishonest.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
Maybe it's perception bias. You never know. I'm not afraid of acknowledging my biases. I just still haven't seen a proponent of AGW make that mistake.

In any case, anyone (AGW supporter or otherwise) who makes such a comparison should either be reeducated on the matter or laughed at if they refuse to update their thinking.

I agree and disagree--if I ever use that point (against either side making an asinine comment pretending localized weather indicates a decent-enough trend in climate to consider it part of the bigger picture), it's usually because it's really ridiculous, what they're saying.

But as for the bias, I don't think so, because when I first started seeing it, it was back when I was a supporter of the AGW theories, and it was the AGW folks schooling the deniers on the difference.

You can't blame the words of politicians on the scientists. The scientists can only present the science, its usually the politicians who add all the extra rhetoric to it. That is why I get so frustrated with people who insist on talking about politicians or what politicians want when talking about CC. I don't care about them. I care about the science.

Right, but just like on anything that has real numbers and data that can be manipulated and skewed to support a belief system (AGW, anti-AGW, whatever), sometimes even the data and science itself only tells one tiny part of the bigger picture, and the bigger picture may contradict the tiny portion of data being used.

We see it with the gun-control debate all the time, like the asinine claim recently made that there have been 355 mass shootings in America in less-than as many days. The reality is that the claim is accurate--if you use a ridiculous definition of "mass shooting."

I've come across this type of thing often enough on both sides of the climate debate to know that we're not getting the truth nor the big picture given to us with any sort of honest accuracy.

We ARE getting a clearer and clearer picture though.

"A clearer and clearer picture" is not tantamount to a comprehensive understanding. Yes, we're understanding it better each year, but we still have a massively long way to go before we can claim to even understand the major drivers of the up-and-down cycle of temperature historically seen on this planet.

I'm curious about something. If you think that humans can have a small effect on the climate, what is keeping us from have a major effect on it? Right now Humans account for a 30% increase in CO2 in the air. At what percentage would you agree that we are having a considerable effect on the climate? 50%? 75%? 100%? I mean, to me, 30% is a pretty large percentage. Almost 1/3rd. Yet you don't think that translates to a considerable effect.

As it pertains to CO2, sure it seems that we're having an effect. But as it pertains to the make-up of the entire atmosphere, no, not at all. CO2 is right at 400ppm...that's 0.04% of our atmosphere. You'll have to excuse me if I don't freak out over the almost 1/4 (24% increase since Mona Loa has been accurately recording) of increase of 0.04% of the atmosphere over 57 years, at least 30 of which have been seen to be seeking out and expanding the use of alternative energy instead of fossil fuels.

Yes, I know that CO2 resides in the atmosphere for hundreds of years, but I also know that there are mechanisms in the atmosphere and on the earth that exist to help maintain a balance that is appropriate for the earth to survive and thrive.

Whether or not that includes the continued existence of humans is irrelevant to my point.

As for your predictions being a century out, you can't blame science for trying to be realistic. Yes we won't see the worst of things for a century or so, but that's how things work in science. Rarely do changes like this happen overnight. However, the fact that it is a mere century that this is taking place in instead of a millennium or longer should be noteworthy. Many layman look at the century time frame and scoff, but when you put things into perspective, a century isn't really that long when discussing climate change.

You're missing my point--I think that these 100-year predictions will not come to fruition, either. Well, at least not the alarmist ones meant to scare people into overnight action. And in my opinion, a century isn't long enough to consider the effects of that timeframe indicative of any sort of climate trend.

This is a discussion of the solution for climate change. It would be great if the AGW denial camp would stop scoffing at the solutions the Democrats are pushing and saying, "well because Democracts are pushing a Democratic solution to this "problem" it is therefore not real and just a Democrat conspiracy." No, if you don't want to believe AGW is real or, as in your case, a significant threat to humanity then don't enter the solutions conversation. If you want to believe the science then you can enter the solutions conversation so as to pitch alternative solutions that are more agreeable, but using the solutions from believers as a roundabout way to disprove climate change is intellectually dishonest.

You are assuming that there aren't any skeptics or deniers who are Democrats or liberals--I personally know a few. And don't forget about those of us who aren't one wing or the other, as we are an important (and, often, more impartial and well researched) group of Americans.

But here's the problem that you find yourself in: I can enter into the "solutions conversation" because the cost of the proposed solutions will effect me. The government regulations and mandated lifestyle changes will affect me. And, as I stated earlier, there are too many unknowns, and my concern that "correcting" a "problem" might have unforeseen consequences that have not been considered, and that would affect me.

So, there's nothing intellectually dishonest about me voicing my concern and opinion about proposed "solutions" if I don't have one of my own (for something that I don't think needs a broad-reaching solution). In fact, disregarding my opinion just because I'm not an AGW proponent is, in and of itself, a dishonest tactic.

Especially when you consider that my opinion is based on having researched the topic enough to change me from pro-AGW to skeptic, and it's not tied to a political party.

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
Right, but just like on anything that has real numbers and data that can be manipulated and skewed to support a belief system (AGW, anti-AGW, whatever), sometimes even the data and science itself only tells one tiny part of the bigger picture, and the bigger picture may contradict the tiny portion of data being used.

Well that is what the peer review process is for. To get rid of bad data or to standardize meanings.

"A clearer and clearer picture" is not tantamount to a comprehensive understanding. Yes, we're understanding it better each year, but we still have a massively long way to go before we can claim to even understand the major drivers of the up-and-down cycle of temperature historically seen on this planet.

But if you are assembling a puzzle and for all intents and purposes it looks like a duck, you JUST don't have the head complete to confirm it, what are you going to call that picture?

As it pertains to CO2, sure it seems that we're having an effect. But as it pertains to the make-up of the entire atmosphere, no, not at all. CO2 is right at 400ppm...that's 0.04% of our atmosphere. You'll have to excuse me if I don't freak out over the almost 1/4 (24% increase since Mona Loa has been accurately recording) of increase of 0.04% of the atmosphere over 57 years, at least 30 of which have been seen to be seeking out and expanding the use of alternative energy instead of fossil fuels.

Yes, I know that CO2 resides in the atmosphere for hundreds of years, but I also know that there are mechanisms in the atmosphere and on the earth that exist to help maintain a balance that is appropriate for the earth to survive and thrive.

Whether or not that includes the continued existence of humans is irrelevant to my point.

The mechanisms the planet has to get rid of CO2 are for NATURAL occurrences of CO2. Did it occur to you that CO2 accumulation can overwork the natural processes to get rid of CO2? Then it doesn't help that we as humans continually destroy much of the primary removers of CO2 from the atmosphere. Trees. Don't you think that something has to give at some point?

You're missing my point--I think that these 100-year predictions will not come to fruition, either. Well, at least not the alarmist ones meant to scare people into overnight action. And in my opinion, a century isn't long enough to consider the effects of that timeframe indicative of any sort of climate trend.

Why not? All the predictions I've looked at from actual scientists appears to be spot on (or too conservative in nature).

You are assuming that there aren't any skeptics or deniers who are Democrats or liberals--I personally know a few. And don't forget about those of us who aren't one wing or the other, as we are an important (and, often, more impartial and well researched) group of Americans.

But here's the problem that you find yourself in: I can enter into the "solutions conversation" because the cost of the proposed solutions will effect me. The government regulations and mandated lifestyle changes will affect me. And, as I stated earlier, there are too many unknowns, and my concern that "correcting" a "problem" might have unforeseen consequences that have not been considered, and that would affect me.

So, there's nothing intellectually dishonest about me voicing my concern and opinion about proposed "solutions" if I don't have one of my own (for something that I don't think needs a broad-reaching solution). In fact, disregarding my opinion just because I'm not an AGW proponent is, in and of itself, a dishonest tactic.

Especially when you consider that my opinion is based on having researched the topic enough to change me from pro-AGW to skeptic, and it's not tied to a political party.

I'm really curious at what point you'd consider that AGW was true. What evidence would convince you that the scientists aren't lying about it?

a reply to: SlapMonkey

I have some serious doubts that you ever believed the AGW theory.

How long ago did you 'switch camps'?

What information/data/study(s) made you change your mind?

I also have to raise some serious doubts of your understanding of 'climate science' based on your claim that a 400ppm of CO2 is not signficant(using 280ppm as a starting point that is a 40% rise, source: NOAA). While you claim you have done the research, you are using faulty reasoning to proclaim the CO2 concentrations are not significant for us to be concerned.

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: SlapMonkey

I have some serious doubts that you ever believed the AGW theory.

You have the freedom to doubt anything that you want to, but it doesn't make it so. I'm sure you apply that reality to my own stance on AGW at this point.

But honestly, I don't care if you believe me, and I'm not going to waste my time searching my memory's database for the specifics as to why I became skeptical of both the motives and some of the data behind the AGW theory. But suffice it to say that I "swapped sides," as you put it (even though I'm not a denier of climate change) probably about 6-7 years ago.

But having grown up in California, and attended Camp K.E.E.P. (and wanting to be a counselor there for many years), and lived in an area where dramatic heat waves and droughts really did have a direct personal affect on my life (not to mention my air-pollution induced asthma), I was led into my adult life through my late 20s suckling at the AGW teat. That, coupled with many other things that I don't need to mention are what kept me in the AGW camp for quite a while. What made me leave camp was actually restarting my research into AGW and everything that comes with it--I'm not going to go into more detail, because like I said, I don't care if you believe me about any of my personal experiences and research.

I also have to raise some serious doubts of your understanding of 'climate science' based on your claim that a 400ppm of CO2 is not signficant(using 280ppm as a starting point that is a 40% rise, source: NOAA). While you claim you have done the research, you are using faulty reasoning to proclaim the CO2 concentrations are not significant for us to be concerned.

If you say so, jrod.

Again, your doubts mean nothing to me in this debate, and I'm not going to get sucked into this whole discussion about you not believing me or having doubts about me YET AGAIN. Let's just leave it at this--you don't believe or trust much of what I post. I get it. You say this nearly every time you and I interact on a thread. Move on and bother someone else, please.

a reply to: SlapMonkey
Krazyshot is also interested to why you became a AGW skeptic.

I was a believer, became a skeptic, and after a lot of research decided AGW is a valid theory.

To say you have done the research and that made you a skeptic, but cannot provide any more details, makes me and any rational reader skeptical of your claims.

Going off your little rant, I have to speculate that you reject AGW because you associate it with ideology that you dislike. Given my perception of your 'tone' towards me, I do not think it is unreasonable to suspect that you also reject it because of certain people who endorse it.

It does not matter that I doubt your claims, what does matter is for you to clarify what science research, what data, what study(s) influenced you to become a skeptic.

Claiming that you did the research but refuse to give any more details gives the perception thst your skepticism is not based on actual science.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

But the peer-review process is neither perfect nor does the data hold true in perpetuity. One of the main issues in the climate debate, IMO, is that even the peer-review process has become irrelevant because the people with the loudest bullhorns on either side with latch onto data that supports their claim and regurgitate it until it is fact, regardless as to whether or not it is in the long run...never retracting it if it's proven faulty.

As for your puzzle analogy, we're far from having the completed body of the duck...hell, I'd even go out on a limb (at risk of getting berated by you or jrod) and say that we haven't even found the four corner pieces yet. Yes, many scientist think we're decently far enough along in our discoveries to have a good picture, but I know enough about how massively complex our atmosphere and earth are to know that we're in our infancy in understanding our role in affecting the climate overall.

And you really think that the alarmist predictions from climate scientists have either been spot-on or too conservative?

The whole AGW thing--it will take a LOT more understanding of the entire process of climate and the earth's cycles for me to believe that what we've done since the 17th century is the main catalyst of ALL of the changes that we see that AGW folks use as a basis for their arguments. Wind-pattern changes, oceanic acidity, glacial changes, ecosystem changes, droughts, floods, temperature shifts, and the myriad other claimed effects from human activity have all happened in the past and will happen in the future. The theories that we have out there that place humans at the center of all of it just don't hold mustard to me at the moment. Maybe in the future, as we understand more, it'll make more sense, but it's not there yet for me.

a reply to: SlapMonkey
Over a lifetime of collective research from thousands of scientists is not enough time to paint a good enough picture for you?

The lets wait and see approach seems is convenient for the fossil fuel industry, business as usual, keep burning their products and keep pumping that CO2 in the atmosphere....

How high do CO2 levels have to go before you think it is significant?

a reply to: jrod

Seriously, you can be skeptical of my claims all that you want to about my own research and journey as it relates to AGW--this thread is not entitled, "SlapMonkey's Quest From Believer to Skeptic...And Here's All The Details." Your obsession with me is a pointless tangent. I don't want or care about all of your credentials as to your journey in the AGW labrynth, I only care about where you have landed in your views and what you currently believe.

Run free with your skepticism and have fun with it. Like I said, I don't have to prove myself to you in the least, even if you believe that I do or that it is "what matters" in this debate. You'll have to excuse me if I believe that saying something akin to, "Look, I did a lot of research into many arms of the AGW octopus, and I entered into my research as a believer and came out a skeptic," should suffice. Trust me or trust me not, but like I said, I'm not going to thumb through my brain's AGW-research rolodex and explain to you the specifics of what made me skeptical, even at the risk of you not believing that my conclusion was intelligent. I don't need your reassurance.

If the people want Obama slapped for pushing bad policy then that is the duty of the Congress. Is it not?

a reply to: jrod

Hmmm...you do realize that length of time that something is researched is not equivalent to something being completely understood, right? And I'm happy that "good enough" is your standard, but it's not mine.

Also, I don't arbitrarily put numbers onto things that have as many unknowns as our climate, so answering your ridiculous CO2 question is pointless.

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
a reply to: Krazysh0t

But the peer-review process is neither perfect nor does the data hold true in perpetuity. One of the main issues in the climate debate, IMO, is that even the peer-review process has become irrelevant because the people with the loudest bullhorns on either side with latch onto data that supports their claim and regurgitate it until it is fact, regardless as to whether or not it is in the long run...never retracting it if it's proven faulty.

Got any examples of claims from scientists that people have latched onto that were overturned by peer review? Not politicians mind you, scientists.

As for your puzzle analogy, we're far from having the completed body of the duck...hell, I'd even go out on a limb (at risk of getting berated by you or jrod) and say that we haven't even found the four corner pieces yet. Yes, many scientist think we're decently far enough along in our discoveries to have a good picture, but I know enough about how massively complex our atmosphere and earth are to know that we're in our infancy in understanding our role in affecting the climate overall.

And you really think that the alarmist predictions from climate scientists have either been spot-on or too conservative?

Yes.
How reliable are climate models?

The whole AGW thing--it will take a LOT more understanding of the entire process of climate and the earth's cycles for me to believe that what we've done since the 17th century is the main catalyst of ALL of the changes that we see that AGW folks use as a basis for their arguments. Wind-pattern changes, oceanic acidity, glacial changes, ecosystem changes, droughts, floods, temperature shifts, and the myriad other claimed effects from human activity have all happened in the past and will happen in the future. The theories that we have out there that place humans at the center of all of it just don't hold mustard to me at the moment. Maybe in the future, as we understand more, it'll make more sense, but it's not there yet for me.

I really don't think you are looking hard enough, but I'm not trying to start another shouting match so I'll leave it at that.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

I don't get how you claim to have been an AGW supporter, but in the past decade or so have changed your mind, yet you cannot give a rational explanation as to why you are know a 'climate skeptic'.

Furthermore, instead of giving some good logical reasoning why you are now a skeptic, I get a rant and told that you dont have explain to me(and the rest of the board) what made you change your mind.

I give up....I just ask for rational reasoning based on good science as to why you became an AGW skeptic.

a reply to: jrod

Not a rant, an assertion that I don't need to give you my credentials in order to participate in this thread and to share the fact that I was pro-AGW, and now I'm not. Why you can't understand that is beyond me, but I'm not applying for a job with you, and I don't need to spoon feed you the details of my AGW history of research.

And besides, like I mentioned before, you and I could both pull up peer-reviewed data that contradicts each other and that different sides use to bolster their theory, and then we could start into the whole this-or-that-side's-data-is-more-accurate argument, and get nowhere.

That's why most people avoid even discussing this issue anymore. I really should join that camp, because (a) I'm not out to change anyone's mind, and (b) discussions like the ones that you (and others) and I get into always seem to devolve into ad hominem attacks. It's pointless, and all it does is suck minutes of my life away that I can never get back.

Best regards, jrod.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

While that graph you included is neat, it's refutations like this, that show that short-term rises and falls do not equate to long-term trends: Science Daily.

I mean, that study shows that, in the last 2,500 years (not tens or hundreds of thousands of years) there have been rises and falls of the sea level that apparently equate to 1.6 meters (not a few centimeters, like your graph implies is a catastrophic happening that is unprecedented...at least, that's the alarmist conclusion from it) of fluctuating change.

A good excerpt from the link with my own emphasis added:

In the present study, in light of earlier studies, research student Ayelet Toker and Dr. Sivan, set out to examine Israel's sea level over the past 2,500 years, based on data deduced from many coastal archaeological findings. They made a careful selection of findings that have been reliably and accurately dated, and first focused on findings that were excavated by the Antiquities Authority in Acre of the Crusader period. These revealed that the sea level during the Crusader period -- just 800 years ago -- was some 50-90 centimeters lower than the present sea level.

Findings from the same period at Caesarea and Atlit reinforced this conclusion. When additional sites were examined from periods before and after the Crusader period, it was revealed that there have been significant fluctuations in sea level: During the Hellenistic period, the sea level was about 1.6 meters lower than its present level; during the Roman era the level was almost similar to today's; the level began to drop again during the ancient Muslim period, and continued dropping to reach the same level as it was during the Crusader period; but within about 500 years it rose again, and reached some 25 centimeters lower than today's level at the beginning of the 18th century.

It is studies like this one and similar ones that should, at the very least, cast doubt on the ability to predict long-term trends and that we have yet to truly understand the mechanism of these changes. A graph that shows a prediction to be relatively accurate for six or seven years is not proof that 100-year predictions will have similar accuracy.

I found the above link through this site, which links to the "original study" found here (which is only a summary press-release poster), but states that in the original study the Science Daily link left out information like this (my emphasis added):

The Caesarea results indicate that about 2000 years BP sea levels was at its present elevation, (note; not ‘almost similar to today’s) while during the Byzantine period it was at or above its present level by (about 30cm- plus or minus 15cm) During the Crusader period “(around 1300AD)”sea level may have been lower than today by about 40cm, plus or minus 15cm.

Again, all findings that should, at the very least, make someone question the alarmist narrative that the world is going to end because of a few centimeters of sea-level rise noted in the past 100 years.

But, anyhoo, like I said to jrod, these discussions don't change anyone's mind, and in the end, they really are a pointless endeavor when they last multiple days of back-and-forth discussions which generally equate to, "Well, I don't think you've done enough research," from both parties.

So, refute these points if you want to, or don't, it's up to you, but I think I'm retiring from this thread.

Best regards, and even though we disagree with each other, at least this didn't end with us both claiming the other person is a sucky jerk idiot, so there's that

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
a reply to: Krazysh0t

While that graph you included is neat, it's refutations like this, that show that short-term rises and falls do not equate to long-term trends: Science Daily.

No one is debating that the sea levels have risen and fallen in the past. It's about what is causing it to happen now. Just saying that sea levels have risen and fallen in the past doesn't disprove that we are making them rise now. Besides, that is just ONE area of the world. Ocean covers 3/4ths of the world, not just the area near Israel.

It is studies like this one and similar ones that should, at the very least, cast doubt on the ability to predict long-term trends and that we have yet to truly understand the mechanism of these changes. A graph that shows a prediction to be relatively accurate for six or seven years is not proof that 100-year predictions will have similar accuracy.

Why? Something happening in the past isn't even close to questionable proof that we aren't doing something to make it happen now. It just shows that there are natural processes that can cause it too. Again, that isn't in dispute.

You point out the year variance again, but again I bring us back to the derivative. Yes, we are only talking about the last 100 years of human history, but the RATE of sea level rise. The RATE of temperature increases are all WAY higher than they've ever been. That is what is causing the alarm. You are intentionally looking at things out of perspective or looking at an anti-derivative when you should be looking at a derivative. It's dishonest.

Again, all findings that should, at the very least, make someone question the alarmist narrative that the world is going to end because of a few centimeters of sea-level rise noted in the past 100 years.

Why? What part of sea levels rising and falling in the past creates doubt for man causing it to happen now? Nature causes erosion too, but I can take some dynamite and blow up a large chunk of rock a lot faster, that doesn't mean that nature wouldn't have eroded the rock if I hadn't done anything or that the fact that erosion in the past happened means that I can't blow the rock up now.

But, anyhoo, like I said to jrod, these discussions don't change anyone's mind, and in the end, they really are a pointless endeavor when they last multiple days of back-and-forth discussions which generally equate to, "Well, I don't think you've done enough research," from both parties.

They've changed my opinion. I used to be undecided on AGW before coming to ATS. But then again I looked at the data with an open mind.

So, refute these points if you want to, or don't, it's up to you, but I think I'm retiring from this thread.

Best regards, and even though we disagree with each other, at least this didn't end with us both claiming the other person is a sucky jerk idiot, so there's that

I'm trying to restrain myself right now.