You realize that Judith Curry isn't questioning whether or not Global Warming is man-made - she agrees with that, she is questioning the forecasts of warming which is an entirely different topic to the discussion we are having. I don't know the rate of future warming, but let's be clear she absolutely is saying the planet is warming because of human activity.
I would ask you the same question. What's your point in context to the discussion you made with that long post?
I asked a question: Do you think that global warming is real or just a con job by 97% of climate scientists who are funded by environmentalist against the trillion dollar energy industry who can't afford any scientists? And you replied without an answer. Just curious why you did that.
partly because from what little I've seen, you don't appear to argue in good faith. All right, I'll respond to your original question, which has about a half dozen problematic things embedded in it that I originally did not want to waste my time on (and in case you're curious, I just answered your "Just curious why you did that" question). "Do you think that global warming is real or just a con job " Right there that's just a false dichotomy. "Global warming" also begs the question because there's probably a thousand different meanings to "climate change," "global warming," "catastrophic anthropogenic global warming," "lukewarming," "global weirding," "naturally occurring climate warming," etc. etc. etc. But that's fine, I'll grant your use of global warming. Nobody disputes global warming: the interesting question as Bobby followed up is what is the proportion of warming that is attributable to anthropogenic/human causes? that's what's disputed, that's what's up for grabs, and that's what the scientific responsibility still is--and that's what the scientific debate still focuses on. Curry's report, by the way, helps illuminate WHY this is so. "97% of climate scientists" . . . just betrays ignorance. The original 97% climate scientists study was Lewandowsky et al., and has been rebutted so many times it is amazing to me that people still cite it. That's why I was amused by the video, btw, of Ted Cruz questioning the ED of the Sierra Club. By the way, I work with climate scientists, I have a pretty good feel for their work, their problems, their funding pressures, and their intellectual limitations when it comes to the philosophical underpinnings of their work, but also the limitations of their political understanding. So the 97% figure goes no where with me, you actually lose debating points for bringing that up. "who are funded by environmentalist " wasn't sure what you meant by this, grammatically it doesn't make any sense but I assume you simply left out a word or a phrase. "against the trillion dollar energy industry " not sure what you mean by this, or its relevance, or what you are trying to suggest here about funding. "who can't afford any scientists?" this doesn't make any sense to me either. A trillion dollar industry . . . that can't afford scientists? not sure what you're trying to suggest here. The energy industry employs plenty of scientists. Again, I'm not looking for an argument. I'm not looking to waste my time or anyone else's time. I don't mind participating in discussion, it's what I do for a living, but I really don't have much interest in getting sucked into in a circle jerk.
Like creationism.... what's the alternate explanation? What's the effect of gigatons of green house gases being released annually on top of normal climate factors? Where's the alternate explanation to humans having a hand in climate change? Not very scientific?
I am not trying to waste your time - granted there's a bit of sarcasm in my question but the question is real and you know what is it. Do you disagree with the idea that the world is heating up in a way that is significantly changing our climate (for better or worse) and the primary cause is man-made co2 emissions? I am not trying to say it's catastrophic or not because that is a challenge to predict what that means. But let's define it as a sea-level rise that will pose a sizable risk to coastal areas flooding.
Lou, are you a scientist? This guy sounds like he has a clue as opposed to the majority of posters around here when it comes to climate science. I think he said that there is a consensus that the climate is warming and that the science of why is unsettled. When you ask someone what they "believe" about science you aren't asking a science question you are asking a religious question. Science is about what can be proven and a good scientist knows that what he believes only serves to color the truth. His answer like any honest scientist is I don't know. In other news, 97% of scientists agree that internet posters are clueless on climate change.
So... wouldn't it be in our best interest to reduce our CO2 Emissions to see if it does improve the climate? If we don't know, the only way to know is to find out. The only way to find out is it to reduce our CO2 emissions. Your argument is that there is no consensus, but then by that logic you still don't know, so would you rather unknowingly keep making it worse or at least try to find out if we are the cause?
Scientists isn't debating if current global warming is being caused by man in a significant part. That has been settle. Those very few scientists that disagree has to bring extraordinary evidence to challenge the current understanding. If and when that happen, we will all know about it. Believe me, it would be all over the news. That particular scientist or team would be world famous for bringing in new understanding that challenge the current one.
It takes a truly ignorant person to think that the main cause of global warming at this point is anything other than mankind. Just because of the fears of policy implications shouldn't warp one's mind. I for one am against doing anything that would cause economic suffering - my agenda is to support development of solutions, not restrictions. But that can't even be done because of the morons on the right putting the entire planet in jeopardy. There will be remembered as the greatest idiots in history. That is why his name is bobby the great. Bobby the great idiot of world history.
You hit it spot on. Science does not need anyone to affirm or reject with personal beliefs. One reaffirms or rejects science findings on further scientific proof. In todays world, its too easy to cherry pick data and make a religion out ones belief. Yes, there is evidence of 'global warming' is happening. The extent of man made global warming is unknown. Quite frankly, its not that important. We shouldn't base our emissions on how it impacts our environment. Regardless of how much or little our emissions impact the environment, we should be doing our best to reduce it. Unfortunately liberals do not see it this way. Liberals see excessive emissions as a form to punish and tax businesses. Punishing and taxing businesses does not reduce emissions.
What you should do is go out to a major metropolis and get a birds eye view of the whole city. As you take note of the hundreds of thousands of cars, major airport, refineries, power plants ect.. ect.. ect.., they are the ones putting the entire planet in jeopardy. Please note that these 'morons' consist of everyone on this planet, including yourself. Here is a good Biblican scripture for you: The religion of Science
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surveys_of_scientists'_views_on_climate_change The survey found 97% agreed that global temperatures have increased during the past 100 years; 84% say they personally believe human-induced warming is occurring, and 74% agree that "currently available scientific evidence" substantiates its occurrence
As I stated, we should all reduce our toxic footprint regardless of impact. But thats just not going to happen. We are not to the point where we can go almost completely "green". We are not even close. We certainly should continue in this direction and concentrate money into R&D, not businesses like solendra. The issue with cutting back on our carbon footprint is that the world economy is based on waste. We dont need most of the stuff we have. If we cut back significantly on our toys, the economy would crash. When the economy crashes, countries go to war. There is no real answer.
And notice how those are phrased. The 97% say that warming is happening, 84% say that there is some of it attributable to human activity, 74% agree that there is evidence of it.... None of those polls are talking about those who believe that human activity is the main driver of climate change. For example, If I was to believe that 0.05% of the warming is due to human activities and that there was evidence to support that, I'd answer yes to all 3.
