Not too long ago, I was referred to in an unflattering way by Al Gore ( et al ):
…the people who still say that global warming isn’t real are actually in the same boat with the flat earth society. They get together and party on Saturday nights …

CNN is reporting this:
Hurricanes over the past 5,000 years appear to have been controlled more by El Nino and an African monsoon than warm sea surface temperatures, such as those caused by global warming, researchers said Wednesday.
The study, publish…

“If I’m wrong, what have we got to lose? We develop more efficient ways of using energy. We develop means of generating electricity that do not use fossil fules (or at least, reduce the use of fossil fuels….”, and so on.

I feel like a lot of environmentalists jump on the global warming bandwagon because it seeks the same end result they do: less pollution, cleaner forms of energy, worldwide conservation, recycling. Getting behind global warming and then saying that “at least we did the world some other kind of good” if it turns out to be false is a cop-out. Stick with your beliefs for the right reason, and don’t endorse something you aren’t fully educated in. I’m not necessarily accusing Nigel of that, but that argument is word for word what I hear from environmentalists with no scientific background.

You accused me of using the “Only a theory” argument that is used by the opponents of evolution. I want to show you why that’s not true.

For something to be deemed a theory, it must satisfy two criteria.

1. It must provide a working model that explains and fits observable facts.

2. It must be able to make testable predictions about future events.

Some things which fall into this category are helio-centrism, continental drift, and, yes, evolution. Does that make these ideas any less true? Not at all.

But does global warming (the idea that humans are causing an increase in the average surface temperature of the Earth) fit the above criteria? No. As of the time of this writing, there are no climate models which can make reliable predictions about the future state of the climate. Thus, by strict scientific definitions, global warming isn’t a theory, it’s a hypothesis. It’s a proposed way of looking at and describing climate change. For global warming to be deemed a theory, it must move into the realm of predictions. That’s what defines a scientific theory; the ability to make future predictions.

It doesn’t matter how much evidence is present, if global warming doesn’t make predictions, it’s not a theory. There are strong theories like helio-centrism and evolution. But these theories are accepted by the scientific community because of their predictive power, not because of their preponderance of evidence.

Now I believe that global warming will someday make the step from hypothesis to theory, but not in its current form. Just like evolution, new global warming theories will have to be tried, modified, and discarded until the truth emerges. But until that time comes, the “just a theory” argument is specious because global warming is not a theory.

At least not yet. . .

I actually hope there is someone who believes that Rachel Carson was an accurate and objective researcher, and who can help me learn about the stuff on JunkScience that seems to refute her work… ack.!
Blessed Be, Missy

For you married guys, does this sound familiar? You’ll never understand the mood swings, you never seem to win any arguments, and you get scolded all the time because whatever it us, is not up to her standards. To stay married to her, you must simply adapt and accept the fact that she is an “unclimable mountain” of irrational reason and emotion.

We can’t fight mother nature folks, we must focus on how to adapt to her changes. Reducing man-made greenhouse emissions is futile. You’ll just end up “sleeping on the couch”.

Right now, I think that theory has more weight than what are scientists are currently coming up with.

Phil Plait….GREAT WEBSITE!!!!!

“Obviously, I meant “proven beyond any shadow of a doubt, to the extent that even the CEO of Exxon will publicly endorse it”. Please credit me with some intelligence!”

My apologies. But it wasn’t obvious to me at all. You chose the wording of your proposition. If you wish to prove something to others, you must use an argument which convinces them, not yourself. The words you put to that task can make all the difference in the world.

Perhaps you are correct in an absolute sense (i.e. we do not know for certain), but you must surely agree that science never deals in absolutes. You are using the “only a theory” argument that many anti-evolutionists use. Just because it has not been proven beyond any shadow of a doubt does not mean that it is an invalid conclusion. The preponderance of evidence (which, you may have noticed, I summarised too concisely to give any sense of its true extent) indicates that human activity is causing global climate change.

Currently, there is no evidence to the contrary, just uncertainty over several details (such as, for example, the relative contribution of vulcanism versus human activity).

I have noticed a trend in what I have read about climatology in the last 4-6 years. Every time we get new, more accurate measurements, we seem to end up with a firmer conclusion that global warming is (a) real, and/or (b) anthropogenic.

If a glacier has retreated 500 metres uphill, you don’t need any huge precision to measure that. Satellite observations of glaciers over the last 30 years show most are shrinking. Old drawings have been compared with modern photographs to show that glaciers in places such as Alaska, Africa, Europe and the Himalayas are significantly smaller than they were 80-120 years ago. It doesn’t take scientific measurements to notice such enormous differences – all you need is a historic record of the position of the glacier and a modern photograph. These very large differences have been observed and reported.

And, if you look at the most extensive surveys, you will not find that “Some are, some aren’t”, you will find that most glaciers are shrinking, while a few are not.

Just read a few copies of New Scientist – they seem to mention studies of glaciers at least once every three months or so.

Obviously, I meant “proven beyond any shadow of a doubt, to the extent that even the CEO of Exxon will publicly endorse it”. Please credit me with some intelligence!

1860

http://www.pewclimate.org/global-warming-basics/facts_and_figures/energyco2.cfm
1860

I have posted about this before, but here it is again.

We have NO IDEA if the glaciers of our planet are melting. Got it? No idea.

There are over 160,000 glaciers on this planet. Do you know how many we have studied in any detail, say for longer than 5 years?

About 80.

So scientists have only studied .05% of this planets glaciers with any level of scientific precision. And a great deal of these glaciers are not melting. Some are, some aren’t.

I understand what your trying to say, you would rather humanity be on the safe side in case there actually is a “point of no return,” but you have abandoned the scientific method to arrive at that conclusion.

Your logic basically goes like this. The average global temperature is rising —> CO2 can cause global temperatures to rise —> Humans are emitting CO2 —> Humans are causing global warming.

I agree this logic makes sense, but logic is not scientific. That’s why we do science, Nigel. To see if our logical ideas are indeed factual. And when humans do the science to try to test this claim, we get a very pronounced “We don’t know.” Please try to understand that, everyone who reads this. We just don’t know. . .

“The global decrease in temperature between 1940 and 1970…”

Don’t know who actually says this but I can understand if one applies the same reasons that determine the lag in the effect of seasonal temperature, which peaks some weeks after the theoretical midpoint of that season. Only in this much larger example concerning world temperatures, it is a lag of years. I’m sure in that macro-environment, it takes years for the effect to manifest itself. Has this been observed and noted?

The reason. Well, there was a Depression after the First World War, which generally lasted till the early Forties, when wartime industry really cranked up. There must have been a manyfold increase in the usual badguy gases being poured into the atmosphere. Then some tweaked to the relationship of the gases affecting the air we breathe and the destruction of the ozone layer. So now we are trying to cut these practices out, clean up our act and provide a better, clean and responsible outcome for all our manufacturing endeavours.

Well, that’s the plan anyway. That it is not happening overnight, is the reason why some folk feel it is not worthwhile and a waste of money and time. But, slowly it will have an effect. Just as the initial lag for any large effect, may take years or even decades, the repair or at least the acknowledgment of doing the wrong thing and ceasing and desisting will take time for meaningful results.

My second issue concerns a statement where somebody referred to West Antarctica. I cannot find the quote now, but the concept is curious. Just where IS West Antarctica? How does one actually indicate directions on a large scale? I guess it would not be much different from normal unless within sight of the South Pole. And probably Regions are more important to differentiate the concept of another place anyway. Or time zones?

Ivan.

http://www.whatwouldronaldreagando.com/webpages/globalwarming.htm

From this should one gather that you don’t actually consider it proven? If so, then what makes you think there’s anything for us to do something about?

1) The mean surface temperature of the Earth has been increasing over the past 30 – 50 years. True, the data are very noisy, but the trend is there.

2) Almost all the world’s glaciers are smaller than they were 100 years ago. Where glaciers have grown (e.g. atop Mt. St. Helens), there are special circumstances. Both the Antarctic and the Greenland ice sheets are melting / thinnning / shrinking (choice of verb depending on type of measurement made). Glaciers all over the world are travelling faster than they used to (meltwater acting as a lubricant).

3) It is known that human activity has increased the global atmospheric concentration of gases such as CO2 and methane.

4) It is known that CO2 and methane make large contributions to the greenhouse effect.

5) By the time it is possible to prove a link between human activity and global warming, it may well be too late to do anything about it.

6) If I’m wrong, what have we got to lose? We develop more efficient ways of using energy. We develop means of generating electricity that do not use fossil fules (or at least, reduce the use of fossil fuels). We find / develop more efficient means of transport. Oil companies must diversify or go under. The Middle East becomes less important to the West. (Hey, maybe we’ll even leave them alone for a few decades?). Dubyah loses most of his support base (some might say this is a good thing).

7) If I’m right, we need to do something now or a large portion of the habitable surface of the Earth will be under water by the end of the century.

Join the dots, people!

What I take umbrage with is this idea that we need to act RIGHT NOW. We’re not that dire, but something needs to be done. For the moment, prudent steps are being taken, but more drastic steps should be put aside until more data is compiled and the consequences better understood.

Bearing that in mind, if Al Gore is wrong, that doesn’t mean humanity should ignore efforts to “clean up our act” so to speak.

The BA is not the first scientist I have heard discredit junkscience.com. So I am willing to withdraw my submission of it as evidence. If Mr. Milloy is considered uncreditable by so many scientists, he must be labeled as such.

I humbly submit as a substitute, the writings of such scientists as Patrick J. Michaels.

http://www.skepticism.net/faq/environment/global_warming/index.html

With particular emphasis on the question of scientific consensus on Global Warming.

“By the way. Mark Martin, I believe you mistyped in post 28512. I didn’t make the statement about the consequences of Al Gore being right, Kevin Conod did (28420). I was trying to correct him (28429).”

Yes, you’re right. Sorry about that.