The feeling of delicious revenge is palpable in the Lefty’s world, and this one dwells on the climate-gate debacle with the standard denial that there was any actual evidence contained in the scientists’ emails. The climate-gate emails were laden with evidence, of course; evidence of fraud, cherry picking, discrimination against competing data, data loss and withholding, computer program loss and/or withholding, and so on. But in Lefty land that’s not important; what’s important is to nail the opposition any way possible (Lefty science at work). The opposition is immoral. Here is the apology of the guilty party, who blames his victim for the theft:
”My judgment was blinded by my frustration with the ongoing efforts — often anonymous, well-funded, and coordinated — to attack climate science and scientists and prevent this debate, and by the lack of transparency of the organizations involved. Nevertheless I deeply regret my own actions in this case. I offer my personal apologies to all those affected.”In perspective, attacking your attackers is not just a Tu Quoque, it is totally ineffective as a defense of a failed ideology, especially a failed science. As a scientific procedure, it fails. There is no new knowledge concerning warming which is produced. All that has been accomplished is the demonstration of the Left's fear of losing the scientific moral high ground in the eye of the public. (Too late for that). If the science matched reality, then there might be a discussion possible. But the "science" is not empirical for the most part, and the part which is empirical is either highly questionable, or questionably extrapolated toward a linear march to disaster. The science is speculative and based on presuppositions which many – very many – cannot swallow. When a conclusion is based on pumped up premises, some of which are just false, and the others of which are highly questionable, there is no reason to accept that conclusion. The character of the premises reflects the character of the logic as well as the character of the logician. When the character of both the logic and the promoters of the logic is questioned, the reasoning is no longer credible without serious examination and justification. AGW has not passed this test.
Peter Gleick
Perhaps the fortunes of the AGW true believers will turn around, and the world will heat some more so that they can be exonerated. It doesn’t look likely. As a personal judgment, I hope that they remain wrong for two reasons. First, that would be best for the world’s economy since there would be no incentive to accept disaster threats from AGW ideocrats in order to spread $ trillions from one place to another. Second, I hope the sleazy pseudo-scientists are shown for what they are. Actual science has taken a beating from these buffoons.
19 comments:
"The climate-gate emails were laden with evidence, of course; evidence of fraud, cherry picking, discrimination against competing data, data loss and withholding, computer program loss and/or withholding, and so on."
Here I was thinking everything had a explanation and the scientists were exonerated by various different committees.
I bite. Where's all these evidence?
and
"and the world will heat some more so that they can be exonerated."
Wait. Are you acknowledging that the average temperature of Earth's atmosphere and oceans started to increase starting the late 19th century?
If so, what's your problem?
The mommy committees did exonerate these guys with no explanation. Yet the emails speak for themselves. There are entire books on it.
And sure I acknowledge that the earth has been warming since the ice age for that matter. Does warming since the 19th century prove to you that man-made CO2diddit? The credulity in "science" by skeptics of everything else is an amazing thing to watch. "Science" which supports Leftist redistributionism and which is accepted without any critical thought whatsoever by those who crave to mess with other people's lives is a very dangerous thing. It is reminiscent of the "science" which supported the eugenics of ten decades ago (and still lives in the Leftist heart via abortion). Science is not represented by these interlopers. They have desecrated a valuable source of knowledge. That's my problem. What's your problem?
It's funny how much stuff I can write with little response; but to say something heretical about AGW always draws out the protests. One may NOT address sacrilege to the sacred. Yeah, that's my problem.
I can't help but have the feeling that your objection is political not scientific.
As a career engineer I object to the antics of the people who call themselves scientists, but purposefully pre-select data which fulfills their desired results, while rejecting comparable (and more prevalent) contrary data.
I object to the sequestering of data and computer runs so that it is not available for examination.
I object to the "loss" of the computer program which produced the "environmental disaster" original prognostication.
I object to the pressure on publishers to use peer review to exclude other authors/researchers from publication.
I object to the investigation of a single contribution to the overall effect because it is "man made", while ignoring or downplaying other contributions (e.g. solar input variability; oceanic turnover; on and on).
I object to the use of data from devices known to be in faulty condition/location.
I object to single point measurements that are extrapolated for entire geographies.
I object to forecasts based on computer runs which do not incorporate known effects because the effects are too complicated to model (e.g. cloud reflectivity changes with projected heating).
I object because the simple universal reflectivity equations (which I ran myself) show that there is an inflection point where energy is kept out of the atmosphere at a greater rate than it is allowed in (self-regulation); the effect is not linear, it is hyperbolic.
The list of functional science deviations goes on and on, and that does not include the IPCC frauds.
Any engineer caught doing these things, even any single one of these things, would never work as an engineer again. That is because these offenses are irresponsible, irrational, and anti-scientific at best. At worst, they are politically evil.
To add the political and economic activism to these offenses makes these people world-criminals who, like all political activists, are protected by the parent political agents which enable them (and then investigate them, wink, wink).
These people continue to suckle at the public teat.
I object to that.
I object to the sequestering of data and computer runs so that it is not available for examination.
The vast majority of it is available. The amount of data that is not available is so because it is bound up in third party copyright and non-disclosure contracts, and in that regard is not an order of magnitude different from any other science.
Realclimate has compiled a convenient page with links to raw climate data, model output, model source code, and so on. The idea that the climate scientists do not release their data is just spin from the Right.
I object to the pressure on publishers to use peer review to exclude other authors/researchers from publication.
The Working Group II and III of the IPCC use plenty of non-peer reviewed resources. There is no pressure to use only peer review, but as far as the physical science goes, the papers are published in peer-reviewed journals. There is no overarching desire to maintain the status quo and use peer review to do so. Overturning a scientific paradigm would be a HUGE benefit to a journal, so they do not keep opposing science out. Witness, for example Michael Mann's work on natural climate cycles that he says are playing a role in modern warming. Or witness Roy Spencer or Richard Lindzen. None of these guys have any problems publishing anti-AGW stuff in peer-reviewed literature because their methods are sound.
I object to the investigation of a single contribution to the overall effect because it is "man made", while ignoring or downplaying other contributions (e.g. solar input variability; oceanic turnover; on and on).
There is absolutely no such lack, except as spun by the Rightwing blogosphere. The IPCC collates the research, and this includes examination of solar activity, water vapor, ocean currents, and so on. Example. The current greenhouse effect is measurable; they can observe it actually happening right now. Outgoing longwave radiation is lacking in the wavelengths associated with CO2 absorption. In addition:
1. CO2 continues to rise
2. Solar activity has been on a downward trend since 1980
3. And Pacidic Decadal Oscillation has been on a slight downward trend since 1980
Take all of those together: CO2 rising, solar activity decreasing, PDO decreasing, and the knowledge that CO2 absorbs outgoing longwave radiation, and you have the recipe for an increase in global temperatures. Whether or not the effect has show up yet or not.
I object to the use of data from devices known to be in faulty condition/location.
Excep that this has been studied and studied and studied, and even Anthony Watts report showed no difference between poorly sited and well sited stations. It was examined preliminarily by NOAA, but then again by Menne, and in fact Menne did find a bias but it was in fact the other way around. The bias of the surface stations were in fact on the cool side.
Couple this with the fact that Roy Spencer's satellites basically show the same thing as land stations.
Again, more spin from the Right. Does not match up with reality.
The same goes for most of the other points as well. Just like with the Left, politics takes precedence over reality. Politics destroys the ability to reason properly.
Out of thousands of emails, a handful of statements were selected, that out of context could be seen as controversial.
Six independent investigations exonerated the scientists.
No science had been falsified, manipulated, exaggerated or fudged.
http://www.factcheck.org/2009/12/climategate/
http://darryl-cunningham.blogspot.com/search?q=global+warming
Does warming since the 19th century prove to you that man-made CO2diddit?
Evidence that rising CO2 levels are anthropogenic:
http://www.bgc-jena.mpg.de/service/iso_gas_lab/publications/PG_WB_IJMS.pdf
Temperature rise directly correlates with CO2 ppm in the atmosphere.
http://www.eumetsat.int/Home/Main/Publications/Conference_and_Workshop_Proceedings/groups/cps/documents/document/pdf_conf_p50_s9_01_harries_v.pdf
It's funny how much stuff I can write with little response; but to say something heretical about AGW always draws out the protests.
Probably because the evidence for AGW is overwhelming and the objections to it are easily refuted (not that you'll ever change your mind as you are obviously ideologically motivated, however it pains me to think people actually listen to ... people ... like you and I think they deserve to see the facts).
Additionally, ignorance of AGW has a very real effect on our future. Contrary to, for instance, philosophical debate on the nature of Free Will which is essentially just mental masturbation.
These people continue to suckle at the public teat.
"Estimates of the value of U.S. federal subsidies to the domestic oil and gas industry alone (not coal) range from “only” $4 billion a year, to an amazing $41 billion annually. "
http://priceofoil.org/fossil-fuel-subsidies/
Who's sucking on what now?
These are not sacred cows to some leftist ideology. These are tangible, evidence based opinions.
Please note that the above links barely scratch the surface of evidence for AGW.
Oh, but you ran the numbers yourself? Well then, we probably don't need to worry.
Scientific opinion on climate change is that the Earth's climate system is unequivocally warming and it is more than 90% certain that humans are causing it.
Lastly, there is evidence that the strongest scientific skeptics of AGW are heavily funded by oil companies.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/jun/28/climate-change-sceptic-willie-soon
I guess the other 90% are all funded by the windmill companies eh?
Motivated said,
"Out of thousands of emails, a handful of statements were selected, that out of context could be seen as controversial."
No, they were damning.
"Six independent investigations exonerated the scientists."
From my perspective, admittedly from a distance, they were investigated by mommy groups who had the same ax to grind: political.
"No science had been falsified, manipulated, exaggerated or fudged."
The discarding of certain tree ring data in favor of other, more congenial data, is data fraud; are you saying that it didn't happen? As I recall there were admissions that it did, followed by denials.
"Does warming since the 19th century prove to you that man-made CO2diddit?
Evidence that rising CO2 levels are anthropogenic:"
Not answering the actual question: is the co-existence of a rise in CO2 acceptable as the... the once and always cause of GW? There is no other contribution whatsoever? This negation is proved, how?
Let's look at this one claim, that temperature follows CO2:
"Temperature rise directly correlates with CO2 ppm in the atmosphere. "
"http://www.eumetsat.int/Home/Main/Publications/Conference_and_Workshop_Proceedings/groups/cps/documents/document/pdf_conf_p50_s9_01_harries_v.pdf"
This particular document seems to show not what you suggest, but an actual spectral decrease in the overall contribution of CO2. Most of the rise in Differential Brightness Temperature is outside of the CO2 boundary shown in the graph. In fact, there is more contribution from O3 and from the undesignated interstitial bands than from CO2.
So from 1970 to 2006, the contribution to Differential Brightness Temperature from CO2, when integrated across the band shown, is roughly zero to slightly negative.
The claim made above is false. The data is not even intended to show that, it shows the change (Differential) in spectral Brightness Temperature between 1970 and 2006, not the integrated temperature of the earth vs. contribution of CO2.
This is the kind of stuff that always comes up when examining the minutae in the details, or so it seems every time I look into them. The claims don't match the data. The claimant doesn't even understand the meaning of the data.
The Himalayan glaciers are not melting into oblivion; the polar bears are not going into extinction by drowning; the sea level is not rising significantly; the global temperature has ceased rising.
I admit fully to not following AGW details anymore. So maybe there is more to it under recent discoveries. I rather doubt it, but this set of graphs does nothing to help the case. If anything it points the finger up-spectrum from CO2 and down spectrum from CH4 (incidentally, they had to explain away the discrepancy in the CH4 actuals vs the simulation; they blamed the data, not the simulation, of course.
This is the type of crap that I really object to.
Stan,
The discarding of certain tree ring data in favor of other, more congenial data, is data fraud; are you saying that it didn't happen?
SOME tree rings, mostly in the Northern latitudes, do not track accurately with instrumental temperature records. They follow the temperature records since record keeping began in the 19th Century, and then diverge and move sharply downward in the 1960s and onward. They do not know why. This has been discusssed in the scientific literature since the 90s. It was even explained in the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report:
"...they do not emulate the general warming trend evident in instrumental temperature records over recent decades, although they do track the warming that occurred during the early part of the 20th century and they continue to maintain a good correlation with observed temperatures over the full instrumental period at the interannual time scale (Briffa et al., 2004; D’Arrigo, 2006)."
And then they go on to describe how Briffa et al left off this data, as it is considered to be errant:
"In their large-scale reconstructions based on tree ring density data, Briffa et al. (2001) specifically excluded the post-1960 data in their calibration against instrumental records, to avoid biasing the estimation of the earlier reconstructions (hence they are not shown in Figure 6.10), implicitly assuming that the ‘divergence’ was a uniquely recent phenomenon..."
And then went on to suggest that this may indicate inaccuracies for tree rings in general, if they can diverge from temperature like that, but that there is disagreement as to what it means exactly:
"Others, however, argue for a breakdown in the assumed linear tree growth response to continued warming, invoking a possible threshold exceedance beyond which moisture stress now limits further growth (D’Arrigo et al., 2004). If true, this would imply a similar limit on the potential to reconstruct possible warm periods in earlier times at such sites."
This is only being spun as a fraud by the Right. There is no fraud. Just disagreement about SOME tree rings and what they mean, and it's all in public. And tree rings play a very minor role in the science of global warming. More as an observation, than the central theory. The central theory involves:
1. Rising CO2
2. CO2 of the isotope from fossil fuels
3. CO2 absorption of outgoing long wave radiation
4. Quiet sun
5. Quiet ocean
All else being equal, temperatures should eventually rise. Most of that goes into the oceans, and the atmosphere, being a tiny part of the climate system, can show short term (read: decades) variability.
Not answering the actual question: is the co-existence of a rise in CO2 acceptable as the... the once and always cause of GW? There is no other contribution whatsoever? This negation is proved, how?
No one has argued such a thing. The IPCC reports all list the contributions from many different forcings.
It's just that CO2 forcing (as measured by satellites) is at 1.66 Wm2 right now, and solar forcing is at 0.12 Wm2. NOte too the presence of large error bars. The IPCC recognizes the large amount of uncertainty.
"No, they were damning."
The six independent bodies disagree. SIX. INDEPENDENT. I've seen the "damning" quotes in context and the explanations of terms used. To extrapolate the quotes into some sort of conspiracy is laughable. You admit you haven't looked closely. That much I think is obvious ... Who needs facts right.
The discarding of certain tree ring data in favor of other, more congenial data, is data fraud; are you saying that it didn't happen?
The "tree ring data" was discarded because they had actual temperature records. So the "trick" or "handy tool" was discarded. Again, it is obvious you haven't taken an objective look at the facts. You know Fox News is entertainment, not actual "news", right?
is the co-existence of a rise in CO2 acceptable as the... the once and always cause of GW? There is no other contribution whatsoever?
This is a red herring. No one claimed that human activity is the sole cause of climate shift. Your ideology is showing.
This particular document seems to show not what you suggest
Yes it does.
Changing spectral signatures in CH4, CO2, and H2O are observed, with the difference signal in the CO2 matching well between observations and modelled spectra.
In other words, the observations match the hypothesis. The spectral brightness temperature IS effectively the temperature of the earth. You are dismissing the data without understanding it. Not that I am surprised.
The Himalayan glaciers are not melting into oblivion;
http://www.livescience.com/674-glaciers-disappear-photos.html
the polar bears are not going into extinction
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/09/070910-polar-bears.html
the sea level is not rising significantly;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Current_sea_level_rise
the global temperature has ceased rising.
http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/detect/global-temps.shtml
"Global surface temperatures in 2010 tied 2005 as the warmest on record, according to the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) analysis of surface air temperature measurements. The next warmest years are 1998, 2002, 2003, 2006, 2007 and 2009, which are statistically tied for third warmest year. The GISS records begin in 1880."
Arguing with conspiracy theorists is a little like playing wack a mole. I can keep smacking your claims down, but you'll have another dozen popping up in no time.
Regardless, my only concern is to expose anyone else who may be reading this to actually look at the facts themselves, and not take some bloggers word for it.
Because "he ran the numbers himself"...
That's the type of crap that I really object to.
Also, I just noticed Martin's post and would like to say it is very well stated.
Did anyone catch this part of the Heartland Institute's press release?
"The individuals who have commented so far on these documents...
We believe their actions constitute civil and possibly criminal offenses for which we plan to pursue charges and collect payment for damages, including damages to our reputation. We ask them in particular to immediately remove these documents and all statements about them from the blogs, Web sites, and publications, and to publish retractions."
They must be dreaming. First Amendment will take precedence here, as it did in ClimateGate; news is news. It's the old Hegel dialectic: ask for way too much (antithesis), then settle in the compromise position (synthesis): repeat until you get it all.
In this case, it's an empty threat.
JC,
Here's your comment:
"Changing spectral signatures in CH4, CO2, and H2O are observed, with the difference signal in the CO2 matching well between observations and modelled spectra.
In other words, the observations match the hypothesis. The spectral brightness temperature IS effectively the temperature of the earth. You are dismissing the data without understanding it. Not that I am surprised."
First off, that statement only refers to confirmation of a computer model with satellite data. SHEESH. Your presumption is not even in the right ballpark. The entire paper is about confirming a computer simulation, nothing else.
No, I assert that it is your claim which is the one that is wrong, not theirs. Maybe I didn't make that clear. Your claim is this:
""Temperature rise directly correlates with CO2 ppm in the atmosphere. "
There is no mention of CO2 ppm in this document. There is no attempt to correlate CO2 ppm with filtering/absorption/reflection of radiation in this band. So that assertion is totally without merit.
Figure 3 shows nothing of the sort which you claim. It specifically shows that black body radiation leaving the earth and passing through the atmosphere which is then measured in space via satellites, has changed very little in the measured region, going from -1 degK through zero degK to about +0.5 degK over the band, after a conversion from radiation values to black body values using a specified conversion factor. The applicability of the conversion factor to the exact slope of the earth's black body curve at the relevant wavelenth is not known.
The region shown as "CO2" is not even congruent with the actual CO2 absorption band, which is centered off-scale, at 6.7 and is essentially over by 7.1. But that is of no consequence, because the CO2 contribution to AGW is not the point of this paper!
All that this paper shows is that their simulation matches with an average of 0.5 degK error, except where it doesn't (!) Where it doesn't, they blame the error on the data.
But again it doesn't matter to your statement, because it is not about anything other than matching a simulation to data.
"
Because "he ran the numbers himself"...
That's the type of crap that I really object to."
Of course you do; it is an analysis which you can't deny, so you deprecate it.
Your amazing arrogance seems to overreach your abilities.
This is exactly why I have left AGW behind. The true believers mistake their arrogance for thinking. There is no room in their world for any dissent; dissent is dangerous to their worldview (except when they are the dissenters).
I do agree with one thing you said, JC. No one should take anyone else's word for anything. Analyze it yourself, or remain agnostic. As I've shown here, it doesn't take much work to take down a false assertion. When you do see how much false stuff is running around as "science", you might want to give it a rest also. It's a time waster.
Oh, and yes, this must be a right wing screed, because the argument disagrees with True Belief.
Martin,
Your comment shows exactly what I mean. They discarded data. The reason that they did it was because it didn’t match their presupposed expectations: The data did not show the warming they wanted, so they junked the data. Spin it if you want: that is what they did.
There was a famous engineer in the 70’s who made this statement: “when your circuit acts a little funny, record the amount of funny”.
That is the difference in attitudes between objectivity and ideological rationalization.
”And then went on to suggest that this may indicate inaccuracies for tree rings in general, if they can diverge from temperature like that, but that there is disagreement as to what it means exactly:’
Blaming the data.
”"Others, however, argue for a breakdown in the assumed linear tree growth response to continued warming, invoking a possible threshold exceedance beyond which moisture stress now limits further growth (D’Arrigo et al., 2004). If true, this would imply a similar limit on the potential to reconstruct possible warm periods in earlier times at such sites."
Blatant rationalization; creating Just So Stories as necessary to eliminate inconvenient input to the hypothesis. Also Poisoning the Well: the Chinese 2485 year tree ring data is now poisoned de facto by ad hoc rationalization by ideologists, which will serve to cut out all inconvenient data of a certain category.
This is intellectual fraud and hypocrisy. I stand by that statement.
”It's just that CO2 forcing (as measured by satellites) is at 1.66 Wm2 right now, and solar forcing is at 0.12 Wm2. NOte too the presence of large error bars. The IPCC recognizes the large amount of uncertainty.”
Sure, I know the IPCC has simplified numbers it presents. That data is processed through a lot of assumptions, starting with conversion calculations at the satellite data level. It’s hard to be very impressed with that. The IPCC has serious trust issues attached; but I don’t really care enough to spend much time either verifying or falsifying anything. What I think about it has zero affect, other than to attract doughty defenders to show me the true path. That’s just a waste of time, so I give in: AGW will definitely kill us all unless we give up everything to fight it now: back to the caves, people… learn how to chip arrowheads and make a decent club from roots, not branches.
Here's your comment:" ,etc...
You are actually responding to someone else's comment.
"AGW will definitely kill us all unless we give up everything to fight it now: back to the caves, people… "
No need. In a way, AGW is a self-correcting problem. You only really have to do anything if you care about your children or humanity.
"No one should take anyone else's word for anything. Analyze it yourself, or remain agnostic."
Sounds good in principle but completely impossible in practise. You are not agnostic and I don't think you or I have the expertise to examine the issue. You can't be an expert in everything. I can't spend ten years going to college and learning climate science. I know you have worked as an engineer but the climate-scientists who you describe as "sleazy" "world-criminals" probably know more about the climate than us. It's great that you "run the numbers" but chances are that 90% of scientists are correct and you don't actually understand fully what the numbers are and what else can effect them.
Is this really what you are claiming? Really?
Stan,
They discarded data. The reason that they did it was because it didn’t match their presupposed expectations: The data did not show the warming they wanted, so they junked the data.
Some tree rings stop tracking actual temperatures after 1960. Compare satellites and thermometers with SOME high latitude tree rings, and the tree rings follow along closely until 1960 or so, and then diverge.
They diverge from temperatures as actually recorded by instruments. They didn't discard data that didn't show the warming they wanted. They discarded data that no longer matched with actual recorded temperatures.
It doesn't make any sense to say that they discarded the temperatures that didn't show enough warming; the tree rings (again, SOME of them) don't track temperatures at all anymore after 1960. They are errant data.
So the worst you can say is that perhaps tree rings aren't good indicators of temperature, and therefore should not be used to construct paleo climate reconstructions.
"It's great that you "run the numbers" but chances are that 90% of scientists are correct and you don't actually understand fully what the numbers are and what else can effect them."
Chances are even better that you have no idea what I did, or know. And chances are nearly perfect that your ideology matches up with the opinion of the IPCC, since you immediately charged what I think to be right wing, and defended yourself with a totally bogus interpretation of a paper on model correlation. Fact is that I have never, ever, not once seen a FOX News broadcast, not having cable or satellite, nor hanging with those who do. Nor do I regularly read any right wing blogs or websites. I do read left wing philosophy and Atheist sites regularly. (Why am I defending myself to you, who makes charges based on your total ignorance).
Geez I keep trying to quit this thread. Oh well.
JC,
re: your graph:
The conspiracy theory that the right wing is out to stop science is yours, not mine...
I forgot to mention that.
Martin,
I already conceded, then I got sucked back in, and now I concede again, and I'm digging our new home in that cliff down by the river... but high enough up so that when the sea level rises by 1243 feet we'll just have beachfront property. At 1256 feet, though, we'll have to devolve our lungs back to gills. No problem there, I found this website, "Evolution for Emergencies: How to Adapt to Any Environment Using only your DNA, a shovel and an AK47"...
I remember back in the '70's when Global Cooling was the big deal, and California was going to fall off into the ocean at any moment. I was skeptical then, and I'm skeptical now. Back then it wasn't called conspiratorial to be skeptical, because the Left hadn't yet taken on the environment as a sacred sacrament for demonstrating their personal holiness. We were all just conservationists back in the day. Living in Arizona back then, I went out with the Desert Bighorn Sheep Society, and we put up anti-burro fences around the natural water catchments in the desert. Feral burros would defecate in the water holes, and the Bighorn Sheep and deer, etc would have to do without. No one made a moral issue out of it. People just went ahead and did that kind of thing without first picketing the court house to get news coverage. Those days are long gone.
Stan,
I remember back in the '70's when Global Cooling was the big deal...
But it was only a big deal in the media. The media love a good hook, and anything that sounds dramatic. But a close look at the actual science at the time reveals pretty much the opposite picture. Most published scientific research in atmospheric science was either that we don't know enough yet, or that CO2 was going to dominate and cause warming. Somebody actually took the time to quantify this.
Similar goes for your mocking of sea level rise. It isn't the "Left". It's the media. The media distorts everything.
All that matters (in this type of scenario, anyway), is what the best science tells us. And that tells us that there is an enhanced greenhouse effect in place right now, directly measurable by satellites. That that greenhouse effect is absorbing outgoing longwave radiation in wavelengths associated with CO2 absorption. That the Earth was much much warmer in the past, due to the greenhouse effect, and that the CO2 responsible for that effect was slowly absorbed by the ecosphere and placed into the ground. Now we are digging it up out of the ground and putting it back into the climate system. So warming is inevitable, whether we can see the effect yet or not.
Some good things will happen, some bad things will happen, but the primary concern is the shifting of large numbers of populations when water and food sustainability shifts from one region to another, leading to strains on GDPs and economies.
Post a Comment