Replies

You're conflating two different, but overlapping groups. I agree that the doom-n-gloom crowd have a poor track record. But Anthropogenic Global Warming Theory doesn't really have enough track record to judge. There's little doubt that the Earth has been warming. And there's little doubt that CO2 is a warming agent and also that human activity has increased its atmospheric concentration.

But there are good reasons to be skeptical. No theory should be used a basis for public policy unless its reliability can be determined. I don't see any convincing way to demonstrate recent warming is determined to any significant extent by greenhouse gas emissions. There's no way to go back and change CO2 concentrations to validate the models. Predictions of global temperatures fifty or a hundred years are no help as they can't be validated here and now.

What would be convincing is predictions of global temperatures for some limited time in the future, say five or ten years. These could be compared to predictions of other models If GW models outperform the others significantly in that time frame, it might be reason enough to act.

A local talk show host had a similar argument to the one you just put out about the "5 to 10 years". He suggested that the GW scientists, Heidi Cullen, and her friends show us that they have the ability to predict, with decent accuracy the avg. temp in a variety of months for something simple like the next two years. Predict with accuracy where flooding where occur in the next couple years, along with drought, and other weather related incidents.

For if they can do that, then their predictions even further in the future should hold some weight. But if they and their super computers can not even predict the avg. temp for July two years in the future, why should we believe or give any credence to what they say will be the temp in 100 years.

Hell, the weather man has great trouble predicting weather 5 days from now!

Hansen made predcitions for global temperature increase 10 years ago. He was off by only about 800%.

Global warming has been happening for many, mnay years now, thank goodness since the alternative is not a pretty picture.

The problem with scientists like Hansen is that they suffer no consequences from predictions that were so inaccurate a 2 year old chimp could have made them.

So the Earth is warming. For those who think that is a catastrophic problem they have two choices, they can offer methods to mitigate global warming, color me very skeptical here, or they can do some science taht allows Earths inhabitants to adapt. They choose to do neither and thus get the well deserved reputation as the boy crying global warming, or cooling, whatever the cureent fad is.

As for CO2, I would love for somebody to give me proof that CO2 leads temperature increases rather than lags. The charts I've seen from ice cores seem to indicate that CO2 upticks lag temperature increases.

I've got to express my appreciation for your reasonable expression of ideas. Of course I've got to pick on a couple, but please know that I honestly do appreciate your sensical discussions regarding the debate.

Anthropogenic Global Warming Theory doesn't really have enough track record to judge.

Very true.

There's little doubt that the Earth has been warming.

"Little doubt" leaves a lot of room for interpretation (both objectively and subjectively). For the sake of argument, I'm willing to accept the premise, though the conclusion does appear to be time and location dependent.

there's little doubt that CO2 is a warming agent

CO2 is by definition a greenhouse gas and therefore can absorb and re-radiate "heat." How much and to what degree that influences surface temperatures or climate forcings is much more complicated.

human activity has increased its atmospheric concentration.

I think it would be more accurate to say that human activity has resulted in the emissions of CO2. Increases in CO2 concentrations depend on the performance of sources and sinks, many of which have substantial error bars.

No theory should be used a basis for public policy unless its reliability can be determined.

I couldn''t have stated it better.

Take care.