4 ms·

Do your friends doubt climate change is happening at all? Or do they doubt that it's our fault?

saym 13y ago
I love the man, but my father listens to Rush Limbaugh. It's difficult to find facts he accepts on global warming. For all the vitriol he spews, Rush does an impressive job at framing situations so that he's impossible to argue with.
rotten 13y ago
yes.
guelo 13y ago
It's true that the more aware deniers updated their propaganda 5 to 10 years ago with the non-anthropogenic argument. But there are still a lot of less informed deniers that swallow the hardcore right-wing conspiracies whole. i.e. there is no warming, it was invented by Al Gore to take away our freedoms and establish a one world government.
- vixen99 13y ago
  Real climate has disproved all models to date. There has been no forthcoming explanation for the 15 year hiatus in warming. In other words the science underlying climate is far from known. As Feynman reminds us “It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with experiment, it’s wrong.”. Thus we have to push on and cannot advise politicians. Since 1979 the IPCC report has published a best estimate for the climate sensitivity. Its latest report says "No best estimate for equilibrium climate sensitivity can now be given because of a lack of agreement on values across assessed lines of evidence and studies.". It is not a question of denying or conspiring. It's a matter of discovering the science behind our climate. Let's do it without the silly rhetoric. By the way, if you believe the very worst prediction (proposed on the basis of failed models) then you will be interested in this link which asks what the cost of 'doing something' is. http://topher.com.au/50-to-1-video-project/ http://topher.com.au/50-to-1-video-project/
  - saalweachter 13y ago
    What are you talking about? http://blogs-images.forbes.com/petergleick/files/2012/02/GlobalT-15yrs.png http://blogs-images.forbes.com/petergleick/files/2012/02/Glo...
    - pdonis 13y ago
      That's because they carefully picked 1997 as the starting year. What does the trendline look like if you pick other starting years? More generally, why do we assume that a linear trendline is the appropriate way to analyze this data? Has anyone actually done an analysis that doesn't start from that assumption?
      - saalweachter 13y ago
        Here's from 1880, with a non-linear trendline: http://blogs-images.forbes.com/petergleick/files/2012/02/GlobalT-full.png http://blogs-images.forbes.com/petergleick/files/2012/02/Glo... The full article is here: http://www.forbes.com/sites/petergleick/2012/02/05/global-warming-has-stopped-how-to-fool-people-using-cherry-picked-climate-data/ http://www.forbes.com/sites/petergleick/2012/02/05/global-wa...
        pdonis 13y ago
        Thanks for the links. I at least see why the second graph had to pick 1880 as the starting point, since that's as far back as the instrumental record it used went. And at least it considered the possibility of a non-linear fit. However, the curve fitting is still subject to error, because you don't have the trend before 1880, at least not in this dataset. What if the temps around 1880 were anomalously warm compared to, say, 1800? (Which we have reason to believe they were.) Then the actual trendline from 1800 or so might still be roughly linear. But more importantly, 1880 is still an arbitrary starting point; any starting point is arbitrary unless you know you have the entire dataset, which we obviously don't. If the actual trend is, say, a sine wave with a period of roughly 800 to 1000 years, with the last peak being around 1000 - 1200 AD and the last trough being around 1600 - 1700 AD, what we're seeing now could just be the approach to the next peak. I note that the article links to a GRL paper, which I'll have to read; its abstract doesn't make it quite clear what is actual data and what is extrapolated from models.
mikeash 13y ago
If they're anything like the ones I know, it depends on the particular day and particular discussion. There is no one stance on climate change, just a general contrarian theme. If the discussion leaves room for doubting warming in general, that will be done. If too much evidence for warming is presented, it'll switch to doubting human causes for it.

saym 13y ago

I love the man, but my father listens to Rush Limbaugh. It's difficult to find facts he accepts on global warming. For all the vitriol he spews, Rush does an impressive job at framing situations so that he's impossible to argue with.

rotten 13y ago

yes.

guelo 13y ago

It's true that the more aware deniers updated their propaganda 5 to 10 years ago with the non-anthropogenic argument. But there are still a lot of less informed deniers that swallow the hardcore right-wing conspiracies whole. i.e. there is no warming, it was invented by Al Gore to take away our freedoms and establish a one world government.

vixen99 13y ago
Real climate has disproved all models to date. There has been no forthcoming explanation for the 15 year hiatus in warming. In other words the science underlying climate is far from known. As Feynman reminds us “It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with experiment, it’s wrong.”. Thus we have to push on and cannot advise politicians. Since 1979 the IPCC report has published a best estimate for the climate sensitivity. Its latest report says "No best estimate for equilibrium climate sensitivity can now be given because of a lack of agreement on values across assessed lines of evidence and studies.". It is not a question of denying or conspiring. It's a matter of discovering the science behind our climate. Let's do it without the silly rhetoric. By the way, if you believe the very worst prediction (proposed on the basis of failed models) then you will be interested in this link which asks what the cost of 'doing something' is. http://topher.com.au/50-to-1-video-project/ http://topher.com.au/50-to-1-video-project/
- saalweachter 13y ago
  What are you talking about? http://blogs-images.forbes.com/petergleick/files/2012/02/GlobalT-15yrs.png http://blogs-images.forbes.com/petergleick/files/2012/02/Glo...
  - pdonis 13y ago
    That's because they carefully picked 1997 as the starting year. What does the trendline look like if you pick other starting years? More generally, why do we assume that a linear trendline is the appropriate way to analyze this data? Has anyone actually done an analysis that doesn't start from that assumption?
    - saalweachter 13y ago
      Here's from 1880, with a non-linear trendline: http://blogs-images.forbes.com/petergleick/files/2012/02/GlobalT-full.png http://blogs-images.forbes.com/petergleick/files/2012/02/Glo... The full article is here: http://www.forbes.com/sites/petergleick/2012/02/05/global-warming-has-stopped-how-to-fool-people-using-cherry-picked-climate-data/ http://www.forbes.com/sites/petergleick/2012/02/05/global-wa...
      - pdonis 13y ago
        Thanks for the links. I at least see why the second graph had to pick 1880 as the starting point, since that's as far back as the instrumental record it used went. And at least it considered the possibility of a non-linear fit. However, the curve fitting is still subject to error, because you don't have the trend before 1880, at least not in this dataset. What if the temps around 1880 were anomalously warm compared to, say, 1800? (Which we have reason to believe they were.) Then the actual trendline from 1800 or so might still be roughly linear. But more importantly, 1880 is still an arbitrary starting point; any starting point is arbitrary unless you know you have the entire dataset, which we obviously don't. If the actual trend is, say, a sine wave with a period of roughly 800 to 1000 years, with the last peak being around 1000 - 1200 AD and the last trough being around 1600 - 1700 AD, what we're seeing now could just be the approach to the next peak. I note that the article links to a GRL paper, which I'll have to read; its abstract doesn't make it quite clear what is actual data and what is extrapolated from models.

mikeash 13y ago

If they're anything like the ones I know, it depends on the particular day and particular discussion. There is no one stance on climate change, just a general contrarian theme. If the discussion leaves room for doubting warming in general, that will be done. If too much evidence for warming is presented, it'll switch to doubting human causes for it.