Mugato: Why would Gore be crying over that? If it's true, that's a good thing. But then it is just one paper.

What kind of logical leap is required to think that a guy that was trying to prevent global warming wants more global warning?

from tfa 'Ordinarily, when something is published in Science, you expect it to be a significant advance/revision of our prior knowledge. I'm not sure that's the case here. The conclusion about the climate sensitivity is pretty consistent what most climate scientists think, so I don't think this paper will change what people think.'

Hmm, something tells me the paper will change (or confirm) what a shiaton of people want to think.

And just in time for the holidays so uncle bagger can rant at his family about 'see? I was right all along.'

vote republican

epoc_tnac: Mugato: Why would Gore be crying over that? If it's true, that's a good thing. But then it is just one paper.

What kind of logical leap is required to think that a guy that was trying to prevent global warming wants more global warning?

The republican kind.

What?? Wild hyperbole and speculation found not to be entirely accurate???

[nowaiowl.jpg]

Mugato: I honestly don't know why republicans, not the president of Exxon but your average Joe 12-pack republicans so fervently deny the issue of climate change but there's a lot I don't understand about republicans who aren't billionaires.

I think part of it is that a core plank of modern Republican ideology is that no American should ever have to sacrifice anything for the greater good. If climate change is real, that calls that assumption into question, and they might have to give up their giant SUVs and live a little more realistically.

/Also see, the "you'll take my incandescent light bulbs from my cold dead hands" moment in Republican politics.

abb3w:
Well, "less than the most dire estimates".

More like "at the bottom end of the lower estimates." Pretty much right at the "it's not going to warm less than this" line on their graph.

It turns out that CO2 sensitivity isn't the crazy number assumed in all of those "end of the world" computer models, and feedbacks aren't all uniformly positive.

Basically, when the original models assumed that CO2 increases would drive H2O increases to multiply warming by a factor of 2.5 to 3, they were making it up as they went along (nobody has ever come up with a rational model for the water vapor multipliers that matched the AGW assumptions).

Climate change deniers claim victory... because of a study that finds that climate change proponents are exactly right, except when it comes to the magnitude of the effect.

epoc_tnac: Mugato: Why would Gore be crying over that? If it's true, that's a good thing. But then it is just one paper.

What kind of logical leap is required to think that a guy that was trying to prevent global warming wants more global warning?

I would rather see the earth covered in flames than be wrong about some trivial issue

/I'm not the only one who thinks like this

great headline.

And here I was hoping that Seattle would become tropical within my lifetime. Thanks a lot, Al. You've ruined my great plans.

I predict a fair ans reasonable discussion in this thread.

Earth's average temperature is likely to rise from 1.7 to 2.6 Celsius degrees,

That's......not very good, but consistent with what I've heard before.

In other words, nothing new here. Get back to spewing out that carbon. We can't do anything to hurt the economy in these dire times.

This is what I don't get.

On one side, you have people who are bound and determined to keep the conversation about whether or not humanity is to blame for Climate change.

On the other side, you have people who are saying "Who gives a fark who or what is responsible for it. It's HAPPENING. Let's get with that high tech super-science and get to fixing it before it's too late."

But, on topic, yeah, why would Gore be sad? Dude would probably be ecstatic if Climate change turned out to be not as bad as it 'could' have been.

Any non-psychotic would be.

This will immediately be twisted by deniers who only see the headline into "see, told you this was all bunk".

When in reality the paper actually says that the mid-range projection of climate change (3º instead of 4º) appears to be more accurate, and that we don't have to worry about runaway greenhouse effect turning us into Venus (which only the most alarmist people were saying anyway).

Mugato: jake_lex: Mugato: Why would Gore be crying over that? If it's true, that's a good thing. But then it is just one paper.

I've met scientists who are working on trying to figure out what's going on with climate change. They really, really, REALLY hope that they're wrong. If one of them found data that proved that this is a natural cycle and nothing to worry about, they'd love to publish it, and they'd be hailed if the science turns out to be right.

But that's not how the science is going. And those of you who go on boards like this to parrot lame anti-environmental talking points, sorry, ExxonMobil is not going to find you, think you're brilliant, and give you a $500K/year job working for them.

I trust that's not what you think I meant. I was questioning subby's thinly veiled assertion that Gore hopes the environment goes to hell so that he can sell more books or something, just as the as you call them, "anti-environmentalists" think that the people who believe man made climate change is real, namely most of the scientific community, are saying what they're saying to get grant money but this one guy and his paper is the correct one.

I honestly don't know why republicans, not the president of Exxon but your average Joe 12-pack republicans so fervently deny the issue of climate change but there's a lot I don't understand about republicans who aren't billionaires.

What to know the real answer? Honestly, it's two bits:

1) You have people like Al Gore very publicly putting their face on the issue which does politicize it.
2) You have people in the far left which are using this as an excuse to try to convince people to effect societal change.

Honestly, this is one of the best articles about climate change I've seen and if more articles were like this, more people would be convinced. It's rational, balanced, doesn't go all chicken-little, doesn't try to appeal to the authority of a political figure. More of this kind of article is what people actual need.

Savage Belief: I predict a fair sans reasonable discussion in this thread.

FTFY

/pet peave

TFA: To me, the real effect of this paper will be to really impair the credibility of the more extreme environmentalists who have been saying the planet faces certain doom from climate change.

Only the deniers have ever said that. The planet will *ahem* weather the changes just fine; we're farked, as our burgeoning population coupled with a global decrease of arid land through flooding and desertification contributes to an unsustainable situation that will spark resource wars the likes of which humanity has never seen.

Earth will be just fine... we're going away. Of course, most of you baby boomer farkwits will be long dead before you have to suffer any consequences, so, as with everything else, if it benefits you, who the hell cares, right?

Mugato: but there's a lot I don't understand about republicans who aren't billionaires.

Amazing isn't it?

"Is this significant? I asked Andy Dessler, a climate scientist at Texas A&M University, for his thoughts."

See... you lost me right there... with TEXAS

cryinoutloud: Earth's average temperature is likely to rise from 1.7 to 2.6 Celsius degrees,

That's......not very good, but consistent with what I've heard before.

In other words, nothing new here. Get back to spewing out that carbon. We can't do anything to hurt the economy in these dire times.

I picture you curled up in a fetal position in the corner of your mom's basement as you typed that.

Am I close?

fta ...an intriguing new paper in Science, released this afternoon,

Gee. One article from a magazine. Yup, I'm going to toss decades of peer-reviewed science in the dumpster and campaign to eliminate the EPA.

epoc_tnac: What kind of logical leap is required to think that a guy that was trying to prevent global warming wants more global warning?

Because it's all a plot to sell more books and steal money from honest hard-working Americans. Haven't you heard?

/snark

XveryYpettyZ: Climate change deniers claim victory... because of a study that finds that climate change proponents are exactly right, except when it comes to the magnitude of the effect.

Being wrong about the magnitude means you are not "exactly right". While the people who want to pretend nothing is going on are idiots, those who refuse to admit that there has been a lot of hyperbole aren't any better.

Notabunny: fta ...an intriguing new paper in Science, released this afternoon,

Gee. One article from a magazine. Yup, I'm going to toss decades of peer-reviewed science in the dumpster and campaign to eliminate the EPA.

Yeah, Science magazine. That right wing rag.

meanmutton: this is one of the best articles about climate change I've seen and if more articles were like this, more people would be convinced. It's rational, balanced, doesn't go all chicken-little, doesn't try to appeal to the authority of a political figure. More of this kind of article is what people actual need.



Because it confirms your biases? It's just another projection, of many projections, on the low end of the scale. It's "tone" is irrelevant.

epoc_tnac: What kind of logical leap is required to think that a guy that was trying to prevent profit from global warming wants more global warning?

I'm farting. Doing my best to add methane to the atmospheric mix.

austin_millbarge: Mugato: but there's a lot I don't understand about republicans who aren't billionaires.

Amazing isn't it?

There's a lot I don't understand about liberals who seriously think the Democrat party is looking out for the little guy. So we're pretty much on the same page.

jake_lex

, and they'd be hailed if the science turns out to be right.

But that's not how the science is going.

Whereas you gore-greens use only the bestist good science.


Oh and bullshiat n your "hailed". Anyone who utters the smallest doubt of man made global warming is instantly tagged by you extremists as the equivalent to a Holocaust denier.
Bluntly put, climate change deniers pose a greater danger than the lingering industry that denies the Holocaust.

And we're at that stage now. We have Holocaust deniers; we have climate change deniers. And to be honest, I don't think there's a great deal of difference." That was the blunt assessment of Bill McGuire, an earth sciences professor, on ABC's Aug. 30, 2006, "20/20."

Let's just say that global warming deniers are now on a par with Holocaust deniers . . .

McCartney, in Interview, Compares Global Warming Skeptics to Holocaust Deniers

But hey you can't argue with scientists as noted and revered as paul mccartney amirite?!

meanmutton: 1) You have people like Al Gore very publicly putting their face on the issue which does politicize it.

The only people who mention Al Gore are deniers. They think that bringing up a washed-up american politician is somehow an intelligent statement on a global scientific issue.

I guess, when all the scientists disagree with you on a scientific topic, all you can do is retreat to political ad hominems.

Mr. Breeze: There's a lot I don't understand about liberals who seriously think the Democrat party is looking out for the little guy.

Yea, but you've never tried.

I just love how the climate change "skeptics" think every scientific organization in the world is corrupt and lying about a subject that they think isn't really science anyway, and that since we once thought the Earth was flat, today we can confidently doubt all science...

...until they find a scientific report that they think supports their position. Then, as if by magic, the science becomes valid and unquestioningly accurate. No time for skepticism then!

And the funniest thing, is that this study in particular says it's happening, it just may not reach the worst case scenario. Yet climate change deniers like the submitter think they've won a victory over Al Gore.

Farking Canuck: meanmutton: 1) You have people like Al Gore very publicly putting their face on the issue which does politicize it.

The only people who mention Al Gore are deniers. They think that bringing up a washed-up american politician is somehow an intelligent statement on a global scientific issue.

I guess, when all the scientists disagree with you on a scientific topic, all you can do is retreat to political ad hominems.


I don't think he's a denier, but he does appear to be one of those people that assumes only others politicize. His opinion? Honest and agreeable. Other people's opinion? Political.

Serious question:

To the deniers, what, exactly, is the perceived negative of the proposed actions to combat climate change? Do you have anything against things like energy independence or cleaner air? Or more trees? Or green jobs? WHich of those thing, specifically, are bad? Or am I missing something?

An interview with one of the authors of this study. The paper doesn't claim to have definitively ruled out some of the higher-end scenarios (e.g., around 4.5 C of warming per doubling of CO2), and the land temperature data imply higher climate sensitivities.

Mr. Breeze: austin_millbarge: Mugato: but there's a lot I don't understand about republicans who aren't billionaires.

Amazing isn't it?

There's a lot I don't understand about liberals who seriously think the Democrat party is looking out for the little guy. So we're pretty much on the same page.

Actually, that makes perfect sense. The Democratic Party draws most of its votes from people who benefit from their social efforts. Minorities, women, the under-40 crowd, liberal educated people. The Democratic Party champions social issues like protecting minorities and maintaining the wall between Church and State.

These are all issues that have been abandoned by the GOP or they're outright hostile to these issues, so how is it a hard thing to understand that the Democrats would find political advantage in taking up these issues?

Plus, they're on the 'right' side of things, ethically speaking, so they get to claim the moral high ground in a lot of the debates...

You know why Gore's crying? Cuz it's not about the environment...

Interesting

CPennypacker: Serious question:

To the deniers, what, exactly, is the perceived negative of the proposed actions to combat climate change? Do you have anything against things like energy independence or cleaner air? Or more trees? Or green jobs? WHich of those thing, specifically, are bad? Or am I missing something?

LouDobbsAwaaaay: Led by Oregon climate scientist Andreas Schmittner the paper suggests the rate of warming from a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide may be less than the most dire estimates.

Do you think you could water it down a little more than that? Yeesh. It might be less than the most dire estimates?

Notabunny: fta ...an intriguing new paper in Science, released this afternoon,

Gee. One article from a magazine. Yup, I'm going to toss decades of peer-reviewed science in the dumpster and campaign to eliminate the EPA.

Actually Science is a peer-reviewed journal.

One of the most prominent peer-reviewed journals, to boot. So I hope he was joking.

That said - it's interesting to see how the right wing spins this. If you accept this study's results, you're acknowledging that anthropogenic global warming exists, just that the magnitude is different than the more extreme estimates.

Zasteva: This will immediately be twisted by deniers who only see the headline into "see, told you this was all bunk".

It already has been.

When in reality the paper actually says that the mid-range projection of climate change (3º instead of 4º) appears to be more accurate,

It favors about 2.4º, on the low end of the IPCC 2 to 4.5º range.