May 29, 2009
-
Where Global Warming Skepticism Comes From
edit: Added a video about current attitudes regarding Global Warming courtesy bryangoodrich
There have been a lot of people posting a lot of anti-global warming stuff online lately and there’s so much there that is misleading, misconstrued, and just plain wrong that it would take days to weeks to refute it all and I admit that I’m not anywhere near enough an expert in the field to refute it all.
But it’s more useful I think to understand why you should be skeptical of *any* Global Warming Skeptic’s argument. It’s not because we liberals smugly know that we’re always right. Nor is it because somehow we think the fact that there is an overwhelming consensus *makes* something true. None of the Scientists who contributed to the Science that made it into the IPCC reports believes that. Rather they are expressing their best judgments based on all of the data available.
No, the reason why you should be far more skeptical about what Global Warming skeptics have to say than the other side is simple. The organizational structures that produce and promote Global Warming skepticism are inherently biased and extremely flawed. The people involved are ideologically bound and have been demonstrated to time and again have little interest in the truth and every interest in advancing a very specific political ideology.
That’s why as some have noted there is a strong correlation between the people who disbelieve Global Warming and those who decry Evolution. Because it’s the same types of arguments being used for both. In fact, very often it’s the very same people who are most outspoken in their attempts to argue for both. And people working for the same institutions, very often funded by the same companies. And they use the same disinformation tactics each and every time all the while carefully avoiding any kind of forum where they’d be forced to prove their positions on fair grounds such as in the Scientific peer review process. You can just as easily substitute Creationism with any number of other issues. Like the health risks of smoking tobacco. Or the environmental impact of strip mining. Or even the current nomination of Judge Sotomayor to the Supreme Court.
It’s not a fait accompli that these people are always wrong of course. Heck they could be right about Global Warming. But if Global Warming isn’t really happening or isn’t really anthropogenic there’s every reason to trust the Scientific Community to find that out through its usual methods. And given the enormous record of success of Science in the modern era there’s enormous good reason to trust them. In contrast the Skeptics, and remember these tend to be a very small group of closely related individuals with similar motives, have been shown to be wrong time and time again. And their tactics and strategies have been shown to be outrageously deceptive and overwhelmingly disingenuous.
My point is simply that they are untrustworthy. And the more you learn about them the more clear this becomes.
You have to understand the history of this kind of meddling in our political system in order to even have a hope of figuring out or understanding the truth about the world. It’s not your fault if you’ve been deceived. We’ve all deceived about something at some point in our lives. But once you start to look at the history with an open mind any rational individual has to acknowledge that certain sources of information are biased and untrustworthy. And once you get there, you’re welcome to still have your doubts about things like Global Warming and Evolution but don’t you dare pretend that your doubts are supported by facts or sound Science lest you show yourself to be an ideologue completely disconnected from the world of facts and truth.
So for history, I give you this video by a Historian, namely Naomi Oreskes whose examination of the history of the evolution of the Global Warming is beyond par. So if you’re still a skeptic, still think these skeptical works you’ve been watching sound oh so convincing, watch this video. And then watch it again. And again if need be. Until it is drilled into your brain that there is NO conspiracy to convince the world that Global Warming is real. It’s what current Science tells us. Period.
This is another video that describes real data about the current attitudes about Global Warming with a little discussion about what is driving them. It is definitely also work thinking about especially if you are still skeptical. Many thanks to http://bryangoodrich.xanga.com/ for bringing it to my attention.
Comments (88)
I liked the post, but I don’t have time for the video at the moment. I’ll check it out later. Being an hour long, it’d better be worth it!
Awesome post.
I hard about that a lot from my folks at home, work and close friends.
Hot stock tip for you. Paint stocks.
President Obama’s energy adviser has suggested all the world’s roofs should be painted white as part of efforts to slow global warming
Start painting!!!
Awsome clip.
Though, the speaker’s voice is a bad bit annoying. -_-
you forget that the deniers are all rhetoricians, and will very swiftly decry this argument as an ‘ad hominem’, in spite of its evident validity. the american school system seems to train sophists – or at least, the schooling systems on which the majority of xangans seem to have been raised. they are great at formal debates: a talent that could hardly be more useless in the search for the truth. but truth isn’t really what they are interested in. and neither is it what their audience wants to hear. global warming skepticism is almost impossible to defeat in these kinds of forums, because its advocates are so deeply invested into a belief that the goal of debate is to win by any means necessary. they are idiots.
I’m not sure where I stand on global warming TBH… I feel that yes, there is definitely global warming, but I don’t think it’s on the scale that the media is hyping it up to be.
I definitely don’t think it’s as bad as they say it is. I’m definitely not ignorant of it, the effects, or who/what is causing it, but I just think it’s been way, way, way overblown, like the swine flu was.
And I definitely feel the effects of the polar shift that I’ve been made aware is happening, as well as some El Ninyo effect… *shrug* I don’t honestly pay close enough attention to it, just have some slight opinion on it.
However, lol, living in Canada and getting shit snowed on me worse in the last few years … I have a difficult time believing that the earth is warming up. It’s freaking cold and snowy here and it’s just been getting worse. If global warming has contributed to THAT, then I just don’t know about it yet.
“The organizational structures that produce and promote Global Warming skepticism are inherently biased and extremely flawed.”
Ah. But the people proselytizing their Global Warming doomsday scenarios aren’t inherently biased or extremely flawed! Good to know.
Wow Poisoning the Well and a Faulty Comparison. That a good combination.
No point telling you anything else, only “those people” disagree with you. I love closed minds trying to call others close minded.
“No, the reason why you should be far more skeptical about what Global
Warming skeptics have to say than the other side is simple. The
organizational structures that produce and promote Global Warming
skepticism are inherently biased and extremely flawed. The people
involved are ideologically bound and have been demonstrated to time and
again have little interest in the truth and every interest in advancing
a very specific political ideology.”
This is true for both sides. They all have agendas.
You’re also making blanket statements of ‘skeptics aren’t trustworthy.’ Are you saying ALL skeptics aren’t trustworthy? Or just specific ones? Because I know some that are quite trustworthy. I haven’t seen you name any names of exactly who is untrustworthy.
And Youtube videos aren’t proof of anything.
Seriously, I love that you wrote this. I don’t even bother with the people that denounce global warming anymore. It’s like talking to a bigot brick wall.
<3
As @gabrielpeter - and @trunthepaige - have already pointed out, this is one long ad hominem (Paige uses the term “poisoning the well”, which is a form of ad hominem). Now if you want to actually compare arguments and point out flaws in the arguments themselves, I’m all ears. I honestly don’t know and don’t pretend to know one way or another. But this post bears no resemblence to a logical argument.
@randomneuralfirings - Nephyo is as entitled to offer commentary on global warming-deniers as he is a grounds-up justification of global warming.
Funny, my Chemistry textbook mentioned some reasons that global warming may only be climate shift. I’m neutral on the subject, but I think your analysis is flawed because I know plenty of science-minded, pro-evolution people who don’t believe in global warming.
You might also want to show some real research about people’s perception of Global Warming. For that, see Krosnick’s
The American Public’s Views of Global Climate Change
Milankovitch cycles, cough, Milankovitch cycles.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wLAYRdSnRSI
“The organizational structures that produce and promote Global Warming skepticism are inherently biased and extremely flawed. The people involved are ideologically bound and have been demonstrated to time and again have little interest in the truth and every interest in advancing a very specific political ideology.}
A minor tweak and I have the following:
The organizational structures that produce and promote Global Warming are inherently biased and extremely flawed. The people involved are ideologically bound and have been demonstrated to time and again have little interest in the truth and every interest in advancing a very specific political ideology.
@soccerdadforlife - im happy that you know how to use the backspace button on your keyboard, but what political ideology would that be? saving polar bears?
This seems like a circumstantial ad hominem argument. Just because they have something to gain from it doesn’t actually mean that they are wrong.
@Chinese_Sait0u - watermelonism–green on the outside and red on the inside. It’s all about political power for socialists.
i think a lot of times when people are trying to say that global warming isn’t happening, they’re actually saying that the media is hyping it up beyond what we need to care about, or that it’s a natural process, or that it is not anthropomorphic, etc etc … the earth is obviously warming up, so in its most basic sense global warming is happening. it’s undeniable.
Global temps have fluctuated for centuries and centuries.and more centuries. Way before there were mass population centers, way before automobiles, way before power plants. They will continue to fluctuate long after we are gone. Our ability to significantly impact these fluctuations is minimal.
Those that would have you believe otherwise are in it for the money. Politicians for tax revenue, or to pad their own pockets. Scientist for research grants (also controlled by said politicians looking to load their pockets/tax revenue.
My concern is how the public is willingly being taken for a ride, or, “There’s a sucker born every minute.”
@longtimelurker - Those that would have you believe otherwise are in it for the money. Politicians for tax revenue, or to pad their own pockets. Scientist for research grants (also controlled by said politicians looking to load their pockets/tax revenue.
That’s right. We’re all out to get you!
I wish people would pay more attention to some of the main points of the clip than the body of the entry. The right’s propaganda campaign against global warming is pretty damn scary.
I accept that global temperatures could be on the rise. But accepting that global temperatures could be on the rise still leaves the question of cause and effect wide open. Blindly believing that a rise in global temperatures is caused by human activity or will result in famine, massive storms and doom is ignorant. Those who do so are really no different in sophistication from the members of a tribe that believes they must make sacrifices to appease the wrath of their island volcano god. If global temperatures are on the rise (they have actually dropped in the past ten years, look it up), it is pretty evident that they have been on the rise for some time and long before the internal combustion engine or industrial revolution. Think about it, what brought about the end of the ice age, SUV’s and coal power plants? I think not. The reality is that there are much bigger players in our global climate, the most significant of those players being the sun. The slightest change in the sun’s output could have huge implications for earth’s climate and there is ample evidence that this could be a cause (if not thee cause) of global climate change. Even if carbon emissions were the real culprit, mankind is still not the biggest producer of carbon emissions. A single volcano could emit more “greenhouse” gasses than humanity has since the beginning of the industrial revolution. And really, how do we know that the current climate is “normal” or the best climate? Why should we assume it is? Did you know tropical plants have been found in the Alaskan tundra? How could that be if the earth’s climate has remained constant throughout history? This whole notion that the global temperatures/climate must remain unchanged or assuming that changes in global temperatures/climate are caused by human activity is ill founded and a dangerous way to set national policy. In a couple hundred years, the whole “green revolution” supported by global warming pseudo-science will likely be viewed like the Salem Witch trials or Spanish Inquisition. And if you think modern/educated people are not susceptible to undo panic, remember Y2K? I recall many “experts” predicted gloom and doom then. Think about it, we can’t even predict the weather accurately more than a few days in advance. Show me the smoking gun evidence and I may believe…but at this moment you can’t count me among the faithful.
@SerenaDante - You are usually a skeptic, but not on this issue?What do you think of my reply?
I entirely agree except for one thing: You use the word “anthropomorphic” when clearly you mean “anthropogenic.” (Indeed, I’ve taken to calling evolution “The Modern Synthesis” and calling global warming “Anthropogenic Climate Change,” because these terms are both more accurate and less likely to inspire reflexive hatred and fear.)
@Stoltz13 - A skeptic—in the good, scientific sense, not the bad, philosophical sense—is not someone who denies things for the sake of denying them, but someone who reserves judgment before examining the evidence. A true skeptic, when faced with the issue of global warming, would ask: “What is the evidence?” The scientific community would then proceed to provide large quantities of very compelling evidence, and the skeptic would respond: “Ah, there it is. Clearly, global warming is happening, and human beings are the cause.”
@pnrj - That’s just it…the cause of climate change isn’t clear and the man-made global warming hype is a philosophy being driven by psuedo-scientist leftwing ideologues like Al Gore. Everything I wrote in my long reply has a basis in science…you are welcome to look me up. If you’re not willing to question and take an open honest look at the global warming indoctrination sold to the masses as a scientific fact…enjoy the kool aid
!
I’m from the Czech Republic and I have BIG problem with our selfish president Vaclav Klaus who is opposer of global warming. He wants there to be a disputation on this subject every time it’s taken care of. That’s what I hate about democracy, people spend insane amount of time arguing about obvious and then the whole ruling process is slowed.
, he should rather start planting trees and lowering CO2 production.
I think that people don’t consider it real because of the name “gobal warming”.
Recently I could feel the effects of temperature shifts. For different places and different time of year, for different day, you can find average temperature recorded. What’s happening is that those temperatures are becoming unreliable. Weather shifts extremely from day to day. Stormy and cold, sunny and warm, stormy and cold, sunny and warm…just a matter of hours!. Cold in spring (like now here in the CR), sudden rise of temperature in winter… Temperature contrast is increasing, more extreme weather events….
I don’t have to feel +10 Celsius 24/7 to realize that there is something wrong with the temperatures.
PS: White roof reflects it, greenhouse effect reflects it back
@LifeNeedsProtection - The White Roof thing is entirely true but I don’t know about investing in paint companies. More than likely we will transition to having new things build with white and paler colors and as things are renovated switch over. It’d be really hard to convince everyone to go out and paint their roofs.
But although it sounds silly the Science of white roofs is quite sound. The Obama advisor who proposed it is a Nobel Prize winning Physicist not just some chump. The main reason it makes sense is it reflects light reducing the energy cost on air conditioning and prevents heat from being trapped on the surface in darker substances for longer periods of time.
It doesn’t stop global warming of course, or anywhere close, but as a bang for the buck energy saving measure it’s gotta be really high up there.
@haloed - It’s definitely definitely good to be distrustful of the media. I would never argue against that. The media DOES take stories and overhype them far too often. But it isn’t always the case that they over hype everything. It’s important to be able to discern which stories are exaggerated and which are not. That’s not easy. But luckily there’s enough information resources out there available to everyone that it IS possible.
Here’s a simple example. One truly overhyped story was ironically the “global cooling scare”. Articles appeared in a few newspapers and a few TV shows suggesting that the Earth was going to cool.
The story wasn’t false. The problem was it was based on just a few studies that suggested the possibility of cooling. And even those studies said nothing conclusive. However the media picked it up. Why? Because it made good news. Later they stopped printing those stories because no more evidence arose to support it. It proved to be false. There was far more evidence to support global warming so news people couldn’t even get away with making up stuff to make cooling seem real. So you only ever hear about global cooling in two places now. Fox News and talk radio. And they never have any evidence.
But let’s look at another story. The Swine Flu. Seems like a hype thing right? But actually yes and no. The risk of a dangerous global pandemic is very real and very dangerous. All our health officials were saying to be super cautious. Why? Because it’s been well postulated that a major flu pandemic could have devastating repurcussions around the world. We simply have created an environment where viruses can mutate more quickly than we can find ways to treat them. So the risk is very very real.
So why did this turn out to be nothing? Easy. The reports coming out of Mexico were quite simply incorrect and premature. Based on the intial reports coming out of Mexico yeah we had every reason to be terrified. Remember those initial news stories? Over a 100 dead! And that’s what our Health agencies were working with. The news stories exaggerated it, often ommiting the oh so important words that the 100 were “thought to have been caused” as in not “verified”. Still, even the suspicion was enough to be cautious. Because if it had been true, we really would have had a super dangerous epidemic on our hands.
But fortunately for the world, it WASN’T true. Turns out the reports were premature. Once the cases were tested, overnight the number of dead report from Mexico dropped vastly to somewhere in the vicinity of what we would expect from a normal Flu. Since this is a new strain, there was still reason to be cautious, but no reason to Panic and go overboard.
Did the media overreact? Well I think it’s a matter of opinion. Had the suspected numbers turned out to be closer to the real numbers we’d be damned glad the media DID give it so much coverage. Since the precautions that were taken, although costly, would have saved numerous lives. Waiting for more accurate data to come in might have seemed wiser, but if anything this story tells us that virsues spread at an extremely rapid rate. We simply could not afford to wait for Mexico’s medical system to get its shit together.
As for it being oddly cold there, that’s not entirely unexpected. Global Warming does not predict a uniform temperature rise everywhere at all times in the year. Rather it predicts that the average temperature will rise but the actual effect on specific areas will be rather difficult to predict. One Scientist said we should maybe call it “Global Weirding” because weather everywhere is going to just ge a whole lot weirder than what we are used to. I always say anecdotal evidence of temperature shifts in your particular area is not very good evidence FOR or AGAINST Global Warming.
Is Global Warming “not as bad” as the media says? It’s really hard to say. The Media does stress the worst case scenarios. And that really is in part a money thing. Fear is more entertaining than sober estimates. They also give far more air time to the people who say it isn’t happening than they deserve based on the science. So in that sense they are significantly underplaying it. There is a serious risk though and the time frame for that risk is over the next 100-300 years as best Scientists have been able to judge. AND there’s a chance that if substantial action isn’t done within that time frame or even the next 50 years, it might become too late to do anything short of some amazing new technological development we haven’t predicted. The sooner we do something the better off we’ll be.
@TheJoyfulCynic - I am NOT saying all skeptics are untrustworthy. I’m saying the specific people who have promoted “global warming skepticism” in the media are untrustworthy. I didn’t name names because the video does so in depth.
Skepticism is fine. I hate even using the word “skeptics” to describe these people. It’s the common terminology but I probably shouldn’t have used it. Deniers would be a better term. Skepticism is perfectly logical outlook for anyone to have. Denial is however extremely dangerous. When it is mixed with demagoguery it’s even worse.
I agree that many people have agendas. It’s largely a useless statement. It doesn’t change the fact that some people will lie to your face, distort the evidence, and stop at nothing to convince you of their ends and others, don’t. Members of the Flat Earth Society and the National Academy of Sciences both have agendas. The difference is the Flat Earth Society is full of shit when they claim the Earth is flat whereas the NAS is not when it asserts the opposite. It’s much the same with Global Warming.
@JadedJanissary - You are absolutely correct and I thought I was entirely clear about that but perhaps not. I am NOT arguing that Global Warming deniers are WRONG in this piece. They might be right.
I am only arguing that there are very good reasons to doubt their claims that are independent of those claims. Those reasons are in part because they have something to gain and in part because they have a consistent record of advocating based on ideology rather than reasoning and being wrong as a consequence. I believe that is what the video shows much more clearly than I have explained.
But like I said we could determine tomorrow that some other fact effects the environment more than CO2 and that the world will soon reverse its warming trend. In some superficial way the global warming deniers would have been right in that case. But if I decided tomorrow by flipping a coin there’s a 50% chance I might be right too. But you really shouldn’t believe me anyway.
I might agree with you that global warming exists. I just very well might.
But logic forces my hand to state that this is, in fact, an ad hominem argument. Very little of it is factually provable and apparently none of it is factually supported on this blog by external sources.
An open attack on your opposition does nothing to persuade anyone; least of all your opposition. If you are not an expert on global warming then you can only do harm to its cause unless you leave the explanation to the experts or become one yourself.
To be quite honest, I am sort of inclined to agree with @Stoltz13 - in the fact that yes, global temperature has found a steady rise in recent history – but the data available to study is a short fraction of a fraction of global climatological history and thus not enough to truly convince me.
@nephyo - If this is true — then why didn’t Al Gore think of it first? And why hasn’t he bought his paint yet???
This is really great. You’re right, it’s definitely important to look at the source of any claim.
It’s interesting that when science tells us something that interrupts our daily life or traditional way of thinking we all become experts on the subject.
@bryangoodrich - Thanks. That is a good video. I will add it to my post if you don’t mind.
@pnrj - Oops. Thanks I will change the entry to use the proper term anthropogenic not anthropomorphic.
@nephyo - Feel free. The research channel has a number of other good videos on the subject. I plan, some time, to sit down and watch the videos again and take serious notes that I can put out into a blog to inform these stupid people about just how stupid they are. You should run through your comments and take a count of how many people claim that there is no evidence for anthropogenic* global warming. (*and I forgot to correct you on that, I noticed it too) There is a lot of evidence. These people either try to avoid it, are just too dumb to understand it or they hear one other person say something different and accept it as scientific fact against the entire IPCC consensus! (e.g., “mars is heating up too, so it must show they’re all wrong,” contrary to the evidence for why it would happen and not violate current global warming theory). I have argued similar bullshit at pjcomposer’s blog.
@Stoltz13 - the cause of climate change isn’t clear and
the man-made global warming hype is a philosophy being driven by
psuedo-scientist leftwing ideologues like Al Gore.
The causes aren’t clear? You tell us to look up your science based conjectures that lead us astray from the actual climate science that suggests otherwise. So you’re basically saying “all that science in the IPCC report and done throughout the world by independent scientists that all agree on the general consensus … ignore that.” You need to take an honest look at the science that does suggest human-impacted climate change (link). You need to see the research that does produce scary predictions about the future (link). Maybe even take a look at the evidence that does show the artic is melting (link). To say there is no evidence for anthropogenic global warming is just asinine.
I think there is something up with the link to my name. It isn’t working.
@bryangoodrich - sorry. Not sure what was going on there with the formatting. I think I fixed it. And I added another reference to you just above the video that hopefully will work. Thanks again for the video.
@LifeNeedsProtection - Huh? Al Gore is not a Scientist nor does he claim to be. Every proposal he has made is a proposal he GETS from the scientific community. The attempts to paint Al Gore as some idiot loud mouth who is making up all the Climate Change claims he makes really pisses me off. Nearly every claim that he is a liar that I have ever seen is an exaggeration or a blatant lie. And the evidence for this has been presented again and again and AGAIN and yet people still spout this nonsense. And them most annoying thing about it is that it’s BESIDES the point. Al Gore can be a blatant serial liar and it wouldn’t matter one bit because he’s NOT the one telling us this. He’s just a political advocate. Who gives a fuck what Al Gore says? What matters is what virtually every single scientific community in the ENTIRE WORLD says. It just so happens that they say the same thing Al Gore says which in this case should provide considerable evidence that in THIS case Al Gore is probably telling you the truth.
Now as for White Rooftops. The reason it didn’t come out before is because we didn’t know how BIG an effect it would have until very recently. New studies have been coming out suggesting that white roofing can be extremely effective. Here’s an article about it.
@bryangoodrich - There is no scientific consensus…true the scientists who believe the theory have banded together…but there are still many scientists who disagree…just do a google search.
The sky is not falling chicken little…there was a global warming cycle in the middle ages as well and they lived through it.
@Stoltz13 - First off, the little ice age caused a lot of problems. No one is saying the human race is going to be killed off. The point is that our economy is much more fragile to extreme changes that would be caused by the projections of global warming. We’re talking about entire economies collapsing and needing to change within a century. We’re talking about the change of economic power, as well as who controls valuable resources (food) that will be shifted within a century. That is a huge change that I am not comfortable with as an American, and am definitely not comfortable with when it comes to global political stability. Some humor that “hey, Canada will become fertile ground.” So what? We’re going to be bitches to Canada or take them over to manage that land? Again, human existence or life on the planet isn’t the issue. It is maintaining our livelihood in the face of great changes that we can influence and adapt to.
And I have google searched. I work in the California Air Resources Board. I’m well aware of the research and controversy. You have not justified that there is no consensus. You act like it is some minority band that came together to make the IPCC report. Well, you’re wrong. It is the scientific consensus that anthropogenic global warming is happening. If you have evidence to the contrary, then prove it. The fact -some- people disagree is not evidence that the science isn’t in on global warming. You don’t even provide an argument. You just provide “I’m right”. Well, pal, go fuck yourself. I’ve provided three links to a plethora of research on various aspects of global warming. This is -standard- stuff in climate science. This isn’t controversial. They aren’t professing some odd conclusion. It is what is accepted as the science. You have no evidence to the contrary, and saying “just google it” is not an argument.
@Stoltz13 - There is no scientific consensus
Wrong
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686
And you can see the video nephyo added to this blog that I recommended. There is ample evidence that there is a consensus about anthropogenic climate change. It is nice to know that Krosnick’s research at least exposes the truth about just how controversial Americans view the issue, and it isn’t as bad as we all thought. Unfortunately, you fall into the minority friend.
@nephyo - Just concerned since the world gave him the Nobel Peace Prize over Irena Sendler, who helped save 2,500 Jewish children from the Nazis.
@bryangoodrich - The majority of people believe in God. Do you?
I don’t mind being in the minority. I hope I would be in the minority in Salem, Massachusetts in 1692 or if I were in Spain in the 1400′s. I was in the minority of my friends during the Y2K hype. If I’m in the minority by believing that global warming may be the result of solar cycles, it doesn’t bother me…the rest of the world will catch up eventually…hopefully before the witch trials begin.
Have you ever heard of Tim Patterson or Dansgaard-Oeschger events? I would link some articles…but I want you to start thinking on your own…lol!
@Stoltz13 - Yes, because I’m not thinking on my own? I might just major in environmental economics, but I’m just buying into some kind of liberal hype? Try not to make presumptions about me you piece of shit. Not making links only signifies you cannot make an argument and back it up, nothing more. Don’t act like you’re being intellectually charitable for my benefit, backed only by some presumptuous stupidity.
And the planet is warming due to solar cycles? Really? Where’s the evidence? Apparently reading research isn’t your forte since two of the videos I have shown provide evidence that EXCLUDES the effect of solar-impacted global warming as being the predominant factor. Yeah, you’re in the minority, as if that is scientific. There’s nothing wrong with minorities. There is when the facts of science are generated by the majority, though. So you might want to just say it loud and clear so we can all hear it. You’re unscientific and back your beliefs by lack of science. That is all you have said amounts to.
Oh, but yes. I have heard of Patterson. What is your point? Appeal to authority? Again, that is shit in science since science is like a democracy. It is the majority vote, and no one says there isn’t one or even a whole host of scientists that claim climate change is wrong. What you have failed to realize, as the Krosnick video details, is that the controversy is not real. There is no battle against climate change in the scientific community. It is largely accepted, period.
I’m also aware of Dansgaard-Oeschger events. You might want to see the third video link I provided earlier. Again, is that supposed to be evidence to the contrary? There is no evidence that it is what is driving global climate change. You can pull out a whole host of things that CAN effect climate, but that doesn’t mean they ARE the significant cause. The RESEARCH says it is human-impacted. But you’re unscientific, so it makes sense you have completely ignored the science, and several links already provided to you. Instead, you latch on to any scientist who agrees with your prejudice, and go “see! global warming is wrong!” That’s just beyond stupid. There’s no other way to put it.
@bryangoodrich - You have yet to make your own scientific argument to prove that a) the climate is in a warming trend, b) that the warming trend is caused by human activity, and c) that global warming is so bad that requires completely reordering the world’s economy. You have only supported your view with links and a video, yet you lecture me about making an ”appeal to authority” and being unscientific??? That seems rather hypocritical to me.
Let’s just accept your faith based conclusions for a second and believe that global warming is caused by us and will do bad things to the global environment. I got a few questions: How do you know we can reverse the trend? How do you know that the impact of global warming will be worse than the damage caused by dramatically reordering the world’s economy?
@Stoltz13 - I will answer those questions in detail later on my own blog. The first video I offered covers these facts at a level a high school student could comprehend. It is very accessible. You want a scientific argument? Like what? The actual science behind it? Then first you need to consider the data and the graphs. This stuff isn’t secret. I am not making any appeal to authority since I am not citing any authority. I am citing the scientific consensus as reported and acknowledged on sites, such as those. Furthermore, there is nothing wrong with an appeal to authority. The problem is when it is a fallacious appeal to authority. Such an appeal is referencing one scientist as if his opinion or poor inference supersedes all the data and research from the science community on the topic. That is beyond fallacious. It is down right stupid.
@bryangoodrich - Just because you claim there is a “scientific consensus” means I should just shut up, put on my tinfoil hat and join the frenzied mob? Again, I accept that the global climate changes and has been on a slight warming cycle, what I don’t accept is the idea that global warming is a) man caused and b) the end of the world. There is no scientific concensus on those two ideas. People seem to have a weird fixation with apocalyptic senarios that punish people for their ‘sins’ and messiahs, global warming doomsday senarios fit well with our cultural psyche, but that doesn’t make it science.
Since you like links, I can link a graph showing a direct correlation between sunspots and global climate changes, check it out: http://www.oar.noaa.gov/spotlite/archive/spot_sunclimate.html
@Stoltz13 - your (b) is a straw man since that is not part of the science. There is no “mob” to join. That kind of caricaturing shows your ignorance and prejudice of the science. You view the scientific community as touting nonsense when it is, as the community is, scientific. It would be good to keep that in mind.
If we keep that in mind, then you might have noticed that even in the link you provide, they state very clearly that, “even though solar activity may not be
the dominant factor in global warming, it is important enough that understanding
how the climate responds to small changes in solar irradiance will help
scientists predict the climate changes caused by human activity.” All your link provides is that the sun contributes to global temperature changes. Was that disputed? NO! The point was that the dominant factor to global warming is the human factor. That is not disputed by scientists in any significant sense. The point is “how much”, not if at all. Even the link supports the fact that the sun may contribute a significant factor (up to 1/3), but that is not all. That would be why we see variability, like the ten year low we’re seeing. The point of that article you link is that we need to know the role of the sun so we can better see the impact humans have, and how we can adjust our policies in the future, and our predictions, to weigh the sun variable into the equation. It does NOT support your notion that the sun is the driver of global temperature, and humans are not the dominant factor (you haven’t even suggested they might be significant, which I can only assume you think they are not).
@bryangoodrich - That’s their analysis…who’s to say they have drawn the right conclusions? Look at the data…the correlation is so direct that it seems almost ridiculous to assume that humans are the dominant factor…the sun is a huge factor. At the very least…no one should be completely certain that carbon dioxide is primary or even significant contributer…there is more coming out every day that runs counter to the current dogma…check this link out: http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/
If human activity since the industrial age is a prominent factor in global warming…explain this: http://www.earth.rochester.edu/news/fossil.html
@Stoltz13 - Look at the data…the correlation is so
direct that it seems almost ridiculous to assume that humans are the
dominant factor…the sun is a huge factor.
“look” is how you analyze data? I assume you’ve never done data analysis. It is my job. You never get an answer from data from just looking at it. That is why there are a lot of intricate methodologies (you know, statistics) to analyzing data. Humans are horrible at seeing any kind of pattern that is real, and often see patterns when there is none. How do we know the scientist are drawing correct conclusions? Because they’re doing the science right. That is how peer-review works. On the whole, we generally do our practices correctly, and inasmuch as those methodologies obtain the good predictions and conclusions, we should trust them to the extent provided in the analysis. Of course, your implication appears to be that scientists must have just gotten it wrong, as if all these climate scientists don’t actually know what they’re doing. I mean, “it’s obvious” is a much better answer.
no one should be completely certain that carbon dioxide is primary or even significant contributer
Another straw man? No one advocates complete certainty. Science is an inductive practice, and the claims are made to levels of certainty. You can see that in the data analyses that get published. They state their methodologies, argue from previous research and draw conclusions based on those methodologies to certain degrees of accuracy permitted. And it is basic physics as to the fact that CO2 plays a significant role in planetary warming. That’s not even disputable unless you want to just say physics got it wrong. Of course, we can always point to Venus and show a prime example of what happens with a heap of CO2 in the atmosphere.
http://www.earth.rochester.edu/news/fossil.html
What is controversial about this? We know volcanoes can cause massive amounts of CO2 to be released in the air. The interesting find was that there were extreme temperature increases at the poles while not so much at the equator. This doesn’t say anything about CO2 not being the prime factor here, only that we can have strange events our models might not predict. Well. So what? The models are not perfect and do not include everything, nor do we know everything. There is no violation of the basic science I just alluded to above. We don’t know the details of the planet at that time in history, because numerous things could account for why the temperature variation was the way it appears to be from those fossils. Furthermore, and I will refer to that basic video I showed first that covers all these very trivial details, we are aware of volcanoes. They have already been ruled out as playing a significant role. Once again, there are numerous players that can cause release of CO2 and global warming. Climate scientists are not ignorant of these. They have checked solar variation and volcano activity. None of them contribute to the CO2 and global warming like humans have. Those are just the facts. That is, unless you think all the science is a conspiracy.
Your junkscience link has a lot of good facts, but they also make a lot of baseless inferences about the data. As they say, the point is not to disprove anthropogenic global warming. They were merely explaining the greenhouse effect. Nothing there was news to me, nor any climate scientist. But the junkscience guys made some downright wrong statements. They start off saying the earth doesn’t behave like a greenhouse. Well, type-identically? Of course not. No one would say something that stupid. Shit, that is not the point of analogies or labels like that. But then they go through an explain precisely how the earth can act like one, albeit, a much more complex greenhouse. They also try to downplay the role of CO2 while adding significance to trivial things like water vapor. That is a tired scheme to discount climate models. I’ve seen entire pages devoted to how all the science is just -wrong- because water vapor wasn’t included. I don’t have the resources at hand, but such notions are just idiotic. Water vapor has been accounted for, and I had a nice piece on my work computer that explains it in detail. I will post it when I do a climate change blog in the near future. I certainly don’t know what “dogma” was supposed to be shot down by that link, but there isn’t any “faith” or “doctrine” of climate change that would have dogma, especially not among scientists (you need to be able to disassociate pop news from the actual science).
@Stoltz13 - I might also add, the junk science only offers a critique to the effect that the “big numbers” of climate scientists come from their models and expectations of a large positive feedback with water vapor. There was evidence that such existed as reported by National Geographic (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/11/1110_051110_warming.html) in November 2005. But there is even more recent evidence to substantiate that, also, as reported by the science daily (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/02/090219152132.htm) just a few months ago. The IPCC models do depend on a strong positive feedback for the most significantly large numbers, and there does seem to be evidence for this strong feedback (which junk science claims is completely plausible). The evidence suggests a positive feedback. Where is the negative feedback? Junk science presumes that there ought to be one. Why? They don’t qualify that claim. Even if there is, we have no idea what it is, the relation it has to the variables (especially us–humans) and we have no basis to conjecture about it if it exists. What Junk science does is suggest one event and look at a small window. What they fail to articulate is that the feedback does not work on that time scale! The models for this feedback do not present them on that short of a time scale. The argument they make, while appearing technical and sophisticated is actually complete crap for leaving that absolutely significant detail out. I think Slate (http://www.slate.com/id/2182564/) gives a good articulation of this. One snippet reads,
“So, what’s causing the temperature rise that’s resulted in greater evaporation? Well, over that same time period, global emissions of carbon dioxide have soared. And unlike water vapor, which returns to Earth as precipitation within a week of entering the atmosphere, CO2 sticks around for between 50 and 200 years. Carbon dioxide accounts for approximately 25 percent of the greenhouse effect, so it’s pretty clear that the dramatic increase in atmospheric CO2 is playing a significant role in recent warming. (This warming might have been even greater if not for the ability of the planet’s oceans to absorb heat.)”
To bryangoodrich: I wouldn’t waste my breath. Generally it’s always easier to deny anything what’s said, no matter what you provide anyone can just say “I just don’t believe it.”. It’s like arguing about existence of god.
I’m not supporting him, but I’d be sure that every person has a topic on which he or she can’t be reasoned with any possible information.
Ow and about white colouring, it’s crippled and ineffective solution, why? Coulour fades, white colour on roads would melt and hurt eyes, it doesn’t decrease CO2 output and doesn’t increase O2 output.
It’s far more effective to use this energy than just reflect it. I’m not a supporter of “green” energy (BS like x percent of energy should be green are irrational, green sources aren’t effective enough to cover our rising energy comsumtion + other reasons like easily scammed donations), it would be better to use solar panels or simply black tanks with watter.
But this is based on one condition – no vandalism. And that’s why it would be hard to acomplish, and same goes for saving rain forests and planting trees :/ .
@bryangoodrich - You have yet to give a scientific argument to counter what I am saying. The man-made-global-warming-end-of-the-world hype relies heavily on inferences and assumptions from data as well. Have you ever heard of “functional fixedness”? Sometimes the consensus opinion is wrong, especially when they are all working off the same wrong assumptions…
So, you didn’t like my last link…try this one: http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2000/ast20oct_1.htm
@Stoltz13 - Al Gore’s popularizations aside, the consensus of the world scientific community—a consensus which has held since roughly 2003—is that climate change is a serious problem with primarily human causes. The scientific data has spoken; anthropogenic climate change is real.
@pnrj - Actually, the IPCC report doesn’t name human activity as the primary cause of warming, it only says that human activity is likely to be a contributer, look it up. Second, what does a ”consensus” in the scientific community mean? The majority of scientists believe in God as well, does that prove the existance of God?
Consensus opinions can be wrong and scientists have been wrong before many times. Think about how many times medical doctors misdiagnose or meterogists make innaccurate predictions all the time, why do people assume climatology is different? Meterogists and medical doctors have a more concrete basis for their opinions, they can actually see the results of their mistakes within days and adjust. Problems in the simplest of systems can be stubbornly misdiagnosed by “experts” at great expense, that is why the term “functional fixedness” was coined. Even the IPCC doesn’t name human activity as the primary cause. Yet your government is set on dismantling the ecomomy in devestating fashion for what is at best scientific speculation about the future of a problem that may or may not be contributed to by our activity?
Millions of dollars are being pumped into researching ”global warming” and I’m sure scientists (or those looking to enter the field) are well aware of that. If there is no global warming crisis, the money they are recieving to research the ‘problem’ would dry up and they would have to find a new career. If you ever heard of the military-industrial complex or the iron triangle, then you should grasp my point. Create a crisis and you can justify any amount of spending, just look at the current ‘financial’ crisis and how it is being used to justify spending that will do little if anything to help the real underlying problems.
Anyhow, the key is to keep thinking when everyone else has decided to lockstep with the so called “consensus” opinion. Don’t be just another lemming. Think independently. Find out for yourself if the “global warming” emperor is wearing any clothes…
Here’s an article from ABC that addresses some of the “global warming” myths: http://www.abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=3061015
@Stoltz13 - Actually, the majority of high-level scientists are atheists (97% of the National Academy of Sciences on last count).
But in general you’re right: Consensus doesn’t necessarily imply accuracy. However, it does make a good prima facie case; and what makes you so confident that you’re willing to go up against thousands of scientists who clearly know more about climatology than you do? Is your evidence that powerful? If so, why aren’t you publishing this evidence?
@pnrj - As for the ABC article; first of all, it’s a media outlet, not a scientific publication. More importantly, it just tells us not to panic about global warming, which is indeed correct—it will take centuries to reach its peak, and there is a lot we can do to weaken its impact. But “don’t panic” is very different from “it’s not our fault” is very different from “it’s not happening.”
@Stoltz13 - Also, if you’re worried about panics supporting the military-industrial complex… does Iraq ring a bell? I hardly think scientific research is a serious threat compared to the huge amounts of military spending, war profiteering, and hawk panic-mongering.
@Stoltz13 - ”Actually, the IPCC report doesn’t name human activity as the primary cause of warming”
That’s at the very least a very misleading statement if not a blatant lie. ABC should be ashamed for posting John Stossel’s deceptive BS.
The 4th IPCC Report concludes all of the following:
1. “Most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic (human) greenhouse gas concentrations.”
2. “Anthropogenic warming and sea level rise would continue for centuries due to the timescales associated with climate processes and feedbacks, even if greenhouse gas concentrations were to be stabilized, although the likely amount of temperature and sea level rise varies greatly depending on the fossil intensity of human activity during the next century”
3. “The probability that this is caused by natural climatic processes alone is less than 5%.”
4. “Both past and future anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions will continue to contribute to warming and sea level rise for more than a millennium.”
Recall that in IPCC reports “Most” means grater than 50% and “Very Likely” means at least a 90% likelihood. So the report is saying more than 50% of increased global temperature is at least 90% likely to have been caused by human beings. I don’t know what you personally consider a “Primary Cause”. But you really can’t really get much more conclusive and unequivocal than that. Science very rarely develops 100% certainty just like there’s never 100% concensus, but nor should you expect 100% certainty or concensus before you act.
Earlier IPCC reports had weaker statements but report after report as the Science has evolved have found more and more conclusive evidence that not only is Global Warming happening but also that WE are the cause of most of it. And there are a number of scientists and scientific organizations who have complained that the IPCC reports statements have been TOO weak even the 2007 report. That for political reasons they downplay the problem and are overly cautious when in reality the conclusions ought to be much stronger than that.
@nephyo - Nicely put. I was looking for some IPCC to cite, but you beat me to it.
@pnrj - If you don’t think that completely reordering the world’s economy will cost more than the Iraq war…then you are naive…either way the global warming hype feeds an entire industry…including the IPCC.
Asking the IPCC about climate change is about like asking a Christian about Christ…I kinda expected them to be believers (the title to the group gives it all away). So, evidently they have elevated their hype since I last checked…I guess now that means I should panic like the rest of y’all? The world’s economy be damned…let’s join the ‘green’ crusade!!! Yeah…whatever…
@Stoltz13 -
What would you think this panel would call itself? They are studying whether the climate is changing, how it is changing if it is, and why it is changing if it is. That sounds pretty neutral to me.
I posted the truth about the IPCC because you claimed it said otherwise. And the reason you claimed it said otherwise is because you were basing your information on the rhetoric spread by skeptics and deniers like John Stossel who are PRECISELY the problem. Stossel is not a scientist. He is a market fundamentalist who is beyond reason. And that’s a general pattern. Many of the people who advocate against policies that mitigate CO2 emissions are religious believers in laissez faire economics. And because of that their positions do not change no matter the evidence provided. Even as the evidence becomes more solid, they become all the more adamant in their denial. They will argue for anything that prevents any form of government intervention in business no matter the reason. Here is a good article about some of these people including Stossel: http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=3418
Nobody is saying you should panic. I am not panicking. Neither should you panic about the very real threat of a dangerous global pandemic of some new disease that could devastate our economy, nor shoudl you panic about the threat of an accidental Nuclear War that could wipe out life on Earth. You should not panic about dangerous possibilities, but NOR SHOULD YOU IGNORE THEM! These risks are real and it’s very important that we do everything we reasonably can to prevent them. Global Warming is exactly the same kind of threat.
The economy will not be “devastated” from changes to reduce CO2 emissions. That’s more propaganda. It will cost, but not nearly as much as you think. Current cap and trade legislation costs ridiculously little. In fact they may not be effective because they give too much away to CO2 producing companies to make things easy for them. But even a more aggressive strategy like a straight Carbon tax would not “devastate” the economy. Rather it would directly alter human behavior and promote new technologies. Some businesses will be hurt. Others will thrive. There’s no reason to think this will be devastating to our global economy. Some have argued that it will allow us to build a new and more vibrant economy on the backs of new green technology.
But if you want to talk about the economic costs and the best way to reduce climate change wihtout damaging our economy, FINE. Let’s have that conversation. Nobody is saying we can’t work hard to try and find ways to mitigate climate change that are least economically damaging. But we can’t have a meaningful conversation on that topic or any other if you are starting from the absurd perspective that climate change can’t be happening or can’t be caused by human beings because you don’t want it to be.
@nephyo - If global temperatures continue to drop for the next thirty years as they have been…will you finally admit to being wrong? I have a good friend who is a meterologist and now working on a doctorate in statistics…he is well informed on climate modelling and the global warming debate…he does not concur with you nor do many in his field. Anyhow…I’m not alone in my skepticism…thousands of scientists agree with me: http://www.populartechnology.net/2007/10/no-consensus-on-global-warming.html
Please back up your concensus statement…please show me a list of scientists who believe in man-made global warming and give it context. How are you defining scientist? Is Al Gore a scientist? Somebody with a biology degree? I want to see some real numbers put into context.
@pnrj - [Actually, the majority of high-level scientists are atheists (97% of the National Academy of Sciences on last count). ]
Are they atheists or just non-beleivers in a personal God? There’s a difference. Also, could you please define what you mean by ”high-level” for me.
@nephyo - This notion that the IPCC is unbiased is ridiculous, check out their own statement that assurts “human-induced” climate change as a forgone conclusion:
“The role of the IPCC is to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation.”
The IPCC is a political action commitee, who’s “experts” aren’t all scientists and their findings certainly do not represent the consensus opinion of all scientists or even the leading scientists in climatology. There is no consensus of scientists…
@Stoltz13 - Unless you have evidence that shows the assumptions in the models are wrong, then you are basically saying “the science could be wrong, so I”m just going to go with that, and jump on every fragment of a claim that coheres with what I want to believe.” Basically, you believe first, then look for evidence. Bad rationality. As for your link, there isn’t anything there that says the science is wrong, only that there is some evidence that says we should look at other alternatives or the impact of other factors. That’s how the scientific process works. There is no evidence that says the scientific consensus is wrong, nor do the alternatives have any evidence to even suggest their are right. It almost amounts to anecdotal evidence. You’re basically saying you trust anecdotes more than science. It is as I already stated before, you’re basically unscientific and have no problem with that. If that is the case, then there is no response that can be given to you because the science is meaningless. The fact you can find some crumbs that say otherwise or just say there’s plausible alternatives, and therefore you cannot trust the science, is just a testament to that fact of the matter that you are unscientific. That is a natural part of the scientific process, but that doesn’t ever imply the science is wrong. There’s not even a strong plausibility that the science is wrong. There are just crumbs.
@Stoltz13 - I might also add that the supposed claims about the ice sheet not melting, in Greenland or Antarctica, has been completely refuted and the processes explained. I don’t have time to find any articles on that, but maybe this weekend when I get the Interwebs back at home. Some of it is explained in the link I already provided by a leading expert on the Greenland glaciers. Again, the best evidence we have is there. I can only presume you haven’t watched the videos at all. Who is the open-minded one? Don’t try to tell me you’re getting us to think outside the box when you haven’t, and probably cannot.
@Stoltz13 - yes of course of global temperatures dropped steadily for 30 years I’d admit that the climate models we had back in 2009 were inaccurate. Of course long before then I’d expect we’d have better models that would explain and predict the drop.
But in any case, if we have to wait THIRTY YEARS before doing anything then we’re all pretty screwed. If the climate is warming due to CO2 and we waited 30 years doing nothing different whatsoever so much CO2 will have accumulated that we will have locked in future warming for hundreds of years to come. That’s simply irrational. We’d really have to invent some giant CO2 pump to clean up the atmosphere.
The Oregon petition has been around for ages. It was preceded by several other petitions with the same purpose in mind. Many including earlier versions of the Oregon petition have been shown to use misleading techniques and even falsified data all in attempts to bulk up the numbers as high as possible. The methodology of none of these surveys is anywhere close to Scientific. They are highly self selected which right away invalidates them as providing meaningful results. They are sent to people known to have doubts who then are allow to redistribute the survey to others who they also know have doubts. The poll only records those who doubt global warming, they don’t even keep track of respondents who accept global warming.
If you got every person who doubts 9/11 to respond to a survey it would look like there wasn’t a concensus that 9/11 happened. But of course there IS a concensus that 9/11 happened. The fact that there are a large number (and the idea of large is highly subjective here) of doubters proves nothing.
If you really wanted to fairly show that there is no Scientific Consensus, you would simply take a random sampling of climatologists who are currently active in research and have them respond thus getting a sense of the percentage of climatologists who agree or disagree. You’d also be very careful to word your question in a manner that does not bias the reader. So you’d want the poll done by people who are experienced in polling.
Big surprise when done that way we get a consensus. Peter Doran and Maggie Kendall Zimmerman from the University of Illinois at Chicago did a random poll of Earth Scientists in general in 2009 organized by specialty and found the following:
96.2% of active Climatologists believed the Earth was warming (compared to pre 1800 levels)
97.4% of active Climatologists believed that human activity in a significant factor in changing global mean temperature
90% of all Earth Scientists who responded believed the Earth was warming
80% of all Earth Scientists who responded believed that human activity is a significant factor in changing global mean temperature
Only when you break it down and look at people who listed their specialty as Economic Geologists and Meteorologists do we start to see a lot more doubt.
47% of Economic Geologists believed that human activity is significant
64% of Economic Meteorologists believed that human activity is significant
What are “Economic” Geologists and Meteorologists? Primarily those who work for the petroleum industry I suspect. Gee I wonder what kind of propaganda petroleum scientists might be most exposed to? And even THEN it’s close to or over 50% agreement.
Here’s the poll btw: http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf
It’s not the only poll done that has shown a consensus. It’s only the most recent. Reviews of the scientific literature similarly show a very high concensus.
As for the IPCC it is a Peer reviewed process like any other Scientific article. It is contributed to by numerous scientists in the relevant fields. The lead authors of each section tend to be top Scientists chosen by government officials. Yes there are politicians involved but that’s no reason to believe it is inherently biased unless you think everything a politican ever touches can’t have any validity to it. Certainly the politicians come from all over the world from all kinds of different backgrounds so there’d have to be this really vast conspiracy for the whole document to be manipulated. Surely it would have come out in the peer review process. Surely we’d have numerous entire nations governments decrying the results?
There isn’t because we all have a vested interest in getting this RIGHT. Rational people around the world understand that. It isn’t just some crazy attempt just to sell more solar panels. People are honestly trying their best to figure out what if anything we can do to prevent serious damage to our planet and extreme harm to our economy. Might they be wrong? Sure. But based on the best evidence at hand provided by the Science, they are putting forth the most likely scenario. What would you have the IPCC do instead? Pretend that the evidence doesn’t exist?
Overall though I agree with Bryangoodrich. You are looking to poke tiny holes in the theory to conform with what you already believe. And you toss out any and all alternative evidence as biased and politically motivated. That’s not a good way to determine the truth of anything.
@bryangoodrich - I respect your faith…but I cannot share it…I will remain a skeptic that global warming is an imminent danger to humanity…because I know enough about climate models to know they are not entirely reliable. Yes…I understand that there are ways of testing their accuracy against what we do know…but I also understand the volume of information and assumptions that need to be made. At the end of the day…I think ideology not science is driving the global warming hype…plus creating fear in the public also is job security for some.
Note: By “the global warming hype” I mean the fear-mongering…not the science of climatology.
@nephyo - If this issue is being driven solely by science…why would somebody falsify data? At the very least this shows the imperfect nature of the science: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/05/29/steig-et-al-falsified/
@Stoltz13 - Well you’re making two different statements when you say you’re skeptical of anthropogenic global warming, and then say you don’t believe the fear mongering. The two are exclusive, especially since fear mongering is just a marketing ploy. It is meaningless. The science, on the other hand, rests upon the science and proven inductive methods that while skepticism is always good–it is a part of the scientific process–it does not imply you have any justifiable basis, nor more justifiable basis, to claim it is wrong. To make that claim you need to show there is more evidence against the climate science than there is for it. You have not done that. You also need to disassociate your criticism of the fear mongering from the actual science, they are unrelated. Considering I work in a central place where, at least in California, air regulations are produced, there is no atmosphere of fear, hype or controversy. All you present is the natural scientific process that assumptions and models are critiqued and improved, and that there is some conspiracy driving the science. Neither of which supports your underlying skepticism that the science is wrong. You can feel you know climate science so well that you, yourself, can understand them enough to say they make too great of assumptions, but I find it highly unlikely that unless you are highly trained in the scientific methods and statistical analyses that go on in these subjects, you have no idea what you’re talking about. I work as a student statistician, trained in this stuff, and a lot of it is over my head. I don’t think you can do any better. So no, it is not faith that I understand the climate science. It is comprehension. Sure, the models do make assumptions, and are not precisely accurate. That does not mean the inferences are invalid and should not be accepted, as you have done, simply because of inherent properties of an inductive inference. That would just be stupid.
@bryangoodrich - I was responding at the same level of the blog post. This blog is about the actual science. You have not presented a scientific argument.
I’m not well versed on the terminology etc to articulate a scientific argument, but I have had enough conversations with friends in the field to know there are legitimate reasons to be skeptical of the climate modeling used to back the hype. I have a friend working on his masters in statistics and a meteorogist, he tells me that there is no consensus…
@bryangoodrich - Note: I have not ever said there is no evidence for warming nor did I say there is no evidence of anthropogenic effects on the global climate. I simply think people jump on the ‘crisis’ bandwagon and are too quick to assume the worse. More evidence could completely blow up the current models…I know that much about science…
If people can be wrong about the source of an overheating car engine (a relatively simple system) then who’s to say that even the world’s best and brightest could be misdiagnosing a vastly more complicated system?
@Stoltz13 - I never said there isn’t any reason to be skeptical. In fact, I just said a moment ago that skepticism is an inherent part or science. You always have to challenge your assumptions and how you base your models, and the peer review process is about critiquing those very foundations, to weed out garbage and make better models. There is no static state of affairs that “the world is going to end!!” Nor does the science even suggest that. Hell, we don’t even know how the future of society or the planet will be given the models are relatively accurate. What we do know is that the current trends suggest warming, as caused by people’s influence on this planet, and that these changes will be a few degrees. That few degrees can cause a lot of significant changes to ecosystems, farm lands, coastlines, etc. No one predicts catastrophe or “The Day After Tomorrow” scenarios. That’s Hollywood. That’s bullshit, and has nothing to do with skepticism or even good skepticism (if we separate it from the bad skepticism). The science is overwhelmingly consistent about these results. Where is there not a consensus? On the specifics. Our understanding of the details are very vague and far from accurate. Of course our predictions are going to be sloppy in that regard, but that gives no cause to distrust the science as if they’re wrong. You have made the argument that the science is wrong, we shouldn’t trust it, there is no reason to trust it. You have blurred the lines between comprehending science, and scoffing at the image painted by A FEW people. The arguments and science presented in lectures such as those the author here provided, and I have linked, show the true face of science and the issue at hand. If you want to consider yourself a skeptic at all, then you should look at that face and take the reality of the science serious. All you present is the attitudes of the prejudice. That is never skepticism.
@bryangoodrich - I agree, slight changes in temperatures could make significant differences in the climate… ecosystem…etc. I’m just worried that the ‘cure’ might do more damage than the disease…
If evolution theory is correct…the world has already gone through significant changes in climate… ecosystem…etc…so I’m not going to get too excited…especially when so much of it is out of our control…
Eventually it will all be burned up by the sun anyhow…right?
@Stoltz13 - There is no cure. Depending on where my future takes me, one possible avenue is that I really enjoy studying environmental economics in grad school. Then I will most likely be able to get a job at the California Air Resources Board (with my experience and training) working on that “cure”. No one is trying to stop global warming. We’re looking at the models and seeing what we can do to lessen the impact so that we can soften the change that could ruin our way of life. Sure, in the end, we’re all dead. That does not mean we shouldn’t take steps to procure our livelihood and that of our progeny. Those choices are made today. What the science reveals is that we can likely make significant changes to the future. It would be foolish to do nothing. Once again, if your problem is with the “cure” then that is a wholly separate issue from being skeptical of the science.
@Stoltz13 - oh, and evolution has absolutely nothing to do with the climatic changes of our planet. It can be completely wrong and the issue still stands. The only point is reveals is that life will go on regardless of what we do to this planet, pretty much (there are extreme exceptions). But then again, no one is saying it is the end of the world, either. It would be good to keep on the topic of global warming and not some “hype” or “cure” or “fear mongering” that you think is associated with the science that is at issue. No one gives a shit what Hollywood said, so I don’t see why you take it like the gospel of the IPCC report.
@bryangoodrich - I don’t take ‘The Gospel’ as gospel…why should I take the IPCC report as gospel?
(btw…interesting that you are starting to use religious terms…I just had to point that out…lol!)
@Stoltz13 - Who said to take it as gospel? It is merely a conglomeration of years of research into the topic, and is ever-improving as research is continued. This is the difference between scientific literature and regulatory reports. The IPCC has a specific purpose, and that is to inform people (in general, but also including politicians) so that we might make better choices to improve our impact on climate into the future, given that we have shown we have impacted it in the past, and continue to do so.
Note, a religious term is any term used in association with religion. I did not use the gospel as a religious term. I merely used a connotation of the term as being infallible truth or guiding principle (see webster for more). The point is all that tangential crap you’re concerned with is irrelevant to the science and the IPCC. Hollywood is not the guiding principle. The science is. You seem to have blurred the distinction by what you have commented in this blog.
@bryangoodrich - I was just bustin’ on ya with the religion comment…you knew that…right?
Anyhow…you seem to be forgetting the context of this discussion…this blog was an attack on dissenters…not a scientific discussion…I responded on the same level as the author of this blog…so while I appreciate the level of your arguments…I think you are missing the point…I’m not responding to the science…I’m responding to the hype that drives people to crucify others who are skeptical of the hype. I think you and I both agree that the popular Hollywood hype is unscientific BS…and that is the point I am trying to drive home…the average guy on the street (probably including the author of this blog) accepts global warming without understanding the science behind it…or even understanding the limits of science…and that scares the hell outa me.
@Stoltz13 - You seem to have missed the point. As the author says,
“My point is simply that [global warming skeptics] are untrustworthy. And the more you learn about them the more clear this becomes.”
You have exemplified this point by your jumping back-and-forth between scientific skepticism to relying on skepticism of trivial information. The author was talking about skeptics, like you presented, of those ignoring the science and worrying about the hype being wrong. You have missed the entire context of this discussion as the videos detail. You have shown us exactly the kind of “anti-global warming stuff … that is misleading, misconstrued, and just plain wrong.” Since these are the notions pursued by the author, it seems you are barking up the wrong tree touting some agenda about “hype” which is irrelevant, and as far as anti-global warming sentiments go, that Hollywood bullshit is all a non-sequitur.
Normal
0
7.8 磅
0
2
false
false
false
EN-US
ZH-CN
X-NONE
MicrosoftInternetExplorer4
<w:latentstyles deflockedstate=”false” defunhidewhenused=”true”
defsemihidden=”true” defqformat=”false” defpriority=”99″
latentstylecount=”267″>
<w:lsdexception locked=”false” priority=”0″ semihidden=”false”
unhidewhenused=”false” qformat=”true” name=”Normal”/>
<w:lsdexception locked=”false” priority=”9″ semihidden=”false”
unhidewhenused=”false” qformat=”true” name=”heading 1″/>
<w:lsdexception locked=”false” priority=”10″ semihidden=”false”
unhidewhenused=”false” qformat=”true” name=”Title”/>
<w:lsdexception locked=”false” priority=”11″ semihidden=”false”
unhidewhenused=”false” qformat=”true” name=”Subtitle”/>
<w:lsdexception locked=”false” priority=”22″ semihidden=”false”
unhidewhenused=”false” qformat=”true” name=”Strong”/>
<w:lsdexception locked=”false” priority=”20″ semihidden=”false”
unhidewhenused=”false” qformat=”true” name=”Emphasis”/>
<w:lsdexception locked=”false” priority=”59″ semihidden=”false”
unhidewhenused=”false” name=”Table Grid”/>
<w:lsdexception locked=”false” priority=”1″ semihidden=”false”
unhidewhenused=”false” qformat=”true” name=”No Spacing”/>
<w:lsdexception locked=”false” priority=”60″ semihidden=”false”
unhidewhenused=”false” name=”Light Shading”/>
<w:lsdexception locked=”false” priority=”61″ semihidden=”false”
unhidewhenused=”false” name=”Light List”/>
<w:lsdexception locked=”false” priority=”62″ semihidden=”false”
unhidewhenused=”false” name=”Light Grid”/>
<w:lsdexception locked=”false” priority=”63″ semihidden=”false”
unhidewhenused=”false” name=”Medium Shading 1″/>
<w:lsdexception locked=”false” priority=”64″ semihidden=”false”
unhidewhenused=”false” name=”Medium Shading 2″/>
<w:lsdexception locked=”false” priority=”65″ semihidden=”false”
unhidewhenused=”false” name=”Medium List 1″/>
<w:lsdexception locked=”false” priority=”66″ semihidden=”false”
unhidewhenused=”false” name=”Medium List 2″/>
<w:lsdexception locked=”false” priority=”67″ semihidden=”false”
unhidewhenused=”false” name=”Medium Grid 1″/>
<w:lsdexception locked=”false” priority=”68″ semihidden=”false”
unhidewhenused=”false” name=”Medium Grid 2″/>
<w:lsdexception locked=”false” priority=”69″ semihidden=”false”
unhidewhenused=”false” name=”Medium Grid 3″/>
<w:lsdexception locked=”false” priority=”70″ semihidden=”false”
unhidewhenused=”false” name=”Dark List”/>
<w:lsdexception locked=”false” priority=”71″ semihidden=”false”
unhidewhenused=”false” name=”Colorful Shading”/>
<w:lsdexception locked=”false” priority=”72″ semihidden=”false”
unhidewhenused=”false” name=”Colorful List”/>
<w:lsdexception locked=”false” priority=”73″ semihidden=”false”
unhidewhenused=”false” name=”Colorful Grid”/>
<w:lsdexception locked=”false” priority=”60″ semihidden=”false”
unhidewhenused=”false” name=”Light Shading Accent 1″/>
<w:lsdexception locked=”false” priority=”61″ semihidden=”false”
unhidewhenused=”false” name=”Light List Accent 1″/>
<w:lsdexception locked=”false” priority=”62″ semihidden=”false”
unhidewhenused=”false” name=”Light Grid Accent 1″/>
<w:lsdexception locked=”false” priority=”63″ semihidden=”false”
unhidewhenused=”false” name=”Medium Shading 1 Accent 1″/>
<w:lsdexception locked=”false” priority=”64″ semihidden=”false”
unhidewhenused=”false” name=”Medium Shading 2 Accent 1″/>
<w:lsdexception locked=”false” priority=”65″ semihidden=”false”
unhidewhenused=”false” name=”Medium List 1 Accent 1″/>
<w:lsdexception locked=”false” priority=”34″ semihidden=”false”
unhidewhenused=”false” qformat=”true” name=”List Paragraph”/>
<w:lsdexception locked=”false” priority=”29″ semihidden=”false”
unhidewhenused=”false” qformat=”true” name=”Quote”/>
<w:lsdexception locked=”false” priority=”30″ semihidden=”false”
unhidewhenused=”false” qformat=”true” name=”Intense Quote”/>
<w:lsdexception locked=”false” priority=”66″ semihidden=”false”
unhidewhenused=”false” name=”Medium List 2 Accent 1″/>
<w:lsdexception locked=”false” priority=”67″ semihidden=”false”
unhidewhenused=”false” name=”Medium Grid 1 Accent 1″/>
<w:lsdexception locked=”false” priority=”68″ semihidden=”false”
unhidewhenused=”false” name=”Medium Grid 2 Accent 1″/>
<w:lsdexception locked=”false” priority=”69″ semihidden=”false”
unhidewhenused=”false” name=”Medium Grid 3 Accent 1″/>
<w:lsdexception locked=”false” priority=”70″ semihidden=”false”
unhidewhenused=”false” name=”Dark List Accent 1″/>
<w:lsdexception locked=”false” priority=”71″ semihidden=”false”
unhidewhenused=”false” name=”Colorful Shading Accent 1″/>
<w:lsdexception locked=”false” priority=”72″ semihidden=”false”
unhidewhenused=”false” name=”Colorful List Accent 1″/>
<w:lsdexception locked=”false” priority=”73″ semihidden=”false”
unhidewhenused=”false” name=”Colorful Grid Accent 1″/>
<w:lsdexception locked=”false” priority=”60″ semihidden=”false”
unhidewhenused=”false” name=”Light Shading Accent 2″/>
<w:lsdexception locked=”false” priority=”61″ semihidden=”false”
unhidewhenused=”false” name=”Light List Accent 2″/>
<w:lsdexception locked=”false” priority=”62″ semihidden=”false”
unhidewhenused=”false” name=”Light Grid Accent 2″/>
<w:lsdexception locked=”false” priority=”63″ semihidden=”false”
unhidewhenused=”false” name=”Medium Shading 1 Accent 2″/>
<w:lsdexception locked=”false” priority=”64″ semihidden=”false”
unhidewhenused=”false” name=”Medium Shading 2 Accent 2″/>
<w:lsdexception locked=”false” priority=”65″ semihidden=”false”
unhidewhenused=”false” name=”Medium List 1 Accent 2″/>
<w:lsdexception locked=”false” priority=”66″ semihidden=”false”
unhidewhenused=”false” name=”Medium List 2 Accent 2″/>
<w:lsdexception locked=”false” priority=”67″ semihidden=”false”
unhidewhenused=”false” name=”Medium Grid 1 Accent 2″/>
<w:lsdexception locked=”false” priority=”68″ semihidden=”false”
unhidewhenused=”false” name=”Medium Grid 2 Accent 2″/>
<w:lsdexception locked=”false” priority=”69″ semihidden=”false”
unhidewhenused=”false” name=”Medium Grid 3 Accent 2″/>
<w:lsdexception locked=”false” priority=”70″ semihidden=”false”
unhidewhenused=”false” name=”Dark List Accent 2″/>
<w:lsdexception locked=”false” priority=”71″ semihidden=”false”
unhidewhenused=”false” name=”Colorful Shading Accent 2″/>
<w:lsdexception locked=”false” priority=”72″ semihidden=”false”
unhidewhenused=”false” name=”Colorful List Accent 2″/>
<w:lsdexception locked=”false” priority=”73″ semihidden=”false”
unhidewhenused=”false” name=”Colorful Grid Accent 2″/>
<w:lsdexception locked=”false” priority=”60″ semihidden=”false”
unhidewhenused=”false” name=”Light Shading Accent 3″/>
<w:lsdexception locked=”false” priority=”61″ semihidden=”false”
unhidewhenused=”false” name=”Light List Accent 3″/>
<w:lsdexception locked=”false” priority=”62″ semihidden=”false”
unhidewhenused=”false” name=”Light Grid Accent 3″/>
<w:lsdexception locked=”false” priority=”63″ semihidden=”false”
unhidewhenused=”false” name=”Medium Shading 1 Accent 3″/>
<w:lsdexception locked=”false” priority=”64″ semihidden=”false”
unhidewhenused=”false” name=”Medium Shading 2 Accent 3″/>
<w:lsdexception locked=”false” priority=”65″ semihidden=”false”
unhidewhenused=”false” name=”Medium List 1 Accent 3″/>
<w:lsdexception locked=”false” priority=”66″ semihidden=”false”
unhidewhenused=”false” name=”Medium List 2 Accent 3″/>
<w:lsdexception locked=”false” priority=”67″ semihidden=”false”
unhidewhenused=”false” name=”Medium Grid 1 Accent 3″/>
<w:lsdexception locked=”false” priority=”68″ semihidden=”false”
unhidewhenused=”false” name=”Medium Grid 2 Accent 3″/>
<w:lsdexception locked=”false” priority=”69″ semihidden=”false”
unhidewhenused=”false” name=”Medium Grid 3 Accent 3″/>
<w:lsdexception locked=”false” priority=”70″ semihidden=”false”
unhidewhenused=”false” name=”Dark List Accent 3″/>
<w:lsdexception locked=”false” priority=”71″ semihidden=”false”
unhidewhenused=”false” name=”Colorful Shading Accent 3″/>
<w:lsdexception locked=”false” priority=”72″ semihidden=”false”
unhidewhenused=”false” name=”Colorful List Accent 3″/>
<w:lsdexception locked=”false” priority=”73″ semihidden=”false”
unhidewhenused=”false” name=”Colorful Grid Accent 3″/>
<w:lsdexception locked=”false” priority=”60″ semihidden=”false”
unhidewhenused=”false” name=”Light Shading Accent 4″/>
<w:lsdexception locked=”false” priority=”61″ semihidden=”false”
unhidewhenused=”false” name=”Light List Accent 4″/>
<w:lsdexception locked=”false” priority=”62″ semihidden=”false”
unhidewhenused=”false” name=”Light Grid Accent 4″/>
<w:lsdexception locked=”false” priority=”63″ semihidden=”false”
unhidewhenused=”false” name=”Medium Shading 1 Accent 4″/>
<w:lsdexception locked=”false” priority=”64″ semihidden=”false”
unhidewhenused=”false” name=”Medium Shading 2 Accent 4″/>
<w:lsdexception locked=”false” priority=”65″ semihidden=”false”
unhidewhenused=”false” name=”Medium List 1 Accent 4″/>
<w:lsdexception locked=”false” priority=”66″ semihidden=”false”
unhidewhenused=”false” name=”Medium List 2 Accent 4″/>
<w:lsdexception locked=”false” priority=”67″ semihidden=”false”
unhidewhenused=”false” name=”Medium Grid 1 Accent 4″/>
<w:lsdexception locked=”false” priority=”68″ semihidden=”false”
unhidewhenused=”false” name=”Medium Grid 2 Accent 4″/>
<w:lsdexception locked=”false” priority=”69″ semihidden=”false”
unhidewhenused=”false” name=”Medium Grid 3 Accent 4″/>
<w:lsdexception locked=”false” priority=”70″ semihidden=”false”
unhidewhenused=”false” name=”Dark List Accent 4″/>
<w:lsdexception locked=”false” priority=”71″ semihidden=”false”
unhidewhenused=”false” name=”Colorful Shading Accent 4″/>
<w:lsdexception locked=”false” priority=”72″ semihidden=”false”
unhidewhenused=”false” name=”Colorful List Accent 4″/>
<w:lsdexception locked=”false” priority=”73″ semihidden=”false”
unhidewhenused=”false” name=”Colorful Grid Accent 4″/>
<w:lsdexception locked=”false” priority=”60″ semihidden=”false”
unhidewhenused=”false” name=”Light Shading Accent 5″/>
<w:lsdexception locked=”false” priority=”61″ semihidden=”false”
unhidewhenused=”false” name=”Light List Accent 5″/>
<w:lsdexception locked=”false” priority=”62″ semihidden=”false”
unhidewhenused=”false” name=”Light Grid Accent 5″/>
<w:lsdexception locked=”false” priority=”63″ semihidden=”false”
unhidewhenused=”false” name=”Medium Shading 1 Accent 5″/>
<w:lsdexception locked=”false” priority=”64″ semihidden=”false”
unhidewhenused=”false” name=”Medium Shading 2 Accent 5″/>
<w:lsdexception locked=”false” priority=”65″ semihidden=”false”
unhidewhenused=”false” name=”Medium List 1 Accent 5″/>
<w:lsdexception locked=”false” priority=”66″ semihidden=”false”
unhidewhenused=”false” name=”Medium List 2 Accent 5″/>
<w:lsdexception locked=”false” priority=”67″ semihidden=”false”
unhidewhenused=”false” name=”Medium Grid 1 Accent 5″/>
<w:lsdexception locked=”false” priority=”68″ semihidden=”false”
unhidewhenused=”false” name=”Medium Grid 2 Accent 5″/>
<w:lsdexception locked=”false” priority=”69″ semihidden=”false”
unhidewhenused=”false” name=”Medium Grid 3 Accent 5″/>
<w:lsdexception locked=”false” priority=”70″ semihidden=”false”
unhidewhenused=”false” name=”Dark List Accent 5″/>
<w:lsdexception locked=”false” priority=”71″ semihidden=”false”
unhidewhenused=”false” name=”Colorful Shading Accent 5″/>
<w:lsdexception locked=”false” priority=”72″ semihidden=”false”
unhidewhenused=”false” name=”Colorful List Accent 5″/>
<w:lsdexception locked=”false” priority=”73″ semihidden=”false”
unhidewhenused=”false” name=”Colorful Grid Accent 5″/>
<w:lsdexception locked=”false” priority=”60″ semihidden=”false”
unhidewhenused=”false” name=”Light Shading Accent 6″/>
<w:lsdexception locked=”false” priority=”61″ semihidden=”false”
unhidewhenused=”false” name=”Light List Accent 6″/>
<w:lsdexception locked=”false” priority=”62″ semihidden=”false”
unhidewhenused=”false” name=”Light Grid Accent 6″/>
<w:lsdexception locked=”false” priority=”63″ semihidden=”false”
unhidewhenused=”false” name=”Medium Shading 1 Accent 6″/>
<w:lsdexception locked=”false” priority=”64″ semihidden=”false”
unhidewhenused=”false” name=”Medium Shading 2 Accent 6″/>
<w:lsdexception locked=”false” priority=”65″ semihidden=”false”
unhidewhenused=”false” name=”Medium List 1 Accent 6″/>
<w:lsdexception locked=”false” priority=”66″ semihidden=”false”
unhidewhenused=”false” name=”Medium List 2 Accent 6″/>
<w:lsdexception locked=”false” priority=”67″ semihidden=”false”
unhidewhenused=”false” name=”Medium Grid 1 Accent 6″/>
<w:lsdexception locked=”false” priority=”68″ semihidden=”false”
unhidewhenused=”false” name=”Medium Grid 2 Accent 6″/>
<w:lsdexception locked=”false” priority=”69″ semihidden=”false”
unhidewhenused=”false” name=”Medium Grid 3 Accent 6″/>
<w:lsdexception locked=”false” priority=”70″ semihidden=”false”
unhidewhenused=”false” name=”Dark List Accent 6″/>
<w:lsdexception locked=”false” priority=”71″ semihidden=”false”
unhidewhenused=”false” name=”Colorful Shading Accent 6″/>
<w:lsdexception locked=”false” priority=”72″ semihidden=”false”
unhidewhenused=”false” name=”Colorful List Accent 6″/>
<w:lsdexception locked=”false” priority=”73″ semihidden=”false”
unhidewhenused=”false” name=”Colorful Grid Accent 6″/>
<w:lsdexception locked=”false” priority=”19″ semihidden=”false”
unhidewhenused=”false” qformat=”true” name=”Subtle Emphasis”/>
<w:lsdexception locked=”false” priority=”21″ semihidden=”false”
unhidewhenused=”false” qformat=”true” name=”Intense Emphasis”/>
<w:lsdexception locked=”false” priority=”31″ semihidden=”false”
unhidewhenused=”false” qformat=”true” name=”Subtle Reference”/>
<w:lsdexception locked=”false” priority=”32″ semihidden=”false”
unhidewhenused=”false” qformat=”true” name=”Intense Reference”/>
<w:lsdexception locked=”false” priority=”33″ semihidden=”false”
unhidewhenused=”false” qformat=”true” name=”Book Title”/>
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:普通表格;
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-qformat:yes;
mso-style-parent:”";
mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0cm;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:10.5pt;
mso-bidi-font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:”Calibri”,”sans-serif”;
mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;
mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast;
mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-bidi-font-family:”Times New Roman”;
mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;
mso-font-kerning:1.0pt;}
<a href="links
of London modern is mind the brand，therefore it is less expensive <a href="cheap
links of London。But you don’t worry about it，we have <a href="Links
of London Chain，there <a href="Links
of London glass、<a href="discount
women links of London.Like <a href="cheap
links of London necklace only we have，Quick action and see it! It will make you satisfied <a
href=”http://www.londonlinksbuy.com/“>cheap links of London
chains.