Climate denial continues

Alex Bea (Employee) 11 days ago, supporting a woman who was dismayed about a denialist response commented to her blog when she posted a video advocating action on climate change:

"One option would be to point him to the Skeptical Science blog post on the connection between CO2 and climate change (http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-co2-enhanced-greenhouse-effect-advanced.htm).  He's also asking for direct causation, which scientifically is impossible. We can't create a planet in a laboratory and isolate only one thing. What we can do is look at decades of scientific literature on all aspects of the climate and see that well over 90% of climate scientists, the most experienced and knowledgeable on AGW, agree that we are causing global climate change (http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus.htm).

Skeptical Science is generally a great place to look for the evidence that refutes most climate denier statements. But, as I said, arguing with someone who is close minded enough to create a blog called "Global Warming (or is it Global Cooling?)" probably isn't worth your time to get into an argument with."

The non-member causing her discomfort replied directly to the support staff:

"On the contrary, I have a perfectly open mind. Only catch is that I deal in facts and reality.

Just show me an academic paper using any one of the standard scientific criteria above and I am happy to change my opinion of AGW.  I mean, Alex, after decades of research something definitive should have been established by now right?

Now are any of YOU as broad minded as that?

Cheers

Roger

http://www.rogerfromnewzealand.wordpress.com/

PS if you are interested in any academic papers (peer reviewed and published) that contradict the IPCC sources, I can help you there as well.

BTW, Skeptical Science simply rely on correlations and models with built in assumptions of AGW for their "proofs"

  

Alex Bea (Employee) 11 days ago sounded a little exasperated with Roger:

"I would say that thousands of peer-reviewed scientific articles and 97% of climate scientists* agreeing is pretty definitive. Now the choice is to be part of the solution or to be part of the status quo, which is using our skies as a dumping ground to keep a multi-billion dollar bottom line, amplifying the problem.

Please note that this is a support site, not a discussion forum, so further responses should be directed to organizers@350.org."

So I, Paul Suckow, added:

"In addition Roger, the risk management aspects concerning what is at stake, given our dependence on this eminently habitable planet and in fact that of carbon-based life as we know it, have been known for decades to require a serious and yet postponed effort, even if we should be so lucky as to someday discover the past century and a half of science was mistaken.

• Thus far, the scientific mistakes made have been on the side of underestimating the quantity and quality of adverse effects of climate change. Well, perhaps not scientific mistakes exactly, but stemming from a perhaps undue political emphasis on trying to reach massive consensus agreement between all IPCC participating country's scientific and political bodies.

• I'd turn not to arcane studies of individual research questions, but to books that well sum up the recent scientific understanding of climate change like Dr. James E. Hansen's "Storms of my Grandchildren" (surprisingly inexpensive, readable and open-hearted). The "Gaia" series of works by Dr. James Lovelock regarding Gaia Theory, about the seemingly active collusion of living and inanimate components of Earth Systems to keep the biosphere as habitable as possible for as long as possible for the benefit of contemporary life-forms, entered to great controversy but has already now succeeded with multiple predictions and is proving helpful to understanding the choices (for now) still available to humanity.

• Will scientific understanding and subsequent human behavior changes be enough to avoid a looming extinction crisis for Earth's current life forms? The last fractional man out on that jury is wavering yet. But would you consider that a reason not to try to help win humanity's case to preserve climate and life so that the birthing of our kind might not meet an early end?

I (and I imagine all scientifically literate people) certainly share your skepticism regarding unexamined assumptions. Fortunately, the basics of excess greenhouse atmospheric effects are well grounded and extensively studied in action on this (habitable) and other (uninhabitable) nearby worlds. One assumption I worry about is that enlightened humanity will be able to overcome its habitual fear and greed sufficiently to mount effective adaptation and mitigation of human elements that increasingly and inexorably contribute to future global heating. These views are totally mainstream today, nothing controversial, and seek helpful cooperation not deadly confrontation.

May I admit I am quite jealous of the life you might lead on so beautiful an island as the nation of New Zealand? May it always be so. Best regards always to you and to yours,

--Paul from America 

  

Link provided as fair use of copyrighted material for personal and educational purposes:

http://www.drivehq.com/file/df.aspx/publish/paulsuckow/Teller_1959_EnergyPatterns.pdfPublish"

I guess I hate giving up on anyone as a lost cause.  Even now.  But was that too many words, or too dense a wording to communicate transparently?