Why some still "DENY" and others "FAIL TO ACT"

[wili]

I'm with you, Bruce.

CCG, thanks for pointing out that the death-toll from AGW is not some fuzzy future thing, but is already going on at holocaust rates.

It's time to stop feeding the troll,  now.

[Anne]

What is the "future fact" about which you have a contrary opinion? That the climate is changing? That the world is getting warmer? That sea levels are rising? That this is caused by human activity? These are current realities. The responsible citizen has a duty to inform himself. You've already been given a lot of pointers as to where to find decent information.

The future uncertainty is about how soon and how bad. And it is already bad.

I'm not keen on prosecuting Holocaust denialists either, but I think it's perfectly in order to criticise them, ridicule them, and deny them space to spout their nonsense.

[JimD]

http://climatestate.com/2013/08/24/climate-change-alarm-is-needed-and-climate-scientists-arent-sounding-it-loud-enough/
[/quote

We're fine Wili.

BTW I agree 100% with the title of the link above.   What troubles me is that the young people of the world are not well into massive civil disturbances over this issue.  In the 60's in the US we caused a lot of trouble over a much more minor issue.  This lack of energy puzzles me greatly.

[chopper]

That is a sick and twisted analogy, and a violation of Godwin's Law. 

you broke that seal already in this thread, chief. you have no problem coughing up talk of nazi germany when you think it adds venom to your own point. sorry your own medicine tastes so bad.

[Shared Humanity]

What is the "future fact" about which you have a contrary opinion? That the climate is changing? That the world is getting warmer? That sea levels are rising? That this is caused by human activity? These are current realities. The responsible citizen has a duty to inform himself. You've already been given a lot of pointers as to where to find decent information.

The future uncertainty is about how soon and how bad. And it is already bad.

I'm not keen on prosecuting Holocaust denialists either, but I think it's perfectly in order to criticise them, ridicule them, and deny them space to spout their nonsense.

I actually support their right to have the space to make fools of themselves. Just not in my house.

[Anne]

I actually support their right to have the space to make fools of themselves. Just not in my house.

I agree. I'm all for the right to free speech too, but it doesn't mean any individual or organisation has to give them a platform. This is Neven's place and we're all here as guests so I'll stop now.

[Laurent]

In France, the law forbid (you can be prosecuted) the hollocost denial ! (Gayssot's law)
I  don't now for Germany, but I would bet it is !
In Austria (Where Neven live) I am not sure either, there was (is?) some extreme right wings at the government recently !

[ccgwebmaster]

I actually support their right to have the space to make fools of themselves. Just not in my house.

I agree. I'm all for the right to free speech too, but it doesn't mean any individual or organisation has to give them a platform. This is Neven's place and we're all here as guests so I'll stop now.

I support free speech too (along with several other more contentious freedoms/rights) - and yet with any freedom there should also come responsibilities in exercising it, accountability for the consequences of doing so - and some sense of balance and recognition that in the exercise of a freedom another party may be having a freedom constrained.

[ccgwebmaster]

BTW I agree 100% with the title of the link above.   What troubles me is that the young people of the world are not well into massive civil disturbances over this issue.  In the 60's in the US we caused a lot of trouble over a much more minor issue.  This lack of energy puzzles me greatly.

I can't say it surprises me at all.

As you grow up now, you grow up with the odds stacked into debt from the outset, in an economy and social situation that makes it hard just to meet the day to day essentials of life (the bottom of Maslow's hierarchy of needs) and to secure even the most tenuous of footholds in terms of life security.

The rights and freedoms that were granted the older generations have been whittled away and we are encircled by a subtle yet massively oppressive police state waiting for anyone able to wake up from the collective daydream most of my generation lives in - a daydream sold and marketed by the slick well oiled machines of modern capitalism, owned and controlled by the rich (and generally older).

Demographically outnumbered at the polling booths, and all the moreso by the lack of voter participation versus older generations we wield little social influence and little more financial influence. We are disposable workers or model consumers, or we are even less than that (lunatics and criminals, should we defy the system).

We are the people who are going to solve all the worlds problems, whom must inherit a future that the science is increasingly clear about - a future that has every chance of essentially turning into hell on earth. Faced with the difficulties of the present and the awesome challenges of the future - most in this generation seem to me to rush back to denial, live for the moment and the future be damned.

Not only does it take a certain amount of guts to be willing to stand up against it all, but there is a real shortage of good examples from the older generations. On that note, I have a lot of respect for statements along the lines of Bruce Steele in https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,68.msg13642.html#msg13642 - it is this sort of intention that we need. He's correct that the full speed and severity of the consequences were unclear decades ago - and while I would argue the general trends and harmfulness of climate change and resource depletion have been long established, nobody will achieve anything at this point by being overly concerned about the past, it's very much the future we must fight for.

I myself am lucky in many ways - had I not been possessed of a certain ruthless stubbornness and the intelligence with which to teach myself things (like software engineering), I would never have achieved the means with which to start breaking away from the system I've come to despise and drag myself even a step or two up from the bottom of the heap. Had I come along only two years later or not abandoned a loan funded degree course for an initially very low pay job - I would also likely still be lying at the very bottom of the heap. If I was a conformist, a model citizen, a product of my society - I would never have even thought about any of these issues, let alone started to act upon them and been prepared to take risks accordingly.

Is the lack of energy really so puzzling?

[TerryM]

Everyone has the right to be wrong. When you know that what you are exposing is not true and is that it is liable to cause harm, that's pretty reprehensible.
i don't believe that jbg is honest about what he says he believes. If he was honest he'd be attempting to answer the rather pointed questions asked by myself and others rather than skipping over these inconvenient truths and denying some other facet of AGW.
While it might be entertaining to have an educated advocate that really believes that all the evidence is wrong and that he has discovered the truth, the disingenuous blather of one who simply refuses to debate any point and instead answers with misdirection has lost any credibility or entertainment value.
There are a vanishingly small number of posters on other boards that honestly believe that they have it all figured out and it's clouds, radiation, sun spots, repeating cycles or whatever. They argue their point with tenacity and every now and then manage to find something that seems to back up their claim. Watching them attempt to defend the indefensible is sometimes interesting and every so often some new data is revealed.
Listening to someone who simply states one untruth, then when asked for clarification states another unrelated untruth is not only a waste of time, but also shows the mendacity of the poster. I'm afraid that rather than engaging with jbg I'll simply not feed the troll.
Terry

[jbg]

CCG, thanks for pointing out that the death-toll from AGW is not some fuzzy future thing, but is already going on at holocaust rates.

It's time to stop feeding the troll,  now.

If the Holocaust killed about 12 million people, over its roughly 6 year existence, that's 2,000,000 per year. Where is AGW killing anywhere near at that rate?

Those are not serious statements.

[jbg]

Everyone has the right to be wrong. When you know that what you are exposing is not true and is that it is liable to cause harm, that's pretty reprehensible.

I really do believe what I say.

i don't believe that jbg is honest about what he says he believes. If he was honest he'd be attempting to answer the rather pointed questions asked by myself and others rather than skipping over these inconvenient truths and denying some other facet of AGW.

What I wonder most, and these pointed questions have never been answered are as follows:

• What about Medieval Optimum period, when the Vikings inhabited the far North, in areas that are now uninhabitable?
  
• Why are very few of the examples from areas like New York City or London where good temperature records go back a long ways? We hear a lot about about Arctic ocean and glacier meltout where objectively we have few records going back more than decades.
  
  • Why are the Kyoto targets not a uniform year but set to earlier years for Iron Curtain countries?
    
    
  In other words, I have questions you can't answer as well
  
  

  While it might be entertaining to have an educated advocate that really believes that all the evidence is wrong and that he has discovered the truth, the disingenuous blather of one who simply refuses to debate any point and instead answers with misdirection has lost any credibility or entertainment value.
  There are a vanishingly small number of posters on other boards that honestly believe that they have it all figured out and it's clouds, radiation, sun spots, repeating cycles or whatever. They argue their point with tenacity and every now and then manage to find something that seems to back up their claim. Watching them attempt to defend the indefensible is sometimes interesting and every so often some new data is revealed.
  Listening to someone who simply states one untruth, then when asked for clarification states another unrelated untruth is not only a waste of time, but also shows the mendacity of the poster. I'm afraid that rather than engaging with jbg I'll simply not feed the troll.
  Terry
  

  I am not creatign truths.  The alarmists are. Climate has varied over centuries, as has weather.  Why is it different now?

[Chuck Yokota]

jbg,

The areas that the Norse inhabited on Greenland are in the same areas around the southern tip of the island that are inhabited today.  There are no other areas on the island that were more habitable than today.

[jbg]

jbg,

The areas that the Norse inhabited on Greenland are in the same areas around the southern tip of the island that are inhabited today.  There are no other areas on the island that were more habitable than today.

The reas were similar but the temperatures warmer.  They were warm enough to support some farming, and limited subarctic tree growth.  Not so much now.

[domen_]

- medieval warm period was not synchronised across the globe, only some local areas were relatively warm
- Vikings didn't inhabit any land that is now not inhabitable (where did you pick this one?!)
- paleoclimatological data from ice cores, ocean/lake sediments, tree rings, go much further back in time than thermometer data
- Kyoto treaty doesn't have anything to do with global warming being a physical fact



Does it look like a a natural cycle to you? ..

It's not. It's traceable with very high degree of certainty to start of industrial revolution and humans emitting larger and larger amounts of CO₂ into the atmosphere.

[ccgwebmaster]

If the Holocaust killed about 12 million people, over its roughly 6 year existence, that's 2,000,000 per year. Where is AGW killing anywhere near at that rate?

Those are not serious statements.

Evidence provided here: https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,68.msg13640.html#msg13640

Your track record so far (that I have seen) is to ignore evidence and information, rather than intelligently engaging with it (multiple examples in this thread). Either you cannot read, or you are blanket denying on an ideological basis - with no intention of engaging in proper discussion. Either way all my statements stand, and as far as I am concerned you now join a tiny number of people here who I have mentally flagged as not worth wasting time discussing anything with.

[jbg]

- medieval warm period was not synchronised across the globe, only some local areas were relatively warm
- Vikings didn't inhabit any land that is now not inhabitable (where did you pick this one?!)
- paleoclimatological data from ice cores, ocean/lake sediments, tree rings, go much further back in time than thermometer data
- Kyoto treaty doesn't have anything to do with global warming being a physical fact



Does it look like a a natural cycle to you? ..

It's not. It's traceable with very high degree of certainty to start of industrial revolution and humans emitting larger and larger amounts of CO₂ into the atmosphere.

Couldn't you just as well have graphed consumption of double-edge razorblades? You'll call me a troll for asking but I see little correlation with anything relevant.

[Anne]

Well, yanno, consumption of double-edged razor blades is not totally independent of what we're talking about. You just don't get it, do you?

[jbg]

Well, yanno, consumption of double-edged razor blades is not totally independent of what we're talking about. You just don't get it, do you?

This is beginning to read more like religion than science.

[deep octopus]

Well, yanno, consumption of double-edged razor blades is not totally independent of what we're talking about. You just don't get it, do you?

This is beginning to read more like religion than science.

The content of everything you've posted has evolved in earnest from misguided to totally puerile and banal. What do you hope to get out of this experience here on this forum, pray tell?

[jbg]

Well, yanno, consumption of double-edged razor blades is not totally independent of what we're talking about. You just don't get it, do you?

This is beginning to read more like religion than science.

The content of everything you've posted has evolved in earnest from misguided to totally puerile and banal. What do you hope to get out of this experience here on this forum, pray tell?

Serious debate. Are you capable of that?

[Anne]

Double-edged razor blades are a symptom of consumerism. Consumerism is one of the big drivers of increased CO₂ emissions.

Everyone has the right to be wrong. When you know that what you are exposing is not true and is that it is liable to cause harm, that's pretty reprehensible.

I really do believe what I say.

We're in the real world here, and it doesn't make any difference what you really do believe (though perhaps it may make some people more lenient towards you). Reality is independent of belief.

What I wonder most, and these pointed questions have never been answered are as follows:
*What about Medieval Optimum period, when the Vikings inhabited the far North, in areas that are now uninhabitable?

These canards have been addressed ad nauseam on endless comments threads. Perhaps they need addressing here too. (Incidentally, what is your evidence for Viking inhabitation of the far north of Greenland? No evidence that I'm aware of that they lived anywhere north of where people live now.)
Take this, for example. (There are plenty of others.)

The dramatic differences between regional and hemispheric/global past trends, and the distinction between changes in surface temperature and precipitation/drought fields, underscore the limited utility in the use of terms such as the ‘‘Little Ice Age’’ and ‘‘Medieval Warm Period’’ for describing past climate epochs during the last millennium. Comparison of empirical evidence with proxy-based reconstructions demonstrates that natural factors appear to explain relatively well the major surface temperature changes of the past millennium through the 19th century (including hemispheric means and some spatial patterns). Only anthropogenic forcing of climate, however, can explain the recent anomalous warming in the late 20th century.

Why are very few of the examples from areas like New York City or London where good temperature records go back a long ways? We hear a lot about about Arctic ocean and glacier meltout where objectively we have few records going back more than decades.

The effects on the Arctic are amplified. So they are mentioned more. And haven't you heard of climate proxies?

Why are the Kyoto targets not a uniform year but set to earlier years for Iron Curtain countries?

What? It's true that the EU gained undeserved credit for reduction in emissions after the collapse of Eastern Europe - is that what you mean? Apart from that, developing countries don't have binding targets because it's recognised that developed countries have contributed more to GHG.  (Actually, I can't recall your asking this question before. Are you mixing up ASIF with some other forum?)

In other words, I have questions you can't answer as well

These are questions you haven't asked here before. If you had, someone would have pointed you in the right direction. In any case, this isn't a debate, this isn't a trial or a pissing contest. What we do on this forum is share information with each other. Sometimes there is a good old ding-dong about what actually constitutes information and how that information can be interpreted - but that's assuming a basic shared understanding.

While it might be entertaining to have an educated advocate that really believes that all the evidence is wrong and that he has discovered the truth, the disingenuous blather of one who simply refuses to debate any point and instead answers with misdirection has lost any credibility or entertainment value.
There are a vanishingly small number of posters on other boards that honestly believe that they have it all figured out and it's clouds, radiation, sun spots, repeating cycles or whatever. They argue their point with tenacity and every now and then manage to find something that seems to back up their claim. Watching them attempt to defend the indefensible is sometimes interesting and every so often some new data is revealed.
Listening to someone who simply states one untruth, then when asked for clarification states another unrelated untruth is not only a waste of time, but also shows the mendacity of the poster. I'm afraid that rather than engaging with jbg I'll simply not feed the troll.
Terry

I am not creatign truths.  The alarmists are. Climate has varied over centuries, as has weather.  Why is it different now?

It is different now because the past is catching up with us. Don't let the door...

[wili]

Gee, I wonder where this guy is getting his 'arguments.' They seem very familiar.

Oh yeah, they are the same idiotic claims that denialists have been spouting for years, and that have been repeatedly debunked thousands of times. But no matter how clearly they are debunked, dittoheads just keep bringing up the exact same tired old lies. Not very creative.

It seems to not just be me who has concluded that this gentle(wo?)man is 100% insincere, but if anyone else is for a moment perplexed by his bloviations, please see this handy list of typical denialist lies and distractions, along with brief debunkings:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

Specifically in this case:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/medieval-warm-period.htm

Most of the rest of his blather is little more than gibberish, too incoherent to begin to address.

[Anne]

wili, I can't tell if he's sincere or not. I have met people IRL who take WUWT and so on as their guiding lights. I persist in the deluded belief it may be possible to enlighten them. But not on this forum. I have done with troll food.

[wili]

Perhaps his only virtue is that his foolishness (I won't say "trollishness" much less "denialistishness" in deference to Neven and Webster ) prompted your eloquent and informative posts. Also perhaps that he helps us more deeply appreciate the relatively high level of discourse that otherwise predominates on this forum and the blog. Thanks.

[Chuck Yokota]

jbg,

The areas that the Norse inhabited on Greenland are in the same areas around the southern tip of the island that are inhabited today.  There are no other areas on the island that were more habitable than today.

The reas were similar but the temperatures warmer.  They were warm enough to support some farming, and limited subarctic tree growth.  Not so much now.

Which admits that your first claim
"    What about Medieval Optimum period, when the Vikings inhabited the far North, in areas that are now uninhabitable?"
was false.
Which give the lie to your claim to want "serious debate".  You are a propagandist, making claims that you know to be false in the hopes of fooling someone.

[Anne]

I'm feeling really awful now as I misunderstood "double-edged razor blades" for "double-bladed razor blades". And of course now they are quadruple bladed. 
/snark

[jbg]

Double-edged razor blades are a symptom of consumerism. Consumerism is one of the big drivers of increased CO₂ emissions.

Great agenda admission here.

Gee, I wonder where this guy is getting his 'arguments.' They seem very familiar.

Oh yeah, they are the same idiotic claims that denialists have been spouting for years, and that have been repeatedly debunked thousands of times. But no matter how clearly they are debunked, dittoheads just keep bringing up the exact same tired old lies. Not very creative.**************
Most of the rest of his blather is little more than gibberish, too incoherent to begin to address.

I see we're starting from an irrebutable presumption of AGW. I have seen the atmosphere of making personal attacks where a party really can't prove his or her position.

Perhaps his only virtue is that his foolishness (I won't say "trollishness" much less "denialistishness" in deference to Neven and Webster ) prompted your eloquent and informative posts. Also perhaps that he helps us more deeply appreciate the relatively high level of discourse that otherwise predominates on this forum and the blog. Thanks.

I do appreciate that so far the responses are not profanity-laced.  What I mostly see here and in other AGW discussions are eloquent expressions of panic. Combined of course with a controlling agenda.

What problem do people have with economic growth and prosperity?

Which admits that your first claim
"    What about Medieval Optimum period, when the Vikings inhabited the far North, in areas that are now uninhabitable?"
was false.
Which give the lie to your claim to want "serious debate".  You are a propagandist, making claims that you know to be false in the hopes of fooling someone.

You sure got me on a semantic error.

I'm feeling really awful now as I misunderstood "double-edged razor blades" for "double-bladed razor blades". And of course now they are quadruple bladed. 
/snark

I think you understand my point.  Anyone can draw a graph with two coincidentally matching events and declare them correlated. 

[wili]

What Chuck said:

Which give the lie to your claim to want "serious debate".  You are a propagandist, making claims that you know to be false in the hopes of fooling someone.

[Laurent]

Don't feed the troll...please !

[Neven]

What problem do people have with economic growth and prosperity?

My problem with economic growth is that it is an arbitrary construct, coupled with the assumption that is always good and has no limits. We have passed the point where this construct is costing us more than it is giving us. I want prosperity (to be defined according to needs and not wants) to be founded on a solid basis, not the quick sand of consumption culture.

If you want to know where I stand on this, you can read my Climate Disclaimer over on the ASIB, and a piece I wrote a couple of years back: Infinite Growth and the Crisis Cocktail.

jbg, you've started gish galloping a bit, offering up arguments that have long been refuted. I'm sorry to read that you actually believe the misinformation that has been fed to you. I think it's better you leave our alarmist echo chamber, because this is only costing everyone energy that is needed for other things. Don't you agree?

[jbg]

jbg, you've started gish galloping a bit, offering up arguments that have long been refuted. I'm sorry to read that you actually believe the misinformation that has been fed to you. I think it's better you leave our alarmist echo chamber, because this is only costing everyone energy that is needed for other things. Don't you agree?

I will try to be more open to your views. However, I don't know the term "gish galloping."  Please explain if you can.

Perhaps I have a bit more courage than to hang only in "denialist echo chambers" as well.  I think that you are right that skeptics may care not a whit for the environment.  I am a serious hiker, and lover of the natural world, so I may share more than you realize with people here. I just don't take either side hook, line and sinker.

Is that acceptable?

[wili]

A two second search yields: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gish_Gallop

the debating technique of drowning the opponent in such a torrent of half-truths, lies, and straw-man arguments that the opponent cannot possibly answer every falsehood

Were you too lazy to do this, or do you not know the most basic thing about searching the web?

And note that Neven did not invite you to "be more open"; he has very courteously told you to leave so you can do so on your own rather than suffer the indignity of being booted out. Note that he is the moderator, so he has the power to immediately ban you if you can't take his more-than-a-hint.

[Shared Humanity]

I have a question as well that has been bothering me.

Why, in the 1st century BC, did Julius Caesar describe the barbarian Celt tribes of Briton entering into battle painted blue and naked? Wouldn't it have had to be very warm for this to be comfortable?   

[jbg]

I have a question as well that has been bothering me.

Why, in the 1st century BC, did Julius Caesar describe the barbarian Celt tribes of Briton entering into battle painted blue and naked? Wouldn't it have had to be very warm for this to be comfortable?   

I personally never knew that and it is interesting.

I will for once, though, take what I think is the side of the majority of this Board, and say that weather and climate are two different things. I think most here would acknowledge that even Alaska has seen 90+ weather, in fact touching 100 in the Tanana Valley, before AGW is said to have started.  Also some people are notoriously comfortable in cool weather with what we would consider to be scanty clothing.  My son and I are among those.

In short, there are better arguments against drastic actions relating to climate change than the fact that there may have been some very hot weather in the past.

I also want to highlight, for this Board, that I am strongly in favor of reducing pollution.  I think it is a serious worldwide problem and I would not want what I expect to be a coming cooling cycle to detract from the urgency of that mission.

If fact, my main concern about focusing too much on AGW is that if the short-term climate turns cooler, the economic plutocrats will argue that we are "home free."  As long as people are dieing of environmentally induced cancer, or other diseases, we have a very serious problem indeed.

[Shared Humanity]

After nearly 200 years of ongoing battles with the Celts in Briton, the Romans began construction of Hadrian's wall in 122AD and followed this up with a 2nd wall (Antonine Wall), further north in 142AD. This second wall had the effect of separating what is modern day Scotland from the rest of the island. Hadrian's wall is the largest defensive fortification ever constructed by the Roman Empire and speaks to the ferocity of those naked blue warriors.

While the specific time frame is not understood, these northern Celts eventually developed some modesty and began to wear skirts when entering into battle. Could this move to skirts have been triggered by cooling in the North Atlantic climate and be additional evidence of a cyclic trend?

[Ned W]

Well, yanno, consumption of double-edged razor blades is not totally independent of what we're talking about. You just don't get it, do you?

This is beginning to read more like religion than science.

Well, you don't seem to want to talk about science.  Earlier in this thread I posted this handy summary of the science of AGW.  Your only response was a snide comment about various places having been warmer or stormier at particular times in the past.

Until you can answer the following, you have no business lecturing anyone about science:

It might be helpful for you to think a bit more logically about the statement "I don't believe in AGW".  Among scientists, what you call "AGW" is simply the net result of the following chain of concepts:

• Humans burn fossil fuels.
• Burning fossil fuels produces CO2 [currently ~9.5 Pg C per year].
• About half of that CO2 remains in the atmosphere [the "airborne fraction"].
• Adding CO2 to the atmosphere raises its concentration in the atmosphere [currently ~400 ppmv].
• CO2 in the atmosphere absorbs longwave infrared radiation.
• The earth's energy budget is determined by the balance between absorbed shortwave solar radiation minus emitted longwave infrared radiation.
• In the absence of positive or negative feedbacks, increasing the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere reduces outgoing longwave radiation and raises the temperature by 1C per doubling.
• This pre-feedback climate sensitivity will be reduced by negative feedbacks and increased by positive feedbacks.  It can only be reduced to ~0 if the net effect of all feedbacks is sufficiently negative to stabilize climate in the face of forcings.
• The record of past climate changes (e.g., glacial/interglacial cycles) shows that net feedbacks within the earth system are not sufficiently negative to prevent large swings in climate.

Every one of these is well established, from chemistry or physics in the case of steps 2 through 8, or from the geosciences in steps 1 and 9.  Add them all up and you have "AGW".

So ... which specific part of the process do you "disbelieve"?

• Do you not believe that humans are burning fossil fuels?
• Do you not believe that burning fossil fuels produces CO2?
• Do you not believe that adding CO2 to the atmosphere increases its concentration in the atmosphere?
• Do you not believe in the existence of glacial/interglacial climate variability?

For once try thinking about things systematically, please.  That is what science is all about.

[ritter]

Why, in the 1st century BC, did Julius Caesar describe the barbarian Celt tribes of Briton entering into battle painted blue and naked? Wouldn't it have had to be very warm for this to be comfortable?   

Cold=shrinkage. An old battle strategy to keep the tender bits from being hacked off? 

[jbg]

It might be helpful for you to think a bit more logically about the statement "I don't believe in AGW".  Among scientists, what you call "AGW" is simply the net result of the following chain of concepts:

• Humans burn fossil fuels.
• Burning fossil fuels produces CO2 [currently ~9.5 Pg C per year].
• About half of that CO2 remains in the atmosphere [the "airborne fraction"].
• Adding CO2 to the atmosphere raises its concentration in the atmosphere [currently ~400 ppmv].
• CO2 in the atmosphere absorbs longwave infrared radiation.
• The earth's energy budget is determined by the balance between absorbed shortwave solar radiation minus emitted longwave infrared radiation.
• In the absence of positive or negative feedbacks, increasing the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere reduces outgoing longwave radiation and raises the temperature by 1C per doubling.
• This pre-feedback climate sensitivity will be reduced by negative feedbacks and increased by positive feedbacks.  It can only be reduced to ~0 if the net effect of all feedbacks is sufficiently negative to stabilize climate in the face of forcings.
• The record of past climate changes (e.g., glacial/interglacial cycles) shows that net feedbacks within the earth system are not sufficiently negative to prevent large swings in climate.

Every one of these is well established, from chemistry or physics in the case of steps 2 through 8, or from the geosciences in steps 1 and 9.  Add them all up and you have "AGW".

I agree with 1-6, certainly.  Where I have problems is 7-9.  I can certainly be persuaded, but my "common sense" side doubts that CO2 swamps other forces.  So I most strongly disagree with "9". 

So ... which specific part of the process do you "disbelieve"?

• Do you not believe that humans are burning fossil fuels?
• Do you not believe that burning fossil fuels produces CO2?
• Do you not believe that adding CO2 to the atmosphere increases its concentration in the atmosphere?
• Do you not believe in the existence of glacial/interglacial climate variability?

For once try thinking about things systematically, please.  That is what science is all about.

I believe in all of the above, and believe that sunspot and PDO cycles, and other natural forces, also cause variation in both climate and weather.

As I said, emphatically, in this post (link) I am strongly committed to preservation of the environment.  I would be willing to wager that I have gone on more hikes this summer than most of the people on this Board, during my trip with my wife to Colorado from July 6 through 9. 

I am not anti-environment.

[JimD]

Why, in the 1st century BC, did Julius Caesar describe the barbarian Celt tribes of Briton entering into battle painted blue and naked? Wouldn't it have had to be very warm for this to be comfortable?   

Cold=shrinkage. An old battle strategy to keep the tender bits from being hacked off? 

Hey!  Don't be making fun of my ancestors.  Some just have more to show off than others  ;)They were just early nudists.  I note that even today a significant percentage of northern Europeans peel their clothes off at the first sign of a warm sunny day.

On a serious note.  Battles with swords, axes, knifes and such in ancient times usually started early in the day and lasted until one side was essentially annihilated.  Sometimes these battles would have lasted the better part of a full days daylight.  That many continuous hours of extreme effort would have been highly dehydrating and the cooler you were the longer you lasted?  Or perhaps there was a religious connection?   Or they thought it scared the enemy?

If I recall my history the Greeks (Spartans and Athenians) also fought essentially naked.  As did the Gaul's and others in those times.  This is not to say that some of the Celts did not have some body armor as did the Greeks.

[JimD]

Hey Folks.

Is it worth the pain?

He is either being paid to lie like the evil scumbags hired by the tobacco industry years ago or he is incapable of executing any form of rational scientific thought.

If it is the first he will never stop no matter what facts you put in from of him.

If it is the second he does not have the capability to understand or learn what you are trying to teach him.

Why waste the effort.

If he was telling the truth about being a lawyer I must say that rational scientific thought does not tend to be one of their strengths.  Most of the lawyers that I have known find that facts and logic just get in the way of their goal of winning for whatever side purchased them.  As one  of the lawyers in my family said to me; "If you are interested in right and wrong and justice you better believe in God because the legal system has nothing to do with any of those things."  He sort of fits into item one above doesn't he?

[Ned W]

I believe in all of the above, and believe that sunspot and PDO cycles, and other natural forces, also cause variation in both climate and weather.

Okay, so you do believe in AGW, you just believe that "natural forces" will cause variation in temperature superimposed on the warming trend. 

That in fact is exactly what most scientists, or the IPCC, would also say (though they'd generally say that the interannual variation from ENSO is much larger than from the solar cycle, which has only a relatively small influence on climate).

If you're willing to accept the chain of reasoning laid out in points 1-9 above, with its fundamental implication that burning fossil fuels will tend to warm the atmosphere, that's a good start.  Beyond that, there's room for legitimate disagreement -- whether climate sensitivity is closer to 2.5 or 3.0 or 3.5C, for example, or about the likely economic and environmental impacts of climate change. 

But the distinction between "I don't believe in AGW" versus "I understand the physical reality of AGW" is the distinction between science illiteracy and science literacy.  It's an important distinction.

[ccgwebmaster]

If I recall my history the Greeks (Spartans and Athenians) also fought essentially naked.  As did the Gaul's and others in those times.  This is not to say that some of the Celts did not have some body armor as did the Greeks.

Not wearing clothes would also let you move faster and remove opportunities for you to be held onto or to get snagged up on things. Most forms of clothing will restrict mobility somewhat, or introduce opportunities for being grabbed - even before you get onto body armour (which is only worth having if it can defeat the majority of weapons being used against you, especially when agility is critical as in hand to hand fighting).

[ritter]

That many continuous hours of extreme effort would have been highly dehydrating and the cooler you were the longer you lasted?  Or perhaps there was a religious connection?   Or they thought it scared the enemy?

If I recall my history the Greeks (Spartans and Athenians) also fought essentially naked.  As did the Gaul's and others in those times.  This is not to say that some of the Celts did not have some body armor as did the Greeks.

CCG beat me to it but:

Way off topic, but I suspect the real reason is that most did not have armor and wearing clothing in a fight (with or without weapons) gives your opponent an advantage in grabbing hold and controlling your balance/position. We humans are pretty slick when naked and sweaty. Plus you just look cool all naked waving around a sword. At least until the authorities show up!

By the way, I've got a bit o Scottish in the ole mutt blood line as well.

[Ned W]

Hey Folks.

Is it worth the pain?

[...]

Why waste the effort.

In my experience, when someone posts obviously confused statements in a forum like this, there are often other people reading the discussion who might like to see an answer. 

I think the main thing, though, is not to worry too much about it one way or the other.

If Neven wants to delete jbg's account, that's fine.
If people want to ignore him, that's fine.
If other people want to correct some of his mistaken ideas, that's fine. 

So far, nothing he's said is particularly novel or interesting.  So I wouldn't recommend wasting much time on it. 

Probably the best thing to do would be to tell him to go read a bunch of the myth-debunking articles over at Skeptical Science, and come back when he's learned enough to actually contribute to the discussion here.   

[jbg]

Probably the best thing to do would be to tell him to go read a bunch of the myth-debunking articles over at Skeptical Science, and come back when he's learned enough to actually contribute to the discussion here.

I certainly will.

But isn't that site "the enemy"?

[Ned W]

Probably the best thing to do would be to tell him to go read a bunch of the myth-debunking articles over at Skeptical Science, and come back when he's learned enough to actually contribute to the discussion here.

I certainly will.

But isn't that site "the enemy"?

"The enemy"?  How is that a useful way to think about science?

No, it's one of the best resources for answering questions about climate change.

For example, you might find these pages useful (all of them from Skeptical Science):

Solar activity & climate: is the sun causing global warming?

How does the Medieval Warm Period compare to current global temperatures?
 
What does past climate change tell us about global warming?

It's Pacific Decadal Oscillation

In fact, just go over there (http://www.skepticalscience.com), look at the list of "Most Used Climate Myths" on the left side of the page, and start reading...

I would also repeat my suggestion of going to your local library and requesting a copy of Bill Ruddiman's textbook "Earth's Climate" via interlibrary loan.

That is, if you actually want to learn something.

[Shared Humanity]

Sorry about dragging us so far off topic. 

I was just trying to have some fun. 

Now back to AGW......   

[jbg]

Probably the best thing to do would be to tell him to go read a bunch of the myth-debunking articles over at Skeptical Science, and come back when he's learned enough to actually contribute to the discussion here.

I certainly will.

But isn't that site "the enemy"?

The four subjects that you linked are the ones in which I am most interested. I will read them, or as much of them, as I can.

"The enemy"?  How is that a useful way to think about science?

No, it's one of the best resources for answering questions about climate change.

For example, you might find these pages useful (all of them from Skeptical Science):

Solar activity & climate: is the sun causing global warming?

How does the Medieval Warm Period compare to current global temperatures?
 
What does past climate change tell us about global warming?

It's Pacific Decadal Oscillation

In fact, just go over there (http://www.skepticalscience.com), look at the list of "Most Used Climate Myths" on the left side of the page, and start reading...

I would also repeat my suggestion of going to your local library and requesting a copy of Bill Ruddiman's textbook "Earth's Climate" via interlibrary loan.

That is, if you actually want to learn something.

I will certainly read the four linked topics or as much of them as I can. They are the ones in which I am most interested.

AFTER READING:

I did read those links and I concede that they make some points.  I will read some more on the subject.  My mind is open.

[wili]

SH, the blue part of your somewhat off topic question probably had to do with the use a woad, the usual plant used to die clothes blue at the time. The same plant, though, has the property of aiding the healing of wounds. This was partly at least part of the reason for the (reported) use of this pigment.

If your are going into battle (especially naked--others have addressed that well, but note that temperatures Romans from southern Europe would have found cold, native northerners may not have found to be so chilly as to require much if any added clothing), you pretty much knew that you were going to get various woulds of various levels of severity, so why not pre-treat them?

We also have cauldrons such as the Gundesrup that have illustrations showing what seems to be a goddess dipping (dead?) warriors into a large vat, so there may be some religious elements to this.

https://www.google.com/search?q=gundestrup+cauldron&client=firefox-a&hs=plQ&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=bgIdUoGaGOrAyAGNq4FI&ved=0CAkQ_AUoAQ&biw=1418&bih=714#facrc=_&imgdii=_&imgrc=1P9jMSt8ZEb59M%3A%3BfAVo6QhAlcmIZM%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.mythicfolk.com%252Fwp-content%252Fuploads%252F2010%252F10%252F30949057_1219274447_Gundestrup_Cauldron_detail.jpg%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.mythicfolk.com%252F%253Fp%253D492%3B547%3B441

But I would imagine it would freak your enemies out a bit to see vast hordes of blue screaming northerners coming at them.

Perhaps we could find a vat that we could dip certain posters in that would make them come out talking sense??

In general, on the troll issue, I'm with JimD.