Do you think CAGW is just a UN scheme to impose global governance...

[Ground Scouring]

Fire away. I'd like a LOT of people to respond here and fully set forth their views so that we can see who's biased in the climate forum and what their political views are. I would especially appreciate a lot of red-tagged climate skeptics to share their views here, as I suspect that one's opinion on the role of government in regard to climate "management" makes a huge difference in how one analyzes the otherwise-mixed CAGW debate.

[andyhb]

What?

[Ground Scouring]

What?

Your "weirdo" alert must be somehow tagged exclusively to respond only to my posts. Odd.

 

Anyway, it's common knowledge that one's politics is substantially responsible for one's positions on CAGW.

[Stebo]

Fire away. I'd like a LOT of people to respond here and fully set forth their views so that we can see who's biased in the climate forum and what their political views are. I would especially appreciate a lot of red-tagged climate skeptics to share their views here, as I suspect that one's opinion on the role of government in regard to climate "management" makes a huge difference in how one analyzes the otherwise-mixed CAGW debate.

First off, there is a climate change sub forum...

 

Secondly good luck finding a lot of red tagged climate change skeptics around here...

 

[andyhb]

Your "weirdo" alert must be somehow tagged exclusively to respond only to my posts. Odd.

 

Anyway, it's common knowledge that one's politics is substantially responsible for one's positions on CAGW.

 

Because you make strange and often hard-headed posts. Believe me, I'm not the only one noticing this.

 

Also you seem to be rather conspiracy happy and this thread sticks out like a sore thumb when reading through topics, just FYI.

[Thunder Road]

The views expressed in the OP are completely outrageous and I can't imagine anyone representing this community by upholding them.

 

Oh wait...

[AvantHiatus]

This is a key topic, in my opinion. If you can shoot this one down, it would make people less fearful of AGW and more eager to implement reforms.

 

I think there are a few scattered individuals who would like to use CAGW as an anti-population platform, however one must separate politics from reality and science.

[frosty]

No global warming for 17plus years and counting.

Just saying.

[Fozz]

No global warming for 17plus years and counting.

Just saying.

 

false

[Fozz]

Fire away. I'd like a LOT of people to respond here and fully set forth their views so that we can see who's biased in the climate forum and what their political views are. I would especially appreciate a lot of red-tagged climate skeptics to share their views here, as I suspect that one's opinion on the role of government in regard to climate "management" makes a huge difference in how one analyzes the otherwise-mixed CAGW debate.

 

No, this is nutjob talk. 

[Snow_Miser]

No, there is plenty of evidence.

[PhillipS]

Paranoid delusions have no place in a technical discussion forum.  What's next - Sky Dragons?  The Mods and Admins should should delete this crap, and ban the posters, as soon as it appears.

[LocoAko]

Anyway, it's common knowledge that one's politics is substantially responsible for one's positions on CAGW.

 

Unfortunately, one of the only reasonable points to be made in this thread. 

[Snow_Miser]

No global warming for 17plus years and counting.

Just saying.

 

Really? So the warming of the oceans over the last 17 years doesn't count? Why?

 

 

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2011GL048794/abstract

 

 

http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v2/n7/full/nclimate1553.html

[Jonger]

Anyway, it's common knowledge that one's politics is substantially responsible for one's positions on CAGW.

I typically avoid the term and any discussion using the acronym CAGW, I have no idea who started it, but it sounds like a strawman way to discuss AGW.

The earth has warmed slightly, but politics do play a major role in those who overhype or under hype the situation. I was discussing AGW with a known liberal relative of mine and I was stunned at his lack of knowledge on the topic, but his adherence to stopping climate change raised many alarm bells. He was also anti business, gmo, banking and just generally irrational.

On the flip side, I hear many conservatives dismissing climate change and bring up Al Gore in a flippant manner, those individuals are equally irritating.

[Ground Scouring]

My point is that one's views on how government should regulate industry is a large factor behind people's "scientific" stances on CAGW (which is a term commonly used in the climate thread and hence used here). Liberal views of international institutions are more keen on establishing global limits on CO2, whereas conservative views tend to argue from a position favorable to national sovereignty. Sometimes the issue runs into very virulently pro- or anti-government positions. Addressing the political aspects will allow people to use objective science more freely and logically.

[nflwxman]

I typically avoid the term and any discussion using the acronym CAGW, I have no idea who started it, but it sounds like a strawman way to discuss AGW.

The earth has warmed slightly, but politics do play a major role in those who overhype or under hype the situation. I was discussing AGW with a known liberal relative of mine and I was stunned at his lack of knowledge on the topic, but his adherence to stopping climate change raised many alarm bells. He was also anti business, gmo, banking and just generally irrational.

On the flip side, I hear many conservatives dismissing climate change and bring up Al Gore in a flippant manner, those individuals are equally irritating.

This is true in many ways, but I don't think politics is always a metering stick on ones views on CAGW. I'm actually conservative in most ways but I'm a scientist first and foremost.

[LocoAko]

This is true in many ways, but I don't think politics is always a metering stick on ones views on CAGW. I'm actually conservative in most ways but I'm a scientist first and foremost.

 

True. I think the whole politics-informing-AGW-views applies most strongly to the general public. 

[Msalgado]

Well, in general the scientific community is very strongly steered toward the liberal portion of the spectrum:

 

http://www.people-press.org/2009/07/09/section-4-scientists-politics-and-religion/

 

 

If you read on to the next section, you will also see the general public's views on climate change are not reflected within the scientific community.  Hardly surprising.

 

http://www.people-press.org/2009/07/09/section-5-evolution-climate-change-and-other-issues/

 

Make of that what you will, but for me the reasoning behind the scientific communities views are obviously quite clear.  

[Msalgado]

Also relevant:

 

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2012/03/29/study-conservatives-trust-of-science-hits-all-time-low-

[The_Global_Warmer]

Unfortunately, one of the only reasonable points to be made in this thread. 

 

My political position is mass disappointment.  Am I progressive or liberal in many ways of course.  Most humans are right?  I mean conservatives by politics all use the latest and greatest humanity has to offer?  

 

My view on CAGW is pretty simple.

 

Is it possible?  Of course.  The methane and carbon dragon up North makes it so.

 

Likely and possible are different of course but possible is the reality.

 

The other reality is that there is almost no policy change regarding climate of any substance almost anywhere that matters.

[Isotherm]

Politics seem to be responsible for peoples' opinions on climate change if they're generally uneducated on the subject (thus, they choose an opinion that would benefit them in ways they do understand, like politically or financially).

 

I would wager to say, that at least for some of us on here, we've put much more thought into our opinions on climate due to our education / knowledge of the subject.

 

For me, politics is completely unrelated to my position on the spectrum of climate change debate. Rather than thinking of the issue as two-sided (you either believe AGW or you don't), I believe a "spectrum analysis" is more applicable. Meaning, for example, where would you fall on the following spectrum:

 

Global temperature Rise

 

100% Natural/0% Anthro.......75% Natural/25% Anthro......50/50..........75% Anthro/25% Natural..........100% Anthro/0% Natural....

 

Etc.

[CAD_Wedge_NC]

Politics seem to be responsible for peoples' opinions on climate change if they're generally uneducated on the subject (thus, they choose an opinion that would benefit them in ways they do understand, like politically or financially).

 

I would wager to say, that at least for some of us on here, we've put much more thought into our opinions on climate due to our education / knowledge of the subject.

 

For me, politics is completely unrelated to my position on the spectrum of climate change debate. Rather than thinking of the issue as two-sided (you either believe AGW or you don't), I believe a "spectrum analysis" is more applicable. Meaning, for example, where would you fall on the following spectrum:

 

Global temperature Rise

 

100% Natural/0% Anthro.......75% Natural/25% Anthro......50/50..........75% Anthro/25% Natural..........100% Anthro/0% Natural....

 

Etc.

 

100% agree with the bolded statement above. When it comes to Natural vs. Anthro, I would say that a smaller portion is man made as opposed to natural. What that percentage is?..... I would say 60/40, but that's just one man's guess. There are a lot of factors that need to be understood before the science can be settled.

[Sundog]

If the greatest scientific minds with years of experience and research think the vast majority of the warming is human induced, why are we arguing about amounts that are unrealistic, like more than 50% natural? Is there anything that points to such percentages?

[ORH_wxman]

If the greatest scientific minds with years of experience and research think the vast majority of the warming is human induced, why are we arguing about amounts that are unrealistic, like more than 50% natural? Is there anything that points to such percentages?

 

 

No not particularly. The highest I've generally seen in the literature is upwards of 40% for the 1975-2005 warming (we'll call this the recent warming...1910-1940 is sort of in a different boat). But the figures obviously vary greatly from that number down to much lower numbers. A common number recently has been about one third of the warming during that period was due to ocean oscillations. But I've still seen figures lower in papers since 2012.

 

 

Regardless, a lot of the vocal debate unfortunately surrounds more extreme numbers...such as almost zero natural contribution and almost all natural contributions...but these are not really represented well in the literature. It doesn't mean they are wrong...just very unlikely.

 

I do think it is an important to make the distinction of "wrong" and "unlikely" or "extremely unlikely"...there's an awful lot of absolutes thrown around in this forum and that doesn't really work well in scientific discussion. I have been guilty of using absolutes at times, but it is something I'd like to get away from more and more. I generally just say "the scientific evidence doesn't support such a conclusion right now"...or if it is a sea ice prediction, I'd say "it would take something more than a 2 sigma event for XXXX to happen...so thus, it is exceedingly unlikely". I know those terms aren't great for the general public...but they are more truthful than absolutes.

 

 

As for this thread...it is more suited for PR IMHO. Though it can be hard to seperate politics from AGW when it comes to policy discussion...by definition that is politics and AGW is involved.

 

I definitely think there are lobbyist groups and think tanks who use AGW's worst case scenarios and even unrealistic scenarios to push certian policy action and then there are uber conservative groups who push the least likely opinion of absolute minimal or non-existant AGW to promote their politics as well. Unfortunately this can muddy the real meat of the debate around AGW.

[skierinvermont]

The earth has warmed slightly, but politics do play a major role in those who overhype or under hype the situation. I was discussing AGW with a known liberal relative of mine and I was stunned at his lack of knowledge on the topic, but his adherence to stopping climate change raised many alarm bells. He was also anti business, gmo, banking and just generally irrational.

 

 

People like this bug me a lot too.. strong opinions without a lot of evidence. People like this are probably partially responsible for the brief 1 year period that I was an AGW denier.

[AvantHiatus]

People like this bug me a lot too.. strong opinions without a lot of evidence. People like this are probably partially responsible for the brief 1 year period that I was an AGW denier.

Anti-business does seem way out there, that is how people make a living. I'm guessing this guy loves welfare as well. Aside from the stereo-types, AGW seems like it does not favor the economy because reducing CO2 = less economic productivity as it stands now.

 

This is just a coincidence and people should not make the mistake of believing there is some hidden agenda behind AGW. It is more or less an inconvenient illusion. This is because it clouds the real issues and delays policy change. We may find that it is a case of losing everything in the long-run or losing temporarily in the short term.

 

A emerging zeitgeist of the time and current/future generation that will make the vietnam war and associated cultural reforms look like a walk in the park.

[Snow_Miser]

People like this bug me a lot too.. strong opinions without a lot of evidence. People like this are probably partially responsible for the brief 1 year period that I was an AGW denier.

I was never aware that you were ever a skeptic for that long Skier. What eventually convinced you that anthropogenic climate change was significant? For me it was the persistent energy imbalance despite low solar activity. That was key evidence that solar factors are no longer dominant, which is incredibly impressive, since it's likely solar variability played an important role in past climate change.

[nflwxman]

I used to be a skeptic as well.  I think I was terrified that AGW would mean the end of snow for the mid-atlantic (on the contrary, it seems to be increasing in some spots).  When I finally worked in a statistics heavy field post graduate school, I took my SPS and Matlab software and played with different types of climate data for a few weeks.  I thoroughly convinced myself at that point.  I lean on the alarmist side now, but I still acknowledge the uncertainties in the science itself.

[Msalgado]

I was definitely a skeptic at one point. Once I actually looked at how many studies had eliminated natural sources I was convinced, though.  Getting my degree really hammered it home.  Now in grad school I'm being taught by some of the people I thought were wrong in the past.  

 

I'm probably a bit different around me though.  I believe the solution will eventually come with adaptation and not prevention.  I'm pretty sure the prevention ship has sailed but this is probably the jaded side of me as I was involved in politics much more heavily before coming back to school to pursue a different field.