T Nation

Climate Change - Open Letter

So a bunch of the world’s top scientists have gotten together and written an open letter in the hope of restoring some faith in the climate change debate. Here is the link to the letter itself. It’s an interesting read:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/may/06/climate-science-open-letter

I’m sure that a lot of people here will take issue with a number of the points they raise as they seek to defend the science after the well publicized email leaks.

As I say there are a lot of things in this letter that people will likely want to discuss - go for it. To kick it off though I would like to ask how those who do not follow the man made climate change argument came to their conclusion.

For me it appears the weight of the scientific community is behind this argument (maybe this is an incorrect pereption?). I’m an intelligent person and have read both sides and tend to agree with whoever I just read! At the end of the day I am not nor will I ever be an expert in these matters. As such I have to go with the those who are and it seems to me those are the ones warning of the dangers of climate change.

So, how did those on the other side of the debate come to end up there?

Edit: I might add the other factor in my personal decision was that it seemed to me if man made climate change was wrong, doing something about it would be a lot less dangerous than not doing something about it if it was true. Did that make any sense?

That is just a reiteration of the same crap they’ve been pushing.

Just as with the climate, nothing has changed.

[quote]SkyzykS wrote:
That is just a reiteration of the same crap they’ve been pushing.

Just as with the climate, nothing has changed.

[/quote]

I disagree, I think this is a great way to address many of the ways people are dismissing global warming. It’s a humble and accurate letter that reflects what any good scientists response should be to deniers, i particularly liked this passage

“There is always some uncertainty associated with scientific conclusions; science never absolutely proves anything. When someone says that society should wait until scientists are absolutely certain before taking any action, it is the same as saying society should never take action. For a problem as potentially catastrophic as climate change, taking no action poses a dangerous risk for our planet.”

I’ve read the complete e-mails: “climategate” was blown completely out of proportion.

I find no fault with the science behind climate change, only with the proposed causes.

^ FYI that is a glacier down near Patagonia (I was in Chile for the last 4 months). The ice chucks have always crashed into the river like that and it is quite the tourist spectacle, the chance of seeing the event is climbing though because it is now more and more frequent.

I would like to know why they have ignored the downward trend, and would like to know why they keep pushing this nonsense that CO2 is the cause.

I would also like to see how they can say this is the warmest period ever when the medieval warming period was warmer.

I would also like to ask how many of the scientists are receiving government funding.

I’m sure my questions are going to ruin the circle jerk that the liberal nujobs created but I think those are some good starting questions.

*p.s. There is nothing that is bringing this nonsense back to life, it was a hoax and you would all be best to do some research on the medieval warming period before you all start blaming capitalism and technology for some warmer weather(that is now getting colder).

[quote]John S. wrote:
I would like to know why they have ignored the downward trend, and would like to know why they keep pushing this nonsense that CO2 is the cause.

I would also like to see how they can say this is the warmest period ever when the medieval warming period was warmer.

I would also like to ask how many of the scientists are receiving government funding.

I’m sure my questions are going to ruin the circle jerk that the liberal nujobs created but I think those are some good starting questions.

*p.s. There is nothing that is bringing this nonsense back to life, it was a hoax and you would all be best to do some research on the medieval warming period before you all start blaming capitalism and technology for some warmer weather(that is now getting colder).[/quote]

http://www.skepticalscience.com/

Start here, this site covers all the bases using peer reviewed studies.

Short answer for your “downward trend” question: there hasn’t been a significant difference from the rest of the data for anything to be called a cooling period. Since good science naturally assumes that their is a margin of error in all data, their has to be statistically significant differences in the data for anything to be called a trend. The margins of error in the GW data overlap going back about 15 years. Science 101 really.

Government funding question: Almost all science is funded by the government through grants. The government has many scientists working on issues with the potential to give back to the community. GW definitely qualifies. There is nothing unusual about the government funding GW research, just like their is nothing unusual about the government funding cancer research.

As for your medieval warming point, many places in the world showed unusual warming during the medieval period, however the overall temp of the earth is much warmer now. Observe the two photos. (data from NOAA)

P.s. You’re retarded on this issue. You know nothing about how science works, and you should absolutely have to admit this before contributing to this discussion again. Thanks for playing.

Nothing personal john, it’s just that scientific arguments don’t go really far in most GW debates (which is why almost 100% of climatologists publishing research believe we have an impact on GW). It’s obvious you haven’t even taken a college level science class because you don’t know about margins of error, therefore you shouldn’t be telling other people to “study up on the medieval warming era research”. Sheesh.

The amount of co2 produced by human activity is DWARFED by the co2 naturally released by the planet everyday. Since the amount mankind releases is no negligible, it is the heighth of stupidity to assume that a small percentage of increase/decrease in the minute amount emitted by humans with have any affect at all on the climate - in addition any decrease we could make would be instantly wiped out for decades by a single large volcano.

Add on top of that the fact that an increase in total co2 is CAUSED BY a rise in temperature, not the reverse, and the whole logical construct for limiting human produced co2 falls flat on its face as a complete farce! One additional note - the cause for alarm for co2 was based on the ASSUMPTION that there was a limit to how much co2 could be absored by the planet and that more and more would accumulate in the atmosphere - a recent study confirmed that this was not the case and that the planet had an apparently unlimited capacity for co2 absorption.

Anyone who buys into AGW caused by human co2 production is an absolute moron.

Ask Spain how Global Varming worked, for every green job made 2.2 regular jobs were eliminated.

You don’t have to accept that man-made Co2 emission is the largest contributor to global warming, to aknowledge that it’s part of the problem, and something we ought to try and bring down.

The anti-global warming argument seems sloppy, and without any unity: some of them deny that global warming is happening at all, the others just argue that it’s not caused by man, some admit that we contribute to it, but aren’t the primary cause, and there are a couple who even say “yeah, but the cost of industry is worth it”.

So which is it?

It seems that the evidence is overwhelming in suggesting that the world is heating up, and even if you don’t buy into the argument that we caused it, you ought to be concerned. If you believe it was caused by people, the solution is clear: stop causing it. If you believe it’s part of a natural cycle, then shouldn’t your people be formulating some sort of long-term disaster plan, or at least advocating for that, since we could potentially end up with some serious land-mass underwater, and wild weather patters wreaking havoc on agriculture and geographically vulnerable areas?

The fact that the “deniers” haven’t taken a pro-active approach to taking on the challenges of “natural” global warming, leads me to believe their attitude is just flat-out denial, and an unwillingness to change or adapt to the world as it is.

If the global warming is natural, then there’s nothing we can do about it, and we’d batter start restructuring that which in our society will be impacted by this change, right?

[quote]John S. wrote:
I would like to know why they have ignored the downward trend, and would like to know why they keep pushing this nonsense that CO2 is the cause.

I would also like to see how they can say this is the warmest period ever when the medieval warming period was warmer.

I would also like to ask how many of the scientists are receiving government funding.

I’m sure my questions are going to ruin the circle jerk that the liberal nujobs created but I think those are some good starting questions.

*p.s. There is nothing that is bringing this nonsense back to life, it was a hoax and you would all be best to do some research on the medieval warming period before you all start blaming capitalism and technology for some warmer weather(that is now getting colder).[/quote]

How do you come to the conclusion that it is non sense that CO2 is the cause of global warming , just curious on your scientific tests ?

[quote]Spartiates wrote:
You don’t have to accept that man-made Co2 emission is the largest contributor to global warming, to aknowledge that it’s part of the problem, and something we ought to try and bring down.

The anti-global warming argument seems sloppy, and without any unity: some of them deny that global warming is happening at all, the others just argue that it’s not caused by man, some admit that we contribute to it, but aren’t the primary cause, and there are a couple who even say “yeah, but the cost of industry is worth it”.

So which is it?

It seems that the evidence is overwhelming in suggesting that the world is heating up, and even if you don’t buy into the argument that we caused it, you ought to be concerned. If you believe it was caused by people, the solution is clear: stop causing it. If you believe it’s part of a natural cycle, then shouldn’t your people be formulating some sort of long-term disaster plan, or at least advocating for that, since we could potentially end up with some serious land-mass underwater, and wild weather patters wreaking havoc on agriculture and geographically vulnerable areas?

The fact that the “deniers” haven’t taken a pro-active approach to taking on the challenges of “natural” global warming, leads me to believe their attitude is just flat-out denial, and an unwillingness to change or adapt to the world as it is.

If the global warming is natural, then there’s nothing we can do about it, and we’d batter start restructuring that which in our society will be impacted by this change, right?[/quote]

You raise two points - first - is the planet actually warming? Well, since the data on this is contradictory at best - better data is needed. Indeed, since 1998 the calculated global average temperature has been declining. This is why the “hysteria” about global warming was changed to “climate change” because even the advocates for AGW had to acknowledge something was wrong with their models. In addition, we need historical comparative data as well, and this is the hard part. That is why the Medieval Warming Period is so critical to the debate - the avergae temperatures were much warmer than today and yet - no catastrophy . . .hmm

Second - IF (and that is a mighty big if) the planet is warming dangerously - did mankind cause it - so far the data proves exactly the opposite - human co2 produciton has continued to increase - but there has not been a corresponding increase in temperature. Here again, the causal link is at its very tenuous and even if it were linked - the amounts produced by human activity are irrelevant by scale to the actual production of greenhouse gases by the planet itself.

So - should we “panic” and destrpy our economies to prevent a hypothetical based on speculation backed up by assumptions? NO! Should we continue to improve our machines, food production, keep our environment clean and find more efficient means of producing energy - YES!

Can we stop a natural cycle - NO and we don’t even know what direction the cycle is going in . . .

Here a hypothetical right back at you - for the sake of argument, let’s say that mankind has caused global warming and we do all of the things suggested and more and reverse gloabl warming (in effect, creating global cooling)- what do we do when the planet starts to inevitably cool? - start polluting again? . . . an ice age is much worse than a warm period . . . . I hope this highlights what a complete farce this whole concept of AGW really is . . .

Who cares?

Bring on the great flood and wipe out those stupid people who caused global warming.

Problem solved.

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:

[quote]Spartiates wrote:
[/quote]

That is why the Medieval Warming Period is so critical to the debate - the avergae temperatures were much warmer than today and yet - no catastrophy . . .hmm

[/quote]

Hmm, I wonder where this argument was just proven to be a bunch of b.s… How do you reconcile this statement with the highly respected data from NOAA I just posted?

Edit: I liked what you had to say about improving efficiency in industry, but other than that your post was severely flawed in a lot of ways. Do you have sources to support these claims that CO2 and temperature don’t correlate? How about the claim that the amount of CO2 we produce is insignificant? Just curious, because I have data supporting the contrary.

LMAO - highly respected data from NOAA that has been “calibrated” . . . .

just did a quick google because all of my books are at home -

http://www.john-daly.com/hockey/hockey.htm this should answer your question about Medeival Warm period data

http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/ - and here’s some answers about the co2 data for you

co2 and temperature are linked but Temp rise causes CO2 rise - not vice versa - just look at the actual dates of the data - temp rises decades prior to co2 rise - because warmer temperatures cause more plant growth - it’s kind of logical thing, you know

http://republicans.globalwarming.house.gov/Media/file/PDFs/Hearings/050610Foundation_Climate_Science/Testimony_Monckton.pdf

a much more learned man than myself (actually sat on the climate panel) presenting the anti-AGW position most excellently - enjoy the enlightening read.