Hi Kano, another super link. It is difficult for the warmers to dispute the scientific principles expressed, so it will be " liar liar BS denier to the source. Its hard hitting content will remain a constant irritant for them as it shows that they abandoned integrity long ago.
I didn't read every word of the article and may need to go back and do some additional review, but the synopsis of the disagreement seems pretty well stated:
1) the amount of net warming that is, or will be, produced by human-related emissions,
2) whether any actual evidence exists for dangerous warming of human causation over the last 50 years, 3) and whether the IPCC’s computer models can provide accurate climate predictions 100 years into the future.
The author goes on to state: "Dr. Hayhoe’s answers to those questions would probably be along the line of: substantial, lots and yes. My answers would be: insignificant, none and no"
This seems to me a pretty reasonable outline of the opposite ends of the spectrum and the general rationale; then it becomes a matter of determining the credibility of the research that documents the opposing views. I would assume, based on most of the references I have read, that the spectrum of opinion within the scientific community does not follow the normal bell curve one might expect due to the specialization of the field but tends toward the proponent end of the debate with the bulk of the group leaning more toward Dr. Hayhoe's opinion, but there is plenty of room for skepticism in that part of the scientific community, and the author's view being in the minority. To adopt the Carter's language, some might say unknown, circumstantial but unproven, and questionable; this really doesn't give us much to go on. Many might say-with considerable justification-that Carter's article is fluff, because he doesn't offer an objective or measurable counterpoint to the research and data to date as well as the conclusions climate science has reached. I wouldn't go quite that far, but there is a lot of editorial comment out there from the opposition view that isn't really substantiated as well as proponents of AGW have done so far, and that is a problem for the anti-AGW side of the argument.
But that being said, the real point is that if this article is an accurate reflection of the bulk of the opposition view there doesn't seem to be much disagreement-if any-about the actual scientific theory. The skepticism is about outcomes, which in some respects are reflected in the models as different variables are entered which are reflected in statistical probabilities of outcome, e.g. if we continue to do (A) at the rate of (B) there is a (C%) probability of (D) occurring. I leave it up to the math geeks among us to express that mathematically. I really don't have a problem with that and I suspect the scientific community can deal with it too, but not without some disagreement, often strongly worded, and especially on the periphery of climate science itself.
So the answer to your question is found within; some might say that based on this article at least, the science is indeed 'settled,' to use a term that is one of the climate change buzzwords and has been grossly distorted. The outcomes are obviously not settled and depend on many variables that climate science is grappling with. There is plenty of room for skepticism and a wide range of opinions that cannot be resolved immediately or easily.
The underlying debate, however, is in what we should do about it as a global community and how to get the many countries which have a stake in the game to cooperate in a way that works. The kind of money we are talking about to mitigate a problem we are uncertain about is the source of the public rancor, fueled by politics and economics by self-serving individuals and entities, including politicians, the media and organizations including large corporations that have agendas-generally profit driven-which we distrust, largely in terms of our personal ideology wants and needs, all rooted in our emotional reactions to that distrust. Instead of addressing the issue head on, the public-at least in the most visible sectors-is arguing heatedly and in some instances viciously about the scientific theory that is by and large agreed upon in the scientific community itself.
Interesting question. In some ways it leads us to the difference in the debate within the scientific community and the frequent public misinterpretation-sometimes deliberately misleading and fueled by outright lies-of that debate.
Fact number one: What is the normal climate for our planet? How was that established, and when? One can't simply choose what the climate was between 1900-1950 as being normal. It would be a sloppy choice, and a rather lazy, self-serving choice.
The case has not been overwhelmingly made for claiming that the activity of humans is now the biggest factor in global warming. Too many other factors remain ignored by the majority of climate scientists. I suppose addressing them would make too much sense and not usher in as much monetary support for their personal projects. In order to affect climate change, exactly how many nations would have to buy in 100%? And agree to do this for how long? I hate to break it to all of those scientists, but have you people been checking the news lately? There is not very much agreement between most nations when it comes to energy, environment, population control, food, human rights, etc. Right now we teeter on the fence line, waiting to topple over into another large scale war that Russia seemingly wishes to engage us all in simply because they feel they have been bullied and hounded incessantly over the past couple of hundred years and now it is payback time. I do not believe that they are very interested in climate change and cutting back on fuel usage.
How about we prepare to adjust to climate change rather than waste valuable money trying to stop something that is happening on a global scale?
Why is there such a difference of opinion over climate change by scientists?
In spite of the moronic drone from alarmists above, there is no consensus. The reason there are differences of opinion is because not all scientists are leftists. You will find very few real conservatives who believe the evidence points to humans causing catastrophic damage because AGW is all about politics.
they are not both climate scientists. Not surprized Carter is a Geologist. Like Plimer, little to add to the climate "debate".
I'm sure you'd go to a dentist for heart transplant. both are "doctors"
Thee is no scientific evidence that proves man has anything to do with climate change. If you go back to the 70's the issue was global cooling, they were talking about another ice age then. The earth does not rotate even, there is a wobble and it takes 2000 years for it to make one revolution. They say the last time it was at the 24 degree stage the Sahara desert was green. So we are going to have warming and cooling periods. The other thing is, what's wrong with the world warming up a few degrees. The funny thing is, as i understand it, the computer program they use to forecast global warming is the same one that is used for a five day forecast. Lets face it how many times to they get that right.
According to the First Law of Thermodynamics : Energy cannot be created or destroyed.
Where did all of that energy come from in the first place?
Science has never answered this question, but they sure do spend a lot of money trying to prove it here in Chicago where they have been testing the BIG BANG THEORY for over 25 years and have come up with no definitive proof so far of a "Big Bang".
AGW can not be happening if the First Law of Thermodynamics is false. That's the simple argument against AGW. Science itself is too contradictory to be trusted in the first place.
You have the real scientists who go by facts and data, like Will Happer, Princeton University physicist, former Director of Energy Research at the Department of Energy: “I had the privilege of being fired by Al Gore, since I refused to go along with his alarmism....I have spent a long research career studying physics that is closely related to the greenhouse effect....Fears about man-made global warming are unwarranted and are not based on good science. The earth's climate is changing now, as it always has. There is no evidence that the changes differ in any qualitative way from those of the past.”
Then you have the phony scientists who hate scientific facts and data so much that they alter them.
http://www.c3headlines.com/fabricating-f...
James Hansen cooking the books.
Naturally there will be two different conclusions. One based on reality and one based on fiction.
There isn't. The illusion of a debate has cost American industrialists and conservatives a lot of money to create. Between 95% and 97.5% of climate scientists agree than human activity is to blame for the accelerated warming the Earth's climate is currently experiencing. The only scientists who openly doubt this fact are basically hired guns; the same kind of fake scientists the cigarette companies paid to lie too congress.
He states that "To be dangerous, at a minimum the change must exceed the magnitude or rate of warmings that are known to be associated with normal weather and climatic variability." ... It is like saying sharks are not dangerous because they are a normal occurrence...
Simplest answer is often the best.
The data is not solid enough in any specific direction to support any of the current hypotheses.
Any other answer would, following Occam's Razor, be and overly necessary complication of an analysis of the base facts.
http://www.aitse.org/global-warming-anthropogenic-or-not/
Ah the comic relief has arrived so what is your claim this time a difference of opinion (claimed) by who Bob Carter well known for his connection to the denial movement, from something called AITSC.
A site that shut down 6 months ago
http://www.aitse.org/contact/
So some of your better fact checking work, then.
So what is it you think you have here a long time denier Bob Carter lists one other scientist (who isn't a denier) wow, earth shattering, I would imagine if Bob ever took himself along to an AGU meeting he might find 14,000 to 18,000 more who don't agree with him.
I do like his list of qualifications at the bottom, some of them are even true environmental scientist, isn't he is a geologist. he is also a listed (and paid) adviser to at least 3 denier groups.
His name was one (of quite a few) that surfaced in documents from Heartland, evidently they pay him $1600 a month just for his scattered comments.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_M._C...
We have seen that GaryF disagrees with Michael Mann over many aspects of his hockey stick papers, telling Mann to his face how much he disagreed. The only consensus is when a public face of unity needs to be shown to push for political action.
The link has some good ideas.
But it has some non-facts, and some faulty logic.
in all, not much to alter the consensus.
From what ive read that is just politicians leading you into a state of ignorance. The truth is there is no way to refute the evidence of global warming mainly because there is overwhealming amounts of evidence XD
There is no lack of consensus among climate scientists at all. The idea that there is doubt and dispute is propaganda motivated by political agendas.
Uh, I'm pretty sure everyone is in agreement that the environment is being impacted by humans. If you quit talking about it and come up with solutions to try, maybe something will help. Well, there is one plan that definitely won't work. Doing nothing.
Poor old Bob Carter is entitled to his view - as your article headlines, it's an "alternatve" view.
Not unlike alternative medicine, which is an alternative TO medicine. Because it doesn't work.
Personally I prefer to stick with the overwhelming expert consensus, than the fringe views of non-experts:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/bob-cart...
Your frequent cherry picking is bordering on Gish Gallop behaviour.
-------
EDIT: Sorry I don't believe your story regarding the effectiveness of enzymes for this condition.
There are idiots with PhDs in physics and geology who believe the earth is 10,000 years old. When science and reality conflict with strongly held emotional beliefs it often loses. In fact, it lost badly for most of the last 2,000 years.
