Here's What It Would Take to Prove Global Warming

The Federalist ^ | 04/20/2015 | Robert Tracinski

[SeekAndFind]

Recently, Reason‘s Ronald Bailey asked what it would take to convince conservatives and libertarians that global warming is real.

If generally rising temperatures, decreasing diurnal temperature differences, melting glacial and sea ice, smaller snow extent, stronger rainstorms, and warming oceans are not enough to persuade you that man-made climate [change] is occurring, what evidence would be?

This has since been picked up by Jonathan Adler at the Washington Post‘s token right-leaning blog, the Volokh Conspiracy. There’s no pressure: Bailey and Adler merely insinuate that you are “obscurantist”—that is, you hate new knowledge—if you don’t agree.

That, by the way—the smug insistence of global warming alarmists on presenting themselves as the embodiment of scientific knowledge as such—is one of the reasons I stopped taking them seriously. In fact, I have thought about what it would take to convince me global warming is real. And it’s pretty clear that Bailey has not thought about it.

He really hasn’t. He’s thought a lot about the various scientific claims made by those who insist global warming is a man-made catastrophe. But he has not thought about how those claims add up or how they would have to add up to be convincing. All Bailey’s piece amounts to is: here is a long list of factual claims that seem to support the global warming scare; how high do I have to pile up these claims before you are convinced?

There is no sense that the proof of global warming has to proceed according to some systematic method, requiring it to clear specific hurdles at specific stages. Which betrays an unscientific way of thinking.

[SeekAndFind]

There are three main requirements.

1) A clear understanding of the temperature record.

The warmists don’t just have to show that temperatures are getting warmer, because variation is normal. That’s what makes “climate change” such an appallingly stupid euphemism.

The climate is always changing. The environmentalists are the real climate-change “deniers” because they basically want global temperatures to maintain absolute stasis relative to 1970—not coincidentally the point at which environmentalists first began paying any attention to the issue.

2) A full understanding of the underlying physical mechanisms.

We have to know what physical mechanisms determine global temperatures and how they interact. The glibbest thing said by environmentalists—and proof that the person who says it has no understanding of science—is that human-caused global warming is “basic physics” because we know carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas. Carbon dioxide is a very weak greenhouse gas and there is no theory that claims it can cause runaway warming all on its own. The warmists’ theory requires feedback mechanisms that amplify the effect of carbon dioxide. Without that, there is no human-caused global warming. But those feedback mechanisms are dubious, unproven assumptions.

3) The ability to make forecasting models with a track record of accurate predictions over the very long term.

We don’t know whether current warming departs from natural variation, nor have scientists proven the underlying mechanisms by which humans could cause such an increase. But even if we did know these things, we would have to be able to forecast with reasonable accuracy how big the effect is going to be. A very small warming may not even be noticeable or may have mostly salutary effects, such as a slightly longer growing season, whereas the impact of a much larger warming is likely to cause greater disruption.

START WITH THOSE, AND MAYBE WE CAN BE CONVINCED BUT NOT UNTIL...

[rktman]

Or simply toss the following to the warmunists and watch their eyes glaze over:

1. Define the “correct” temperature range for the planet.

2. Define the “correct” humidity range for the planet.

3. Define the “correct” mean sea level for the planet’

4. Define the “correct” amount of precipitation for the planet.

5. Define the “correct” makeup of the atmosphere.

6. Define the “correct” amount of sea ice at the N/S poles.

7. Define/explain past glaciation and subsequent warming without any input from humans.

[ConservingFreedom]

Nobody predicted the recent 17-year-long temperature plateau.

End of story for the globull warming cult.

[Maceman]

Before I would believe in Anthropogenic Global Warming, I would require that any alarmist arguing the theory watch THE GREAT GLOBAL WARMING SWINDLE, and produce refutation by CREDIBLE scientists of every point made in that film.

THE GREAT GLOBAL WARMING SWINDLE - Watch the full 85-minute video here.

[Tenacious 1]

Save spot for later movie fun. Reminder: Make popcorn.

[jmacusa]

The moment the elitist naysayers and doom merchants stop tooling around in big SUVs and private jets and living in 15,000 sq.ft mansions in Santa Barbra maybe, just maybe I'll believe in the possibility of ‘’global warming’’.

[Personal Responsibility]

This global warming nonsense has been going on for a while but it started in earnest 1999 with the hockey stick graph. The climate science models have had 16 years to be accurate. Have they been? Have any of them been accurate?

[EQAndyBuzz]

It’s not about global warming. It is about pollution. Problem is, if you call it pollution, you will have to shut down industry. So, for goofs and giggles, let’s take a look at the top 10 American Lung Association’s Pollution by Particles.

#1: Merced, CA
#1: Bakersfield-Delano, CA
#3: Fresno-Madera, CA
#4: Los Angeles-Long Beach-Riverside, CA
#4: Hanford-Corcoran, CA
#6: Modesto, CA
#7: Visalia-Porterville, CA
#8: Pittsburgh-New Castle, PA
#9: El Centro, CA
#10: Cincinnati-Middletown-Wilmington, OH-KY-IN

Outside of #10, 9 of the top cities in the country with the highest pollution levels are Democrat, 8 in California, who just happens to have the strictest EPA policies and most “progressive” environmental activism in the country.

What happens if we call it pollution? Well, first off, industries in California will have to shut its doors or fix the problem and fire thousands to support the higher costs. California is a union state, which means the Democrat government will have a fight with the unions. Which means the Democrat gravy train, the largest in the nation will end. With 56 electoral votes at stake, it’s not an option.

And this is where global warming was born. It’s about the preservation of the Democrat party.

[Raycpa]

For me it would be ending the use of fallacious arguments. ie,

Take your pick, just about all are used in the proofs of this "science".

http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html#ambig_assertion

[SeekAndFind]

A lot of the arguments I am hearing these days boils down to this — “We must at least do something ON THE CHANCE that global warming might be true. If we’re wrong, the most harm we will get is a cleaner planet.”

[justa-hairyape]

For starters some of your long term predictions need to actually come true. We have not seen larger more powerful and more frequent hurricanes make US landfall. Would need to see 3 Cat 4 or Cat 5 hurricanes make US landfall in one season. BTW - Some of us predicted about a year after Katrina that no Cat 4 or Cat 5 hurricanes would make US landfall for quite awhile. And we are now at the recorded historical maximum for that prediction to be correct.

We would also need to see more flooding in the US as warming would cause more evaporation and a wetter planet, since the oceans are so massive and ice at the poles would be melting. California is now at a maximum for modern historical recorded drought.

We also need to see historical temperature record maximums being broken while no historical maximum low records in urban areas were broken. Due to urban heat island effect. Just this winter numerous historical low temps in urban areas were set, not just for days, but for weeks and even a few months.

We would also need to see 1998 level El Ninos occur every few years. Since 1998, La Nina's have actually been more frequent and El Ninos have been less severe.

So not only have your predictions been wrong, they have been 180 degrees wrong.

[Nevadan]

good post

[justa-hairyape]

That is incorrect. Progressives never spend time considering the actual implications that could occur if they were wrong. If they did actually do that, they would not be progressive. Always progressing forward never atoning for your past sins. We know for a fact that eventually the ice age will return. And historically, it will return within a relatively short time. So if the government forces us to prepare for warming, when in actuality we are going to get cooling, millions could die.

[<1/1,000,000th%]

If generally rising temperatures, decreasing diurnal temperature differences, melting glacial and sea ice, smaller snow extent, stronger rainstorms, and warming oceans are not enough to persuade you that man-made climate [change] is occurring, what evidence would be?

I would like to see this evidence. So far all we've seen are lies and distortions. The hockey stick graph was fake, rising temperatures turn out to be deliberate data fudging by NASA and NOAA, polar ice isn't melting, glaciers aren't melting, and the oceans aren't warming.

[Canedawg]

Bkmk

[Canedawg]

“The hockey stick graph was fake”

A total fake, as part of the Big Hoax.

http://nov79.com/gbwm/trees.html

[Forward the Light Brigade]

New York under water! Or even Venice, Italy PERMANENTLY under water, or Venice California Under water. I don’t care about 2078 or some point in the distant future. It must be NOW. Then—if the problem is real—we can fix it or move to high ground. Sure, lots of folks will die—but they always do—with famine, war and bad weather. The USA—with all he resorces and power couldn’t stop it by herself. We are not the major poluter anymore.

[ro_dreaming]

Huh... Houston, TX - a hotbed of petrochemical activity isn’t in the top 10?

[EQAndyBuzz]

“Huh... Houston, TX - a hotbed of petrochemical activity isn’t in the top 10?”

I cherry picked. There are 3 types. In one of them Texas has 2 of the top 10 and in the other one I believe it was 3 in 10.

But CA has the monopoly on pollution in the country. It’s like Chicago with the toughest gun laws having the most shootings.