Mitch Cronin

But Chinookimus, it's not about "Gore's gang". It's about the science, and whether we're creating a problem for our next generations or not. Where are you finding facts that answer that question definitively? I don't think it's so easy to solve as you make it sound. If it hasn't been proven that we're contributing to a global warming problem, I don't see any reason to believe that itself is proof that we're not, and that we should carry on as usual... we need to know, don't we? ...and surely we do have all sorts of data that proves we are doing harm to our whole biosphere.... So, many of the sorts of things that we'd need to correct within a 'reduction of our contribution to global warming' framework, ought to be corrected anyway. ....and with those many intere$ts, all hard at work lobbying and propagandizing (and outright lying)... it's going to be a tough thing to do. As for global warming specifically, I think we need more openness from the scientific community, and more interest from the media and masses in the true scientific answers. For that, if we don't yet have a scientific consensus, we'll have to wait while research is done.... in the mean while, we should be cleaning up our act. It seems silly to me to be fussing over our recycling and whatever tiny contributions we as individuals can make, ...while we do almost nothing about the major contributers to pollution of our air, water, and earth. I should worry about the fuel I burn in my vehicle, yet at work, on someone's slightest whim, I can likely burn more fuel in an hour than I'd use in a whole year...? Things like that make me consider my potential for making any difference pretty damned small. We need to think big.

....sigh... I know, I have trouble keeping my mouth shut... dunno why I keep trying to imagine myself not having the problem.... Yes, I was unfair to Boestar. Sorry for that Bo. I wanted to keep quiet. ...but I have this leeetle problem... Canus... Eugenics?? How d'ya reckon?

You're absolutely right Mr. Dog Wind... (should that simplify to dog fart?) That's exactly the problem. Both camps obviously have "intere$ts" doing their level best to appear to be right. We're along for a ride, without consent. One way or another, our great grandchildren are probably going to be looking at this time in history as pivotal. ... in many respects.

....sigh... somebody else tell him.... I just wanna lurk for a while.

Woxof... could you expand on that a little? Without sarcasm or any other assumptions that I'd know what you meant... I'm a little thick today... What are you saying there?

With all the links that have been posted here, I don't know if this CBC video has already been posted, but I watched it yesterday, and I think it's worth the time: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3...global+warming#

Absolutely you can't call that "good science". What I tried to say was that we've been given a specific look at a few emails within a horde... A little bit of bad stuff appears to have been going on amid all the rest of what I suggest was probably, on the whole, good science. How much of what we've been hearing and reading is based on "cooked" science?... , I suppose we'll have to wait for more learned folks to let us know.

How 'bout today? Thanks for posting that Woxof. Interesting developments indeed. I agree with him that any data specifically mentioned as having been "tricked" or suppressed, should now be examined. It may be worth considering though, that we're zeroing in on some selected emails among thousands that were hacked, no doubt the vast majority of which we'd find uninteresting, between good scientists doing good science. Hopefully, this will provide something of a springboard to get everything known and not known fully exposed for all to examine, then the wisest among us can decipher it all.

Woxof.... Comments of that nature aren't helpful... You characterize all of us who don't consider the matter as closed, as being either one of two insults. You see, many of us have long ago recognized that, as this is not our field of expertise, we'll have to hope for a consensus among those who do indeed have expert knowlege of the matter... All of your links to a dissenting point of view are worthy of a look, and consideration in the greater view... however, most of us, I suspect -- and I fully recognize I cannot speak for others... I'm merely stating my opinion... -- have also considered the counterpoints to these arguments as equally worth consideration... All in all, from all I've read, I don't see the answer yet.... there are still the two points of view there was a year ago... and more... So still, the question that comes to me is: What are the consequences of a wrong conclusion? .... If you're right, and the rest of the planet guessed wrong, what would be the harm done over the long term? If you're wrong, and the rest of the planet guessed wrong along with you, what would be the harm in that, over the long term? ....can you see the significance of that question? ...and then... Can you see the huge interests that are obviously going to vehemently back the side that says we should do nothing? ...and does it not make sense that those interests would, because they are so vested, and so wealthy, be able to easily out-shout a bunch of climatologists with nothing but their data? That last point I make to help you understand a part of why some of us who don't believe the matter is as clear as you so obviously do, may not comment on all these things you post. Much of it, I believe, is from those "interests". Personally, I'm a little skeptical of all of what I've read on the subject, from both poles of certainty... so that question still hangs... The cost of guessing wrong in one way is, I believe, far greater than the other.

...as posted above: (emphasis added) ....and yes, sun cycles do affect decadal variation. ...as does volcanic activity.

As a matter of fact, you have not refrained at all! You've continued with such demeaning comments as "childish" "incapable of informed responses" "grade 3 insults" ...and now you admit your mind is closed. So where, I ask, was the insult? My mind is most certainly NOT closed, by the way. I continue to listen and read. It appears to me that you do not. You obviously did not listen, for instance, to Latif's words at all (nor apparently, did you read what I posted in response to Hadji) His words have been taken completely out of context in both what you've quoted and what others have written. He is most definitely not "batting for the other side"! Listen for yourself to the words out of his own mouth - in their correct context! http://go2.wordpress.com/?id=725X1342&site...tionScience.mp3 I would appreciate it if you'd now discontinue the ad-hominem attacks. Thank you.

It would appear your conclusions are not quite correct: From this page: http://thingsbreak.wordpress.com/2009/09/1...des-of-cooling/ "Fred Pearce wrote a recent column for New Scientist claiming climate modeler Mojib Latif predicted that up to two decades of cooling were coming: “We could be about to enter one or even two decades of cooler temperatures, according to one of the world’s top climate modellers.” Pearce’s claim was promptly picked up by the denialosphere and has been cited by “skeptics” as well as those who believe climate science is undergoing some sort of shake up, like Mr. Berger. Pearce’s story is greatly misleading both in terms of what Latif actually said and the role climate scientists believe natural variability plays in the climate system. First a bit of background: Pearce’s story was written about a recent climate summit: the World Climate Conference-3. Part of the summit was dedicated to Advancing Climate Prediction Science; Latif’s presentation was concerned with decadal-scale climate predictions- concerning not only their potential value and viability but also the significant challenges that remain before we can make useful ones. On interannual (more than a single year) and decadal (tens of years) scales, natural variability swamps the long term anthropogenic warming trend. That is to say that variations in naturally occurring aspects of the climate system have more of an impact on the ultimate value of, say, global average temperature over a span of 10 or so years than man-made global warming does. For example, changes in ENSO are one of the largest sources of natural variability and thus influence on global average temperatures in the climate system on interannual scales. In 1998, a very strong El Niño boosted the global average temperature much higher than the overall trend, while in 2008, a persistent La Niña in cahoots with a solar minimum ensured that temperature was in the top 10 (#9 for NASA, #10 for Met Hadley) hottest years on record, but not a record breaker. While this might be surprising for some readers, let’s be clear: This is not “new” information. This does not represent a “shake up” of the climate science community’s understanding of the system, or a blow to “settled science”. This is acknowledged in the IPCC’s most recent Assessment Report (AR4 WG1 8.3 and 9.4) as well as in the relevant primary literature. For example, the AR4 Synthesis Report states: On scales [smaller than 50 years], natural climate variability is relatively larger [than human influences], making it harder to distinguish changes expected due to external [e.g.man-made] forcings. Latif begins the section of his presentation misrepresented by Pearce by confirming that the media incorrectly believes that global warming is monotonic- something that we know the warming is decidedly not; something not claimed by “climate science” or “climate scientists”. Significant natural variability is superimposed on the long term man-made warming trend. Although the press might expect for us to set new temperature record every year, the existence of natural variability means that we could in theory wait a long time (~17 years) before setting a new temperature record. Latif imagines ‘what if’: It may well happen that you enter a decade, or maybe even two- you know- when the temperature cools- alright- relative to the present level- alright? And then- you know- I know what’s going to happen -you know? I will get- you know- millions of phone calls- you know: “Eh, what’s going on? So, is global warming disappearing?” You know? “Have you lied on [sic] us?” So- you kn0w- and therefore this is the reason why we need to address this decadal prediction issue. [ed. note: "entering... two [decades]” depending on the usage can take as little as 11 years, “enter[ing]” a decade” as little as one] This was not an explicit prediction by Latif- it was a hypothetical scenario that is a real, if not necessarily likely, possibility. Latif is saying that because people don’t understand that global warming isn’t supposed to be monotonic, and that there could be periods where temperatures pause or even dip below the present, the media and/or public will incorrectly believe that global warming has stopped/was wrong/etc. even though such “pauses” in warming are decidedly not contrary to our understanding of the climate system and how we anticipate it will respond to emissions driven warming. Of course this is like cat nip to the denialists and their fellow travelers like Roger Pielke Jr. It feeds into the caricature, enabled by sloppy journalism, that nearly everything can happen because of global warming [often phrased, "Global warming, is there anything it can't do?" Sometimes with 'global warming' stricken out and replaced with 'climate change']. Latif goes on to describe a number of phenomena that have an overall trend but are dominated on the interannual and even decadal scales by natural variability: Sahel rainfall, Atlantic tropical cyclones, regional sea levels. Again, none of this is new, none of it was presented as new. This represents no paradigm shift within climate science. Latif then switches gears to model initialization. When the IPCC offers projections of global temperature change into the next 100 years, these are not predictions- as previously discussed. And dealing with interannual or decadal predictions instead of looking at the changes to temperature trends 100 years out is a difference between an initial value problem and a boundary value (or in Latif’s words, a “boundary force”) problem. Uncertainties about emissions scenarios (how much carbon we decide to burn) and model biases are the dominant areas of uncertainty for end-of-century projections of changes of how temperature will trend. However, on much shorter scales, such as interannual or decadal scales, can you guess what the largest source of uncertainty becomes? Yep, that’s right, natural variability. Prediction on such short timescales then becomes at least partially an initial value problem. Latif rightly understands that such short term predictions depend on accurate understanding and modeling of initialization factors like variance in the North Atlantic Oscillation. You might remember when a team he was part of made some waves in predicting a temporary pause in warming/global cooling in their attempt to initialize a climate model to make a deliberate prediction (rather than say an end-of-century projection) of temperature for the next few decades. Suffice it to say that not everyone has found the basis of their prediction (of no immediate warming) particularly compelling. Latif’s warning, garbled though it became regarding the reality and difficulty in predicting natural variability deserves to be acknowledged. It’s exceedingly difficult for me to see, however, how or why the presentation was subsequently spun in the manner that it was, or why science journalists like Mr. Berger would accept said spin so uncritically. Pearce’s article gives the false impression that there is a “new” or “growing” dissent from the broad strokes consensus on climate change. This couldn’t be further from the truth. I appreciate Pearce’s concern (that the existence of natural variability can embolden denialists), but it sounds like this concern has caused him to unnecessarily and inaccurately frame Latif’s presentation as a challenge the scientific consensus on climate change. Natural variability is of course real. It can and will overwhelm man-made warming on shorter timescales. That journalists are beginning to pay attention to this simple fact is not a reflection of a sea change in our understanding of climate science. Latif’s presentation and audio are available for anyone to examine."

Rattler, perhaps you and I understand the word "intransigence" differently? Clearly some of you didn't thoroughly read through this thread before commenting. (I've been guilty of the same thing elsewhere... it's sometimes pretty tedious and can require effort) I think if you do read my comments on this subject, here and elsewhere, you'll find no intransigence on my part whatsoever. In fact I feel quite befuddled by the whole notion that a great number of scientists are predicting very dire circumstances for us all, should we, as sole guardians of this planet, fail to somehow seriously reduce our contributions to CO2 emissions. AND, I've learned through several links posted here and elsewhere, that there are apparently some number of scientists who completely disagree. Like all of you, I'm no expert! I'm no scientist! How the hell would I know what's the truth? Like all of you, all I can do is continue to read and listen to what I can... and I know that, like all science, there is always more understanding yet to come. The scary thing is that if those who do predict such potentially cataclysmic results, are right... ....it could be really ugly for our grandchildren. Given that potential, I'm all ears!!! ....and when I read what appears to me to be uneducated, or ill-informed certainty, ... or thoroughly wrong logic is printed to back a dedication to one side of the issue, if I don't see any well-informed, logical rebuttals, I have a very hard time remaining silent. It's exactly the certainty which folks like woxof and some others post, that I challenge. This is too big an issue to wash off with conspiracy theories or faulty logic. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Now you can all ignore the following, as you wish [if anyone's even still listening?]: Woxof, I'm sure I should just let this go, but that's not in me these days.... This round started with you saying: "IFG, Mitch, Don, Chock? How much per year is reasonable per family? Let the silence(or dancing around the issue) begin. You'd clearly made up your mind that "climate change [is the] scam of the century" (your words)... Your mind appeared, from that post and many others, closed. Would you really disagree with that? So I suggested to you the silence you may receive (and you may have noted the lack of response to your question?) "may have more to do with the notion that some people see little point in engaging in dialogue with closed minds." You chose to take that as a "childish insult"? ...and you attacked my character. How would you describe your mindset on this Global Warming/Climate Change issue? Now, for your faulty logic.... Belief in, or even simply a willingness to listen and reserve judgment on, Man made Global Warming, does not automatically make one a believer in either the Kyoto accord, or any notions of buying carbon credits from anyone at all. So your insistence that responses to your question, or lack of same, is telling of anything at all, is as far out in left field as your assumptions of my character. To my mind, there is nothing either "petty" or trivial to bicker about here... one involves the fate of the planet (or potentially so), and the other is all I have.

Where do I exhibit intransigence Rattler?

Now you're acting like an ass. ...and yes, you can quote me on that as often as you like. Whether or not we believe that man has indeed influenced global warming has absolutely nothing to do with politics, or whether or not we believe sending money to China (and how much) is right or wrong.

Woxof, like I said elsewhere, I believe in calling a spade a spade. On this subject you've clearly (in my view) demonstrated a closed mind. If you choose to call that an insult, that's your perogative. ...and thanks Chock.

Woxof, I suspect the silence you hear may have more to do with the notion that some people see little point in engaging in dialogue with closed minds.

DOH! ....no, "swat me in the noggin" was how I put it... Thanks, I'll do it myself. ...meanwhile... Steam... much of the stuff you and woxof post seems to come from, and quote the same sources... such as Lindzen... whose comments have been shot down by larger bodies of learned folks than we can assemble here. (again, from this link: http://www.sierraclub.ca/national/programs...-myths.html#cc2 ) ...and who is this "one source" that say's Lindzen is “the most renowned climatologist in all the world"? Here's something I just now found in response to his piece in Newsweek ... (from http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archi...en-in-newsweek/ ) ...and from this link (and any of you still with open minds might appreciate a read through of this page, as within the "comments" below, there are quite a number of learned remarks - and more links!) http://climateprogress.org/2009/03/09/rich...artland-denier/ All in all, it seems to me that among the overwhelming majority of believable sources of information (which include all pertinent source data references) I can find, there is indeed agreement that human caused global warming is as real as rain.

Amen to that! I'll plant a tree for every hundred dollars you give me too!

Thanks Chock. This is from your link (just for woxof): ...and from further linked pages: http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/sci..._Scientists.pdf ...among their results:

.....sigh ....if anyone sees me posting in this thread again, swat me in the noggin, will ya? Thanks.

Who said so? ... I've yet to read a single comment on here saying "the predicted nightmare scenarios must be true. - until you just said so that is... Most folks here appear to me to be somewhat more open minded than that. As discussed much earlier, there are likely as many "expert opinions" available on the internet that argue for global warming as there are that argue against it. Global climate change seems, however, to be something of a reality accepted by a majority - whether that's man-made or not is evidently still being debated. Running around accusing all who disagree with your apparent adamant assertion that 'global warming is a farce' of loving Suzuki and Gore seems somewhat pointless to me woxof. ...and with your repeated references to what weather is happening where, it does look to me as though you continue to confuse current weather with climate. But then, who knows, maybe it's me that reads funny.

....But but but but but.... weather ain't climate! ....and seems to me, what we have been told that is proving to be reasonably truthful, is that most places are in for more variety, and more extremes, in terms of weather, due to climate change. ....and if you'll forgive me for saying so, .... I don't think woxof has nailed a darned thing unless he's built a deck recently or something.

....oi... IFG can certainly speak for himself, but I think you're missing the point entirely... What he said was that he'd leave that to those much better educated on the particular subject... his own "judgement" left suspended. At least, that's surely the message I got. And, coincidentally or not, that's my point as well. We -- that is, you and I and all who are without intimate knowledge gained through much study -- just don't know, so we ought to listen to those who do. So far, there are many such learned persons who say they feel global warming and climate change has indeed been affected by human activity.... as well, of course, as some who say "not so!" So unless there are any climatologists visiting these pages, we're not likely to solve that debate here at all, no matter how many links one provides. And no matter how emphatically you or others here claim the contrary. The jury -so to speak- is still deliberating.