An Internet hub with domestic and international news, analysis, original reporting, and popular features from the left, center, indies, centrists, moderates, and right
Global Warming Skeptics Confirm Temperature Rise
Here’s another study — this one conducted by global warming skeptics — that global warming skeptics will try to ignore and discredit (who cares if those who agree with them conducted the study? Who cares if the Koch brothers money was involved in funding it? Our politics is now all around making assertions and cherry picking). From Newsy:
23 Responses to “Global Warming Skeptics Confirm Temperature Rise”
Well who’d a thunk? Duh indeed.
The study confirmed global warming but did not not address man’s possible contributions to it, which is the sticking point for most skeptics these days.
It’s not just mans contributions to it but how much can be attributed to man and what affect, if any, will some of the actions, which we are being told are vital to our survival, have on the temp in some direct manor.
What is causing it? Amazingly these politically conservative naysayer’s hold out for the last scrap of evidence to protect their claims against ecological legislation. A fool’s gambit in my opinion. Absolutely stupid. This stubborn stupidity serves absolutely no purpose except as a political talking/negotiating point. A point that is rapidly fading away. Then what will they do? Well they will do as they have always done, accept liberal conclusions years and decades after publication…..thick headed as they are.
Certain people want to squash man’s contribution to global warming because they are incapable of taking personal responsibility for anything. They are a “blame others” crowd. The housing crisis? “The buyers’ problem”. The jobs crisis? “The unemployed’s problem”. Government failure? “The other party’s problem”.
The inability to take personal responsibility for problems is a sign of mental illness.
There are certainly many people who don’t believe in AGW for partisan reasons, Rush told them so, etc. That is different than maintaining a healthy skepticism about it.
“healthy skepticism” looks closely (closer than most) at the available information presented by scientists in the specific field of concern (and their national and international organizations) and make adjustments to their skepticism.
“unhealthy skepticism” finds misinformation presented by “scientists-for-hire” bought by the industries most likely to be adversely affected when AGW is finally acknowledged as fact and acted upon. They accept it as fact because they don’t like the the “type” of people who have made a major issue out of AGW (and they tend to like the role of sycophant for anyone they perceive to be powerful)… Facts be damned.
The closest parallel to AGW denial is the tobacco industries 50+ (150?) year program of misinformation regarding the danger of smoking and tobacco smoke.
Industries that contribute most to AGW know that once the general public accepted the “FACT” that tobacco is hazardous to your health, tobacco industry profits (and liabilities) took a radical change for the worst. They, the AGW creators, are simply trying (and lying) as hard as they can to hold off that day for their interests though they know it’s coming.
The difference lies in the fact that the defenders of the tobacco industry had an excuse… They were addicted to the product!
What possible excuse do the defenders of those destroying the planet have?
This is nothing mew, exciting, or amazing. This study has existed for months, and Muller’s maturity and realism as well as expertise about “climate change,” extending to what is serious about government and society’s policy implications, all are no surprise or new, either, to educated adults, which typically are “skeptics,” which means they are not fooled and are no fans of activist liberal corruption of science as well as numerous other things. In fact, they oppose the corruption of everything as well as not joining the equivalent of not only a left-political religion, but at times a destructive and potentially harmful as well as often ridiculous cult. (Gore-Hansen 2012 or 2016? Adults shudder.)
The silly left-politics preoccupy all here, given the problem they are. Why hasn’t someone before now said here that an obvious implication of findings to date are that we should be concerned about the problems with weather (not limited to temperature; did people here miss that, too?) that is recorded. It applies to all used of the data. Don’t you (also) want the data to be good, better than when it’s found to be bad?
No, many want instead to be led by the left-activists and other followers, to be alarmist and sensational without foundation, and pursue left-activist agenda and policy measures sought in large part for decades
Rational people are skeptical, critical, and more (negative) about this long and now “deep” cult-fad (and their attacks on the rational).
Let’s hope there is an effort to improve the data as well as mot see the left abuse as well as likely misinterpret it as usual these days.
[...] Change Deniers Abandon 'Befuddled Warmist' Physicist Who Came Around …TPMDCGlobal Warming Skeptics Confirm Temperature RiseThe Moderate VoiceDVICE -Christian Science Monitor -Registerall 135 news [...]
AWG has been science since 1824. Anyone who denies it is a science denier.
I am so happy the Americans continue to deny global warming. It makes my day. Thank you.
[...] Change Deniers Abandon 'Befuddled Warmist' Physicist Who Came Around …TPMDCThe Moderate Voice -DVICE -Christian Science Monitorall 139 news [...]
Ron nailed it. At this late juncture, anti-AGW is in fact anti-science. Ignorance is forgivable, but willful ignorance is not. People are loathe to let go of their pet biases and that’s a fact. Maybe those biases are fear based, but as we all know, danger doesn’t go away just because we choose to ignore it.
There is actually a sizeable amount of people that think the world is only 6,000 years old and ancient man used to kick it with dinosaurs. It is no surprise there are people that refuse to accept the world is warming even though scientists around the world can easily document the melting of glaciers, polar ice, and increase in extreme weather that are all clear evidence of it. There is just a certain mindset that refuses to abandon the things learned early no matter what the evidence against it is.
These two groups have a lot of demographic overlap.
The question about what part in recent global warming is due to man’s carbon burning is a curious one to me. If only a portion of increase in warming is due to man made CO2 it actually means that we must make more severe reductions in carbon emissions to march the warming back. As an example, if only one half of the warming is due to man’s efforts and one half due to the deniers’s favorite undiscovered reason, presumably a supernatural one since no one has been able to suggest a natural one that hasn’t already been eliminated, then the reduction in man’s carbon emission will have to be double what it would have to be than if the entire extra warming was due to man’s carbon emissions.
If you truly believed that ghosts or the gods or other magic were causing a portion of the warming you would be pushing for more severe measures to be taken, not less. You would be calling for quicker action, not advising slower.
But if this wasn’t enough to assure you that at best the deniers are displaying their ignorance and at worse are lying, consider that there is no possible excuse in the man made ‘carbon emission may not be the only reason for the warming’ idea that would justify not taking steps to improve our national energy efficiency; cars, appliances, buildings, light bulbs, etc. These are steps that will save us money and reduce the geopolitical pressures to maintain our oil imports. Pressures which have lead us to do such silly things such as starting wars.
Ad hominem attacks like the ones from JSpencer and slamfu have no bearing on the scientific validity of AGW one way or the other. As I said earlier there are many people who reflexively don’t believe in AGW on partisan grounds. That doesn’t mean the studies on AGW are any more or less credible, the studies and the data are what they are. To claim otherwise is truly anti-science. You can’t claim “because those people over there are dumb, my scientific theory is true”.
Other than ignorance (not being exposed to the mountains of studies accepted by ALL the major scientific organizations**) or “reflexively don’t believe on partisan grounds” there aren’t many categories (any?) other than “stupid” or “playing the devils advocate” left open.
** American Association for the Advancement of Science, US National Academy of Sciences; American Meteorological Society; etc. etc.
97–98% of the most published climate researchers think humans are causing global warming. Another study found just under 90% of active scientists think significant man made global warming is occurring. Of those who didn’t, most were unsure.
Link to graphic above and accompanying article: Scientific opinion on climate change
No cost bonus: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8YWqeZkcNTc&feature=related
“Ad hominem attacks like the ones from JSpencer and slamfu have no bearing on the scientific validity of AGW one way or the other.”
“Ad hominem attacks”?????? Surely you jest. I attacked nobody. Good grief…
[...] The Moderate Voice [...]
so the earth is warming…
we don’t know whom to blame…
as if it really matters…
the earth will be reborn again. (just without us around)
We’re pretty much certain to be here when the next ice age begins. In the meantime, if there is significant warming that continues or even increases, we’ll deal with it without too much problem, in fact, something the sensationalists ignore or try to lie about in various creative ways. In no way is this situation (never meriting the sensationalist and stupid term “crisis”) any excuse for insisting on the kinds of left-political goals and objectives largely sought since the mid-1960s or so (notably with energy policy, a big deal among the global warming faithful, notably among the worst zealots).
Solar and wind power have been worshipped for decades, but still don’t and won’t substitute for coal and nuclear power for creating electricity. (Ironically, where the others have a chance of small success, they have opponents among the left, and it’s likely that any decent-scale success will involve the same large Evil Corporations that the left bashes incessently — more irony, still.)
Show us something that’s no more costly or better, cheaper, and that has the same amount of energy available in them, just as conveniently, or better, more and more so, than petroleum fuels for transportation, or you’re not serious about “alternatives” today.