NeoCons diddle over climate change while Norfolk floods

[maxx]

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/26/sc...26norfolk.html
"...
Climate change is a subject of friction in Virginia. The state’s attorney general, Ken T. Cuccinelli II, is trying to prove that a prominent climate scientist engaged in fraud when he was a researcher at the University of Virginia. But the residents of coastal neighborhoods here are less interested in the debate than in the real-time consequences of a rise in sea level. .."

[Va. Gov. Bob McDonnell does not think humans have contributed to climate change, so why try doing something like cutting back on greenhouse gases? See today's "Need to Know" on PBS website.]

[gazhekwe]

“The fact is that there is not enough engineering to go around to mitigate the rising sea,” he said. “For us, it is the bitter reality of trying to live in a world that is getting warmer and wetter.”

No matter what is causing it, climate change must be addressed. It is way late to begin talking about it, but we MUST address it. According to the article, they are beginning to consider "retreat zones" which amounts to relocating endangered developments to higher ground. Wise heads must determine the potential incursions of the seas to determine how far inland the town must retreat to avoid having the same problem in another twenty years.

[rb336]

Denialists are fools. plain and simple. anthropogenic climate change is strongly supported by solid scientific work in a dozen different fields, at least. They pick one little blurb or comment, possibly from a dispute over what a certain piece of data means, it is simply to confuse the scientifically illiterate with BS. It's like they are saying that a blind person isn't blind because they can tell the lights are on, disregarding that the person can't see shapes, distances, colors, just a change in brightness.

[Papasito]

the climate is constantly changing. the earth gets hot. the earth gets cold. the earth gets wetter. the earth gets drier.

right now the earth is getting warmer. will governments save the earth by charging the people of the world additional taxes? the last time i checked, the earth's climate wasn't based on money. unless maybe they were going to make a huge dome of currency to block some of the sun's rays, maybe that might make the earth cooler again.

any way you look at the causes behind climate change, you can see that our governments are abusing it and using it as a way to get more cash and then blow it on stupid crap that has nothing to do with it. it's all about money and power.

can the earth's climate EVER be stabilized? is it even possible?
or are policitians abusing us in vain?
no matter what taxes they charge, no matter what restrictions they put on business, no matter what freedoms they take away from us, the earth will get warmer, and the earth will get cooler.

the day politicians can make the Earth 75 degrees every day and 65 degrees every night, consistantly, is the day I will believe that they can change the Earth's climate to reverse warming.

I'm not denying climate change. I'm just saying they can't do anything about it except take our money.

[Mikeg]

A few observations:

a) the original poster hasn't a clue of the meaning of "NeoCons", nor were "NeoCons" referenced in the linked NYT article

b) if anyone had actually read the article, they would know that the flooding problems in Norfolk are "in an area where significant natural sinking of land is occurring. The result is that Norfolk has experienced the highest relative increase in sea level on the East Coast". Climate change was only brought into the article because of the recent actions of Virginia's Attorney General regarding the global warming controversy.

c) The case for anthropogenic global warming [[AGW) will gain more credibility when:

1) AGW adherents stop
a) creating disingenuous threads like this one
b) using the "denier" label for non-believers
2) Al Gore reduces his personal domestic carbon footprint, flies only on scheduled commercial airliners and divests himself of the "green" components of his investment portfolio and business dealings.

[rb336]

sorry, guys, there is no real controversy over climate change, only manufactured controversy created by the Heartland Foundation, the same people who brought us the "controversy" over whether tobacco is bad for us. The evidence is in, the planet is warming FAR faster than at any time in the last several 100s of thousands of years, and it is doing so because of human actions. Denialists is the correct label for the group because they are not merely skeptics -- they latch on to faux-scientific work to back their statements, try to discredit thousands of scientists by claiming they have ulterior motives [[yet will never state one fact to back them up) while accepting the word of people who clearly DO have an agenda -- mouthpieces for the fossil fuel industry. Essentially, they act and speak in the same manor as creationists.

As I have said before, not one weather event is evidence of ACG [[anthropogenic climate change) nor is one extra hot summer. Evidence comes from dozens of fields and must be examined as a whole. Go ahead, rely on ad-hominem attacks on Al Gore. It only makes you look incredibly stupid and proves my point. You have no arguments with any scientific credence

[oladub]

The evidence is in, the planet is warming FAR faster than at any time in the last several 100s of thousands of years, and it is doing so because of human actions.

Since every action has an equal and opposite reaction, putting additional heat into the atmosphere must have a reaction. Heating the atmosphere would therefore be logical. That said, there is big money to be made playing this card. Al Gore, for instance, jumped into selling carbon credits on the commodities market. So while I think this is logical, I suspect there are some players trying to hype the issue for their own benefit.

Also, Eric the Red opened up Greenland for settlement because a thousand [[not 100s of thousands) years ago, Greenland was warm enough to pasture cattle. Obviously, Greenland's balmier climate had something to do with some other factor than human actions.

I suspect it is unscientific to rule out all other factors and say there can only be one possible explanation or you are a heretic, denialist, or whatever.

[rb336]

Also, Eric the Red opened up Greenland for settlement because a thousand [[not 100s of thousands) years ago, Greenland was warm enough to pasture cattle. Obviously, Greenland's balmier climate had something to do with some other factor than human actions.

What happened during the "Medieval Warming Period" is that yes, temperatures were warmer in the North Atlantic than they are today. Southern hemisphere temps were cooler. The warmer NA temps have been traced to lower than normal volcanic activity in the Northern Hemisphere, greater solar activity and a northward shift in the Atlantic current. What we have now is the largest and quickest GLOBAL temperature increase -- for as far back as they can trace ice cores and other features. This argument is one of the weakest in the denialist bad. it is akin to saying that since plagues have wiped out millions, the death toll durring WWII was a normal occurence.

I suspect it is unscientific to rule out all other factors and say there can only be one possible explanation or you are a heretic, denialist, or whatever.

It is unscientific to posit vague "other factors" without providing the the specifics or the data to back up the claims.

[oladub]

It is unscientific to posit vague "other factors" without providing the the specifics or the data to back up the claims.

Ok, I''ll quote you. "Volcanic activity' and 'solar activity' are two factors you mentioned and I will re-write my sentence as follows.' I suspect it is unscientific to rule out all other factors, including volcanic and solar activity, and say there can only be one possible explanation or you are a heretic, denialist, or whatever.' Or are you suggesting that the sun revolves around the generally accepted theories of the majority of the scientific and carbon credit community sales communities?

[maxx]

oladub:I suspect it is unscientific to rule out all other factors and say there can only be one possible explanation or you are a heretic, denialist, or whatever.

Climate change denialists say there can only be one explanation, nature. They refuse to acknowledge that human activity can have any influence on the planet. But the fact remains that the ocean is acidifying and rising. And Norfolk is settling is much slower than the ocean level is rising. Cities are being flooded every 50 - 60 years instead of every 100 years. That's because the glaciers are melting. Just compare pix of Glacier Nat. Park at their website if you haven't visited a glacier lately.

What Al Gore does has nothing to do with whether humans are affecting the world's climate. People who want to offset their carbon footprints should give to green organizations. If Gore can make money from carbon offsets, more power to him. I'm sure there are other people much more venal than Gore who are also doing it.

In the final analysis, global poisoning is the more important issue. Just take a whiff around those oil storage tanks south of Detroit.

[rb336]

Ok, I''ll quote you. "Volcanic activity' and 'solar activity' are two factors you mentioned and I will re-write my sentence as follows.' I suspect it is unscientific to rule out all other factors, including volcanic and solar activity, and say there can only be one possible explanation or you are a heretic, denialist, or whatever.' Or are you suggesting that the sun revolves around the generally accepted theories of the majority of the scientific and carbon credit community sales communities?

If you actually read any of the literature, you would know that solar and volcanic activity are not involved in the current warming. I am suggesting that the generally accepted frameworks created by actual scientists with peer review, etc, are a vastly superior fit to observed data than those posited by the denialists. i'll put my trust in the scientific method over corporate mouthpieces any day on any subject.

[Mikeg]

..... the generally accepted frameworks created by actual scientists with peer review, etc, are a vastly superior fit to observed data .......

In which steps of the scientific method does one create "generally accepted frameworks" and conduct a "fit to observed data"?

Instead of spouting gibberish, perhaps you can give us a link or two to some published studies where a tested hypothesis has been peer-reviewed by climate scientists to the point where it is now an accepted theory that global warming is caused by man. Oh, and the published studies need to include all of the data that was collected to test the hypothesis along with all of the data that was modified or omitted for the testing.

[HistoryNotHisStory]

“The fact is that there is not enough engineering to go around to mitigate the rising sea,” he said. “For us, it is the bitter reality of trying to live in a world that is getting warmer and wetter.”

No matter what is causing it, climate change must be addressed. It is way late to begin talking about it, but we MUST address it. According to the article, they are beginning to consider "retreat zones" which amounts to relocating endangered developments to higher ground. Wise heads must determine the potential incursions of the seas to determine how far inland the town must retreat to avoid having the same problem in another twenty years.

However, there are enough engineering and scientist to address some of the rising causes of climate change.

The problem is that Govenors and politicians are not scientists. Therefore, they lack the proper knowledge to talk on the matter. Climate Change is not up to political opinion. Climate Change is real.

[HistoryNotHisStory]

Have you look at the document from the IPCC?

[HistoryNotHisStory]

In which steps of the scientific method does one create "generally accepted frameworks" and conduct a "fit to observed data"?

Instead of spouting gibberish, perhaps you can give us a link or two to some published studies where a tested hypothesis has been peer-reviewed by climate scientists to the point where it is now an accepted theory that global warming is caused by man. Oh, and the published studies need to include all of the data that was collected to test the hypothesis along with all of the data that was modified or omitted for the testing.

Read at least ten reports from the IPCC then comment.

This is not a fiction nor opinion but decades of research.

Start reading at ; http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_..._reports.shtml

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_..._reports.shtml

[jiminnm]

In which steps of the scientific method does one create "generally accepted frameworks" and conduct a "fit to observed data"?

Instead of spouting gibberish, perhaps you can give us a link or two to some published studies where a tested hypothesis has been peer-reviewed by climate scientists to the point where it is now an accepted theory that global warming is caused by man. Oh, and the published studies need to include all of the data that was collected to test the hypothesis along with all of the data that was modified or omitted for the testing.

C'mon Mike, you expect too much. Especially since most of the raw data used in the assorted UN analyses was mistakenly 'destroyed.' All the remains is the adjusted data.

[Mikeg]

Read at least ten reports from the IPCC then comment.

This is not a fiction nor opinion but decades of research.

Start reading at ; http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_..._reports.shtml

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_..._reports.shtml

Decades of research perhaps, but they are unable or unwilling to share their complete data sets with other climate scientists so that their hypotheses can be independently tested and their theories confirmed or debunked - that is the true meaning of "peer review" in the scientific method.

[Mikeg]

C'mon Mike, you expect too much. Especially since most of the raw data used in the assorted UN analyses was mistakenly 'destroyed.' All the remains is the adjusted data.

You're right, I guess I do expect too much, particularly from that former railroad engineer and retired [[thank you Jesus!) politician who shared that Nobel Peace Prize in 2007.

[rb336]

In which steps of the scientific method does one create "generally accepted frameworks" and conduct a "fit to observed data"?

those are not steps, those are the working principals

Instead of spouting gibberish, perhaps you can give us a link or two to some published studies where a tested hypothesis has been peer-reviewed by climate scientists to the point where it is now an accepted theory that global warming is caused by man. Oh, and the published studies need to include all of the data that was collected to test the hypothesis along with all of the data that was modified or omitted for the testing.

There are literally hundreds of them. Start here:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/resources.php?peer=1

[rb336]

C'mon Mike, you expect too much. Especially since most of the raw data used in the assorted UN analyses was mistakenly 'destroyed.' All the remains is the adjusted data.

It has? and what, pray tell, is your source for that?

[ferntruth]

In which steps of the scientific method does one create "generally accepted frameworks" and conduct a "fit to observed data"?

Instead of spouting gibberish, perhaps you can give us a link or two to some published studies where a tested hypothesis has been peer-reviewed by climate scientists to the point where it is now an accepted theory that global warming is caused by man. Oh, and the published studies need to include all of the data that was collected to test the hypothesis along with all of the data that was modified or omitted for the testing.

Why exactly? You and the other deniers would just attack the source, like you do everything else related to climate change.

Personally, I hope things start going really bad in the next 70 years or so. I'll be long dead and it will be your descendants who will pay the price for your foolishness.

[Mikeg]

Why exactly?

It's been alleged that certain data sets used in the studies were modified and that data points in certain series were tossed out altogether. The reasons the researchers made those decisions about the data may be perfectly valid. However, in order for a true "peer review" to occur and move AGW from hypothesis to accepted theory, the peers need to have access to the same raw data used by those who originally proposed and tested the hypothesis.

Personally, I hope things start going really bad in the next 70 years or so. I'll be long dead and it will be your descendants who will pay the price for your foolishness.

I take it you have no loved ones or close relatives and that by now there must not be much left of your nose with that kind of an attitude! But keep it up, I'm sure it will change a lot of "deniers" into true believers!

[rb336]

It's been alleged that certain data sets used in the studies were modified and that data points in certain series were tossed out altogether. The reasons the researchers made those decisions about the data may be perfectly valid. However, in order for a true "peer review" to occur and move AGW from hypothesis to accepted theory, the peers need to have access to the same raw data used by those who originally proposed and tested the hypothesis.

And where did those allegations arise? from people without the background in science and from heartland's shills. Every oneof the allegations I've seen has been asked and answered by the scientific community [[I believe that list I gave you has articles relating to some of them.

You clearly do not understand the peer-review process. It has nothing to do with acceptance of the robustness of a theory, it is a method of applying the scientific standards of a journal to an article.

[Jimaz]

Papantonio: Climate Change Deniers Watching The World Burn

[Jimaz]

Papantonio: Heartland Institute Kicks Off Climate Change Denial-a-Palooza