Is global warming about to die?

[William Wallace]

I'm speaking strictly of global warming as a political issue; the science is another matter. Thoughts?
https://reason.com/archives/2010/08/02/bid-adios-to-the-global-warmin

Future historians will pinpoint Democratic Sen. Harry Reid's energy legislation, released last Tuesday, as the moment that the political movement of global warming entered an irreversible death spiral. It is kaput! Finito! Done!

This is not just my read of the situation; it is also that of Paul Krugman, the Nobel laureate-turned-Democratic-apparatchik. In his latest column for The New York Times, Krugman laments that “all hope for action to limit climate change died” in 2010. Democrats had a brief window of opportunity before the politics of global warming changed forever in November to ram something through Congress. But the Reid bill chose not to do so for the excellent reason that Democrats want to avoid an even bigger beating than the one they already face at the polls.

Not only does the bill avoid all mention of an economy-wide emission cap through a cap-and-tax—oops, cap-and-trade—scheme, it even avoids capping emissions or imposing renewable electricity standards on utility companies, the minimum that enviros had hoped for. Beyond stricter regulations on off-shore drilling, it offers subsidies to both homeowners to encourage them to make their homes more energy efficient and the nation's fleet of trucks to use cleaner burning natural gas. This is not costless, but it is a bargain compared with the “comprehensive” action on energy and climate change that President Barack Obama had been threatening.

Krugman blames this outcome on—you'll never guess this!—greedy energy companies and cowardly Republicans who sold out. But the fault, Dear Paul, lies not in them, but in your own weakling theories.

The truth is that there never has been an environmental issue that has enjoyed greater corporate support. Early in the global warming crusade, a coalition of corporations called United States Climate Action Partnership was formed with the express purpose of lobbying Congress to cut greenhouse gas emissions. It included major utilities (Duke Energy) and gas companies (BP) that stood to gain by hobbling the coal industry through a cap-and-trade scheme. Meanwhile, the Breakthrough Institute, a highly respected liberal outfit whose mission is to rejuvenate the progressive movement in this country, points out that environmental groups spent at least $100 million over the past two years executing what was arguably the best mobilization campaign in history. Despite all of this, notes Breakthrough, there is little evidence to suggest that cap-and-trade would have mustered more than 43 votes in the Senate.

This means that lucre is not the only motivating force in politics. Indeed, lobbyists are effective generally when they represent causes that coincide with the will of constituents, which is far from the case here. Voters are reluctant to accept economic pain to address remote causes with an uncertain upside. Heck, they are dubious even when the cause is not so remote and has a demonstrable upside. Take Social Security and Medicare. It is a mathematical certainty that, without reform, these programs will go bankrupt, jeopardizing the health care and retirement benefits of tens of millions Americans. Even though the cost of action is far smaller compared with the cost of inaction, persuading voters to do something is an uphill battle.

Yet even in the heyday of the consensus on global warming there was never this kind of certainty. The ClimateGate scandal—in which prominent climatologists were caught manipulating data to exaggerate the observed warming—has significantly weakened this consensus. But even if it hadn't, climate change is too complex an issue to ever be established with anything approaching iron-clad certainty. Hence, it was inevitable that it would run into a political dead-end.

This is exactly what the Reid bill represents. Indeed, if Democrats backed-off from their grand designs to cut carbon emissions 17 percent below 2005 levels by 2020 with sizable majorities in Congress and a “celestial healer” in the White House there is little chance that they will ever be able to accomplish anything better at a later date. And if America—the richest country in the world and the biggest emitter of greenhouse gases—won't act, there is a snowball's chance in Mumbai that India or China will.

Of course, authoritarian countries have a little bit more leeway than democracies to push unpalatable remedies. But it is not within the power of even China's autocrats to shove an energy diet down the throat of their people on the theory that the pain from it will be short-lived because it will trigger a search for better and cleaner energy alternatives—the totality of the green pitch for action.

This doesn't mean that there aren't a few more whimpers left in the global warming movement before it finally passes. On the international front, the buzz is that the Fifth Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change currently in the works will be even more alarmist than the previous one. However, thanks to ClimateGate, it will give greater play to alternative voices. “Going forward, the general perception won't be one of consensus,” notes Cato Institute Senior Fellow Jerry Taylor, an expert on energy issues, “but one of increasing appreciation of disagreement on the issue.”

Domestically, green groups will prod the Environmental Protection Agency to regulate greenhouse gas emissions more aggressively. But this will be harder to do when Republicans inevitably make gains in Congress in November. Indeed, they will likely revive a Senate resolution floated by Lisa Murkowski, an Alaska Republican, banning the EPA from regulating emissions from stationary sources, which lost by just four votes last month. Global warming warriors are also talking about fighting the battle for emission cuts state-by-state. But they will lose on that front too. California, which embraced such cuts four years ago, is already facing a ballot initiative in November to scrap the law, as it loses business and jobs to other states. Indeed, the same collective action problems that prevent global action on climate change will inevitably bedevil state-level action too.

The global warming warriors will likely have to go through the five stages of grief before accepting that their moment has passed and the movement is dead. Thinkers more sophisticated than Krugman will no doubt point to many proximate causes for its demise beyond evil Republicans such as lack of engagement by President Obama, bad economic timing, filibuster rules, what have you.

The reality is, however, that the crusade was doomed from the start because of its own inherent weaknesses. RIP.

[GuineaPig]

It may die for the present in the United States, but as soon as all the morons realize that temperatures are still rising, someone, somewhere, in the clusterfuck that is the US political system will realize something has to be done, if only for scoring some political points.

[Nigerius Rex]

Given that there are still the same number of dissenters (maybe more now) and a growing body of evidence that disagrees with nearly all of the conclusions organizations like the IPCC draw, I don't think that will happen.

[GuineaPig]

Given that there are still the same number of dissenters (maybe more now) and a growing body of evidence that disagrees with nearly all of the conclusions organizations like the IPCC draw, I don't think that will happen.

wut

[rumborak]

It's sad that the United States once again is so internally dissenting that they can't get anything of importance done. Yesterday I listened to an audio podcast that essentially concluded that most likely, the industrialized nations will once again have to do go ahead with climate curtailing without the US.

rumborak

[William Wallace]

It's sad that the United States once again is so internally dissenting that they can't get anything of importance done. Yesterday I listened to an audio podcast that essentially concluded that most likely, the industrialized nations will once again have to do go ahead with climate curtailing without the US.

rumborak

If Kyoto was any indicator, they won't get anything done. Another agreement will be signed, but I doubt we'll see any serious reduction in emissions.

[El Barto]

It's sad that the United States once again is so internally dissenting that they can't get anything of importance done. Yesterday I listened to an audio podcast that essentially concluded that most likely, the industrialized nations will once again have to do go ahead with climate curtailing without the US.

rumborak

I agree.  In this country, it was never more than another manufactured political issue.

[XJDenton]

Nature doesnt care about political ideas, so if/when it becomes a crisis, it will have to become a politcal issue once again.

[Dr. SeaWolf]

Nature doesnt care about political ideas, so if/when it becomes a crisis, it will have to become a politcal issue once again.

This.

[rumborak]

I have too concluded by now that collective humankind is unable to form greater consensuses, not just about global warming. Overall, we're just squabbling our way through life, and greater things almost always give way to petty self-interest.
So, global warming has to first come to the level where it influences people's lives directly, and then we will see movement. Given the lag time of any action that would happen then, welcome to Earth 2.0.

rumborak

[Cool Chris]

So, global warming has to first come to the level where it influences people's lives directly, and then we will see movement. Given the lag time of any action that would happen then, welcome to Earth 2.0.

rumborak

I would amend that to say it will need to come to the level of affecting the lives of the rich, powerful, well-connected, and influential in order to see any movement on a national/global level.

I personally am more optimistic though, that we adapt at the state/local levels (at least in the US) without as much political wrangling and effects to our economy.

[Super Dude]

Indeed, this may be the time to stop relying on political actors and instead trying to force change via consumer power and other methods of influence. Although I still have hope for China.

[Dr. SeaWolf]

The problem is that most politicians in the US will hesitate to force the hand of industry unless there is a clear, imminent problem.  Global warming is a fact, yes, and if we don't do anything, it will become a huge problem, but it's not really a problem yet, at least not for the average US citizen.

[William Wallace]

The problem is that most politicians in the US will hesitate to force the hand of industry unless there is a clear, imminent problem.  Global warming is a fact, yes, and if we don't do anything, it will become a huge problem, but it's not really a problem yet, at least not for the average US citizen.

And for good reason. Hand forcing usually sucks.

 By the way, congratulations, Dr.

[Dr. SeaWolf]

The problem is that most politicians in the US will hesitate to force the hand of industry unless there is a clear, imminent problem.  Global warming is a fact, yes, and if we don't do anything, it will become a huge problem, but it's not really a problem yet, at least not for the average US citizen.

And for good reason. Hand forcing usually sucks.

Yes it does, and it should never be done lightly.  Unfortunately, sometimes it's necessary.

By the way, congratulations, Dr.

Thanks

[EPICVIEW]

Is Gore in the Hospital? is he going to pull through???

[GuineaPig]

Oh, for fuck's sake.

[Adami]

Oh, for fuck's sake.

I dunno, I thought it was pretty funny.

[Dublagent66]

I have too concluded by now that collective humankind is unable to form greater consensuses, not just about global warming. Overall, we're just squabbling our way through life, and greater things almost always give way to petty self-interest.
So, global warming has to first come to the level where it influences people's lives directly, and then we will see movement. Given the lag time of any action that would happen then, welcome to Earth 2.0.

rumborak

It is influencing people's lives directly.  The problem is, most people don't realize it yet or are simply in denial.  Humankind will not be able to stop it.  The question is, will they realize it in time to adapt?  This has happened before when the population was much lower and much more prone to adaptation.  Modern civilization faces many more hurdles in such a case.

[William Wallace]

I have too concluded by now that collective humankind is unable to form greater consensuses, not just about global warming. Overall, we're just squabbling our way through life, and greater things almost always give way to petty self-interest.
So, global warming has to first come to the level where it influences people's lives directly, and then we will see movement. Given the lag time of any action that would happen then, welcome to Earth 2.0.

rumborak

It is influencing people's lives directly.  The problem is, most people don't realize it yet or are simply in denial.  Humankind will not be able to stop it.  The question is, will they realize it in time to adapt?  This has happened before when the population was much lower and much more prone to adaptation.  Modern civilization faces many more hurdles in such a case.

Even if we do enact the most comprehensive energy rationing scheme the environmental lobby could dream up, there is little evidence to suggest that it would reduce the warming we're experiencing by any significant amount. The figure is something like 0.14 degrees Fahrenheit by 2050, and that's if every country obligated under the Kyoto treaty participated in emissions trading. Sounds like a waste; find a replacement for coal instead. 

[GuineaPig]

Reducing the warming at all by 2050 would be an incredible coup.

[ainamotore]

Global warming is the biggest hustle ever foisted upon mankind. THERE IS NO GLOBAL WARMING. That is to say, there are normal fluctuations in temperature that occur with or without man. Ice ages were a result of that entirely natural process. Temps go up and temps go down. There is NO PROOF that our activities are causing any kind of planetary warming. And even if there were, the problem is entirely self-limiting because fossil fuels will be gone in 100 years or so, and 100 years is a nanosecond in terms of geologic time.

What we need is to rededicate ourselves to freedom, capitalism, achievement, progress, individualism, and rationality. That will go much farther than giving in to the hysterical envirofascists who are always hell bent on using the police power of the state to shut down everything they are jealous of.

The solution to global warming is to reduce taxes, reduce regulation, increase freedom, decrease statism, and increase the importance of the individual rather than the collective.

A much cooler world will result.

[GuineaPig]

wut

[GuineaPig]

Global warming is the biggest hustle ever foisted upon mankind. 

OK, I don't know if you're trolling or not, but here's a rebuke anyways because there a lot of people that think like this on the internet.

THERE IS NO GLOBAL WARMING. That is to say, there are normal fluctuations in temperature that occur with or without man. Ice ages were a result of that entirely natural process. Temps go up and temps go down.

Yes there are.  There are a number of natural cycles in play here.  The most significant is the Milankovitch cycle (the combination of all the effects of the Earth's movement relative to the Sun), which lasts for about 100,000 years.  It comprises the effects of the Earth's precession which takes about 26,000 years for each go-round, orbital variations (21,000 years) and changes in the angle of our orbit (41,000 years).  Ice ages are largely responsible due to the Milankovitch cycle, but there are other factors in play.  Like atmospheric composition, for one.  Or the Earth's albedo.  Which leads to...

There is NO PROOF that our activities are causing any kind of planetary warming. And even if there were, the problem is entirely self-limiting because fossil fuels will be gone in 100 years or so, and 100 years is a nanosecond in terms of geologic time.

I'd like you to display the earth-shattering proof that CO2 does not cause atmospheric warming.  Because you're looking at at least 2 Nobel Prizes, and shit tons of other awards and money.  You'll be swimming in cash.  You'll be one of the greatest modern scientists.

The problem is not self-limiting.  Warming caused by greenhouse gases will trigger a number of positive feedbacks that have the potential to escalate warming to the point that we will be helpless to stop it.  While 100 years may be a nanosecond in geologic time, no one's concerned about the Earth.  The concern is all the humans that will be killed and other species that will be wiped out by a fast period of warming.  The Earth will survive just fine.  Its species are another matter.

What we need is to rededicate ourselves to freedom, capitalism, achievement, progress, individualism, and rationality. That will go much farther than giving in to the hysterical envirofascists who are always hell bent on using the police power of the state to shut down everything they are jealous of.

Yeah, whatever.  Political buzzwords, good for you.  Let's be tough on crime too.  Abortions for some, mini-American flags for everyone else.

The solution to global warming is to reduce taxes, reduce regulation, increase freedom, decrease statism, and increase the importance of the individual rather than the collective.

Not really sure how this "solves" a problem you claim isn't happening, but I think that the previous decades have proven that lack of environmental regulation has never solved an environmental problem.

[ainamotore]

I'd like you to display the earth-shattering proof that CO2 does not cause atmospheric warming.  Because you're looking at at least 2 Nobel Prizes, and shit tons of other awards and money.  You'll be swimming in cash.  You'll be one of the greatest modern scientists.

CO2 is a natural substance produced by millions of natural processes on the planet. Nobody has PROVED that there is more CO2 in the atmosphere than at other times in the distant past, or that it is harmful even if there was. Furthermore, it CANNOT be proved, because no one was around to do the tests as recently as 300 years ago, let alone thousands and tens of thousands of years ago. Therefore, there is no baseline, only suppositions and hypotheses and guesses and politically-motivated pronouncements that have all the weight of the CO2 gas they attempt to describe.

The problem is not self-limiting.  Warming caused by greenhouse gases will trigger a number of positive feedbacks that have the potential to escalate warming to the point that we will be helpless to stop it. 

I'm sure you have faith in the veracity of this statement, because there is sure as hell no proof that there is a shred of truth to it. It is complete and utter speculation. "Warmth caused by greenhouse gases will trigger a number of positive feedbacks". Says who? Predicting global climate change is a science that will not achieve infancy for another century or more. NOBODY knows what will happen with the climate of the planet in the future. NOT NOBODY. NOT NOHOW! Meterology that attempts to be predictive 3 days out is inherently unreliable and also still in its infancy. And you are going to seriously come on this forum and state that climate prediction over a range measured in decades has any chance in hell of being accurate? And that Al Gore and his cavalcade of sycophantic statists should have the right to STOP OUR LIVES because of these flimsy illogical "arguments" that seek to scare the populace into granting political power to mediocrities whose goal is to accumulate naked political power over the economies of the planet? Sorry, NOT HAPPENING.

There is no accuracy and no reliability to any form of global climate prediction. We don't have a hundredth of a percent of the required understanding to even attempt it. However we do have politicians and envirofascists who want power and money. And to them, armageddonistic climate prediction is the perfect vehicle to advance the reach of the state because the populace is too busy and too dumb to understand that no proof of climate change is possible and none was offered. Just a bunch of jargon-heavy suppositions based on ill-defined premises and foggy non-sequitirs passed off as firm conclusions.

Just to go over it again:

positive feedbacks that have the potential to escalate warming to the point that we will be helpless to stop it. 

"HAVE THE POTENTIAL TO ESCALATE WARMING TO THE POINT THAT WE WILL BE HELPLESS TO STOP IT" ??@#*$#*&$

Beautiful. Make it sound like a fusion reaction. Fear mongering junk-science armageddonism designed to motivate the stupid masses to grant political power to the leftist, statist, collectivist, elitist, envirofascists who know how it all works and are ready to stop civilization in its tracks so they can accumulate power and treasure. This is nothing short of intellectual, economic, and philosophical piracy. As disgusting as it is shameful.

Not really sure how this "solves" a problem you claim isn't happening, but I think that the previous decades have proven that lack of environmental regulation has never solved an environmental problem.

And now the chickens come home to roost. THAT is what global warming is all about. Using the police power of the state to expropriate private wealth and accumulate political power. It would not be ingenious or even effective if the general population had an ounce of sense. But in an era of increasing stupidity where the population is most concerned with Jersey Shore and what to name a stadium shared by two football teams, it just might work.

[GuineaPig]

wut

[Dublagent66]

I'd like you to display the earth-shattering proof that CO2 does not cause atmospheric warming.  Because you're looking at at least 2 Nobel Prizes, and shit tons of other awards and money.  You'll be swimming in cash.  You'll be one of the greatest modern scientists.

CO2 is a natural substance produced by millions of natural processes on the planet. Nobody has PROVED that there is more CO2 in the atmosphere than at other times in the distant past, or that it is harmful even if there was. Furthermore, it CANNOT be proved, because no one was around to do the tests as recently as 300 years ago, let alone thousands and tens of thousands of years ago. Therefore, there is no baseline, only suppositions and hypotheses and guesses and politically-motivated pronouncements that have all the weight of the CO2 gas they attempt to describe.

Aren't you forgetting about core samples taken from glaciers and sediment?  There's is in fact a way to prove what happened thousands of years ago.  The main difference between now and then is, mankind is pumping CO2 into the atmosphere at a much faster rate than what took nature millions of years to do.  Global warming has happened over and over again in the Earth's history.  It's only a matter of time before it happens again.  Mankind is speeding up the process at breakneck speed causing it to happen much sooner rather than later.

[ainamotore]

Perhaps it is a good thing. More CO2 for plants to inhale, more oxygen for them to exhale. Perhaps accellerated reforestation with the surplus CO2 now allegedly scheduled to cause the apocalypse. But good consequences do not suit the political needs of the armageddonists. So let's just imagine bad consequences, key word being imagine, and run with it...

[GuineaPig]

Just as a preface here, typically people have some sort of knowledge on the subject before professing an opinion on it.  Doubly so if it's a scientific topic, because laymen simply don't know enough about it to put forth any constructive arguments.  Right now, it appears that you have very little concept of atmospheric sciences, or any knowledge of the methods and practices of those who study it.  

CO2 is a natural substance produced by millions of natural processes on the planet. Nobody has PROVED that there is more CO2 in the atmosphere than at other times in the distant past, or that it is harmful even if there was. Furthermore, it CANNOT be proved, because no one was around to do the tests as recently as 300 years ago, let alone thousands and tens of thousands of years ago. Therefore, there is no baseline, only suppositions and hypotheses and guesses and politically-motivated pronouncements that have all the weight of the CO2 gas they attempt to describe.

See above, as well as DublAgent's post.  You have no idea about what methods scientists can use to garner information about the Earth's past climate and atmosphere.  Also, this is the same sort of reasoning some creationists use about the age of the Earth.  I hope we're not going in that direction, but it doesn't bode well that that's the sort of argument you trot out.

I'm sure you have faith in the veracity of this statement, because there is sure as hell no proof that there is a shred of truth to it. It is complete and utter speculation. "Warmth caused by greenhouse gases will trigger a number of positive feedbacks". Says who? Predicting global climate change is a science that will not achieve infancy for another century or more. NOBODY knows what will happen with the climate of the planet in the future. NOT NOBODY. NOT NOHOW! Meterology that attempts to be predictive 3 days out is inherently unreliable and also still in its infancy. And you are going to seriously come on this forum and state that climate prediction over a range measured in decades has any chance in hell of being accurate? And that Al Gore and his cavalcade of sycophantic statists should have the right to STOP OUR LIVES because of these flimsy illogical "arguments" that seek to scare the populace into granting political power to mediocrities whose goal is to accumulate naked political power over the economies of the planet? Sorry, NOT HAPPENING.

I suppose I do have faith in this statement, as positive and negative feedbacks are well documented both in the past and the present.  Methane capture, CO2 exchange, ice and albedo, water vapour, and dozens more are all observed instances of feedback that can act in the positive or negative direction depending on what is happening in the atmosphere.  Several of them are being observed currently.  

Lots of people have a pretty good idea about what will happen to the Earth's future climate.  Positive feedbacks such as methane and CO2 release and ice/albedo changes can be modeled relatively easily, as well as current and projected changes in temperature.  Meteorology is not climatology, and the mere fact that you confuse weather and climate shows that you have little background knowledge on the subject.  If you think projecting the temperature for next Monday and projecting the Earth's temperature for a year use similar methods or have similar chances of accuracy, it only underscores your ignorance on this subject.

There is no accuracy and no reliability to any form of global climate prediction. We don't have a hundredth of a percent of the required understanding to even attempt it. However we do have politicians and envirofascists who want power and money. And to them, armageddonistic climate prediction is the perfect vehicle to advance the reach of the state because the populace is too busy and too dumb to understand that no proof of climate change is possible and none was offered. Just a bunch of jargon-heavy suppositions based on ill-defined premises and foggy non-sequitirs passed off as firm conclusions.

I don't know how you qualify either of these statements seeing as how you do not understand meteorology, climatology, or any type of atmosphere-related physics or chemistry.  Nor do you appear well-versed enough in the current peer-reviewed literature to brush aside all of these fields.  

I don't understand why you seem convinced that the notion of climate change is a political one, not a scientific one.  Climatologists have been convinced of the veracity of man made climate change for slightly over three decades now.  Politicians are playing catch up, unfortunately, and yes, many do attempt to make political headway out of it.  That doesn't change the science.  If scientists were in charge of economic/environmental policies, changes would have been made a long time ago.

"HAVE THE POTENTIAL TO ESCALATE WARMING TO THE POINT THAT WE WILL BE HELPLESS TO STOP IT" ??@#*$#*&$

Beautiful. Make it sound like a fusion reaction. Fear mongering junk-science armageddonism designed to motivate the stupid masses to grant political power to the leftist, statist, collectivist, elitist, envirofascists who know how it all works and are ready to stop civilization in its tracks so they can accumulate power and treasure. This is nothing short of intellectual, economic, and philosophical piracy. As disgusting as it is shameful.

Not really beautiful.  Terrifying I would say.  But from what we know from the past, what we've observed in the present, and what we predict for the future, runaway warming is a serious threat.  The commonly accepted figure among scientists is that if global warming exceeds 2 degrees K from the 1900-1990 average, runaway warming may not be stoppable by natural methods.

And now the chickens come home to roost. THAT is what global warming is all about. Using the police power of the state to expropriate private wealth and accumulate political power. It would not be ingenious or even effective if the general population had an ounce of sense. But in an era of increasing stupidity where the population is most concerned with Jersey Shore and what to name a stadium shared by two football teams, it just might work.

Global warming is a scientific issue.  It is not a political issue.  What politicians do with it has nothing to do with the science.  I could see someone writing a similar paragraph about evolution.






I leave you with these queries: Why do you think your own knowledge in this subject area is greater than that of all the scientists who have studied it for years?  Are the origins of your denial scientific, or political?

[ainamotore]

Lots of people have a pretty good idea about what will happen to the Earth's future climate.  Positive feedbacks such as methane and CO2 release and ice/albedo changes can be modeled relatively easily, as well as current and projected changes in temperature.  Meteorology is not climatology, and the mere fact that you confuse weather and climate shows that you have little background knowledge on the subject.  If you think projecting the temperature for next Monday and projecting the Earth's temperature for a year use similar methods or have similar chances of accuracy, it only underscores your ignorance on this subject.

Look at how many times you are forced to be non-specific about your contentions: "Lots of people" - What does that mean? Majority belief equals truth?
Positive feedbacks can be "modelled" "relatively" easily. First of all a model is NOT reality. It is a human construct that can be useful in certain instances, but cannot possibly integrate even a fraction of the dependent variables in reality. What does "relatively" easily mean?

Oh and my favorite - the meterology is not climatology pronouncement. Often used to disconnect the fact that meterology is indeed imprecise and error-prone given our present levels of sophistication in constructing models. So since we need to make climatology ACCURATE so we can use it politically, it is important to divorce it from it's evil twin brother meterology, which cannot predict where Igor will be in 6 days. Sorry my friend, meterology and climatology are separated by the vector of time. They are and will forever be 2 ends of the same book.

And by the way, core samples and radioactive dating and other similar techniques are fabulous inventions, however they do not measure reality. They are approximations, they are subject to interpretation, they are inherently inexact. They suggest conclusions but they do not PROVE them. They are a form of retroactive modelling and suffer from the cardinal Achilles heel of all modelling - incomplete data that needs interpretation by a human. Not to say that we should not model, we should. But modelling is NOT reality.

Most of the rest of your post is elitist gobbledygook and name calling, I won't respond.

However, ALL SCIENTISTS DO NOT AGREE ON GLOBAL WARMING. There is wide dissension and a complete disconnect between reality and poltics. The left leaning envirofascists are very loud and very public. The left leaning media is of course simpatico and provides the forum for dissemination of the propaganda. Opinions to the contrary are simply silenced because it does not advance the collectivist-statist agenda.

However here are useful links for those who want to learn that the issue is completely and utterly undecided:

https://xtronics.com/reference/globalwarming.htm

By the way there are hundreds of links, but this one is relatively concise and easy to understand for those without extensive background in the Earth Sciences. Google "global warming myth" or "global warming truth" or any such verbiage and you will be immersed in sufficient educational links to help you decide the truth of the matter.

And the truth of the matter is this: global warming is a theory, NOT reality. Nobody knows for sure whether 1) temperatures are warming significantly or 2) even if they are, what is causing it or 3) even if they are whether there is anything that can or should be done about it.

And finally it is important to read the proponents of global warming and note the unbelievably frequent use of the terms "IF", "CAN", "COULD", "MAY", etc. It's all speculation and even they can't hide it because they are not sure of their own position, only their politics.

Example: IF trends continue as the data SUGGESTS, the Earth COULD INDEED be headed for the POSSIBILITY of uncontrolled warming that COULD cause food shortages, extinctions, and POSSIBLY the end of life as we know it.

See how it works? It sounds like the end of the world but it's only a completely meaningless pronouncement. Listen people. Learn. Read. Understand. We are being gamed by these nut jobs, and it is your pocketbook they seek to raid because they are not able to resort to simple taxation anymore to "redistribute" wealth and accomplish their real goal: the destruction of freedom.

[William Wallace]

Ainamotore, can you make your points without the fake outrage? There's a good scientific case that global warming won't end life as we know it, but you're not making it.

Meterology that attempts to be predictive 3 days out is inherently unreliable and also still in its infancy.

It's also not the same as climatology. Forecasting climate on an inter-decadal timescale is fundamentally different from forecasting the local weather. The models used for weather forecasting are intended to calculate internal changes in the atmosphere based on observed weather. GCMs used to forecast climate 50 years from now look at external conditions that change in response to alterations in the atmosphere's greenhouse effect. The two sciences, though related, are not the same. Limitations in one don't necessarily reflect limitations in the other. Stop using this argument.

It is complete and utter speculation. "Warmth caused by greenhouse gases will trigger a number of positive feedbacks". Says who?

A lot of smart people who study this for a living. Warming does trigger positive feedbacks; even climatologist skeptical of global warming admit this. The real question is one of magnitude of the warming. See Roy Spencer's article that touches on this subject.
"There are some very intelligent people out there who claim that adding more carbon dioxide to the atmosphere can’t cause warming...it is true that most of the CO2-caused warming in the atmosphere was there before humans ever started burning coal and driving SUVs, this is all taken into account by computerized climate models that predict global warming. Adding more “should” cause warming, with the magnitude of that warming being the real question."

[ainamotore]

It's also not the same as climatology. Forecasting climate on an inter-decadal timescale is fundamentally different from forecasting the local weather. The models used for weather forecasting are intended to calculate internal changes in the atmosphere based on observed weather. GCMs used to forecast climate 50 years from now look at external conditions that change in response to alterations in the atmosphere's greenhouse effect. The two sciences, though related, are not the same. Limitations in one don't necessarily reflect limitations in the other. Stop using this argument.

No, it is a valid argument and I will continue to make it. Climatology and meterology are inextricably intertwined, and experts in one are frequently experts in the other. Both use similar techniques, the most important of which is computer modelling. Of course there are some big differences, but those differences do not negate the similarities of the basic and similar goal: prediction of the future behavior of the atmosphere and weather conditions on the planet. Climate is weather over time, and climatolgy is meteorology over time.

I will re-state that the primary reason that global warming advocates attempt to separate the 2 disciplines is political, not metaphysical. The inability of meteorologists to accurately predict short-term climate (aka weather), CANNOT be allowed to interfere with the political goals of the Green movement. Therefore, climatology must be characterized as a completely separate entity, so that it will not be sullied by the incompetence of meterology. However, the 2 are very connected, with the time vector as the key referent that varies between the two. Both make extensive use of computer modelling as the key tool of prediction, and computer modelling is NOT a reliable and accurate way to predict the future. It is a useful tool, nothing else. Even today's meterologists do not fully believe in these tools, they usually run many different models and supplant them with human judgement to arrive at the compromise position that becomes the official prediction. And despite all this, the result is often wrong. The entire science of modelling remains in its infancy, therefore any science that depends strongly upon modelling is inherently faulty, and CERTAINLY not suitable for formulating political and economic policy. In other words, the results of modelling remains an EDUCATED GUESS, whether it be in climatology, meteorology, astronomy, geology, biology, physics, or what have you.

So the fact is: Global warming is nothing more than an educated guess with an attached agenda, and that's all it will ever be in our lifetime. Therefore NO POLICIES should be made as a result, no restrictions on freedom should be instituted, no carbon credits, no cap and trade, none of it. And for god's sake we should not be allowing every 2-bit 3rd world country to extort our wealth because we are smart enough to embrace freedom and capitalism and they are not.

[William Wallace]

It's also not the same as climatology. Forecasting climate on an inter-decadal timescale is fundamentally different from forecasting the local weather. The models used for weather forecasting are intended to calculate internal changes in the atmosphere based on observed weather. GCMs used to forecast climate 50 years from now look at external conditions that change in response to alterations in the atmosphere's greenhouse effect. The two sciences, though related, are not the same. Limitations in one don't necessarily reflect limitations in the other. Stop using this argument.

No, it is a valid argument and I will continue to make it. Climatology and meterology are inextricably intertwined, and experts in one are frequently experts in the other. Both use similar techniques, the most important of which is computer modelling. Of course there are some big differences, but those differences do not negate the similarities of the basic and similar goal: prediction of the future behavior of the atmosphere and weather conditions on the planet. Climate is weather over time, and climatolgy is meteorology over time.

I will re-state that the primary reason that global warming advocates attempt to separate the 2 disciplines is political, not metaphysical. The inability of meteorologists to accurately predict short-term climate (aka weather), CANNOT be allowed to interfere with the political goals of the Green movement. Therefore, climatology must be characterized as a completely separate entity, so that it will not be sullied by the incompetence of meterology. However, the 2 are very connected, with the time vector as the key referent that varies between the two. Both make extensive use of computer modelling as the key tool of prediction, and computer modelling is NOT a reliable and accurate way to predict the future. It is a useful tool, nothing else. Even today's meterologists do not fully believe in these tools, they usually run many different models and supplant them with human judgement to arrive at the compromise position that becomes the official prediction. And despite all this, the result is often wrong. The entire science of modelling remains in its infancy, therefore any science that depends strongly upon modelling is inherently faulty, and CERTAINLY not suitable for formulating political and economic policy. In other words, the results of modelling remains an EDUCATED GUESS, whether it be in climatology, meteorology, astronomy, geology, biology, physics, or what have you.

You're simply wrong on this point. Yes, modeling is involved in both but the models used in meteorology are designed to respond to different kinds of change in the atmosphere than those used to forecast long term shifts in climate. You continue to downplay the timescale that separates weather and climate, but it's a significant difference; The difference between forecasting local weather ten days into the future and average global temperature 100 years into the future makes the modeling involved, mathematically speaking, entirely different. Any book on climatology will tell you this, even those from a skeptical point of view.  

[ainamotore]

You're simply wrong on this point. Yes, modeling is involved in both but the models used in meteorology are designed to respond to different kinds of change in the atmosphere than those used to forecast long term shifts in climate. You continue to downplay the timescale that separates weather and climate, but it's a significant difference;  The difference between forecasting local weather ten days into the future and average global temperature 100 years into the future makes the modeling involved, mathematically speaking, entirely different. Any book on climatology will tell you this, even those from a skeptical point of view.  

Yes, the modelling may be entirely different, and equally entirely wrong. There is no way anyone can predict global temperatures 100 years into the future. No way. No how. Cannot be done. We do not have a fraction of the necessary sophistication, knowledge, or even computer power to undertake such estimates. It's all complete guesswork right now, and will remain so for the remainder of our lives.

Which is why policy may not be determined when predicated on such flimsy methodologies. Call my great great grandson in 100 years. Maybe things will have improved by then. But not now, not even close.

[William Wallace]

You're simply wrong on this point. Yes, modeling is involved in both but the models used in meteorology are designed to respond to different kinds of change in the atmosphere than those used to forecast long term shifts in climate. You continue to downplay the timescale that separates weather and climate, but it's a significant difference;  The difference between forecasting local weather ten days into the future and average global temperature 100 years into the future makes the modeling involved, mathematically speaking, entirely different. Any book on climatology will tell you this, even those from a skeptical point of view.  

Yes, the modelling may be entirely different, and equally entirely wrong. There is no way anyone can predict global temperatures 100 years into the future. No way. No how. Cannot be done. We do not have a fraction of the necessary sophistication, knowledge, or even computer power to undertake such estimates. It's all complete guesswork right now, and will remain so for the remainder of our lives.

Which is why policy may not be determined when predicated on such flimsy methodologies. Call my great great grandson in 100 years. Maybe things will have improved by then. But not now, not even close.

I don't entirely disagree with you there. There is a lot of uncertainty in the models and I think there are some good reasons to doubt the validity of some assumptions that climate modelers make. But to avoid looking like the guy who learns climate science from Glenn Beck, stop making the comparison to meteorology.