I've been meaning to blog about this for some time -- AGCC has reached the point where it is included in just about any other piece of research, no matter how tangential -- but haven't had the time. This site just throws the data out there for your perusal.
Cato the Elder had the habit, no matter what the topic, to include the phrase in his speeches "And Carthage must be destroyed" -- Carthago delenda est
No matter what came up, he always added "Carthago delenda est" The farmers have had a good harvest this year, and Carthage must be destroyed. I am very happy to receive this honor, and Carthage must be destroyed. Nice toga you're wearing, and Carthage must be destroyed.
I think this list stands on it's own. No matter what the topic, climate change is presented as a big factor. It's become the universal plug-and-play prime mover. This is especially interesting in the context of no statistically significant global warming in the last decade or two. Of course, all generalizations are false, change doesn't necessarily mean warming, micro-climate is not the same as macro-climate, etc, etc. But you get the point.
If the list isn't enough to make the rhetorical point well, perhaps somebody with more time than I have can write it up in a good essay. I know I'd like to read it.
"Pfft. Crazy talk. The Earth has always been exactly as it is now."
One of the main claims of climate skeptics like myself is that the earth has always been changing, and that temperature changes seen recently are largely a result of these natural (mostly solar) cycles. This would explain why Mars was also heating up for a while.
My favorite example of this is Katrina. It wasn't a hugely powerful storm like say Andrew (it was only a Category 3 at landfall), it just happened to hit at exactly the wrong spot. People have been talking about this happening since before I was born, so it shouldn't have been a huge shock when it finally did. Despite this, and despite the fact that we have had a string of mild hurricane seasons since then, Katrina is often pointed to as an example of the kind of worse-than-usual storms we can expect in the future.
Uh... Katrina was a "worse-than-usual" storm, by pretty much every metric. Not the biggest (though the cat-3-at-landfall was because of a luckily-timed eyewall cycle, it was absolutely a cat-5 storm), but certainly one of the most memorable. So what's wrong with using a memorable storm as an example of similar storms?
Nothing is wrong with it except that most of the damage was caused by the genius idea of building below sea/water level in an area known to be inundated with hurricanes which tend to cause increases in sea level and then neglecting to maintain the levies to keep the water out. It surely wasn't individuals and various levels gov't making cataclysmically bad decisions, no sirree, it was global warming. Also, the gov't should have had more boats on hand for actors to rescue puppies.
Nothing is wrong with it except that most of the damage was caused by the genius idea of adding gases to the atmosphere that basic physics tell us trap heat, in a world where people love to live in low-lying areas next to bodies of water, and then neglecting to worry about any curbs on this massive experiment in 'what happens next?'
The sea level used to be 300 feet lower than where it is today. The planet changes, deal with it. Why is whatever the temperature was in 1700 the ideal temperature? If we have the power to change the temperature of the earth we should be thinking what the ideal temperature we'd like it to be is and do that instead of picking the day we started burning coal.
That's a pretty bald strawman you've constructed. I'm not aware of anyone serious making the case that carbon emissions caused Katrina, nor of anyone serious ignoring infrastructure issues in New Orleans to make a political point.
This is valueless and trollish. It proves nothing other than that uninformed people who've made up their mind in the absence of logic exist on both sides of the debate, which you already knew.
As I said, I was pressed for time, but the first few links I clicked on all had "research", "study", "survey", or "report" in the body text. That's not just somebody's opinion. Usually with nouns like this there is funding and somebody somewhat professional behind it.
But if it's just rampant speculation by uninformed people I apologize. I certainly didn't mean to spam the board. Care to prove your point that somehow all of these reports, surveys, studies, and findings are bogus? Or is this just a way not to deal with the overwhelming amount of research with unusual conclusions that somehow links into climate change?
By the way, my guess is that this is a conservative list, created for impact. The actual list of suspicious links and conclusions is probably much more boring -- and much more extensive. This is just the tip of the iceberg.
The only thing to say there is that words like research and survey tend to be ten a penny; especially in areas like this.
Additionally it's got to be so hard to filter out things that aren't just tengentially caused.
I'm sure many of this links hold valuable info and insight. My only concern is that this isn't the correct way to combine it all: I might do some research and combine a paper if I get some spare time.
Exactly. Most of what is called "research" is just an attempt to prove something someone already believed. They come up with a theory, set out to prove it, and toss out any data contrary to their theory unseen. This happens on both sides of any high-stakes debate. You'd have to be pretty naive to not know this.
Even if every single thing on this list is bullshit, which much probably is, all it proves is that this issue has long since left the realm of actual scientific debate. People who support the theory think everyone who denies it is ignorant, but most supporters (of which I am one, vaguely) don't realize that their team is full of ignorance too.
I suppose maybe it's useful to point that out, I just assume everyone here already knows this.
conservative == reduced in size. Not conservative == reticent to include
Should have used "abbreviated", "reduced", "brief", or "terse", instead of conservative. Bad word choice
If anything, the selection criteria itself looks to tend towards the strange and unusual. I'm guessing that the quality, if any, of the research had very little impact on selection criteria.
The title you chose is "complete list", but your guess is "conservative list". I suspect the difference between your guess and the H1 you chose is caused by global warming. Perhaps.
I clicked on a few links - two were 404's, one said that it wasn't caused by GW but was exacerbated by it (ozone repair slowed), one was speculation about shark attacks by a shark expert. One said that nuclear power would probably increase due to global warming. One said that New Zealand would have many fewer melanoma deaths due to GW. The one about jet engines seemed to have nothing to do with GW.
It's a good list and a good point. Global warming turned me into a newt. However, IMHO, there is a kernel of truth in there somewhere.
For somebody so busy? Here I am commenting for hours on HN. Dang, this site is addictive. (sigh) Should have just blogged.
Yes. I mistook the H1 for the title. I assure you it was an honest mistake.
I also agree with you that there is truth in there. I further agree that the more we work towards a nuclear/green electric future with zero emissions the more enjoyable everything will be, and I support that overall strategy with some caveats. I'm just a process guy at heart, though, and for a couple of years the debate on GW has struck me as being badly broken. I think this is an ominous sign for both politics and science. I hope the current debacle can help reasonable people come up with standards, ethical guidelines, and certification programs that will prevent this mess from happening again. I am doubtful, though. I think climate science has gotten so political that there is going to have to be a severe thrashing taken by one side before the sufficient changes are taken. What can I say? Hopefully I'm very wrong about this.
I am trying to work out how a large disparate and supposedly valueless list of links to these reports proves that 'uninformed people who've made up their mind in the absence of logic exist on both sides of the debate'. No, I give up.
Welcome to Number Watch
All about the scares, scams, junk, panics, and flummery
cooked up by the media, politicians, bureaucrats,
so-called scientists and others who try to confuse you
with wrong numbers.
Working to combat Math Hysteria.
It basically looks like an extensive list of news articles about varied topics that make mention of global warming (it being the fad-du-jour in journalism and all)
Um. You do realise that this is how science works? People come up with theories, and then they're discussed. Discussed, not used as a political cudgel.
The people to blame aren't the scientists but the press who take "x may be related to y" and turn it into "X CAUSES Y!".
It seems to me that the media want stories about what global warming is affecting right now. Which is ridiculous, because the point is what might happen in the future and how quickly we can adapt if the rate of change is high.
Unfortunately other people pick up on the fact that most of what the media report about bad things that have been caused by global warming is rubbish (true, as far as I can tell) and extrapolate this to "proof" that nothing bad will ever be caused by global warming (non sequitur).
I am actually really looking forward to reading Brignell's books. This particular page might only be an indicator of how out-of-control the global warming meme is, but I'm under the impression Brignell's stances are at least an approximation of how you should honestly approach the subject/studies.
Who's read him? (I actually think I was linked to numberwatch on HN)
26 comments
[ 2.6 ms ] story [ 45.7 ms ] threadCato the Elder had the habit, no matter what the topic, to include the phrase in his speeches "And Carthage must be destroyed" -- Carthago delenda est
No matter what came up, he always added "Carthago delenda est" The farmers have had a good harvest this year, and Carthage must be destroyed. I am very happy to receive this honor, and Carthage must be destroyed. Nice toga you're wearing, and Carthage must be destroyed.
I think this list stands on it's own. No matter what the topic, climate change is presented as a big factor. It's become the universal plug-and-play prime mover. This is especially interesting in the context of no statistically significant global warming in the last decade or two. Of course, all generalizations are false, change doesn't necessarily mean warming, micro-climate is not the same as macro-climate, etc, etc. But you get the point.
If the list isn't enough to make the rhetorical point well, perhaps somebody with more time than I have can write it up in a good essay. I know I'd like to read it.
Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carthago_delenda_est
"Pfft. Crazy talk. The Earth has always been exactly as it is now."
"We might be contributing to these changes because of our polluting ways."
"No we aren't. It's too big. There's no way that 6 billion people could have any effect on the Earth's climate."
"We think we have some evidence. Look..."
"HAH! Look, here, see? Your numbers don't all match! You're a fraud! You just want money to continue your prestigious work!"
"Uhm ... sure. But look, the climate affects a lot of things, y'know."
"Yeah, so?"
"So, here's a partial list of things which might be affected by climate."
"LOLOL! There's no way one thing could be blamed for all of these! No way! That just proves you're a crock!"
...But, uhm, hey, thanks for contributing to the debate, or something.
One of the main claims of climate skeptics like myself is that the earth has always been changing, and that temperature changes seen recently are largely a result of these natural (mostly solar) cycles. This would explain why Mars was also heating up for a while.
You need to get another set of straw men.
But if it's just rampant speculation by uninformed people I apologize. I certainly didn't mean to spam the board. Care to prove your point that somehow all of these reports, surveys, studies, and findings are bogus? Or is this just a way not to deal with the overwhelming amount of research with unusual conclusions that somehow links into climate change?
By the way, my guess is that this is a conservative list, created for impact. The actual list of suspicious links and conclusions is probably much more boring -- and much more extensive. This is just the tip of the iceberg.
But I'm happy to be proven wrong.
Additionally it's got to be so hard to filter out things that aren't just tengentially caused.
I'm sure many of this links hold valuable info and insight. My only concern is that this isn't the correct way to combine it all: I might do some research and combine a paper if I get some spare time.
Even if every single thing on this list is bullshit, which much probably is, all it proves is that this issue has long since left the realm of actual scientific debate. People who support the theory think everyone who denies it is ignorant, but most supporters (of which I am one, vaguely) don't realize that their team is full of ignorance too.
I suppose maybe it's useful to point that out, I just assume everyone here already knows this.
Should have used "abbreviated", "reduced", "brief", or "terse", instead of conservative. Bad word choice
If anything, the selection criteria itself looks to tend towards the strange and unusual. I'm guessing that the quality, if any, of the research had very little impact on selection criteria.
I clicked on a few links - two were 404's, one said that it wasn't caused by GW but was exacerbated by it (ozone repair slowed), one was speculation about shark attacks by a shark expert. One said that nuclear power would probably increase due to global warming. One said that New Zealand would have many fewer melanoma deaths due to GW. The one about jet engines seemed to have nothing to do with GW.
It's a good list and a good point. Global warming turned me into a newt. However, IMHO, there is a kernel of truth in there somewhere.
Edit: Newt reference for those who may not have experienced it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fr8DIg3oHFI
Yes. I mistook the H1 for the title. I assure you it was an honest mistake.
I also agree with you that there is truth in there. I further agree that the more we work towards a nuclear/green electric future with zero emissions the more enjoyable everything will be, and I support that overall strategy with some caveats. I'm just a process guy at heart, though, and for a couple of years the debate on GW has struck me as being badly broken. I think this is an ominous sign for both politics and science. I hope the current debacle can help reasonable people come up with standards, ethical guidelines, and certification programs that will prevent this mess from happening again. I am doubtful, though. I think climate science has gotten so political that there is going to have to be a severe thrashing taken by one side before the sufficient changes are taken. What can I say? Hopefully I'm very wrong about this.
The people to blame aren't the scientists but the press who take "x may be related to y" and turn it into "X CAUSES Y!".
http://www.phdcomics.com/comics.php?f=1174
Unfortunately other people pick up on the fact that most of what the media report about bad things that have been caused by global warming is rubbish (true, as far as I can tell) and extrapolate this to "proof" that nothing bad will ever be caused by global warming (non sequitur).
Who's read him? (I actually think I was linked to numberwatch on HN)