Quote:

---

calculate how much heat so many extra gigatons of carbon dioxide will absorb, and show me (relative to other heat sources) that the amount is trivial and we will actually be having a discussion

---

Quote:

---

Also, while we have good atmospheric measurements of other key greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide and methane, we have poor measurements of global water vapor, so it is not certain by how much atmospheric concentrations have risen in recent decades or centuries, though satellite measurements, combined with balloon data and some in-situ ground measurements indicate generally positive trends in global water vapor.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/gases.html

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Here's a shortcut:

---

Quote:

---

The other thing is that, whether I actual accept the climate change theory or not, ANYTHING that will encourage mankind to pollute less is good as far as I'm concerned, so if widespread acceptance of climate change scares people enough or forces people to lessen pollution, fine with me.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Niki2:
One is that, climate change or no, we ARE impacting the planet in a negative way, and that has increased and will increase to a point where te planet will become uninhabitable, whether by climate change or otherwise.

---

Quote:

---

The other thing is that, whether I actual accept the climate change theory or not, ANYTHING that will encourage mankind to pollute less is good as far as I'm concerned, so if widespread acceptance of climate change scares people enough or forces people to lessen pollution, fine with me.

---

Quote:

---

if both are impacted by widespread belief in climate change, what exactly is wrong with that?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by dreamtrove:
But this is such a hot topic (pardon the pun) that I'm sure all these studies have already been done. If you have access to a university, you can get them to help.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by TheHappyTrader:
I used the think like that, but now I'm more concerned that the narrow focus on the Co2 non-issue is blinding us to the real dangers of destroying forest and eco-systems that are there to balance the Co2 equation, amongst other things.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Niki2:
But you seem to be arguing that people have a right to contribute to pollution or climage change if they don't believe in either one.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by canttakesky:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by TheHappyTrader:
I used the think like that, but now I'm more concerned that the narrow focus on the Co2 non-issue is blinding us to the real dangers of destroying forest and eco-systems that are there to balance the Co2 equation, amongst other things.

---

In term of greenhouse gases, water vapor is the only one that really matters. Maybe CO2 causes more water vapor in the atmosphere, maybe not.

But there are so many more significant problems caused by fossil fuels, whenever I feel like being entertained by a possible conspiracy, I can't help thinking of CO2 as a red herring.

Oil spill anyone?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Perhaps we need to devote our efforts more towards actual solutions to actual problems than towards disproving the non-problem of co2 emissions. ...Maybe some separate threads.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
So apparently you're not convinced by "evidence", because the evidence is already here.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by canttakesky:
If it is already there, I haven't seen it. I have begged in previous threads for smarter people to humor me and help me find it. But no one ever helped.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by canttakesky:
1. Evidence that the planet's surface temperature is significantly warming on the average: a) A mean global surface temperature, calculated from raw readings and calculated with a standard deviation, and b) an increase in the mean over any period of time that is larger than the standard deviation.

2. Evidence that the planet's CO2 has increased significantly without using proxies: a) A mean CO2 concentration calculated from raw readings and calculated with a standard deviation, b) an increase in the mean over any period of time that is larger than the standard deviation.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by mal4prez:
It never helped because you refuse to look at it.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by dreamtrove:
I propose "Environmental conservation outside of greenhouse gasses"

---

Quote:

---

I propose "Environmental conservation outside of greenhouse gasses"-DT

Beautiful. Let's do it._CTS

---

Quote:

---

Conspiracy (noun): a secret plan by a group to do something unlawful or harmful.

If you believe that tens of thousands of scientists are colluding in a massive conspiracy, nothing anyone can say is likely to dissuade you. But there are less extreme versions of this argument.

One is that climate scientists foster alarmism about global warming to boost their funding. Another is that climate scientists' dependence on government funding ensures they toe the official line (pdf).

It has taken more than a century to reach the current scientific consensus on climate change (see Many leading scientists question the idea of human-induced climate change). It has come about through a steadily growing body of evidence from many different sources, and the process has hardly been secret.

Now that there is a consensus, those whose findings challenge the orthodoxy are always going have a tougher time convincing their peers, as in any field of science. For this reason, there will inevitably be pressure on scientists who challenge the consensus. But findings or ideas that clash with the idea of human-induced global warming have not been suppressed or ignored - far from it.
Cosmic rays

In fact, many of the better arguments seized upon by sceptics have been based on contradictory findings published in prominent journals, from the apparent cooling of the lower atmosphere (see The lower atmosphere is cooling, not warming) to the apparent cooling of the oceans (see The oceans are cooling).

Millions will be spent testing whether cosmic rays can form cloud condensation nuclei, even though some regard this as a waste of money (see Cosmic rays are causing climate change).

As for funding, the US spends billions of dollars on climate science and this increased by 55% from 1994 to 2004. However, an increasing portion of this is spent on mitigation technology rather than pure research. Climate scientists point out that if they were after a bigger chunk of that money, their best bet would be to stress the uncertainties of climate change and call for more research, rather than call for action.
Under pressure

As for the idea that scientists change their tune to keep their paymasters happy, under the current US administration many scientists claim they have been pressurised to tone down findings relating to climate change (see US fudging of climate science details revealed).

Indeed, those campaigning for action to prevent further warming have had to battle against huge vested interests, including the fossil-fuel industry and its many political allies. Many of the individuals and organisations challenging the idea of global warming have received funding from companies such as ExxonMobil.

That in itself does not necessarily mean that the sceptics are wrong, of course. Nor does the fact that most scientists believe in climate change necessarily make it true. What counts is the evidence. And the evidence - that the world is getting warmer, that the warming is largely due to human emissions, and that the downsides of further warming will outweigh the positive effects - is very strong and getting stronger.

Finally, perhaps the most bizarre conspiracy-related claim is that the journalists covering science have an interest in promoting global warming.

Journalists do have an interest in promoting themselves (and their books), while their employers want to boost their audience and sell advertising. Publicity helps with all these aims, but you get far more publicity by challenging the mainstream view than by promoting it. Which helps explain why so many sections of the media continue to publish or broadcast the claims of deniers, regardless of their merit

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
since I've already said (Norfolk Island) that the "evidence" has crossed CTS's line in the sand, with no response from CTS.

---

Quote:

---

But not my 1-2-3, not the evidence I say I will accept.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
Because evidence comes by many different paths, and it is the scientists' job to figure out what the evidence is saying, not to put blinders on.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:

Quote:

---

I propose "Environmental conservation outside of greenhouse gasses"-DT

Beautiful. Let's do it._CTS

---

So far, this thread has been mostly a CTS monologue with DT chiming in once in a while. Not much "debate" going on. I read this as... I give up on any semblance of objectivity because the math is too hard. Let's go with opinion instead

One could call this a folie a deux: delusion shared by two people. Will those two people allow their delusion to be affected by outside observations? Prolly not. Otherwise it wouldn't be a delusion.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
As for the idea that scientists change their tune to keep their paymasters happy, under the current US administration many scientists claim they have been pressurised to tone down findings relating to climate change (see US fudging of climate science details revealed).

Indeed, those campaigning for action to prevent further warming have had to battle against huge vested interests, including the fossil-fuel industry and its many political allies. Many of the individuals and organisations challenging the idea of global warming have received funding from companies such as ExxonMobil.

---

Quote:

---

calculate how much heat so many extra gigatons of carbon dioxide will absorb, and show me (relative to other heat sources) that the amount is trivial and we will actually be having a discussion

---

Quote:

---

From Science of Doom: "Is CO2 an insignificant trace gas?"
http://scienceofdoom.com/2010/02/10/co2-%E2%80%93-an-insignificant-tra
ce-gas-part-five/

Hopefully, for everyone following the series it will be clear that you can’t just eyeball the spectral absorption and the average relative concentrations of the gases and tap it out on a calculator.

---