Global warming - once more into the breach.... (Page 3)

So we started it millions of years ago when the earth started warming?

This religious stuff is so confusing to me, so I'm trying to understand.

sigh. the current trend of warming and increase CO2 levels in the atmosphere within the last several hundred years is primarily due to human activities, namely agriculture, deforestation, and the burning of fossil fuels. Other factors have of course influenced global temperatures, but these factors have had a peripheral impact.

is that more clear for you?

Dave, there have been hundreds of peer reviewed scientific papers published in the past few years that call into question the consensus that you're dearly holding onto.  I know you want it to be true because you believe it to be true, but that's not how science works. 
There is a consensus that the earth is warming, there is a consensus that man contributes to that warming, there is a consensus that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, there is a consensus that CO2 has an effect on warming, but there is absolutely no scientific consensus as to the actual level of contribution of CO2 to the warming.  It was thought to be the primary forcing agent, but as we learn more and more it appears to be more and more insignificant.

Here's one example of a paper last year  http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0958305X17722790?journalCode=eaea

"Thus, if CO₂ has any effect on atmospheric temperature and climate change we show it is negligible. Consequently, current government policies to control atmospheric temperature by limiting consumption of fossil fuels will have negligible effect."

do we have to go through this again?  this retired mechanical engineer and cancer researcher published something very low down in a journal. Impact factor 0.302, rated 102/105 studies.  People are allowed to write whatever they want.  The vast majority of studies say the opposite. 

Energy & Environment (E&E) is an academic journal "covering the direct and indirect environmental impacts of energy acquisition, transport, production and use".^[1] Its editor-in-chief since 1998 is Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen. It is known for easygoing Peer-review and publishing climate change denial papers.

The journal is regarded as "a small journal that caters to climate change denialists".^[8] It has played an important role in attacking climate science and scientists, for example Michael E. Mann.^[9]

I can find a study that says ANYTHING.  That doesn't make it true. 

So, you deny science?  lol

Dave, there are more and more studies coming out of late that directly contradict your belief system.  I know you will continue to deny it and believe what you want to believe, but it doesn't change the facts.
I'm not even saying these guys are right, but what I'm trying to convince you is that the science couldn't be further from settled which is what you keep hanging onto.  It is not settled, it's not even close to settled.

Try reading the papers from journals that are scholastically accepted as not being politically motivated sh*tholes

What part of the scientific method teaches us to degrade and label anyone with an opposing viewpoint?

Also, do you deny that there is zero political motivation from the side that believes what you believe?

the well accepted journals are not politically motivated. this journal was literally created as a political tool by conservatives to try and discredit real research.

Energy & Environment (E&E) is an academic journal "covering the direct and indirect environmental impacts of energy acquisition, transport, production and use".^[1] Its editor-in-chief since 1998 is Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen. It is known for easygoing Peer-review and publishing climate change denial papers.

The journal is regarded as "a small journal that caters to climate change denialists".^[8] It has played an important role in attacking climate science and scientists, for example Michael E. Mann.^[9]

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3787818/

and please don't try and quote the cato institute thing about how the journals are biased.  the cato institue was created/funded by the Koch brothers to serve their agenda.

Here's the part that flies about 20 feet over your head Dave.  You've openly admitted that you are not open to any opinion or scientific evidence that doesn't support the conclusion that you've already made.  You openly mock any scientists who present a paper that is different than your opinion and beliefs.  You then openly mock any publishing organization that dares to publish anything that disagrees with your belief system.  Then you mock those who aren't like you as sticking their heads in the sand?  lol, pot meet kettle.

You are correct that your so called "credible journals won't publish anything that refutes their belief system because they're exactly like you.  They are not scientific organizations, they are political organizations that only publish things that support their belief system.  This is not science, this is politics and religion.   I know you don't like hearing that, but it doesn't make it untrue.

I'm thankful that we have some adults back in Washington who will hopefully pull a few of the ostrich heads out of the sand.  For many years the only funding that was to be had was for people with their heads in the sand.  That will change and the real science will ultimately bubble to the top.  So it's all good.

good point, all the recognized scientific journals are political tools created to advance the evil scientist agenda. you're drowining in the red coolaid

It does taste good. you should come over and have some.  ;-)

What would happen if they tried publishing it in the "reputable" journals?  You know they won't publish it and it's not because of what's in their study.  It's because of politics.
There are hundreds and hundreds of very renowned scientists that try to get published and they get laughed out of the building because they don't proclaim allegiance to the AGW dogma.

When it comes to the science of AGW, I feel it flies in the face of the way science works as well.  Don't get me wrong, there are very good scientists doing very good stuff in this field and we've made a lot of advancements in our understanding.  However, it's become so politicized and polluted with the dogma of the alarmist global warming crowd and politicians who want to use it as justification for stealing more money from taxpayers that it's way out in the weeds.  It is next to impossible to get a study published in any of the main stream outfits that even remotely hints that CO2 isn't the primary forcing agent.

so why is it tony, that only global warming doesn't operate like the rest of science? Could it be because it is politically convenient for some people to create doubt and confusion around the issue? Like perhaps, cigarettes making people sick?

Or maybe, just maybe, and I know this is going to sound way out there, but bear with me. Maybe it's next to impossible to get a study published in any of the main stream outfits that even remotely hints that CO2 isn't the primary forcing agent because there isn't any good evidence for it. I do agree that at this point there is probably a higher bar for evidence that it's not the primary forcing agent, just because there is so so so so so much evidence currently that it is (extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence), and every other possibility has been ruled out. But even though the bar might be higher at this point, I can guarantee that if someone came forward with convincing evidence that earthworms are the primary forcing agent, the major publications would be falling all over themselves to be the one that overturned the prevailing wisdom. But they're not like the MSM where they publish an opposing view no matter whether or not it's crap, just to appear 'balanced'. The reason skeptical research has trouble getting published is that almost all of it turns out to be  based on flawed data and/or flawed understanding, especially the stuff that is supposed to overturn the entire field with one paper.

Skeptics do occasionally get published in reputable journals, and have actually played an important role in improving the science. An example that comes to mind is when some scientists at UAH found that satellite temperature measurements didn't line up with what was expected if the atmosphere is warming. It was found that there was an error in how the data were processed, so fixing that helps improve the quality of our warming estimates.

I actually get what you're saying, but even the example of the UAH satellite data.  Didn't they use that data to "adjust" the data in a controversial way to maintain the warning?  I could be mixing it up with a different study.

There's also the flip side where junk science gets published that pushes the AGW narrative.  For example in 2013 (I believe) there was a study published that "scientifically proved" their was a 97% consensus on CO2 being the primary forcing agent for global warming.  It was pumped all over the news for weeks and many still to this day (cough, Dave) like to use it as justification for there being a consensus.  Yet, the study was horribly flawed in how it derived it's consensus.  Not to mention that many of the papers referenced in the study weren't even related to climate.  Yet, it told the story people wanted to hear and was published in reputable journals.

I know we've gone back and forth over this many times and I think you know where my position is on the whole issue.  The earth has been warming, CO2 is a greenhouse gas, CO2 has been increasing, man creates more CO2 now than before, etc.  However, the models predicting temperature increases due to CO2 increases have been significantly warmer than observed data.  So, we're now realizing it's a lot more complex than just CO2.  I'm not a "denier" or anything like that.  I simply take the position that CO2 is not doing what science thought it was and we're still trying to understand the forcing agents. 
My personal hypothesis (no, i'm not a scientist) is that the solar cycles have a far greater impact on the global climate than CO2 does, but they both do contribute.

Well, if you think it is due to solar cycles, have you taken a look at the current cycle?

Solar Cycle 24 is the 24th solar cycle since 1755, when extensive recording of solar sunspot activity began.^[1][2] It is the current solar cycle, and began in December 2008 with a smoothed minimum of 2.2 (SIDC formula). There was only minimal activity until early 2010.^[3][4] It reached its maximum in April 2014 with smoothed sunspot number only 116.4, the lowest in over a century.^[5]

Yes, I've read a lot about the solar cycles.  The "pause" in global warming since the late 90's correlates with it fairly well.
Also, I was just saying it was my hypothesis.  I'm not saying for certain it is the primary cause.
I really a combination of everything from solar activity, CO2, water vapor, etc and then the temperatures become very cyclical around the mean with el nino and la nina ocean patterns that we're still trying to understand.

One thing that's really interesting is that we always see "temperature data" from hundreds and even thousands of years earlier which is certainly valid science, but the margin for error is substantially greater than the satellite data we now have available.
We have only had accurate satellite data since the late 20th century.

Look at the local weather in your city tonight.  There will be 50 different temperatures from 50 different weather stations for just your city.  (same with mine).  Then we see reports of tree rings or ice core samples from thousands of years ago and claim that we can use it to deduce global temperature within a fraction of a degree.  I struggle with the accuracy of the historic data, if I'm honest.
For the record, I used to quote the various historical temperature data which showed it used to be a lot warmer than it is today hundreds of years ago.  It may have been and it may not have been, but it's hard to compare isolated regional data to global satellite data today.