Three arguments about climate change that should never be used

Please, can we try to make sure that these stop appearing in our discussions?

Read the whole story

 

[DaMaster]

Wheels Of Confusion[/url]":s87hywsa]

DaMaster[/url]":s87hywsa]On an unrelated not, you do realize the portion of my post which you quoted pointing out that your page includes peer reviewed articles has a link to a peer review article submission, right?

Which one? Surely you don't mean Energy and the Environment, which isn't a proper peer-reviewed outlet but basically a lightly curated and "refereed" mish-mash of essays, rants, and fake studies which has a well-known and admitted political editorial bias and has run papers about how the Sun is supposed to be made out of really hot iron instead of hydrogen and helium plasma? Surely you don't mean the paper written by Scafetta which is basically an extension of his neo-astrological curve-fitting, seeking to blame climate change on the orbits of Saturn and Jupiter? Even Judith Curry doesn't buy it, and she's fairly uncritical of a lot of flappy things.

What about "[t]he problem is that the website you took your grpahics [sic] from is so clearly biased it is as unacceptable to me as the one I linked will be to you" did you not get? The whole point is that merely stating it is a peer-reviewed article means nothing and the clear bias of the websites you reference impinges their reliability. It is like trying to use Fox News to educate a liberal or the NY Times a conservative.

 

[DaMaster]

'LilRedDog[/url]":l0h6vmcj]


roflmao!!


Well played!!

Gracious dude. Much respect.

(I do want to know who the heck down-votes Dilbert. That's just wrong to whoever perpetrated that travesty!)

 

[tscharf]

Wheels Of Confusion[/url]":3frssr3v]

tscharf[/url]":3frssr3v]This is yet another opinion article posing as science.

No, this is a call for unproductive and baseless bullshit to be left out of climate threads. And by "regulate discussion," you of course mean "moderate the site as moderators are expected to do."
I can see why that would upset you, though.

I guess you see yourself as judge and jury of what is useless and unproductive. How surprising.

Here's an idea, don't waste your time reading all this unproductive and baseless stuff. Just go over to your favorite echo chamber at Skeptical Science or Real Climate or wherever you think the learned people are. It is exactly what you are asking for. That should make you happy, right? Why slum around here if it is so distressing?

The amount of time you waste trying to fix what you apparently believe is solely an information deficit problem boggles my mind. The real push back is against the proposed and mostly incoherent solutions to AGW, the science discussion is a sideshow. We are all for fixing AGW if it was free.

The only things that boggles my mind more is how seriously you take yourself. If there is one thing proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, it is the correlation of AGW convert and having absolutely no sense of humor.

 

[Wheels Of Confusion]

DaMaster[/url]":s85mcai5]What about "[t]he problem is that the website you took your grpahics [sic] from is so clearly biased it is as unacceptable to me as the one I linked will be to you" did you not get?

The part where it is supposed to matter what you think of the website, because the data comes from actual journals. You know, journals like Proceedings of The National Academy of Sciences, Eos (from the American Geophysical Union), and Environmental Research Letters? Established journals whose standards of review are pretty damn high, unlike the nebulous and inconsistent quasi-review for E&E.

The whole point is that merely stating it is a peer-reviewed article means nothing...

It actually counts for a lot, especially in the broader context. You somehow missed the point of my citations in the first place: the fact that the numbers cited in those studies show a clear and overwhelming majority support for mainstream AGW, which you can't begin to match even by lowering your standards and appealing to vanity rags. Is peer-review a perfect junk filter? No, otherwise Scafetta probably wouldn't even be able to publish his pseudoscience in E&E. But when we're talking about PNAS and the like, it does count for a lot.

... and the clear bias of the websites you reference impinges their reliability.

I guess my biology textbooks are "clearly biased" because they treat evolution as some kind of fact too! And why has nobody brought up the rampant Gravityist slant that so permeates our media? This is clear suppression of gravity skeptics!

 

[Bernardo Verda]

Steelrat[/url]":2abrmk4o][trollhide]Altho those arguments might not be valid, questioning Global Warming science is never a bad thing. Here's an interesting read that may make you question the mainstream Global Warming narrative.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/01/17/o ... ore-101477[/trollhide]

And once again, Jon Stewart and The Daily Show -- despite never pretending to anything more than a mere comedy programme -- turn out to be a distinctly better source of information than many sources which loudly purport to "inform" the general public.

 

[Devin]

jbode[/url]":2rrpq2eb]

Devin[/url]":2rrpq2eb]I've been noticing a trend of apologist science articles for the last few months on controversial issues like climate change and origins. Is that really appropriate for this site? I don't know why but I am resistent to Ars trying to sway peoples' opinions and think that this stuff should just be stated and that is that.

There's no "apology" here; Timmer is pointing out that these particular arguments against AGW have long since been debunked and describes why they should be retired. At this point in the AGW debate, anyone still using those arguments can be assumed to be arguing in bad faith.

See here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apologetics

 

[One Sick Puppy]

TheIrishman[/url]":x0uue888]
I imagine that Ars allows morons to participate in the hopes they can learn something new or finally care enough about the issue to go find out for themselves and no longer be morons.

Ars is out to save the world from idiots and morons. I wouldn't argue with that. It is frightening, though.

Perhaps just as likely, the income generated by true-believer and non-believer visits are the same.

 

[Wheels Of Confusion]

One Sick Puppy[/url]":14vr9xth]Perhaps just as likely, the income generated by true-believer and non-believer visits are the same.

Funny how that would work if they're trying to make the climate threads so much less contentious and argument-filled.

 

[Bernardo Verda]

skicow[/url]":flfb859e]

One Sick Puppy[/url]":flfb859e]
Oh. My. God. I feel like such a fool. Look at those graphs, how could I be so ignorant as to ignore the graphs. THE GRAPHS! LOOK AT THE GRAPHS PEOPLE!

You know, ad hominem attacks in response to stated facts are always a great way to know that you've lost a debate.

"Drawing a picture" is very useful communication technique, especially when explaining the data to people who either can't, or don't, or simply just plain won't, understand the numbers.

 

[JacobRoebuck]

Even if the author is correct, there is no reason for someone to feel bad for using these arguments. Really disappointed Ars would publish something that is basically bullying people who disagree with the author by shaming them. Why in the world would science want to shut down discussion? If someone holds one of these viewpoints and never expresses it how can they learn about alternatives to these viewpoints.

My respect for Ars went down a notch. Publish the science, not this bullying garbage.

 

['LilRedDog]

ControlledExperiments[/url]":1nuvvax7]I agree with the article, overall.

There's a wrinkle here: "In other words, if something natural is heating the atmosphere, we should see some indication of it:.... ... nothing other than added CO2."

This is probably wrong. .

I have to give you that one: he should know about methane and neither "heat the atmosphere" they insulate the heat....

 

[Wheels Of Confusion]

ControlledExperiments[/url]":c5xv2f2f]They're told that there's a consensus about AGW, which seems true (most of the polled scientists do not respond to the surveys, so I'm slightly (only slightly) nervous about the inference from the minority who do.)

What about those that don't depend on polling? Like the literature trawls, which give pretty much the same answer to within 1%?

So a smart, honest layperson is told there's a consensus, and they don't have much reason to doubt that specific claim. But what if they doubt young scientific fields? What if they read about all the things scientists were wrong about before?
Apparently, that's not allowed ...

Not allowed where? Because you're not talking about Ars Technica. And generally this will only become a problem if people stubbornly persist in their ideas about a "young scientific field" and "scientists were wrong before" despite every reasonable effort taken to disabuse them of those notions, and they continue to get disruptive about it.

One argument that should never be made on the other side is one I'm seeing scientists make, which really makes me wonder if the skeptics are right in their qualms about the integrity of climate scientists. We're in a warming pause right now.

Define "pause."

In arguments "against" the pause (which is a fact), people say the ice is still melting (up north, not Antarctica).

Ice is still melting in Antarctica. And almost all of the rest of the world. There really are only a few glaciers where it's not, and Antarctic sea ice is a different beast for very good reasons.

That's supposed to be evidence against the pause somehow.

Because it shows that energy is still building up in the climate system, even if it doesn't show up at the same rate everywhere at the same time. Like the surface temperature record.

The pause is based on direct measures of temperature -- it is what it is, the temps are what they are. Melting has nothing to do with it.

Melting has nothing to do with temperatures. Really?

And the "n of the last x years were the hottest on record" argument. It's a scam, a common stats trick. We just had warming, up to 1998. Then the pause, not cooling.

A common stats trick is also to take a statistically insignificant amount of data and spin it as something significant. A common stats trick is to cherry-pick the data that shows the behavior you want without regard to whether or not it makes sense to select that data. A common stats trick is to take data that is extremely sensitive to end-point selection and ignore any issues with those end-points (like picking one of the hottest years on record, abnormally warm due to El Nino conditions, and pretend that this represents a good start date to look at recent years). All this talk about the "pause" you're doing is basically relying on common stats tricks.

 

[Bernardo Verda]

Happysin[/url]":1qldiq9h]

Sirwigwam[/url]":1qldiq9h]The climate change propaganda is in full force at Ars today and I wouldn't be surprised if Ars is getting paid to write these one-sided shill pieces.

By whom? The ever-so-rich "climate scientists"? The people who have to beg for grants to even do work? Who has economic interest in promoting climate change?

The reality is the opposite. The largest industries in the world are all aligned against the concept of climate change, because it directly interferes with they hydrocarbon extraction, refining, and sales. There are no truly deep pockets promoting climate change, but there are trillions of dollars of power opposed to it.

My understanding is that the insurance industry and the military both take Global Warming/Climate Change quite seriously.

Are the fossil fuel industries bigger?

 

[Bernardo Verda]

Hack-n-Slash[/url]":354rosyu]

manasiv6[/url]":354rosyu]From a scientific point of view isn't the point of experimentation to prove that your idea is WRONG? Since when does the scientific point of view mean that you prove your hypothesis correct?

Whether people believe it/ don't believe it... the press reporting on this still evolving hypothesis ( aren't all hypothesis constantly evolving) has been horrific.

Science Magazine ( Dec 10, 1976) " extensive Northern Hemisphere glaciation" could take place

That particular citation is amusing for the irony.

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/194/4270/1121

"A model of future climate based on the observed orbital-climate relationships, but ignoring anthropogenic effects, predicts that the long-term trend over the next seven thousand years is toward extensive Northern Hemisphere glaciation."

Emphasis mine.

You must be mistaken!
Surely you're not suggesting that the Great Global Warming Conspiracy was established that long before the time of the Clinton/Gore administration?

 

[Bernardo Verda]

Happysin[/url]":2s07ubs5]

ronaldst[/url]":2s07ubs5]

skicow[/url]":2s07ubs5]
You can believe in whatever you want (God, FSM, et al.), but to change those beliefs into facts you need hard science - which neither of those points have.

Happysin[/url]":2s07ubs5]
...and that's your problem. You're using faith instead of evidence, and as such, your beliefs are contrary to reality. Stop "believing in" things and start "understanding" them.

First one implies I believe in imaginary friends. The other implies that I reject reality.

This is one of the problems in science. There are too many out there who believe science is some kind of sport. One has to fail for the other to succeed. People like you three are the reason why science gets a bad rap. Emotions only serves agendas that plagues science.

A proper title would have been: Why I believe the three most popular arguments about climate change are wrong.

Or this could be a click and bait article.

No, "I believe" would have implied that it was purely opinion. But it wasn't. It's fact. Evidence was given to demonstrate why those arguments are facile and should not be used by anyone actually interested in debating climate change.

You are under the false impression that all opinions are created equal, and all beliefs are. That is simply not true. Opinions supported by evidence and fact are paramount, and deserve a far greater degree of respect than those that aren't.

Science lives and dies on supported arguments and evidence. "Beliefs" have no place in science, except as a launching-off point for hypotheses to test. So yes, necessarily, one must fall for another to succeed. If there are two competing theories on how something in the universe works, one will eventually be proven true, and the other false (or a newer, better, theory will be proven true and prove both of the old ones false).

The verb "to believe" can have two quite different meanings -- which is not a problem when people recognize (in more than a purely pro forma manner) the proper roles of fact and both senses of "belief".

If an evangelical Christian, evolutionary biologist should happen to say, "I believe in Christ my Saviour, and I believe in Evolution," this does not likely mean that he is confused.

But if a fundamentalist, anti-evolution scientist were to say "I don't believe in evolution, because I believe in Christ my Saviour," he probably is either very confused, or else misusing language to confuse others.

 

[mpellatt]

Robot Dinosaur[/url]":26j666pq]Excellent article. Only problem is it doesn't address one argument that's cropped up more often lately - that scientists have some sort of financial incentive to say AGW is real and a problem, and therefore none of the data supporting AGW can be trusted. But I suppose there's not really any refuting that kind of argument, or convincing the kind of person making that argument of anything when they're happy to just ignore any proof they don't like.

Yeah, but they sure don't have the same financial incentive that the fundamental physics researchers have to keep on postulating particles only detectable at higher and higher energy levels. The money they demand (and, generally, get) is absolutely huge. So quite clearly our entire sub-atomic understanding is totally flawed, and all that data coming out of the LHC can't be trusted.

 

[Wheels Of Confusion]

Just ran across Texas A&M's Andrew Dessler's recent congressional testimony (PDF or reproduced at a blog). It quickly goes over the basics of climate change as we know them now, and the implications for the future.

 

[Bernardo Verda]

ws3[/url]":3pimdnor]

Happysin[/url]":3pimdnor]

ws3[/url]":3pimdnor]

Happysin[/url]":3pimdnor]

DrDoppio[/url]":3pimdnor]I'm probably late to the party, but here's another argument (in jest): people like warmer climate.

I've been enjoying an extraordinarily mild winter so far, and I wouldn't have said "no" to have skipped it altogether. Sadly global warming isn't just there yet.

Again, I'm just joking, but also am serious about my sentiments about the cold.

I would point out that the polar vortex the US just very unpleasantly experienced could be taken as a symptom of climate change, meaning that a warmer global climate does not always mean warmer local weather.

Indeed, every slightly unusual weather event not only can be taken as a symptom of climate change, but actually is taken as a symptom of climate change.

I assume that the purpose is to make people scared of climate change and more ready to support political measures to mitigate climate change. However, it comes across as sky-is-falling alarmism and actually causes people to mistrust science and disbelieve people advocating for changes in behavior.

...except the Polar Vortex (or an event just like it) was predicted in advance a couple years ago as a result of climate change (and I linked the article earlier in this thread). So in that specific situation, the Polar Vortex isn't simply alarmism, it's the validation of a predictive model.

Similar weather events also occurred in the preindustrial past. We have no way of knowing whether or not climate change was responsible for this particular event other than the conclusion that increased energy in the climate system might make such events more probable. But arguments appealing to small changes in probability cause eyes to glaze over in 98% of the population.

It just doesn't help anything at all to blame weather events on climate change.

Unless you're making this argument:
Loading the Climate Dice
which is really what the claims, that recent weather extremes support the climate change/global warming theory, really boil down to -- even if people don't bother to lay it out quite so explicitly or meticulously.

 

[Bernardo Verda]

issor[/url]":kskmwqfy]I stopped reading at your graph that only goes back 200 years. I try not to have a dog in this fight, but you're showing the same ignorance that the opposite side does. You proclaim to be above it all and then get right into the same fights. They just show this graph instead:

Pure evasion.

Any climate cycles that run over a few centuries long -- should there be any that we haven't yet accounted for -- just aren't the kinds of cycle we need to account for or deal with. We're not worried about them. They aren't an issue. Those long-term trends are slow and gradual enough that we can deal with them in the normal course of events, hardly even noticing them.

We're not concerned about what will happen in a millennium, but what will happen in "the foreseeable future" -- in our grand-childrens' time (and maybe sooner).

Quibbling about multi-century cycles that we might conceivably have not yet have identified, is like worrying about that funny noise the engine is making, when you should be paying attention to the approaching cliff.

 

[Bernardo Verda]

nmos[/url]":2i5yzkes]

A) While 100 years is certainly a very short period in terms of the history of the planet it's quite long in terms of human technological advancements. Consider that between 1850 & 1950 we went from candle light and outhouses to virtually every American having electricity and indoor plumbing. Between 1919 & 1969 We went from most people traveling on horseback to putting a man on the moon. Between 1965 & now we went from room sized computers with virtually no connectivity to handheld smartphones. Given all of the above it's not unreasonable to think we can handle 2.4 degrees of temperature increase spread out over 100 years.

The Ancient Egyptians and the Ancient Chinese could have discovered penicillin and anti-septic medicine, but they weren't discovered and developed until thousands of years later -- the utility and need for such things not withstanding.

Anybody can wave their hands and say that our glorious descendants will have little trouble solving some problem. But preventing the crisis with prudent action now is a much easier, and much surer, course of action.

 

[Psykhe]

Rommel102[/url]":hpeb5zgv]

I'm going to go ridiculous here to make a point about graphic illustrations and consensus....

Actually, by the time Aristotle was born the spherical view was predominant in the greek world. Just sayin'..

 

[Bernardo Verda]

Wheels Of Confusion[/url]":3sajm77x]

DaMaster[/url]":3sajm77x]I don’t think most skeptics (myself included) deny that warming is occurring. I don’t even think that most of us discount that there is a human influence factor involved. What we debate is the significance of that factor.

This really isn't a point of scientific debate any more, and hasn't been for a while. The problem is that most laypeople are very disconnected from just how much this question has been settled in the scientific community. I had a post earlier with graphic illustrations of just how non-controversial our significance is among scientists. Each of those graphs can be clicked on to take you to the source, and an explanation of what it means.

Normally, science is progressed by addressing those with differing opinions, considering their arguments as weak points in your hypothesis (and yes, human influenced climate change is still a hypothesis), and addressing them to either solidify your hypothesis or re-evaluate your findings. However, for climate change (because “global warming” is soo passé) the politicization of this topic has resulted in vitriol and personal attacks for those who disagree. I find that quite unscientific.

All the legitimate questions, proposed and tested in legitimate scientific channels and venues, have already been addressed through scientific analysis and research. The problem is that among the public, the same old zombie arguments keep churning up. They just won't die, hence the term. Virtually every "skeptical" argument used in this thread, for example, has been debunked a dozen times in the scientific literature already. But the people using them either don't know this or refuse to acknowledge it, so they continue to bring these same old zombie arguments into the next climate thread. The sheer repetition of these bad, long-debunked arguments is probably what prompted this article in the first place.

Also, it's worth pointing out that Ars isn't "scientific," and this isn't meant to be a peer-reviewed paper. This post went up to address discussions going on within the Ars community and its comment threads, to try and get everyone on the same page so that we don't have to waste time with the zombie arguments. It's an attempt to keep the discussion more closely aligned with actual science instead of pseudoscience.

For the most part, at this point, these aren't even "zombie" arguments anymore
-- they've achieved "dead parrot" status.

 

[Bernardo Verda]

cpdejean[/url]":3cs4xekt]

aahjnnot[/url]":3cs4xekt]

ligne[/url]":3cs4xekt]

aahjnnot[/url]":3cs4xekt]The problem with the article and several others like it on Ars is this: when you demonise those with whom you disagree and allow your voice to become too shrill, few people will bother to listen to what you say. For that reason, I predict that precisely no-one will change their mind as a result of Mr Timmers arguments. If anyone wants to tell me that that they really have switched sides after reading this, I'm happy to be proven wrong, though.

But preaching to the choir is terribly therapeutic, don't you think?

could you point to some Ars articles on climate change that you consider "shrill"? because i've been reading for years now, and i've never got that impression.

and Dr Jay is expressly not demonising anyone simply for disagreeing with the article -- he's simply criticising those who make inane, long-debunked arguments, consistently fail to provide any evidence to back their assertions, or who refuse to engage in a polite and intelligent discussion.

I think that this article would sound pretty shrill to anyone who has ever used these arguments before, particularly if they've done so in good faith.

I agree that this article came off as "shrill." Not so much because of what it discusses, but the implied attitude behind it. To me this article came off as very high and mighty; very, "Oh look at me I'm so enlightened." And the comments I'm seeing get moderated reinforce my opinion.

I agree that trends indicates the climate is changing, and changing as part of human activity. However, I also think that we do not have enough information to be able to conclusively say that it is changing at an alarming rate, that this is not cyclical, that this is not normal. Charts that only go back ~100 years do not convince me. Charts that go back 100,000 years would.

Furthermore, whenever I read articles demonizing human factors on climate change, I get the impression that it's proponents are essentially telling me to ditch all modern conveniences such as cars, electricity, etc and go live in a cave.

Ultimately my attitude is more - Quit trying to make people feel like assholes just because they're contributing to climate change. You are too.

,

But if this had been an article about goofs that computer programmers shouldn't make (call it "Three programming mistakes that real programmers should never commit") nobody would be getting hot under the collar over it, or suggesting that it demonstrated a reprehensible attitude of superiority towards less knowledgeable programmers, or that the approach was "arrogant", or somehow responsible for the on-going prevalence of such avoidable errors on the part of newbies, let alone " trying to make people feel like assholes just because they're trying to write code", or anything like that.

And we are talking science, here -- not some value-laden topic like abortion or Intellectual Property. So it smacks of a double standard, and the objections appear rather self-serving. It appears to basically amount to complaining that it's somehow mean to point this utterly basic stuff out, and/or that some people will get their feelings hurt if they are told "You're just wrong -- and you really should have known as much, already."

Maybe (perhaps) the real arrogance is on the other "side"?

 

[Bernardo Verda]

Dr. Jay[/url]":17rt0w65]

cpdejean[/url]":17rt0w65]However, I also think that we do not have enough information to be able to conclusively say that it is changing at an alarming rate, that this is not cyclical, that this is not normal.

But then, as the article points out, you come up against the question: if it's part of a cycle, what physical process is driving the cycle? You can't just say "it might be cyclical" and think you've got an argument. You have to identify the physical process behind the cycles, and explain why it is more significant than all this extra CO2 we've now got in the atmosphere.

I assume it would be sufficient to point out the existence of some specific, such cycle. If such a cycle were to be actually identified, then the cause(s) could be searched out -- the identified (characterized ?) cycle would give a definite point (and reason) to start looking.

 

[Redmess]

Could this sort of comments also be caused by (possibly paid) lobbyists? Ars had an article not too long ago about the existence of just such a billion dollar lobby group existing.

 

[Bernardo Verda]

DrDoppio[/url]":2ejl7wcp]Looking for the cause of global warming is approaching the problem from the wrong end, and is the sole reason for an unproductive discussion. Here's what I think -- it is completely irrelevant whether the change in climate is man made or a part of a natural cycle. We may or may not be able to prove one thing or the other, but those are irrelevant problems. The actual questions that we need to ask are the following, in order of importance:

1. Are the average global temperatures steadily rising?
2. If they are, is the increase posing a threat to humans?
3. If it is, do we have means to counter it?

Those are the only relevant questions. The reasons are irrelevant, and trying to argue about them inevitably dooms the discussion.

1. Yes (and already assumed in the original assertion #2)
2. Yes (we're already seeing consequences)
3. Now we're back to where we started:

if we're not causing it, then it's unlikely we can do much to counter it (without undertaking rather heroic, quite novel, and quite risky measures). But if we are causing it, then we do have the means; we can relatively easily stop making the problem worse, and take additional (less heroic, less novel, and less risky) measures to speed things up, if that seems appropriate.

 

[Bernardo Verda]

I appear to have acquired an anti-fan...

I'm collecting down-votes as faster than I can post.
I must be doing something right.

 

[Hack-n-Slash]

DrDoppio[/url]":102w1u1a]Looking for the cause of global warming is approaching the problem from the wrong end, and is the sole reason for an unproductive discussion. Here's what I think -- it is completely irrelevant whether the change in climate is man made or a part of a natural cycle. We may or may not be able to prove one thing or the other, but those are irrelevant problems. The actual questions that we need to ask are the following, in order of importance:

1. Are the average global temperatures steadily rising?
2. If they are, is the increase posing a threat to humans?
3. If it is, do we have means to counter it?

Those are the only relevant questions. The reasons are irrelevant, and trying to argue about them inevitably dooms the discussion.

#3 relies directly upon the answer to the question you don't want to ask.

You don't treat a viral disease with antibiotics.

 

[Hack-n-Slash]

Arthmoor[/url]":3p5con1u]The active suppression of an opposing viewpoint is appalling and something I would only expect from diehard left leaning propaganda sources.

It seems to me that you have two problems here.

1. The idea that the science is political.
2. The notion that only the left would actively suppress an opposing viewpoint.

Both of those are are delusional.

 

[alkhrt]

So what do you propose we do? We have greener homes/appliances/cars&public trans/businesses/power production etc etc.

China is the worlds most populous country. They's the worlds biggest energy producer and biggest consumer. They are the number one emitter of CO2, and that gap between them and #2 (US) is widening every year.

For example, per-capita, the US still emits the most CO2, but China alone has 4.4 times the US population. Weird fact. More people smoke cigarettes in China than live in the US. If you combine the CO2 output of China, India, and Russia, depending on whose chart you believe, they either equal or surpass the output of the US and the entire European Union.

The EU and US have been curbing emissions since the early 70's. Five decades. That trend continues today. On the flip side, I doubt that China and India are willing to curb their emissions. China and India alone account for more than a third ~37% of the worlds population. China's the #1 producer/consumer of coal. They're still cranking out coal fired power plants. They can't keep up with electricity demands.

For the EU & US citizens to accept carbon taxes, or sanctions because of emissions is economic suicide and pointless. It's pointless on the green house gas emission front. We're trending down, while other areas of the globe are trending up. Those other area's aren't going to accept the same taxes/sanctions.

 

[falsifiable]

@wheels
Just wanted to thank you for your hard and thankless work.

 

[JonnyO]

The first rule in bringing someone around to your own line of thinking is to not insult them or speak down to them. One can see the author's nose hairs in the first paragraph, which will kill the conversation before it even starts. No matter how much you think the other guy is a moron on the inside you cannot say it out loud if you're intending to be constructive.

 

[Deleted member 276317]

JonnyO[/url]":2zhhg594]The first rule in bringing someone around to your own line of thinking is to not insult them or speak down to them. One can see the author's nose hairs in the first paragraph, which will kill the conversation before it even starts. No matter how much you think the other guy is a moron on the inside you cannot say it out loud if you're intending to be constructive.

No, the first rule is to presume the person you wish to persuade is reasonable and amenable to legitimate arguments. If, as has proven to be true in innumerable threads at Ars, they're not, then it's perfectly reasonable to insist that, at minimum, they stop using counter-arguments that have been addressed repeatedly.

 

[falsifiable]

tscharf[/url]":1d406lha]

Wheels Of Confusion[/url]":1d406lha]

tscharf[/url]":1d406lha]This is yet another opinion article posing as science.

...
The real push back is against the proposed and mostly incoherent solutions to AGW, the science discussion is a sideshow. We are all for fixing AGW if it was free.

If only that was true...
It seems many are not capable of dissociating the science and reality of climate change from what humans might want to do about it. How many times have we seen in this thread (and previous) statements along the lines of "climate change (used to be called "global warming" - it's the proof all scientists are corrupt!!1!) is not real and pinko-world-order-eco-greens want us to go back live in caves". (I know, slight hyperbole). How about we separate one from the other?
I wish there was a stronger debate about what solutions human societies might be able to roll out to mitigate the effects of rapid climate change. If you don't like solutions based on strong government actions and regulations then join the search for better solutions, market-based or whatever else rocks your boat. But please, let's stop wasting our time contesting the science. The selectivity demonstrated by some in which branches of science are deemed acceptable (e.g. "EM and relativity" are cool because otherwise I wouldn't have a computer and a GPS, but climatology is not cool because it does not feel right) is quite disingenuous.

EDIT: fixed broken tags

 

[MilanKraft]

Reading through this thread, watching a lot of smart people (on both sides) spin their wheels is kind of disheartening. Instead of arguing about the accuracy of graphs or nit-picking each other's "footnotes", maybe you should just step back and look at the big picture:

1) Are there obvious feedback loops already in motion, warming the planet at a level that should concern everyone, regardless of cause? Check.

2) Are there things we can do societally that would at least decrease the rate of acceleration for some of these bad trends, thus giving us more time to figure things out before something really shitty happens? Check.

3) Can anyone point to a single instance in human history where many societies agreed upon a common cause, set to making a massive change in behavior over a short period, and succeeded... despite the resistance that comes from greed-interests, political ideologies of the time, or superstition? Didn't think so.

We're fucked. Just a question of when. Be at peace with it and do what you can to make your own kid's life better, because I guarantee you nobody in a position of actual power is looking out for your kid's future. They couldn't give two shits about your kid.

Simplify your thinking here. Cut out the minutia and just look at the obviousness of the situation when taking the data and human history into account. The inertia of human inaction will ensure that whatever we do, it won't be focused enough or done on a wide enough scale to reverse or dramatically slow the trends we're seeing in the atmosphere and environment.

In the end, perhaps this is just another step in the evolution of our species. I doubt we'll be wiped out entirely but perhaps the next generations after the shit hits the fan, will have sufficiently different outlooks and behavior in life that better qualities will survive and lesser ones will die out over time.

 

[Mutualin4mation]

jeffronicus[/url]":9znhmseq]

StickyPad[/url]":9znhmseq]...But when global warming devotees scream that the seas would be dead 20 years ago, that the polar ice caps would have melted 5 years ago, and that all of the western countries have 5 years to do something RIGHT NOW (while ignoring Russia, India, China and so on), it doesn't do anything but bring ridicule.

So, you're dismissing the science because non-scientists have made exaggerated claims?

A lot of scientist have made claims that have not come true. When the UN exaggerates a lot of claims and misrepresents the science ... scientists don't swoop in to correct the record. They don't want to counter the alarm because otherwise there would be no progress. But then that's politics and not science.

 

[Massolo]

When Hanson was with NASA and he called attention to global warming he was ignored. Now the facts are in and proven, yet we still do nothing. The reason why we do nothing is because of generated confusion. The corporations who directly contribute to global warming saw the writing on the wall. If they did nothing there would be laws passed that would affect their profit margins and impact earnings per share. So they got together, hired Fox News, and started a disinformation campaign. If you can create confusion you can keep any group of people from forming a consensus and agreeing on a solution, or in this case, the identification of a problem. So you can have as many of these articles as you want that prove a point, but they will just hire someone else to publish another article contradicting it, so that nothing gets done in the end. Look at Congressmen, notice that those who block legislation that would recognize and attack global warming always get "honorariums" (bribes is its more common name) from those corporations who stand to benefit from laws NOT being passed. Our profit at all cost outlook will be the cause of our undoing as a species. We've allowed the greedy and wealthy to dictate policy to us and inculcate us into their belief that the acquisition of money should be our one and only goal. Because of that we are slowly killing ourselves off the planet in our quest for more and more profit.

 

[BioTurboNick]

Mutualin4mation[/url]":2yupdpmu]

jeffronicus[/url]":2yupdpmu]

StickyPad[/url]":2yupdpmu]...But when global warming devotees scream that the seas would be dead 20 years ago, that the polar ice caps would have melted 5 years ago, and that all of the western countries have 5 years to do something RIGHT NOW (while ignoring Russia, India, China and so on), it doesn't do anything but bring ridicule.

So, you're dismissing the science because non-scientists have made exaggerated claims?

A lot of scientist have made claims that have not come true.

On its own, this is true. But most scientists all agreeing on a common theory? Not as often.

When the UN exaggerates a lot of claims and misrepresents the science ... scientists don't swoop in to correct the record.

Speaking of unsupported claims...

They don't want to counter the alarm because otherwise there would be no progress. But then that's politics and not science.

I don't even understand your point here.