BBC: What Happened to Global Warming?

[BVS]

So the premise is that higher energy prices = a better world? That fact that a fall back argument for AGW that admits that this could be based on false evidence is pretty desperate to me.
Yeah we'll all work on solar panels and wind farms. The problem is that they are too expensive. There will be net job losses. Until wind doesn't require coal plants and solar creates enough energy to be cheap enough it's still anti-growth or is just a supplement that allows C02 to grow in the atmosphere anyways.

You talking about debate is funny. I ask you a question and you post 500 words, none of which answer the question, it just goes on and on about socialism. This is your MO, you've been called out by almost everyone in this forum about it, even conservatives.

Take the part I quoted above for example. You've have been pointed out many examples of where wind is working without subsidies or coal, hell you even once posted an article that completely refuted the point you were trying to make that said wind is cheap and working in Austrailia, that one was classic . Yes there may be an initial rise in cost, but that will always be the case when making change... face it you are on the wrong side of history once again.

 

[phillyfan26]

There is no one solution. The free market isn't the solution to everything, just as environmental regulations and government spending aren't the solution to everything. But a healthy mix of all those things is good, if they're enacted in the right places.

 

[Irvine511]

The free market isn't the solution to everything,

 

[Diemen]

There is no one solution. The free market isn't the solution to everything, just as environmental regulations and government spending aren't the solution to everything. But a healthy mix of all those things is good, if they're enacted in the right places.

We've got no room in this discussion for common sense, pfan.

 

[Bluer White]

'Meaningful' climate deal reached - - POLITICO.com

The United States, China, India and South Africa have reached a "meaningful" climate change deal that sets a cap on worldwide temperature increases at no more than 2 degrees, contains no binding emissions standards — and a deal one senior administration admitted "is not sufficient" to combat long-term global warming.

The deal was struck after a day of frantic talks — and following a hastily organized multilateral meeting between President Obama, Premier Wen, Indian Prime Minister Singh and President Zuma.

"A meaningful agreement was reached," the official said. "It's not sufficient to combat the threat of climate change but it's an important first step... No country is entirely satisfied with each element, but this is a meaningful and historic step forward and a foundation from which to make further progress."

 

[purpleoscar]

Take the part I quoted above for example. You've have been pointed out many examples of where wind is working without subsidies or coal, hell you even once posted an article that completely refuted the point you were trying to make that said wind is cheap and working in Austrailia, that one was classic . Yes there may be an initial rise in cost, but that will always be the case when making change... face it you are on the wrong side of history once again.

No I posted that you could use wind if you can store the energy when there is excess wind and when there isn't hydropower (from water being pushed up hill) can come down, but environmentalists don't like the land use for that.

Secondly everybody knows that solar power can't be used everywhere. Point out Australia in some hot place as if that can be used all over the world is a dream. I'm sure wind works well in some places but are you aware of a world energy economy? I'm sure geothermal works well in Iceland but can geothermal energy be found everywhere? Do you think that renewable energy is cheap enough? Everyone on all sides of the debate know that, and the system they want to invent is to make fossil fuels more expensive and transfer that money to industries in the HOPE that these new technologies get better. I'd rather spend the money directly to research than to create a world wide cap and trade government system.

And don't pretend I don't answer questions. Either you don't understand them or your MO is plain to see. If it takes me 500 words to answer your questions then so be it. I'm not going to dumb it down to slogans like Copenhagen protestors. You ask me how economic growth works I'm going to put effort into it. Whether you like the answer or not is up to you.

 

[purpleoscar]

There is no one solution. The free market isn't the solution to everything, just as environmental regulations and government spending aren't the solution to everything. But a healthy mix of all those things is good, if they're enacted in the right places.

Well if that throws world government out the window I'm with you.

 

[Irvine511]

'Meaningful' climate deal reached - - POLITICO.com

as ever, Obama gets it done.

 

[BVS]

No I posted that you could use wind if you can store the energy when there is excess wind and when there isn't hydropower (from water being pushed up hill) can come down, but environmentalists don't like the land use for that.

But it's working in certain parts of the world, cleaner and cheaper, and you have a hard time grasping or admitting that.

Secondly everybody knows that solar power can't be used everywhere. Point out Australia in some hot place as if that can be used all over the world is a dream. I'm sure wind works well in some places but are you aware of a world energy economy? I'm sure geothermal works well in Iceland but can geothermal energy be found everywhere? Do you think that renewable energy is cheap enough? Everyone on all sides of the debate know that, and the system they want to invent is to make fossil fuels more expensive and transfer that money to industries in the HOPE that these new technologies get better. I'd rather spend the money directly to research than to create a world wide cap and trade government system.

No one is claiming a cure all for all parts of the world, that would be stupid. In your head you think that's what people are trying to do but reality is something completely different. And yes, there are examples of it being cheap enough.

And don't pretend I don't answer questions. Either you don't understand them or your MO is plain to see. If it takes me 500 words to answer your questions then so be it. I'm not going to dumb it down to slogans like Copenhagen protestors. You ask me how economic growth works I'm going to put effort into it. Whether you like the answer or not is up to you.

I'm sorry but the evidence is there. You've been called out A LOT. I've asked you questions about science and I get long diatribes and youtubes about socialism and economy without one word of science, it's very telling.

 

[INDY500]

regulations and government spending aren't the solution to everything.

 

[purpleoscar]

But it's working in certain parts of the world, cleaner and cheaper, and you have a hard time grasping or admitting that.

It's irrelevant since the goal is to reduce C02 releases by man. Experiments here and there aren't going to make a difference.

No one is claiming a cure all for all parts of the world, that would be stupid. In your head you think that's what people are trying to do but reality is something completely different. And yes, there are examples of it being cheap enough.

Yes they are, and yes it is stupid. I'm watching David Susuki commercials where they show wind turbines and solar panels and he says "it's all there!" There are wild claims being made about green technology that don't bare out. If the purpose is to stop C02 from increasing the real choices would be to shut down coal plants and stop driving cars NOW. If we don't do that C02 will still increase. Isn't that the entire goal? Gore and Prince Charles with their warm mongering say there is a point of no return in 6 years no matter what we do. We were also told that we were definately warming since 1998 when that isn't the case. We've been told lots of lies because they just want a foot in the door. It's the typical union tactic. Ask for Mars and maybe you'll get the moon.

I'm sorry but the evidence is there. You've been called out A LOT. I've asked you questions about science and I get long diatribes and youtubes about socialism and economy without one word of science, it's very telling.

All I can see is an agreement to disagree. There is more scientific disagreement now than before and I've posted plenty of it, though you call it "crap". In fact if it wasn't for the internet I might have believed the propaganda because I wouldn't have seen skeptical scientists. When the climategate emails came out the TV media just tried to sit on their arses to see if they can ride it out until a treaty in Copenhagen (fat chance). Now it looks like they will keep meeting like it's the Olympics. What's the next place, Mexico City 2010? Instead of a torch relay we can have a solar panel relay.

 

[BVS]

It's irrelevant since the goal is to reduce C02 releases by man. Experiments here and there aren't going to make a difference.

You really don't seem to get it... I honestly think your bias has literally created a wall to not allow you to understand this.

Yes they are, and yes it is stupid. I'm watching David Susuki commercials where they show wind turbines and solar panels and he says "it's all there!" There are wild claims being made about green technology that don't bare out. If the purpose is to stop C02 from increasing the real choices would be to shut down coal plants and stop driving cars NOW. If we don't do that C02 will still increase. Isn't that the entire goal? Gore and Prince Charles with their warm mongering say there is a point of no return in 6 years no matter what we do. We were also told that we were definately warming since 1998 when that isn't the case. We've been told lots of lies because they just want a foot in the door. It's the typical union tactic. Ask for Mars and maybe you'll get the moon.

If this part of the country can run on solar, and this part on wind, and this part on another form of energy, and we eventually get cars that run on something safer than oil then we are getting there. I don't understand why this is so hard for you to understand. No one is saying every part of the world can run on wind, or every part of the world can run on solar, etc... Every step you make is progress, it's not rocket science, you seem to have this all or nothing mentality. That doesn't work in the real world.

And yes, the internet is wonderful for finding junk science, but it only fools those who want to be fooled.

 

[purpleoscar]

as ever, Obama gets it done.

Not if Thom Yorke has anything to say about it:

DEAD AIR SPACE

obama said nothing though i have not seen all the speech yet. i feel very sad for all americans i know who hold so much hope for this man. still.. i guess the day isnt over. its 3pm on friday ( though it should have finished by now). and our leaders are fully aware they are in disgrace. and fully aware that they cannot draw up an agreement and force it upon us all without us immediatley seeing the holes in it.

Thom

ok so now there are texts/ drafts flying around all over the place. just when things feel like they are falling apart rumours that europe will commit to bigger cuts? hysteria and confusion is in the air. there has been a request for leaders to stay an extra night? what 'on earth' is going on? i pray something. i pray that something comes of this process. that all these people for all these years, all these flights to copenhagen all this hot air has some meaning. and in the midst of it all i take to bbc radio 1 and am asked 'yeah but is climate change really real' etc etc. oh for gods sake.
what am i doing here??

Thom

and as i wrote the previous entry my battery goes dead and obama walks past with a very grim expression, everyone thought he was stroming out but no he'd just been in talks with the chinese. just now a french delegate tells me that brazil has stormed out of the talks. this is all so sad. still peace and goodwill to all men. love and understanding.
just no more business as usual ok?? this is all starting to really feel like some enormous vaguely pointless corporate expo.

Thom

Some of this is entertaining coming from a guy with a big carbon footprint. He's rich enough to fly to Copenhagen and criticize politicians who flew to Copenhagen. It just gets BETTER AND BETTER.

And yes, the internet is wonderful for finding junk science, but it only fools those who want to be fooled.

Well if they can't reduce C02 in 6 years then we are done for or are you saying that Al Gore and Prince Charles are full of crap and the real goal is to make small steps? If that's the case you would be forced to admit the alarmism is just that, alarmism. We don't need a world government to make small steps.

 

[Bluer White]

as ever, Obama gets it done.

 

[BVS]

Well if they can't reduce C02 in 6 years then we are done for or are you saying that Al Gore and Prince Charles are full of crap and the real goal is to make small steps? If that's the case you would be forced to admit the alarmism is just that, alarmism. We don't need a world government to make small steps.

Yes because Gore and Prince Charles are experts... this is where you show your ignorance. I have said a million times, everyone knows(or should be smart enough to figure out) that people put urgency behind issues in order for things to get done, otherwise we would all be like you and wait until it's too late and our oil has run out. Every issue and political movement does this, just take a look at yourself and INDY for example. "World government", paranoia about forcing Americans to have only one child, labeling everything you don't understand as being "socialist"; you guys are the perfect example. Mirrors are wonderful things...

 

[A_Wanderer]

An article by a genuine sceptic

In 2001 Cambridge University Press published Bjorn Lomborg's book The Skeptical Environmentalist, which I thought was a perfect debate topic for the Skeptics Society public lecture series at the California Institute of Technology. The problem was that all the top environmental organizations refused to participate. "There is no debate," one spokesperson told me. "We don't want to dignify that book," another said. One leading environmentalist warned me that my reputation would be irreparably harmed if I went through with it. So of course I did.

My experience is symptomatic of deep problems that have long plagued the environmental movement. Activists who vandalize Hummer dealerships and destroy logging equipment are criminal ecoterrorists. Environmental groups who cry doom and gloom to keep donations flowing only hurt their credibility. As an undergraduate in the 1970s, I learned (and believed) that by the 1990s overpopulation would lead to worldwide starvation and the exhaustion of key minerals, metals and oil, predictions that failed utterly. Politics polluted the science and made me an environmental skeptic.

Nevertheless, data trump politics, and a convergence of evidence from numerous sources has led me to make a cognitive switch on the subject of anthropogenic global warming. My attention was piqued on February 8 when 86 leading evangelical Christians--the last cohort I expected to get on the environmental bandwagon--issued the Evangelical Climate Initiative calling for "national legislation requiring sufficient economy-wide reductions" in carbon emissions.

Then I attended the TED (Technology, Entertainment, Design) conference in Monterey, Calif., where former vice president Al Gore delivered the single finest summation of the evidence for global warming I have ever heard, based on the recent documentary film about his work in this area, An Inconvenient Truth. The striking before-and-after photographs showing the disappearance of glaciers around the world shocked me out of my doubting stance.

Four books eventually brought me to the flipping point. Archaeologist Brian Fagan's The Long Summer (Basic, 2004) explicates how civilization is the gift of a temporary period of mild climate. Geographer Jared Diamond's Collapse (Penguin Group, 2005) demonstrates how natural and human-caused environmental catastrophes led to the collapse of civilizations. Journalist Elizabeth Kolbert's Field Notes from a Catastrophe (Bloomsbury Publishing, 2006) is a page-turning account of her journeys around the world with environmental scientists who are documenting species extinction and climate change unmistakably linked to human action. And biologist Tim Flannery's The Weather Makers (Atlantic Monthly Press, 2006) reveals how he went from being a skeptical environmentalist to a believing activist as incontrovertible data linking the increase of carbon dioxide to global warming accumulated in the past decade.

It is a matter of the Goldilocks phenomenon. In the last ice age, CO2 levels were 180 parts per million (ppm)--too cold. Between the agricultural revolution and the industrial revolution, levels rose to 280 ppm--just right. Today levels are at 380 ppm and are projected to reach 450 to 550 by the end of the century--too warm. Like a kettle of water that transforms from liquid to steam when it changes from 99 to 100 degrees Celsius, the environment itself is about to make a CO2-driven flip.

According to Flannery, even if we reduce our carbon dioxide emissions by 70 percent by 2050, average global temperatures will increase between two and nine degrees by 2100. This rise could lead to the melting of the Greenland Ice Sheet, which the March 24 issue of Science reports is already shrinking at a rate of 224 �41 cubic kilometers a year, double the rate measured in 1996 (Los Angeles uses one cubic kilometer of water a year). If it and the West Antarctic Ice Sheet melt, sea levels will rise five to 10 meters, displacing half a billion inhabitants.

Because of the complexity of the problem, environmental skepticism was once tenable. No longer. It is time to flip from skepticism to activism.

The Flipping Point: Scientific American

 

[purpleoscar]

Yes because Gore and Prince Charles are experts... this is where you show your ignorance. I have said a million times, everyone knows(or should be smart enough to figure out) that people put urgency behind issues in order for things to get done, otherwise we would all be like you and wait until it's too late and our oil has run out. Every issue and political movement does this, just take a look at yourself and INDY for example. "World government", paranoia about forcing Americans to have only one child, labeling everything you don't understand as being "socialist"; you guys are the perfect example. Mirrors are wonderful things...

Thanks for admitting (in your own way) that the end of the world scenarios are bull. It may come as a shock to you but people don't like being lied to and fleeced even if it's good intentions [cough...cough].

An article by a genuine scepticThe Flipping Point: Scientific American

I like Shermer. If he's the same guy that wrote those books on fighting superstition (I like those) then I'm seriously disappointed in him.

In 2001 Cambridge University Press published Bjorn Lomborg's book The Skeptical Environmentalist, which I thought was a perfect debate topic for the Skeptics Society public lecture series at the California Institute of Technology. The problem was that all the top environmental organizations refused to participate. "There is no debate," one spokesperson told me. "We don't want to dignify that book," another said. One leading environmentalist warned me that my reputation would be irreparably harmed if I went through with it. So of course I did.

Good for you!

Then I attended the TED (Technology, Entertainment, Design) conference in Monterey, Calif., where former vice president Al Gore delivered the single finest summation of the evidence for global warming I have ever heard, based on the recent documentary film about his work in this area, An Inconvenient Truth. The striking before-and-after photographs showing the disappearance of glaciers around the world shocked me out of my doubting stance.

WTF? He attacks religion but then joins a newer and crappier version. It would be one thing if he looked at some science that no one else saw but NO it was Al Gore's BS debunked special effects movie.

Al Gore's Move to San Francisco Generates Real Estate Buzz

St Regis San Francisco Hotels: The St. Regis San Francisco - Hotel Rooms at stregis

If Al Gore can live near the ocean then maybe Shermer could muster up some effort to become skeptical again please?

 

[A_Wanderer]

So I'm now religious because I think that anthropogenic global warming is a strongly supported scientific theory?

I don't care what Al Gore thinks, I wasn't persuaded by 'An Inconvenient Truth' at the time, I made my mind up reading primary sources and the balance of evidence shifted strongly. This was assisted by the dishonesty of the 'Great Global Warming Swindle', which showed the vacuity of "sceptical" arguments.

A sceptic is open minded, they aren't politically driven contrarians. You have made your mind up because of your right wing political beliefs and tar your opponents as communists and deep green religious fanatics. You misread climate denial into scientific uncertainty, communist plots into any political action, and throw ad hominem arguments about Thom Yorke and Al Gore into the discussion as if they have any effect on the debate.

 

[BVS]

Thanks for admitting (in your own way) that the end of the world scenarios are bull. It may come as a shock to you but people don't like being lied to and fleeced even if it's good intentions [cough...cough].

You are by far the worse offender of this type of thinking. I know you don't see it, and everyone is pointing it out to you, but you are the most "religious" one here when it comes to this topic. You are the one that embraces the fleecing. Sorry to break it to you I can tell you haven't taken much science in your life by the things you fall for... You have posted some really really really crappy "science". Not only on this topic, but on others as well. "Science" that most people see the blaring obvious holes in. You've posted blatanly racist, homophobic, and agenda driven "science" since day one. So you may be one of those that never see the light, or some day you might, you have dropped the homophobic "science" so there is still hope for you yet...

But you missed my point in this post. Like A_Wanderer said, the majority of us don't give a shit what Al Gore says, he may have shined a spot light on the topic and good for him, but we know he's not the expert, that is something you and Rush haven't quite figured out yet.

 

[INDY500]

A sceptic is open minded, they aren't politically driven contrarians

That isn't uniformly true about skeptics, scientists or humans in general. Some of the most bigoted, slanderous utterances I've ever read about religion, faith or prayer I read in the pages of Skeptic magazine. On the other hand, I love their articles about alternative medicines, paranormal activity and UFOs.

I admit I have biases (subjects which I've decided to be true or most likely false). Scientists and skeptics should too, especially when dealing with speculative science like climate change.

Now I would love to see this debate presented in a politically uncontaminated manner but I fear that is all but impossible given the geopolitical, industrial, human and monetary concerns at stake. So for now I must judge them by the company they keep (communists, socialists, radical environmentalists, dictators, third-world kleptocrats and of course BVS) and their presentation (Apocalyptic movies, commercials with polar bears falling out of the sky and the hysteria over SUVs and other examples of sheer enviro-guilt).

 

[BVS]

 

[phillyfan26]

I certainly hope you never thought that was the point.

However, do take note of the rest of my post, as I think there's another lesson to be learned that could be good for you in particular, based on your previous posts in this thread.

 

[purpleoscar]

You are by far the worse offender of this type of thinking. I know you don't see it, and everyone is pointing it out to you, but you are the most "religious" one here when it comes to this topic. You are the one that embraces the fleecing. Sorry to break it to you I can tell you haven't taken much science in your life by the things you fall for... You have posted some really really really crappy "science".

I'm not for the fleecing because I want cheap energy for everyone, including poor countries. Anyone with half a brain can tell that the U.N. is pushing agenda driven science precisely because they don't live the lifestyles they are telling everyone else to live, INCLUDING THE SCIENTISTS and they stand to make a lot of money simply from regulations. How about making money for making products that people want?

But you missed my point in this post. Like A_Wanderer said, the majority of us don't give a shit what Al Gore says, he may have shined a spot light on the topic and good for him, but we know he's not the expert, that is something you and Rush haven't quite figured out yet.

I have said a million times, everyone knows(or should be smart enough to figure out) that people put urgency behind issues in order for things to get done, otherwise we would all be like you and wait until it's too late and our oil has run out.

I'm confused so is it a real problem based on real science or is it because we are running out of oil?

We don't know everything about the climate system, but we can say with confidence that our carbon dioxide emissions are effecting climates and will have an impact on ocean acidity. The implication of having a complex and dynamic climate system isn't that you can ignore an input (such as more CO2), but that we will have unforseen outcomes that ripple through the system; pushing climate beyond 2 degrees will impact the biosphere and it could trigger a mass extinction.

So I'm now religious because I think that anthropogenic global warming is a strongly supported scientific theory?

Is it a strongly supported theory? Climate change can be natural yet you state "we don't know everything about the climate system, but we can say with confidence". I don't think estimating natural climate variability in models is as good as doing actual measurements of what the climate is actually doing which is what Lindzen and Christy are working on. I also posted a peer-reviewed study that casts doubt on your ocean acidification argument. I wouldn't assume it's strongly supported.

I don't care what Al Gore thinks, I wasn't persuaded by 'An Inconvenient Truth' at the time, I made my mind up reading primary sources and the balance of evidence shifted strongly. This was assisted by the dishonesty of the 'Great Global Warming Swindle', which showed the vacuity of "sceptical" arguments.

If Al Gore is not persuasive why post Shermer being convinced by Al Gore?

BTW I don't think the skeptical arguments are vacuous and the Great Global Warming Swindle is holding up better than Al Gore's movie. They make more sense than singling out C02 and saying it's warmer now than 1000 years ago.

A sceptic is open minded, they aren't politically driven contrarians. You have made your mind up because of your right wing political beliefs and tar your opponents as communists and deep green religious fanatics. You misread climate denial into scientific uncertainty, communist plots into any political action, and throw ad hominem arguments about Thom Yorke and Al Gore into the discussion as if they have any effect on the debate.

The current peer-review system is a joke and my comments about Thom Yorke have to do with hypocrisy which is important to point out as often as necessary. Also I've posted plenty of videos with actual communists who are open about it in Copenhagen so I don't think it is out of step since all this "science" leads to public policy. Who do you think Maurice Strong is? The divide is mostly between the left and the right.

I've seen so many debates and I don't find these scientists convincing because the claims about C02 don't work and having Gavin Schmidt admit what Flannery admited about the climate models can't help but make most sane people suspicious. Bad predictions about the past 8 years and James Hansen in 1988 talking about New York being underwater by 2008 isn't just Al Gore. Scientists can make big claims. This alarmism (which has been happening for decades) ruins science. People don't like worrying about the end of the world to find out that it was a theory greatly stretched.

Anyways you said you don't believe in cap and trade so what do you believe is a solution to this "problem"? We know that C02 is going to considerably increase even with cap and trade and even if there was a treaty with the targets that were aimed at in Copenhagen.

 

[BVS]

You're a child when it comes to science.

 

[A_Wanderer]

Is it a strongly supported theory? Climate change can be natural yet you state "we don't know everything about the climate system, but we can say with confidence". I don't think estimating natural climate variability in models is as good as doing actual measurements of what the climate is actually doing which is what Lindzen and Christy are working on. I also posted a peer-reviewed study that casts doubt on your ocean acidification argument. I wouldn't assume it's strongly supported.

You are ignoring temperature measurements, ice cores, marine sediment cores, lake cores, sea ice melting patterns, glacial retreat, frequency of droughts, frequency of extreme weather events, earlier breeding times for different species in response to climate, changes in animal body size in response to temperature etc.

The measurement of observed effects in the atmosphere and biosphere, coupled with the exclusion of other explanations (it isn't caused by solar cycles as the warming has increased as solar activity decreased, volcanoes don't emit enough CO2 by an order of magnitude, to take two common claims), and the evidence for an increase in CO2 driven by human emissions makes global warming a coherent theory. The way that the observations fit together so well improves the confidence that global warming is real.

And a paper which you posted found that calcite dissolution effected a significant number of organisms exposed to high concentrations of dissolved CO2, but the varied response (some organisms showed thickening) demonstrates that there are gaps in knowledge about how plants and animals will be effected by more CO2 in the atmosphere. The paper wasn't saying that ocean acidification was a hoax, it was saying that some organisms might do better than others in a lower pH future, which makes it very hard to predict how food webs will be impacted. You're either ignorant or dishonest if you think the paper you linked to disproves the fact of ocean acidification, and are in a very weak position to be accusing the scientific community of being lying communist stooges.

 

[purpleoscar]

You are ignoring temperature measurements, ice cores, marine sediment cores, lake cores, sea ice melting patterns, glacial retreat, frequency of droughts, frequency of extreme weather events, earlier breeding times for different species in response to climate, changes in animal body size in response to temperature etc.

Skeptics have already debated that and don't find abnormal droughts,

See what I posted in the past on slide 29:

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/cooler_heads_lindzen-talk-pdf.pdf

extreme weather events (decreasing), sea ice melting patterns, glacial retreat (actually increasing now, especially in Antarctica), earlier breeding times for different species (compare it with what? Don't we need information going back to prehistory to see the enormous changes that affect animals naturally to make a proper comparison?) The problem is that much of this could be natural but computer models are so inaccurate can we trust them? The only way scientists can say it's out of the realm of natural variability is by removing prior warming periods. How did polar bears survive warmer periods in the past?

BTW you also need to answer my prior question. If you don't like cap and trade then what should we do? You posted before someone else stating that we should act as a precaution. Act how?

The measurement of observed effects in the atmosphere and biosphere, coupled with the exclusion of other explanations (it isn't caused by solar cycles as the warming has increased as solar activity decreased, volcanoes don't emit enough CO2 by an order of magnitude, to take two common claims), and the evidence for an increase in CO2 driven by human emissions makes global warming a coherent theory. The way that the observations fit together so well improves the confidence that global warming is real.

And a paper which you posted found that calcite dissolution effected a significant number of organisms exposed to high concentrations of dissolved CO2, but the varied response (some organisms showed thickening) demonstrates that there are gaps in knowledge about how plants and animals will be effected by more CO2 in the atmosphere. The paper wasn't saying that ocean acidification was a hoax, it was saying that some organisms might do better than others in a lower pH future, which makes it very hard to predict how food webs will be impacted .

The study I posted put ocean acidification catastrophe idea into major uncertainty and you've just admitted it. Another couple of questions. How come there is life much further under the ocean even near underwater volcanos that increase the acidity? Adaptation right? How come there was more C02 during the Cambrian period (meaning in the ocean as well) and life? Adaptation right?

Here's some more on ocean acidification compared to the past:

What was learned

As shown in the accompanying figure, the δ11B-derived pH values for the South China Sea fluctuated between a pH of 7.91 and 8.29 during the past seven thousand years, revealing a large natural fluctuation in this parameter that is nearly four times the 0.1 pH unit decline the acidification alarmists predict should have occurred since pre-industrial times.

There is still too much natural variability to make large claims. Of course I'm all for continuing to study what happens but until we get a handle on what we can't control (look at those variations) alarmist claims should not be made. How did life survive those other dips in pH?

Here are some C02 experts who contend against alarmists claims:

CO2 Science

In light of these several diverse and independent assessments of the two major aspects of the ocean acidification hypothesis -- a CO2-induced decline in oceanic pH that leads to a concomitant decrease in coral growth rate -- it would appear that the catastrophe conjured up by the world's climate alarmists is but a wonderful work of fiction.

You're either ignorant or dishonest if you think the paper you linked to disproves the fact of ocean acidification, and are in a very weak position to be accusing the scientific community of being lying communist stooges.

NO. Socialists use scientists (who want funding) to prove catestrophic global warming or any catestrophic claim in order to scare money into a world government that they just tried to create in Copenhagen and want to do in Mexico City. All a scientist has to do is to want funding and to do anything to preserve that cash flow to be corrupted. Not all scientists are this way but enough are.

A scientist doesn't have to be a socialist to be corrupted by money and ocean acidification has more natural variability than future predictions. Can we really be certain about mass extinctions?

You're a child when it comes to science.

Is this about scaring people into replacing oil or is this about anthropogenic climate change? After your statements I don't think it's childish to ask.

 

[phillyfan26]

It's not scientific to recognize that it's important to replace oil? It's only a part of it, but I don't think it's wrong to recognize that we're going to run out of fossil fuels.

 

[Irvine511]

Now I would love to see this debate presented in a politically uncontaminated manner but I fear that is all but impossible given the geopolitical, industrial, human and monetary concerns at stake. So for now I must judge them by the company they keep (communists, socialists, radical environmentalists, dictators, third-world kleptocrats and of course BVS) and their presentation (Apocalyptic movies, commercials with polar bears falling out of the sky and the hysteria over SUVs and other examples of sheer enviro-guilt).

is this something you'd say about A_W, clearly the only genuine scientist on the board?

 

[BVS]

Is this about scaring people into replacing oil or is this about anthropogenic climate change? After your statements I don't think it's childish to ask.

You aren't even using common sense at this point. I have to go back to ignoring you... Bye.

 

[purpleoscar]

It's not scientific to recognize that it's important to replace oil? It's only a part of it, but I don't think it's wrong to recognize that we're going to run out of fossil fuels.

There are better ways in dealing with new technologies than cap and trade. Certainly we don't need a world government to have research funding. Even research funding will have to go in many areas because we also have other under the radar technologies proposed by Craig Venter who wants to use bacteria that convert C02 to octane. It's more efficient to do it this way than give third world countries money (who have a history of putting funds into Swiss bank accounts) to supposedly help with climate change. It would also make sense to control spending since we are talking about money that the U.S. doesn't even have. It's pretty obvious that China is enjoying their position at spanking Obama for that precise reason or whether we are talking about government bonds.

Then we have the problem that billions want to get out of poverty and cheap energy now is the best way. Humans are a species on this planet as well and the 3rd world wants what we have.