ScottN wrote: 
ayup.

 DaveInVA wrote:Little or none.  Imo and shared by many, much more intelligent and informed than I, believe the tipping point was passed 20-30 years ago.  The whole planet could stop emitting greenhouse gases now  (totally unrealistic, obviously), and it still is likely too late to reverse the planet warming trend, and more importantly, its consequences.

How much global warming will be mitigated by the Obama/EPA CO2 restrictions?

 ScottN wrote: 
Fair.

Its like the more we learn, the more we find out what we don't know ...

 kurtster wrote: 
That is a subjective statement, of course.  Equally subjectively, it can be said we know a very great deal about natural processes and their effect(s).

 steeler wrote: 
The statement regarding natural causes would be settled science in my opinion.  What else could it be given that man's presence was very small at those times mentioned ?

I have never said that man made pollution does not have any effects.  I have only challenged the extent of those effects. 

The primary focus of the article is rising sea levels and how melting ice affects that.  Nowhere did the article state that man made polltion is the primary cause.  You inserted the word primary, which does change the meaning of the statement significantly.  The text of the paragraph you cite:

 The last big iceberg release was 9,000 years ago, and the pace of glacial retreat slowed in Antarctica until the 20th century, when melting picked up again with man-made climate change. Current models suggest global warming has again tipped the Antarctic Ice Sheet into sudden, rapid shrinking.

Could it be that a natural cycle is underway with it only being exacerbated by man made pollution, just making it sooner rather than later ?

The thrust of the article as I comprehended it is that we are still finding out just how little we currently know about natural changes and their causes.  The primary scare tactic of climate alarmists is rising sea levels.  Is that not safe to conclude ?

It appears that the sea levels change constantly, with or without man's influence.  If a natural cycle is underway, how are we going to stop it ? 

How does one make the leap to something is settled with the use of the word suggest ?  How can we be so certain of man made effects when we know so little about natural effects ?

 marko86 wrote: 
I saw that NOVA and am familiar with both websites.  The skeptic science website is a one way view.  The Real Climate website allows for a diversity of views and grows and changes, while the other seems smug and arrogant about its purpose and rests on its laurels.

You're spot on about the particulates in smog, but we have successfully reduced more than just those from our emissions. We made mistakes along the way with MTBE for example.  There have been content rules for gasoline that are impossible to achieve because the technology that produces the required additives has not achieved viability.  Yet the rules are in place and fines are being levied for failing to achieve the impossible.  This is where I object to the government solving this problem.  Putting the government in charge also results in insanity such as illustrated in the Ditch the Rule video posted earlier.

Those who wish for alternative solutions not in favor of the two primary, solar and wind are not dealt with kindly at any level.  If one does not support wind and solar, they are labeled as deniers.  I see it breaking down into only two positions by those who are fond of using the term denier.  You are either for or against hydrocarbon fuel and if you favor hydrocarbons over solar and wind, you are a Neanderthal at best.

We have enough hydrocarbon's to last the entire planet at least another 100 years, comfortably.  This in spite of the once settled science of Peak Oil.  Peak Oil dominated the headlines for the past 30 years and was considered settled science by the same people who are in front of Climate Change as we now call it.  When was the last time you heard the expression Peak Oil ?  Been quite awhile has it not ?  In the past, I have argued against Peak Oil and all the scare tactics it entailed.  Those who were so wrong about Peak Oil are now so right regarding their current tactics ?  That alone is reason enough to be skeptical.  They have been so embarrassed that they are doubling down on Greenhouse gasses in an effort to validate themselves.

But let's not get hung up on hydrocarbons.  Its the approach of those who promote Climate Change as a crisis.  The two primary alt / renewable sources are ... dependent on the weather !   My money says put it into technology that is not weather dependent.  Two awesome and promising low polluting alternatives that are not weather dependent that face a boatload of resistance are Thorium and liquid salt reactors.  If Bill Gates were to put $10 Billion behind these or similar ideas he could be the hero of the century(s).

The present attack on hydrocarbons attacks the supply and does not address demand.  Reducing demand will make a difference sooner and forever in immediately measurable ways.  Yet the way demand is dealt with is not to improve efficiency but to throttle demand by raising the price of supply, which is also one of the most repressive of solutions.  Raising prices benefits the 1%.  Raising efficiency and lowering demand benefits the 99%.  I realize that in the case of automotive emissions, CAFE standards do work towards efficiency.  But is only with the hope that yet to be developed technology will solve that.

Lastly, Global Dimming.  I saved it for last because if I did it sooner it would have turned everyone off when I assert that the number one source of Global Dimming agents are aircraft.  Persistent contrails which are called other names.  While the content and methods in use may be disputed, the fact that they exist cannot be denied.  Rather than ramble I'll repost a picture from another thread to make my point.  But before we get there, be aware that Global Dimming, which I assert is real and deliberate, vastly reduces the efficiency of solar power generation by a factor approaching 50% or more.  So its highly detrimental to what is being currently promoted as our last best chance of salvation.

 

Doomed.......doomed I tell you.  That is all.

 marko86 wrote: 
Thanks. I'm really trying to pin down those who say the science is not settled.  From them, I want to know, at what point is science considered settled?

It strikes me as amusing that one of the lay denials of  "climate change" being an issue now is that the earth has had such periods of significant warming and cooling throughout history.  Of course, we only "know" about many of those periods because of scientific research of the very kind that is being discredited now.

     

 steeler wrote: 
Not sure what you are getting at, but here is the gist of it. The graph below is settled science for what the climate was basically for the last 20,000 years. They know this from many ice cores and proxy data that affirms it.

 

 You can see the big jump. It was thought that the Antarctica was stable, but the empirical evidence shows that was not the case and that there was massive release of water (ice) from Antarctica. Now is it settled? I am sure there are studies ongoing and in the future that will back up the data. That is how it works. You start with theory and then go about gathering evidence in methodical way. Given the type of data they gathered, it is unlikely to be overturned,  The big question is what caused it, and that is not settled, then there was the Younger Dryas afterwords, which about wiped us out. They pieced together parts, such as the Gulf Stream stopping, but it far from settled as to the exact sequence of causes and events.

There are some that love to extrapolate since we do not know all the causes then, how can we now? It's easy. It's called science, we know what greenhouse gasses do and we know how much we are releasing

 kurtster wrote: 

I actually posted a paragraph from the story that you had linked to in your post. That paragraph included the link to which you refer and have responded, but that was not my point.
.
My point is that your post cited to a paragraph within that article that spoke of the effect of natural phenomena on climate change:. Natural climate warming caused huge ice sheet collapses in Antarctica eight times in the past 20,000 years, according to the study, published today (May 28) in the journal Nature. Measurements at Antarctica's biggest glaciers, such as Thwaites and Pine Island, suggest the ice sheet is on the brink of a similar massive retreat.

. My question to you was whether, in your opinion, the statement in that paragraph is settled science. It appeared to me you posted it because you believe it supports your positiion that natural phenomena are the cause of current global warming, not man-made pollution.
The other parargraph, though, is from the same article that you posted. And it includes a statement about man-made pollution being the primary cause of the latest episode of global warming and recession of glaciers.
.   
So, is the statement you posted settled science? And is the statement I posted from the same article settled science?
          

 kurtster wrote: 
The science is settled. We are warming, and the main driver is man-made. Yes, natural phenomenons are in the equation, but is small compared to the man-made CO'2 emissions and all the positive feedback loops. Not sure why one would be against peer review. That is what filters out the nutty, not scientifically possible ideas from what is possible. Why waste time with BS. Speaking of smog and the reduced emissions, is not the same as CO2, and carbonate emissions such as methanes. It is the particulate emissions that we have managed to reduce. This has obvious health benefits to the environment and people as well but ironically it has contributed to the warming. I recall watching a Nova program about Global Dimming which was quite fascinating, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_dimming.

In any case, you are correct about these measures making much of a difference,, in our life times. As my father said to me after conceding the debate,"its your problem, not mine." Truth is , it is even more a problem for future generations then mine. It's kinda of question of if you want to deal with 500-100 years of run-away global warming and all its impacts, or 10,000 years. I don't have kids myself, but I read the science and I try do my part, if only for economic reasons, but I also support government policies which is the only way to start reacting on a scale that will eventually make a difference.

Anyway, get the facts. This site is excellent for tackling various skeptics arguements.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

If you want to delve into the unfiltered science talk:
http://www.realclimate.org/ 

 steeler wrote: 
Nice picture from your linked site.  Ya, I know smog.  I grew up in smog central.  These days pictured are very rare out there now.  When I was growing up they lasted for a month at a time and the picture below would be called a clear day.  The smog of my day was much worse than today's.  We have already successfully reduced emissions in the US to level about 90% lower than the 60's.  And that is regarded as having done nothing or not enough.


.

Very little is settled.  The only thing being considered in this report (and nearly every report dealing with the subject) is man-made emissions.  Aren't there other naturally occurring phenomenons to consider along with man's role ?  And if there other things to consider, why aren't they ?  The only thing I see mentioned about natural phenomena is that it is irrelevant or regarded in the realm of pseudo science.  There is no room for outside the box as in non peer reviewed ideas.  This whole debate is contained in a tiny little box.

And so the solutions.  Are they guaranteed to work ?  No.  But we're still gonna spend all the money that China will loan us to try and execute a plan assembled in an echo chamber filled with yes men and with the slimmest of chances of making a difference.

Really ? 

 kurtster wrote:

 
Is that settled science?

How about this (from the same article)?

The last big iceberg release was 9,000 years ago, and the pace of glacial retreat slowed in Antarctica until the 20th century, when melting picked up again with man-made climate change. Current models suggest global warming has again tipped the Antarctic Ice Sheet into sudden, rapid shrinking

 

 

Antarctic Ice Sheet could contribute to rapid sea level rise, say scientists

Some 14,600 years ago, sea levels rose 6.5 feet in just a century, thanks to Antarctica's melting glaciers. It could happen again, say researchers.

 Natural climate warming caused huge ice sheet collapses in Antarctica eight times in the past 20,000 years, according to the study, published today (May 28) in the journal Nature. Measurements at Antarctica's biggest glaciers, such as Thwaites and Pine Island, suggest the ice sheet is on the brink of a similar massive retreat.

 RichardPrins wrote: 
In your case, you substitute denier for ass hat.  And you love to respond to tone.

Then you have the nerve to tell people how they are supposed to feel about the names you call them.

  RichardPrins wrote:  
So I am supposed to rejoice in being called a denier because others do ?  Who is happy about Global Warming ?  What kind of tripe are you dredging up to support your argument ?

How about I call you an alarmist and an anti American socialist ?  How does that make you feel ?

The only thing you believe in are these rules ...

 Always remember the first rule of power tactics: Power is not only what you have but what the enemy thinks you have. 

The second rule is: Never go outside the experience of your people. When an action is outside the experience of the people, the result is confusion, fear, and retreat. 

The third rule is: Wherever possible go outside the experience of the enemy. Here you want to cause confusion, fear, and retreat. 

The fourth rule is: Make the enemy live up to their own book of rules. You can kill them with this, for they can no more obey their own rules than the Christian church can live up to Christianity. 

The fourth rule carries within it the fifth rule: Ridicule is man's most potent weapon. It is almost impossible to counterattack ridicule. Also it infuriates the opposition, who then react to your advantage. 

The sixth rule is: A good tactic is one that your people enjoy. If your people are not having a ball doing it, there is something very wrong with the tactic. 

The seventh rule: A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag. Man can sustain militant interest in any issue for only a limited time, after which it becomes a ritualistic commitment, like going to church on Sunday mornings. 

The eighth rule: Keep the pressure on, with different tactics and actions, and utilize all events of the period for your purpose. 

The ninth rule: The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself. 

The tenth rule: The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition. It is this unceasing pressure that results in the reactions from the opposition that are essential for the success of the campaign. 

The eleventh rule is: If you push a negative hard and deep enough it will break through into its counterside; this is based on the principle that every positive has its negative. 

The twelfth rule: The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative. You cannot risk being trapped by the enemy in his sudden agreement with your demand and saying "You're right — we don't know what to do about this issue. Now you tell us." 

The thirteenth rule: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.I am sure that you memorized them long ago.  You execute them flawlessly. Will you tell the class whose rules these are ?

At what point is science considered settled on an issue?

Is it not only prudent, but necessary to wait for science to be settled before taking any governmental action?

Query: would we have landed on the moon if we waited until all science for that mission had been settled?

 Would  the Soviets have been able to send Sputnik into orbit— winning that race with the U.S. — if it had waited till all science for that mission had been settled?

 

 islander wrote: 
I'm not dancing around anything.

Is or is it not the primary ideology for government intervention that all carbon based fuel is evil and must be taxed or regulated in order to continue using it ?  Even though we have no real alternatives to it on the table ?  We are to cut off our nose to spite our face.

Cheap, reliable energy is the number one requirement for improving life at all levels.  

Government intervened on behalf of the CFL.  I was and am against that.  I have been for LED's since day one and am about 75% of the way there in our home.  LED's are the better choice and better solution to our lighting needs.  LED's have succeeded in spite of government subsidized competition and they will win out in the end.  We will look back and say WTF was the CFL about ?

So I am against government intervention in our basic needs.  It gets it wrong over and over again.  You want to spend my money on another loser like Solyndra ?  I want to pursue reducing our energy demand over changing the source of it.  My way will payoff for sure.  Your way is chasing rainbows and does not reduce demand.  It simply reduces supply, making it more expensive for everyone, which makes it more oppressive at the same time as well.

This sure as hell is about ideology. 

Just as the Peak Oil scare was about ideology and not science ...