The science of climate change is NOT settled, but so what?
December 4th, 2009 at 08:21am Pat Cunningham
Global-warming deniers love to trumpet the fact — and it is a fact — that the science of climate change is not settled. There are still things to learn about the matter.
But it’s foolish to argue that since the issue is not settled once and for all we should assume that theories of man-made global warming are all hooey or are somehow widely disputed by reputable scientists. That’s just not the case, as Steve Gavin notes HERE.
An excerpt:
In the climate field, there are a number of issues which are no longer subject to fundamental debate in the community. The existence of the greenhouse effect, the increase in CO2 (and other GHGs) over the last hundred years and its human cause, and the fact the planet warmed significantly over the 20th Century are not much in doubt. IPCC described these factors as ‘virtually certain’ or ‘unequivocal’. The attribution of the warming over the last 50 years to human activity is also pretty well established – that is ‘highly likely’ and the anticipation that further warming will continue as CO2 levels continue to rise is a well supported conclusion. To the extent that anyone has said that the scientific debate is over, this is what they are referring to. In answer to colloquial questions like “Is anthropogenic warming real?”, the answer is yes with high confidence.
But no scientists would be scientists if they thought there was nothing left to find out. Think of the science as a large building, with foundations reaching back to the 19th Century and a whole edifice of knowledge built upon them. The community spends most of its time trying to add a brick here or a brick there and slowly adding to the construction. The idea that the ’science is settled’ is equivalent to stating that the building is complete and that nothing further can be added. Obviously that is false…
Entry Filed under: global warming
12 Comments Add your own
1. Pat Cunningham | December 4th, 2009 at 8:58 am
No. It’s not a dead horse as long as global-warming deniers persist with their foolishness.
2. SNuss | December 4th, 2009 at 11:45 am
Or, as long as the MAN-MADE Global Warming fascists try to destroy our economy with unilateral, draconian, economy-killing regulations on businesses in this country, and those, like AlGore, can make millions by scaring people with their half-truths, and outright lies.
3. shawnnews | December 4th, 2009 at 2:05 pm
What’s the logic behing the global warming denial movement? Do you really think it was invented by Al Gore to sell a book? Do you think the climate scientists of the world make up the data just so Al can sell books? Do you think all the universities that fund these studies are just put their academic reputations on the line just to have some fun or show support for Gore?
People believe science and doctors when they go to the hospital. They believe in the results science when they use technology. Why people don’t believe over 40 years of science research on this one is beyond me. Sure, like snuss you’ll find a few scientists who find things outside the consensus. A result outside the consensus is called an artifact. But that overturned the entire theory of man-made global warming.
4. shawnnews | December 4th, 2009 at 2:07 pm
Incidentally, Pat I hope you get a better system than wordpress. I should only have to post once, not make a copy of my post just in case it doesn’t work, I know it’s not your fault. I hope there’s a tech guy reading this.
5. Pat Cunningham | December 4th, 2009 at 2:17 pm
shawnnews: I’ve complained about the WordPress software on several occasions, and I have reason to believe that the situation might change sometime next year.
6. SNuss | December 4th, 2009 at 3:21 pm
shawnnews sez: What’s the logic behing the global warming denial movement?
1. Hypocrisy. AlGore flying around the world in his highly-polluting Gulfstream jet, from his house, which uses as much energy in a month, as average homes do in a year, making big money spreading doom & gloom, and demanding that WE make cutbacks in our “carbon footprint”.
2. A significant number of scientists believe global warming, IF it exists, is a natural occurrence, and that we would be better off adapting to the coming changes, than wasting resources on the environmental wackos’ ill-conceived ideas.
3. Over 31,000 scientists refuting global warming is a “few”?
http://www.oism.org/pproject/
4. Government intervention in our lives. Just as with Obamacare, this is a blatant attempt to establish more controls over businesses, no matter what the cost to our economy.
7. Pat Cunningham | December 4th, 2009 at 3:31 pm
SNuss wants us to believe a petition that has become notorious for forgeries, phony names, duplicate signatures and other problems.
Check it out:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Petition
8. shawnnews | December 4th, 2009 at 4:10 pm
Al Gore (I see you use the Limbaugh spelling) did not make the idea up. I really wish he would have kept quiet about it because his involvement has made it into a partisan issue. It’s a science issue. You can ask your communbity college professor how all this data has been collected and verified over the years. This is open to the public. This is not a plan to make money for Gore. If I had to go to speaking engagements all over the world, I would fly in a plane too. Al Gore had a farm, the last time I checked. I’m sure he does use more energy than you or I. But if Gore were to disappear tomorrow, the issue would still be there. This isn’t about him. This is about science.
9. shawnnews | December 4th, 2009 at 4:24 pm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_conspiracy_theory
Snuss sounds like he’s fallen for a conspiracy theory
10. Quentink | December 4th, 2009 at 4:53 pm
There IS poison in the glass.
Scientist #1 says “this will kill you in 5 minutes flat.”
Scientist #2 says, “no it will take 8 minutes to kill you.”
Conservatives say: “See there’s nothing to worry about because even this dumb liberal scientists can’t agree on it.”
So though we can not say how long the poison will take in the meantime we can all agree that conservatives are idiots.
11. snuss | December 5th, 2009 at 5:21 pm
“This is not a plan to make money for Gore.”
October 3, 2007
In fact, just two months ago, ABC News.com estimated soon-to-be-Nobel Laureate Al Gore’s net worth at $100 million, which isn’t bad considering that he was supposedly worth about $1 million when he watched George W. Bush get sworn in as president in January 2001.
Talk about your get-rich-quick schemes, how’d you like to increase your net worth 10,000 percent in less than seven years?
Source: http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/10/03/al-gore-getting-rich-spreading-global-warming-hysteria-media-s-help
The Nine Lies Of Al Gore
Two years ago, British High Court Justice Michael Burton characterized Gore’s film as “alarmism and exaggeration in support of his political thesis.” The court, responding to a case filed by a parent, said the film was “one-sided” and could not be shown in British schools unless it contained guidelines to balance Gore’s attempt at “political indoctrination.”
The judge based his decision on nine inaccuracies in the movie.
Read the rest at: http://www.noteviljustwrong.com/blog/general/218-the-nine-lies-of-al-gore
12. shawnnews | December 7th, 2009 at 10:10 am
I’m sure Gore can make a lot of money as an ex-Vice President and Nobel Laureate byu charging outrageous speaking fees, investing that money, getting paid large sums for figurehead jobs and from his other books.
However– to assume that the world’s scientists want to help Gore get rich is nonsense. Once again, Gore is a spokesman for hios cause rather than the one collecting data and reaching conclusions. This is why I would prefer if he were left out of the equation — his presence make the issue partisan rather than scientific.
Leave a Comment
Some HTML allowed:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>
Trackback this post | Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed