I review of Eugene Linden's Winds of Change at peacockeye.blogspot.com. Linden, well-known for his writings on the environment, puts humanity's role in the current global warming crisis in perspective by tracing climate change, which he calls "a serial killer," throughout the rise and fall l of ancient civilizations.
Joyanne Hammond

I had to stop listening after 3 minutes. I was looking for the "unbiased" part but couldn't wait it out. This is a great example of the media pushing their hyped agenda.

Greg, perhaps you could offer a specific example of a segment of the clip that, in your opinion, was biased -- as I did in the recent clips about Dr. Gray.

It isn't clear to me whether you think the clip is biased because it contains inaccurate statements or because you disagree with what it says. There is a difference, you know.

Typical denier behavior. They either don't read links provided to them or, if they miracalously choose to read it, they stop immediately if they don't hear what they want to hear.

I'm amazed at how many times AGW deniers don't even read their OWN links. There have been many times when I click on links provided to me which supposedly 'refutes' AGW, only to find out that the links supports it.

Mark:

Just curious, have you seen or read anything that doesn't support your zeal for AGW support?

You know, there is a difference between GW and AGW.

Maybe, just maybe, not every little thing supports AGW.

Just thinking out loud here.

Yes, Darren, I read most of the links that you deniers provide for us. I can't say the same for you or many others here.

Yes, Darren, I read most of the links that you deniers provide for us. I can't say the same for you or many others here.

Ouch, that one's gonna leave a mark.

Darren, you're not in a very good position to criticize anybody for not reading things. By the way, welcome back to the forum. It appears your sabbatical was short-lived.

Mark/BT:

Thanks, needed to step back and reevaluate how I look at this topic. On to the comment:

Apparently, understanding a post is a learned ability. To reiterate, I fully understand that both of you read every link posted by whomever about whatever. After being chastized, I have adopted that policy as time permits. There was no criticizing in my post. I know that both of you are diligent in your arguments in making the case for AGW. I just find it amusing how nearly every item thrown out in this debate, according to the AGW proponent, really just supports your cause.

For example in exaggeration mind you, you see a report that the sky is blue as written by an AGW skeptic. The expected response from the AGW proponent is that it is clearly due to, or a result of AGW. Not potentially natural warming of the planet, but rather, human activity.

I must say I found this interview to be intriguing.

Darren, I think I have written numerous times that I remain open to legitimate challenges to the "A" part of AGW -- most recently in my comments on last month's thread "From the Desk of a Skeptic".

The simple fact is that the overwhelming bulk of the science supports the premise of AGW. The overwhelming bulk of the opposition to AGW is, well, along the lines of the recently-offered and readily-discredited material from Dr. Gray.

In a similar vein, most current research in physics explains newly observed phenomena within a framework of quantum mechanics and general relativity. This does not reflect a religious adherance to either foundation. Instead, it reflects the consensus that quantum mechanics and general relativity are settled questions.

In an earlier time -- say the 1920's or 1930's -- there were certainly some physicists who still asserted the importance of studying the properties of the ether. In a similar vein, there are certainly still some climatologists today who challenge the fundamentals of AGW -- Dr. Lindzen comes to mind.

The fact that most climatologists today assume the scientific framework of AGW is an obvious reflection that that framework is, today, considered established scientific fact.

The moment even one scientist offers a convincing rebuttal, the scientific community will immediately turn on a dime -- just as it did when a single paper by Einstein destroyed decades of research about the ether.

That has simply not yet happened.

BT:

Well written, and I must say an intriguing case in the study of the "self-fulfilling prophecy". Not an exact definition but similar. Kinda seems like the flavor of the month in science. You know, we do see that in Structural in that certain framing systems become inordinately popular for a period and then something changes and it goes in a different manner. Contrary though, these changes often are driven by the cost of construction instead of some sort of great benefit to either the building, designer, or end user.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but is it safe to say that if some scientist produces an earth shaking theory, not yet provable by experiment, that tends to discount the present AGW concepts, that the whole basis of AGW science would fall apart?

That is truly thought provoking.

A theory doesn't need to be "proveable by experiment", it needs to be falsifiable.

The observed 3 degree background noise provides very strong evidence in support of the Big Bang and of quantum mechanics. The relevant theory produced predictions, and the observed background noise fulfilled one of those key predictions.

If some scientist produces a falsifiable earth-shaking theory that tends to discount present AGW concepts, and if that theory is consistent with the data and evidence that AGW attempts to explain, then yes, I think the new theory would be immediately embraced. Not only that, but I suspect the creators of the new theory would be awarded the Nobel Prize.

This, in my view, is how science works.

Deep stuff,

Grant me a little leeway here, please...I have re-read the definition of falsifiable but want to see if I understand it.

Are CO2 concentration, water vapor concentration, sun activity, M-cycles, and the like all falsifiable theories explaining the warming of the planet?

If so, then why has CO2 become arguably more important then the remaining explanations? (Not even going to get into how the CO2 gets into the environment at this point.)

Are CO2 concentration, water vapor concentration, sun activity, M-cycles, and the like all falsifiable theories explaining the warming of the planet?

If so, then why has CO2 become arguably more important then the remaining explanations? (Not even going to get into how the CO2 gets into the environment at this point.)

CO2 concentration, water vapor concentration, sun activity, M-cycles and the like are all data that feed current theory about the climate of the planet. Yes, that theory is falsifiable -- it makes predictions about what should happen, and those predictions can be measured and validated.

As I understand it, the role of CO2 is emphasized because, according to this theory, it is the factor that dominates the changes we are observing and measuring.

Today's example of the recent research about the changes on Mt. Kilimanjaro exemplifies what I mean. The scientific community, based on the best theory and data available to it (which is not much), has ascribed the shrinking ice cap to AGW. Today's research, published in Amercian Scientist, suggests that this is not the case.

A falsifiable hypothesis about Mt. Kilimanjaro has been falsified. The scientific community will, of course, validate this. If it stands up (and there is apparently good indication that it will), then the community will incorporate this research into climate theory and move on.

BT:

Thanks for the reply and explanation.

Seems to me that the overall debate may not be as close to being over as some may think. I essentially believe that that is exactly what is being touted by those who have an issue with the "A" in the GW.

I am not saying that efforts to reduce human impact on the planet are not worthy but it should be placed into the proper context.

Darren, I think we agree.

Operationally, when I say that the debate is over, I refer to the "GW" part of AGW.

I think there is still a great deal of important dialog and good science to be done on the "A" part.

An example of an important question that I fear the deniers (and I think this is a legitimate descriptive term -- there are "communists", "socialists", "marxists", "atheists" and "liberals" too, and there is nothing wrong with describing them that way) obscure is whether our limited resources should be dedicated to mitigating the effects of whatever GW is happening, regardless of cause, versus attempting to reduce the "A" part of AGW.

Yep, it does appear that we agree.

I would also agree that GW is occurring. The only real question I have is actually how much is happening. It is that question that lead to many of our previous discussions about how stuff is measured. Never really doubted that GW was ongoing, just to what degree (pardon the pun).

I have no problem with anyone coming up with solutions to reduce human impact on the planet. It can't hurt. Probably. And research should continue. It's really too bad that it has been become so political in nature. The "real" problem out there is getting the issue to become less political.