I tried to keep it to a reasonable scientific level because most people won't read past a certain point anyway, but thanks for expanding. Obviously I don't agree with some of what you said... 1. Hansen's predictions: Hansen predicted three scenarios. We are matching one of his scenarios, but that one happens to be the one where he said we could only hit if we drastically reduced our output of CO2 immediately. Link: http://rankexploits.com/musings/2008/ordinary-eyeball-how-did-hansens-predictions-do/ If I want to pile on Hansen, I could mention how he thought part of NY would be under water by now and how he is predicting 25 meters of ocean rise in the next century... 2. Ocean acidification: First of all, this is a misnomer. The correct term should be ocean neutralization, which doesn't sound nearly as scary. The ocean's PH is a base, so any change moves us closer to neutral - it doesn't make the water more of an acid. For a much better discussion of it, I'd refer you to a WattsUpWithThat article. If you want to discuss AGW and other weather-related issues, I'd recommend the site. There are posts from scientists on both sides of the fence, including Dr. Judith Curry, who is kind of lukewarm and takes hits from both sides of the debate. I admire her willingness to not go along with the crowd. Unlike some CAGW sites like realclimate and skepticalscience, posts from all sides of the debate are welcomed and will not be censored unless you use abusive language or the unwelcome "denier" slur. If you find yourself somewhere on the internet where everyone agrees with the same talking points, keep in mind that opposing comments and commenters are either being censored or driven out. Real skeptics and scientists welcome debate and don't slur the opposition to try and win an argument. 3. The survey. I was glad you provided the detailed link. I'm familiar with it of course, but I hadn't read the pdf before. To break it down, they surveyed over 10,000 earth scientists and then broke out a very small subset of "actively publishing climate scientists" and said that 76 of 79 of them agreed with the questions. That sounds like an abuse of statistics (torturing the data), and is often quoted on skeptic sites to prove their point - after all, most publishing climate scientists should agree with global warming! What I find interesting is not the statistics - it's the questions used. 1. When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant? 2. Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures? Heck, I'd tend to answer yes to those questions! They are the wrong questions! 1. Yes, of course they have. For one, given that time frame we are coming out of the little ice age. 2. Yes. How much is hard to determine. Here's two good questions that wouldn't be designed to make everyone answer yes. 1. Do you believe that the global temperature rise in the 20th century of approximately 1 degree Celsius is primarily caused by the man-made increased concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere? 2. Do you believe that we will continue to see a rise in global temperatures and that this is a danger to mankind? Absolutely incorrect. Coral atolls tend to adjust to sea levels - and sea levels really haven't been changing that much to begin with. Invisible fan, can I ask you what your issue is with the term AGW? I prefer to use CAGW, as that makes it clear about the groups I am talking about - people who believe in Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming tend to want us to stop us from doing anything because the sky is falling. I believe in some AGW, but I believe that the sun is a major driver of long term climate, and that we need to keep in mind ocean driven climate cycles like the PDO - which was partially responsible for the peak of temperatures we saw in 1998. I also believe that we are now in a cooling cycle. As the temperature continues to fail to match predictions my non-scientific sociological prediction is that people like Al Gore and David Suzuki and James Hansen will continue to get more shrill and outspoken.
I had to answer this one by itself. It seems like you are falling for the line that climate doesn't change by itself and what we are seeing now is unprecedented. Both arguments are false. It was warmer that it is now in the medieval warm period - and we didn't see disastrous feedbacks that caused problems. And whether we want it to or not, the climate is going to change. If you value our civilization, you had better hope that it doesn't change for the colder, because that will shorten the growing season in some of the breadbaskets of the world (Canada and the Ukraine and Russia). This will really impact the global food supply. That is something worth worrying about. As I've stated before, I don't have a major problem with a lot of the science. It's the fact that they always say any change from our current state would only be negative. That tells me that they have an agenda.
