Replies are closed for this discussion.
If you are requiring data that has gone uncontested, then in such a highly politicized topic, you won't find any. Every time good information is produced it is lambasted by someone with a vested interest in claiming it's wrong. That's how things go in this age of information and rapid response PR. It's not far different from how the gasoline companies found people to say leaded gas was safe or cigarette companies to say that their product doesn't cause cancer. Among the scientific community, the consensus is there and the data is accepted. Those who don't accept it have reproduced the data and gotten the same results. Case in point: Richard Muller. He was a "climate skeptic" funded by the Koch brothers, adamant climate change denialists, to come up with his own data to determine if the world was actually warming, because they suspected the data they had to be unreliable. Here's what he found:
Unlike previous efforts, the temperature data from various sources was not homogenised by hand – a key criticism by climate sceptics. Instead, the statistical analysis was "completely automated to reduce human bias". The Best team concluded that, despite their deeper analysis, their own findings closely matched the previous temperature reconstructions, "but with reduced uncertainty".
Last October, the Best team published results that showed the average global land temperature has risen by about 1C since the mid-1950s. But the team did not look for possible fingerprints to explain this warming. The latest data analysis reached much further back in time but, crucially, also searched for the most likely cause of the rise by plotting the upward temperature curve against suspected "forcings". It analysed the warming impact of solar activity – a popular theory among climate sceptics – but found that, over the past 250 years, the contribution of the sun has been "consistent with zero". Volcanic eruptions were found to have caused short dips in the temperature rise in the period 1750–1850, but "only weak analogues" in the 20th century.
"Much to my surprise, by far the best match came to the record of atmospheric carbon dioxide, measured from atmospheric samples and air trapped in polar ice," said Muller. "While this doesn't prove that global warming is caused by human greenhouse gases, it is currently the best explanation we have found, and sets the bar for alternative explanations."
Thanks for the informative post.
I'm not claiming anything except confusion. I don't know. I don't know what to make of man made climate change. I'm not convinced that any call to action has been established.
I get facts about opinions and opinions about facts.
I appreciate everyone's contribution to this thread by the way. Again, I only mean to illustrate my confusion and rather than feeling fearful, I am left disinterested in the notion of man made climate change crisis thingee.
I'm about to shout and I'm asking your pardon in advance.
WHY HAS NO ONE HERE TOLD ANDY IT'S OKAY IF HE DOESN'T BELIEVE?
C'mon, post your reasons for witnessing to him.
Check your data source on my age. I'm an adult. And at 5'11" I would not say that I am small. Although I only weigh about 160 lbs, less than most of my contemporaries.
I think Tom was urging others to recognize that the subject matter is controversial, and the fervor of some is, honestly, disturbing.
There's belief and then there's suspension of belief. Denying evolution and AGW requires the latter.
Al Gore Worldview??
Anthropogenic Global Warming.
Ok, sarcasm aside, I believe in evolution and realize that Ken Ham is mentally ill, and the Creation Museum is a monument to his illness.
Suspension of belief is in order when there are conflicting sources (doctrine) and advocates (clergy).
Divorce the science of what is happening from the politics of how to deal with it. The first is a fact established to the same extent as evolution, heliocentricity, MMR is safe, HIV causes AIDS, etc. The second is a completely different topic altogether.
The alarmism has to do with the politics of mitigation, not the fact of occurrence. A lot of money is being thrown away on useless projects (see: Germany's Energiwende), which is highly controversial. But I repeat, the science is not.
Though let me add that I don't completely disagree that it has become a bit of a Christianity-replacing cult. It comes replete with scripture (IPCC reports, of which the latest is plain bad science), saviors (i.e. Al Gore), devils (Koch), original sin (humans are planet destroyers), the apocalypse, etc.
This is my fear.
My problem with Al Gore is that while he's proselytizing climate change, he's profiting from investing in technological remedies. A conflict of interest?