“The good news is spring is coming earlier and earlier [thanks] to climate change.”
—An anonymous White House official, on the prospect of the Senate debating a climate and clean energy bill in the spring of 2010.
Notable Quotable
Obama administration officials grateful for early spring 10
-
24 Nov 2009 4:41 PM
by Ashley Braun -
Posted in
-
Read More About
Related Stories
Did Michelle Obama get the president to create a national Food Policy Council?
Add a Comment
You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have an account, log in. If you don't have an account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.
Comments
View as Flat
wobblie pressman Posted 9:44 am
25 Nov 2009
Permalink
shearwater Posted 6:38 pm
26 Nov 2009
Permalink
Brudaimonia Posted 12:10 am
28 Nov 2009
What are your premises for the claim that only the last 20 years matter in determining whether climate change has occurred?
Also, what is your evidence that the climate hasn't changed in the last 20 years?
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.lrg.gif
Here is a graph from NASA showing global temperature averages from 1880-present. The annual mean temperature anomaly increases from 0.20C in 1989 to 0.56C in 2009. How is that not a change? Or are these temperature observations flawed? If so, why?
You seem pretty definitive in your comment, so you must have rock-solid evidence to back it up. I'll be waiting to see it.
Permalink
shearwater Posted 11:31 am
28 Nov 2009
Permalink
Brudaimonia Posted 5:59 pm
28 Nov 2009
You failed to offer any evidence of your original claims. My questions are still waiting answers.
The graph shows that the climate has changed in the last 20 years (in fact, the last 40 years), contrary to your original point. You failed to offer counter-evidence, but instead implied that those who compiled the graph from temperature observations are liars. Where's your proof of that?
It's true that that particular temperature anomaly graph does not show the relationship between GHGs and temperature. That is shown in this National Academies of Science pamphlet (large PDF), pp. 5-6: http://dels.nas.edu/dels/rpt_briefs/climate_change_2008_final.pdf . The crux is that the observed high temperatures cannot be explained solely by reference to natural factors affecting the atmosphere.
You talk about the "burden of proof". Few things are proven indisputably in the natural sciences. One looks for where the weight of evidence is. It seems clear that the weight of evidence is on the side of the hypothesis that GHGs and climate change are connected. See, for example, this article: http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686).
Furthermore, that hypothesis has as its starting point the physical law discovered about certain gases, which we happen to emit in our everyday activities: they let the sun's radiation pass through them and warm the earth, but absorb and send back towards earth some of the infrared radiation they received from it. So if it were true that we should assign someone a "burden of proof" in this debate, perhaps it should be directed towards you contrarians: why, despite that indisputable fact about certain gases we emit, are they NOT somehow affecting the earth's average temperature, and thus other aspects of our climate, land, and oceans?
The new giddiness over the East Anglia emails are what are to be expected of expert straw-clutchers: twisting the words of a few of them and believing that that overthrows the overwhelming body of evidence that the climate is changing. I won't defend some of the language used in them. Some of it is disturbing; other parts have been taken out of context. (See Michael Mann's response here, for instance: http://www.treehugger.com/files/2009/11/mann-in-his-own-words.php). But how does what was said in those emails show that climate change isn't happening?
The dramatic tone of your comment ("lemmings", "world is going to end", etc.) suggests that you are attempting to compensate for a lack of evidence for your claims through harsh language. If you can't back up any of your claims with evidence, how can I take them seriously?
Permalink
Brudaimonia Posted 6:01 pm
28 Nov 2009
You failed to offer any evidence of your original claims. My questions are still waiting answers.
The graph shows that the climate has changed in the last 20 years (in fact, the last 40 years), contrary to your original point. You failed to offer counter-evidence, but instead implied that those who compiled the graph from temperature observations are liars. Where's your proof of that?
It's true that that particular temperature anomaly graph does not show the relationship between GHGs and temperature. That is shown in this National Academies of Science pamphlet (large PDF), pp. 5-6: http://dels.nas.edu/dels/rpt_briefs/climate_change_2008_final.pdf . The crux is that the observed high temperatures cannot be explained solely by reference to natural factors affecting the atmosphere.
You talk about the "burden of proof". Few things are proven indisputably in the natural sciences. One looks for where the weight of evidence is. It seems clear that the weight of evidence is on the side of the hypothesis that GHGs and climate change are connected. See, for example, this article: http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686).
Furthermore, that hypothesis has as its starting point the physical law discovered about certain gases, which we happen to emit in our everyday activities: they let the sun's radiation pass through them and warm the earth, but absorb and send back towards earth some of the infrared radiation they received from it. So if it were true that we should assign someone a "burden of proof" in this debate, perhaps it should be directed towards you contrarians: why, despite that indisputable fact about certain gases we emit, are they NOT somehow affecting the earth's average temperature, and thus other aspects of our climate, land, and oceans?
The new giddiness over the East Anglia emails are what are to be expected of expert straw-clutchers: twisting the words of a few of them and believing that that overthrows the overwhelming body of evidence that the climate is changing. I won't defend some of the language used in them. Some of it is disturbing; other parts have been taken out of context. (See Michael Mann's response here, for instance: http://www.treehugger.com/files/2009/11/mann-in-his-own-words.php). But how does what was said in those emails show that climate change isn't happening?
The dramatic tone of your comment ("lemmings", "world is going to end", etc.) suggests that you are attempting to compensate for a lack of evidence for your claims through harsh language. If you can't back up any of your claims with evidence, how can I take them seriously?
Permalink
shearwater Posted 6:37 am
29 Nov 2009
I think you guys are too invested in group think to look at it and read it.
Permalink
Brudaimonia Posted 10:11 am
29 Nov 2009
You continue to avoid offering evidence for your points.
The "Instrument of Repudiation" is not evidence. It is not a scientific document. It is a series of baseless statements.
Since you've had several chances to back your claims up and have failed to do so, I can only assume you don't really believe that climate change and the GHG connection are myths.
Permalink
shearwater Posted 6:31 pm
29 Nov 2009
Permalink
Brudaimonia Posted 8:02 pm
29 Nov 2009
I do deny that the UNFCCC is an attempt to take away our freedom and initiate a one-world government.
Here is a description of the convention:
****
Under the Convention, governments:
* gather and share information on greenhouse gas emissions, national policies and best practices
* launch national strategies for addressing greenhouse gas emissions and adapting to expected impacts, including the provision of financial and technological support to developing countries
* cooperate in preparing for adaptation to the impacts of climate change
****
Where in that description does it talk about taking away people's freedom and instituting a one-world government? Where is your evidence to back up this point?
"The fact is that Al Gore's film, "An Inconvenient Truth," has 34 falsehoods and 9 outright lies."
Again, where is your evidence?
"The polar bear population si increasing and has been for the last twenty years. That is evidence!!"
Yet again, where's your evidence of that?
On the contrary, it seems like polar bear numbers are in fact declining, especially in areas that have experienced significant warming over the last few decades, like Alaska (see here and here, for instance).
Permalink