Global Warming Skeptics Summary

[Barbara Fitzpatrick]

When Nero fiddled while Rome burned, at least he didn't spend taxpayer dollars to do it, while denying that Rome was burning. OK, so now we're saying Rome is burning, but we can't do anything until we figure out a measuring device to tell us how hot the fire is going to get if we don't do anything to put it out - and using tax dollars to pay for the study instead of paying for fire suppression.

[Hogeye]

Both Darrel and Doug ducked the issue. The issue is whether the late 20th century was warmer than the MWP peak. Rather than addressing this, Doug simple repeated something non-controversial, that I already agree with: We KNOW that the increase in greenhouse gases is caused by humans. Darrel also repeats a non-controversial fact, "clear evidence of human influences on the climate system." Well, duh! Of course. Now let's get back to whether 1998 was warmer than 1200. If 1200 was warmer, then the apocalypse abusers' claims of imminent doom are severly weakened.

Barbara not only buys the doomsayers' line hook, line, and sinker, but assumes that it's better to prevent higher temperatures rather than adapt to them. A rational cost-benefit analysis would likely indicate otherwise.

[Doug]

Both Darrel and Doug ducked the issue. The issue is whether the late 20th century was warmer than the MWP peak...If 1200 was warmer, then the apocalypse abusers' claims of imminent doom are severly weakened.

DOUG
Why is that the issue? Suppose that the MWP was warmer than the 1990's. So what? That does not show that global warming is not taking place.

But I DID address your claim, and I quoted a source that said that the evidence is inconclusive about whether the MWP was warmer than the 1990's. And I also quoted where it explained why that is not the issue.

The issue is whether humans are causing global warming. They are. Whether the Earth has ever been warmer is irrelevant.

[Doug]

Chameides explained clearly and concisely how we can know that global warming is occurring, and how we can be sure that it is not just a natural cycle but instead is caused by greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

Right - except for the misleading use of the word "cause." If you mean "cause" as a necessary and sufficient condition then clearly greenhouse gasses are not the cause of global warming. It's simply not a heat source. Chamides explained that the natural solar inputs are amplified by greenhouse gasses. Greenhouse gasses may be a feedback factor resulting in amplification, but not the cause of global warming.

DOUG
Then on your understanding of "cause," I am unable to boil water on my stove because I cannot cause the water to get hot. The fire gets it hot, not me, so I can't cause the water to boil, as you see it. But I can cause the water to boil. I can do so by turning on the flame, so your understanding of "cause" is inadequate.

Imagine: "Your Honor, I didn't cause the death of that person. He died because a bullet from my gun caused his heart to stop. I didn't do it!"

Similarly, greenhouse gases cause the Earth to get hotter by trapping heat. They are a precipitating factor in the cause of the Earth becoming hotter. Precipitating factors are causes.

The greenhouse gases may not cause the Earth to be hot, but they do clearly cause the Earth to be hotter than it would be in their absence. And that is why they are a concern to scientists.

(Quoting Doug's use of the Environmental Defense Fund Website) Humans likely have caused most of the warming over the past 50 years. [Then Hogeye wrote:](Convenient but unsupported conclusion.)

DOUG
That conclusion is amply supported elsewhere in the same document.

[Barbara Fitzpatrick]

A cost-benefit analysis from the current accounting systems do not consider human life nor do they consider quality of human life in the calculations. Of course, very little in Hogeye's posts on any subject have indicated a postive value for human life or quality of human life. Aside from which, one way to make sure the worst case scenario has a better chance of coming to pass, is to do nothing to stop it. It's like the difference between jerking the wheel and hitting the brakes if your car starts sliding on wet or icy roads, or getting your feet away from the brake and gently steering into the skid. In the former you make a bad situation worse. In the latter, you may or may not be able to come out of the skid, but you at least have a chance. (Of course, sitting there denying that your car is skidding is not likely to lead to a desirable outcome, unless suicide is your desired outcome.)

[Hogeye]

Suppose that the MWP was warmer than the 1990's. So what? That does not show that global warming is not taking place.

Right - it shows that such warming is no big deal. The MWP was a boon to Europe, not a catastrophe. (Please abandon your strawman - "everyone" agrees that global warming has been going on since the end of the Little Ice Age. Quit pretending that I deny global warming is happening.)

I quoted a source that said that the evidence is inconclusive about whether the MWP was warmer than the 1990's.

And I gave 16 sources (to your 10) that the MWP was warmer.

Since the word "caused" is so misleading, why don't we state it more accurately: Human-generated greenhouse gasses contribute to global warming.

Barbara, if the ocean is rising an inch a year it is irrational to jump to the conclusion that one must drain the ocean. It may be more cost-effective to move uphill a little.

[Betsy]

I read something (and by that, I mean "I glanced at a headline") online the other day about the hole in the ozone layer is repairing. So, could there be improvements in atmosphere, any chance we could be slowing down the global warming forecast, or even repairing it?

[Hogeye]

Yes, Betsy, there are almost certainly stabilizing factors in play keeping temperature levels in some kind of equilibrium. Otherwise, life on earth would have been snuffed out long ago. The notion that a few parts per million of CO2 would suddenly throw the world out of whack would be hilarious ... if some people didn't take it so seriously.

Detailed temperature variations of the past 3,000 years, as determined from ocean sediment studies. Note the rapid variations, as well as the much warmer temperatures that existed 2.500 years ago.

One might speculate that there is some mechanism which kicks in at about 24 C starting a cooling, and kicks in at 22 C to start a warming - at least for the past 2300 years. About 2500 years ago it was much warmer.

Note that about 500 years ago there was a spike warmer than today, and 1000 years ago there was the Medieval Warm Period which was much warmer than today. So, to paraphrase Mark Twain, reports of earth's imminant demise are much exaggerated!

[Dardedar]

DAR
Just perusing this thread for some other info and thought I would clean up a few real obvious Hogeye howlers:

The MWP was a boon to Europe, not a catastrophe. (Please abandon your strawman - "everyone" agrees that global warming has been going on since the end of the Little Ice Age. Quit pretending that I deny global warming is happening.)

DAR
Of course that is false, lots of skeptics deny that global warming is happening, including the buffoon you often quote, Lew Rockwell. Remember his knee slapper: '"The planet may be getting hotter, it may be getting colder."

HOG
And I gave 16 sources (to your 10) that the MWP was warmer.

DAR
Of course you didn't give one. As I pointed out earlier in this thread, you gave only the first name of one man who claimed, entirely without reference, to have 16 sources. This same claim is passed around on lots of other warming denier sites, always without reference. What crap.

Also caught this. Just above Hogeye claims:

"1000 years ago there was the Medieval Warm Period which was much warmer than today."

But earlier in the thread it was: "...the Medieval Warm Period was just as warm (or warmer.)"

And then:

About 2500 years ago it was much warmer.

Unsupported.

Note that about 500 years ago there was a spike warmer than today,...

False.

and 1000 years ago there was the Medieval Warm Period which was much warmer than today.

Again, Hogwash.

D.

[Hogeye]

Hogeye> Please abandon your strawman - "everyone" agrees that global warming has been going on since the end of the Little Ice Age. Quit pretending that I deny global warming is happening.)

DAR> Of course that is false, lots of skeptics deny that global warming is happening, including the buffoon you often quote, Lew Rockwell.

I'm sure there are a few, but most skeptics do not deny that the earth has been getting warmer recently. Perhaps you are mistaking the denial of catastrophic global warming with a denial that the earth has been getting warmer recently. Skeptics tend to define "global warming" similar to the way Michael Creighton did in "State of Fear."

Global warming is the theory that increased levels of carbon dioxide and certain other gases are causing an increase in the average temperature of the earth’s atmosphere because of the so-called 'greenhouse effect.' (p. 81, italics in the original)

I don't believe that Lew Rockwell (the man, as opposed to some writer on his site) has claimed that the earth is not getting warmer recently. I challenge you to provide a link supporting your claim. The quote you gave was not Lew (and did not specify a time frame, either.)

Those last few quotes you gave were observations about the graph. Look for yourself. Even the recent National Academy of Science reviewers kept their claim of recent warming to 400 years. IMO the Medieval Warm Period was almost certainly warmer than today, and the spike about 500 years ago might have been warmer.

[Dardedar]

Hogeye> I don't believe that Lew Rockwell (the man, as opposed to some writer on his site) has claimed that the earth is not getting warmer recently. I challenge you to provide a link supporting your claim. The quote you gave was not Lew (and did not specify a time frame, either.)

DAR
Here is the link to the article you posted not too long ago in this thread.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig6/giles2.html

As I referenced in another thread just the other day, he specifically says:

"The planet may be getting hotter, it may be getting colder."

That's denying that the earth has gotten warmer recently, which puts him firmly in the loon category.

D.

[Savonarola]

That's denying that the earth has gotten warmer recently, which puts him firmly in the loon category.

Or would that be "Lewn"?

[Guest]

Right - by George Giles. Not Lew Rockwell.

[Dardedar]

Right - by George Giles. Not Lew Rockwell.

DAR
Oh, I see my mistake. The article is written by George Giles, hosted on Lew Rockwell's site.

D.