global warming: is it fair to say.......

[hyde]

"Feb. 2 will be remembered as the date when uncertainty was removed as to whether humans had anything to do with climate change on this planet. The evidence is on the table."
ACHIM STEINER, executive director of the United Nations Environment Program.

Is it fair to say it exists?
Is it fair to say humans had something to do with it?
Is it fair to say humans can change it?
Is it fair to say any human who denies global warming lacks the ability to reason to the point where we should hope they are not in a leadership position in society?

Just curious.

[Schweitzer]

[ QUOTE ]
"Feb. 2 will be remembered as the date when uncertainty was removed as to whether humans had anything to do with climate change on this planet. The evidence is on the table."
ACHIM STEINER, executive director of the United Nations Environment Program.

Is it fair to say it exists?
Is it fair to say humans had something to do with it?
Is it fair to say humans can change it?
Is it fair to say any human who denies global warming lacks the ability to reason to the point where we should hope they are not in a leadership position in society?

Just curious.

[/ QUOTE ]

- No one denies global warming. People that say they don't believe global warming is happening are saying they don't believe humans are significantly contributing to it (or just don't know what they are talking about)
- Since humans are emitting greenhouse gases we are of course contributing to it but the degree to which we are contributing to it is in question.
- If humans are causing global warming then we can of course change it or at least slow it.
- Once again, the questions about global warming are how much humans are contributing to it and the the effect it will have on the environment. As I understand, everyone accepts the fact the the Earth is warming (shown in the increase in average global temperature) so your point doesn't really apply.

Global temperatures fluctuate all the time for many reasons. The recent increases in temperature could have almost nothing to do with human actions. The real questions are what the effect of our emitted greenhouse gases has on global warming and what effect global warming will have on the environment.

[Silent A]

Personally, i think it's close enough to certain now that I'd even classify Schweitzer' post above as somewhat in denial. Yes, we "could" have almost nothing to do with it, but at this point that's like saying, "I could hit runner-runner for quads". Don't count on it.

To me the only serious questions are:

How fast will temperatures rise in the next 100 years?
How will this be distributed golablly?
What will be the effect on rainfall patterns (who will get more rain/snow and who will get less)?
How bad will this effect the natural/human environment?
What's the most effective way to minimize the damage over the next 200 years?

[WuTank]

[ QUOTE ]
"Feb. 2 will be remembered as the date when uncertainty was removed as to whether humans had anything to do with climate change on this planet. The evidence is on the table."
ACHIM STEINER, executive director of the United Nations Environment Program.

Is it fair to say it exists?
Is it fair to say humans had something to do with it?
Is it fair to say humans can change it?
Is it fair to say any human who denies global warming lacks the ability to reason to the point where we should hope they are not in a leadership position in society?

Just curious.

[/ QUOTE ]
1)yes
2)yes
3)yes
4)yes

[HeavilyArmed]

[ QUOTE ]
How bad will this effect the natural/human environment?
What's the most effective way to minimize the damage over the next 200 years?


[/ QUOTE ]

There will never be meaningful consensus on these. Most every attempt to mitigate climate change will prove to be a poor choice when the costs are balanced against the benefits. It's in the incompetent hands of government after all.

[arahant]

I think the last point is unfair. Media coverage of the issue makes it next to impossible for anyone to actually form a valid opinion without digging into the underlying science. In fact, the extent to which it suddenly appears so 'obvious' to everyone is one of the factors that gives me doubt. It really looks like a tulip-mania thing at this point, and we would all be well-served to step back from the feeding frenzy and think about the issue for a bit.

[Silent A]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
How bad will this effect the natural/human environment?
What's the most effective way to minimize the damage over the next 200 years?


[/ QUOTE ]

There will never be meaningful consensus on these. Most every attempt to mitigate climate change will prove to be a poor choice when the costs are balanced against the benefits. It's in the incompetent hands of government after all.

[/ QUOTE ]

Most of what you say here is hardly relevant. These are the most difficult questions to answer so of course consensus isn't around the corner. The point it that most of the big questions that formed the core of the climate debate for the last 20 years are more or less settled from a scientific viewpoint.

"Meaningfull consensus" is anything that encourages us onto the path of lowering greenhouse gas emissions in economically efficient way. Most likely we're talking about some kind of carbon tax and/or tradable emissions permits. Tradable emissions permits are almost guarenteed to work efficiently as long as we can come up with an effective enforcement mechanism. Also, we don't need every country in the world to agree to this, just the 10 biggest economies or so would make a huge difference.

This talk about "incompetent hands of government" is increadibly silly. This idea many Americans (maybe you're not, but your ilk almost exclusively are) have that everything any government does never works is one of the more ridiculous pseudo-religious concepts to come out of the 20th century.

[Silent A]

[ QUOTE ]
In fact, the extent to which it suddenly appears so 'obvious' to everyone is one of the factors that gives me doubt. It really looks like a tulip-mania thing at this point, and we would all be well-served to step back from the feeding frenzy and think about the issue for a bit.

[/ QUOTE ]

If it was only obvious to certain politicians, celebraties, and media pundits/whores you would have reason to doubt. When something becomes obvious to virtually the entire scientific community though, it's another story.

And before someone brings up the "30 years ago they though we were facing global cooling" line, there was never any scientific consensus about that.

[HeavilyArmed]

[ QUOTE ]
This talk about "incompetent hands of government" is increadibly silly. This idea many Americans (maybe you're not, but your ilk almost exclusively are) have that everything any government does never works is one of the more ridiculous pseudo-religious concepts to come out of the 20th century.


[/ QUOTE ]

OK, convince me. Do two hundred words on UN successes in the past 10 years. They also need to be economic successes. None of the normal, profligate pissing away of funds will be considered.

It'd be good to also include economic issues that are clear unanimous winners among the 10 largest economic powers.

[ChrisV]

You're an idiot. I'm no fan of the UN, but how can it possibly have any "economic successes"? It's not an organisation designed to do so.

If you were to ask me to point out some examples of successful international cooperation, under the auspices of the UN or not, I guess my top two examples would be the eradication of smallpox and the Montreal Protocol. Maybe you can suggest a way to measure the benefits of these in economic terms - or do you think that because that is difficult, the benefits must be illusory?

Government is inefficient, but the fact is that we sometimes have to deal with problems that cannot be dealt with by the private sector. This is because the problem is centered around something that by its nature cannot be made private property, such as the atmosphere. This is a situation tailor-made to produce an inescapable tragedy of the commons, which is what we have at the moment. Industry is pumping pollutants into the atmosphere, without paying for the privilege, even though it doesn't own it. There's no incentive not to pollute. A government-driven solution is the only way to tackle this problem; the alternative is to throw up our hands and say "Well, guess we can't do anything about this, tragedies of the commons are awesome!".

[HeavilyArmed]

[ QUOTE ]
You're an idiot. I'm no fan of the UN, but how can it possibly have any "economic successes"? It's not an organisation designed to do so.

If you were to ask me to point out some examples of successful international cooperation, under the auspices of the UN or not, I guess my top two examples would be the eradication of smallpox and the Montreal Protocol. Maybe you can suggest a way to measure the benefits of these in economic terms - or do you think that because that is difficult, the benefits must be illusory?

Government is inefficient, but the fact is that we sometimes have to deal with problems that cannot be dealt with by the private sector. This is because the problem is centered around something that by its nature cannot be made private property, such as the atmosphere. This is a situation tailor-made to produce an inescapable tragedy of the commons, which is what we have at the moment. Industry is pumping pollutants into the atmosphere, without paying for the privilege, even though it doesn't own it. There's no incentive not to pollute. A government-driven solution is the only way to tackle this problem; the alternative is to throw up our hands and say "Well, guess we can't do anything about this, tragedies of the commons are awesome!".

[/ QUOTE ]

My first post: [ QUOTE ]
There will never be meaningful consensus on these. Most every attempt to mitigate climate change will prove to be a poor choice when the costs are balanced against the benefits.

[/ QUOTE ]

So you've agreed with the first sentence. And now you agree that government solutions to such problems are rarely the most efficient. And you're not a fan of the UN either.
WTF?

[Silent A]

I don't see how you can get:

[ QUOTE ]
now you agree that government solutions to such problems are rarely the most efficient

[/ QUOTE ]

from:

[ QUOTE ]
A government-driven solution is the only way to tackle this problem.

[/ QUOTE ]

[HeavilyArmed]

Seems I'm in a two front discussion here and I didn't notice new folks jumping in. Doesn't matter, you're both wrong or you both mostly agree with me.

[runner4life7]

its 15 below outside my apt right now and you want me to believe in global warming?

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
its 15 below outside my apt right now and you want me to believe in global warming?

[/ QUOTE ]

It was in the sixties here last week and you have any doubts about global warming?

[arahant]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
In fact, the extent to which it suddenly appears so 'obvious' to everyone is one of the factors that gives me doubt. It really looks like a tulip-mania thing at this point, and we would all be well-served to step back from the feeding frenzy and think about the issue for a bit.

[/ QUOTE ]

If it was only obvious to certain politicians, celebraties, and media pundits/whores you would have reason to doubt. When something becomes obvious to virtually the entire scientific community though, it's another story.

And before someone brings up the "30 years ago they though we were facing global cooling" line, there was never any scientific consensus about that.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh, I agree completely. I just think that it's hard for a layman to really know that there is any sort of consensus. Look at all the goobers who have managed to convince some people that that scientists debate ID vs. evolution. Throw in a few people like Michael Crichton (that book was probably pretty convincing to a lot of people) and some well-funded rebuttals, and a reasonable (but ignorant) person can have doubt.

More importantly, global warming is probably never going to resonate for the average person. Maybe the average person in the Netherlands, but not very many other places.

The energy solutions have been out there forever, and eventually, economics will drive the adoption of less damaging energy sources. I'm a bit of a fatalist on the consequences of GW anyway...yeah, it's going to cost us money and result in major changes in the world, but I think we'll survive.

Unless of course, the climate models are wrong and we can somehow drive the climate so far that we all literally fry. Fortunately, I'm not aware of anyone predicting anything that extreme.

[kurto]

[ QUOTE ]
its 15 below outside my apt right now and you want me to believe in global warming?

[/ QUOTE ]

another case where you want to pat someone on the head and say, "can you go play outside and let the adults talk."

Because... if there's global warming it can't be cold. /images/graemlins/blush.gif

[Hopey]

It's turning into a cliche for people to hear people say "So much for global warming!" whenever we get a solitary day or two of seasonably cold weather.

This makes about as much sense as the rednecks in the Politics forum who were arguing that the absence of large numbers of severe hurricanes in 2006 was proof that global warming is not happening.

Whatever it takes to keep them driving their SUV's guilt-free, I guess.

[runner4life7]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
its 15 below outside my apt right now and you want me to believe in global warming?

[/ QUOTE ]

another case where you want to pat someone on the head and say, "can you go play outside and let the adults talk."

Because... if there's global warming it can't be cold. /images/graemlins/blush.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

i was more or less making a joke /images/graemlins/wink.gif fwiw. On a serious note, I thought we were still lacking enough long term weather stats to make any true claim of global warming.

[kurto]

[ QUOTE ]

i was more or less making a joke fwiw. On a serious note, I thought we were still lacking enough long term weather stats to make any true claim of global warming.

[/ QUOTE ]

Apologize if it was a joke. (for the record, I have seen many respond as you have as a serious rebuttal for global warming. Its often difficult to tell the difference between humor and naivete on a forum.)

I think the majority of the community who have studied feel the evidence is there.

[Silent A]

[ QUOTE ]
On a serious note, I thought we were still lacking enough long term weather stats to make any true claim of global warming.

[/ QUOTE ]

Depends what you mean by "true". If you want to be 100% certain then you'll proably have to wait until so much evidence is in that it's too late to do anything about it.

I would draw an anlogy between standing on a train track and asking if a train is approaching. You don't want to wait until it hits you before you make a decision about whether to move or not.

At this point so much scientific evidence points directly to "golbal warming is happening, it's significantly man-made, and we still have a chance at mitigating it" that arguing about if it's really happening in moot.

At a minimum, an argument can be made that the risk is more than high enough that continued inaction is simply foolhardy (hell, it passed that stage at least a decade ago).

I suspect that the short-termed nature of politics will result in us acting slower than we should. Over the next 100 to 200 years, certain areas will become too dry to maintain curent levels of agriculture, others will see flooding become so frequent that cities will have to choose between massive flood prevention structures or abandonment. Most of the world, however, will simply have to adapt to a new long term climate. Many species will die out, others will thrive, and in some places new species will move in and wreak havoc on local environments. Overall, you can expect bio-diversity to drop a fair bit.

Life will go on but significant parts of the world are going to face serious problems. Thankfully, I live in a part of the world were it shouldn't be too bad.

[HeavilyArmed]

[ QUOTE ]
Oh, I agree completely. I just think that it's hard for a layman to really know that there is any sort of consensus.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your are aware that the scientific method makes no mention of consensus, yes? There's a little something about hypothesis testing but next to nothing about counting a show of hands.

And that is exactly the problem. If any hypothesis could be tested then consensus would not be needed, it would be established science at that point. But global climate is so very far from that point today that any measure that requires treasure is not justified.

Try to sell solutions that make stand-alone economic sense and you'll be able to feel like you're solving something because it's mostly about feelings right now, isn't it?

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Oh, I agree completely. I just think that it's hard for a layman to really know that there is any sort of consensus.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your are aware that the scientific method makes no mention of consensus, yes? There's a little something about hypothesis testing but next to nothing about counting a show of hands.

And that is exactly the problem. If any hypothesis could be tested then consensus would not be needed, it would be established science at that point. But global climate is so very far from that point today that any measure that requires treasure is not justified.

Try to sell solutions that make stand-alone economic sense and you'll be able to feel like you're solving something because it's mostly about feelings right now, isn't it?

[/ QUOTE ]

Talking about making stand-alone economic sense is almost completely meaningless when we cannot agree on what the long-term ramifications of inaction are going to be. If you believe that global warming is entirely a sham, then any plan that will cause an increase in cost by even a single dollar doesn't 'make economic sense.' If you think that global warming will lead to drastic, dramatic global change, then economic plans which require huge costs up front make complete sense.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Oh, I agree completely. I just think that it's hard for a layman to really know that there is any sort of consensus.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your are aware that the scientific method makes no mention of consensus, yes? There's a little something about hypothesis testing but next to nothing about counting a show of hands.

And that is exactly the problem. If any hypothesis could be tested then consensus would not be needed, it would be established science at that point. But global climate is so very far from that point today that any measure that requires treasure is not justified.

Try to sell solutions that make stand-alone economic sense and you'll be able to feel like you're solving something because it's mostly about feelings right now, isn't it?

[/ QUOTE ]

Also, your point about scientific consensus is all well and good as long as everyone reads the data, reads the studies, understands the hypotheses and comprehends the results. In that scenario, of course a scientific consensus doesn't matter. Unfortunately, that is nowhere near the case, and so the public is forced to decide whom to trust. The reason they are loath to trust the scientific community is because they think the scientific community is divided on the issue, and that there is no consensus, so why can't I just believe the industry people? Its a tactic that has a glorious track record. Just look at Creationism/ID. People won't be able to trust the scientific community if you can paint the scientific community as a bunch of squabbling nerds who are occupied as much with infighting as they are with research.

[Silent A]

The problem is that it's not possible to do the kind of experiments that need to be done in order to get the "hypothesis testing" you're talking about. Basically, you seem to be argueing that nothing should be done about global warming until Florida is half under water.

Here's the curent situation as I see it:

1) There is high volume of evidence suggesting that golobal warming is happening right now.
2) The volume is large enough that just about every scientist trained in the related fields agrees that it's happening (this includes me).
3) It's obvious to most of us that there will be significant human and environmental damage as a result (even if we can't be sure exactly what that damage will be).
4) The time scales of the processes involved mean that mitigating the damage requires us to start acting decades before the the real damage starts happening.
5) While scientific consensus is not a scientific measure of "truth" it's best we have to guide policy.
6) Half-measures are better than nothing and at least buy us time.
7) Governments are't nearly as inept as you seem to think they are.

[HeavilyArmed]

[ QUOTE ]
If you think that global warming will lead to drastic, dramatic global change, then economic plans which require huge costs up front make complete sense.



[/ QUOTE ]

Here's a perfect example of the imperfect nature of the problem.

You can't have any honest idea of the economic cost shifts associated with anthropogenic global climate change AND you can not isolate the nature of the change you might effect per dollar spent. It is two levels of guesswork deep, nothing I consider a sound basis for changing the global economic/energy status quo.

But as I've stated in most every thread, I'm certain there will be grossly expensive efforts mounted and their efficiency will be tiny. Everyone will feel better at huge cost (except me). Climate will not meaningfully change.

[HeavilyArmed]

[ QUOTE ]
Just look at Creationism/ID.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's a fine straw man you've enlisted. Well done.

[HeavilyArmed]

[ QUOTE ]
The problem is that it's not possible to do the kind of experiments that need to be done in order to get the "hypothesis testing" you're talking about. Basically, you seem to be argueing that nothing should be done about global warming until Florida is half under water.

Here's the curent situation as I see it:

1) There is high volume of evidence suggesting that golobal warming is happening right now.
2) The volume is large enough that just about every scientist trained in the related fields agrees that it's happening (this includes me).
3) It's obvious to most of us that there will be significant human and environmental damage as a result (even if we can't be sure exactly what that damage will be).
4) The time scales of the processes involved mean that mitigating the damage requires us to start acting decades before the the real damage starts happening.
5) While scientific consensus is not a scientific measure of "truth" it's best we have to guide policy.
6) Half-measures are better than nothing and at least buy us time.
7) Governments are't nearly as inept as you seem to think they are.

[/ QUOTE ]

Consensus is not nearly as one sided as you'd like to think. What is the consensus on the percentage climate change that is within our control? Assume a reverse to stone age technology and tell me what the consensus is. Don't bother, I already know just how much you and I don't know.

See, you can't even 90% rule out solar fluctuations and you're anxious to re-engineer the entire global economy. By my math, that's at least a 10% chance you're 100% wrong.

[HeavilyArmed]

[ QUOTE ]
7) Governments are't nearly as inept as you seem to think they are.

[/ QUOTE ]

Which government?

Surely you jest.

My government, the US government, does a handful of things well and a thousand thing inefficiently or incompetently or both. My state government is ever so slightly better. My local government is corrupt.

[Silent A]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
7) Governments are't nearly as inept as you seem to think they are.

[/ QUOTE ]

Which government?

Surely you jest.

My government, the US government, does a handful of things well and a thousand thing inefficiently or incompetently or both. My state government is ever so slightly better. My local government is corrupt.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is what I suspected was you basis.

[Silent A]

[ QUOTE ]
See, you can't even 90% rule out solar fluctuations and you're anxious to re-engineer the entire global economy. By my math, that's at least a 10% chance you're 100% wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

"Re-engineer" is overstating things drastically. A better word would be "nudge". Your doomsday-like prognostications for the global economy if we give various tax-like incentives to reduce emissions are no better than those of the worst of the environmental lobby.

And your comment above about solar radiation is only true if the current warming trend is 100% due to solar and 0% to CO2 (et al). The odds of this being the case are well below 10% (virtually 0%, I'd say).

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If you think that global warming will lead to drastic, dramatic global change, then economic plans which require huge costs up front make complete sense.



[/ QUOTE ]

Here's a perfect example of the imperfect nature of the problem.

You can't have any honest idea of the economic cost shifts associated with anthropogenic global climate change AND you can not isolate the nature of the change you might effect per dollar spent. It is two levels of guesswork deep, nothing I consider a sound basis for changing the global economic/energy status quo.

But as I've stated in most every thread, I'm certain there will be grossly expensive efforts mounted and their efficiency will be tiny. Everyone will feel better at huge cost (except me). Climate will not meaningfully change.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree entirely with your first point...the path is currently fraught with guesswork and lack of information. I just think its silly to pretend (if thats what you were doing) that all you are looking for is a plan that makes economic sense. Determining which plans make economic sense is entirely dependent on what we can agree the risks and costs are likely to be, which is entirely dependent on the science making predictions both of the severity and the possibility of human-driven amelioration.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Just look at Creationism/ID.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's a fine straw man you've enlisted. Well done.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you serious? Did you understand the analogy at all, or are you simply saying "Anti-global-warming propaganda != Creationism, therefore this is a strawman." It may have been an inaccurate analogy (it wasn't) but it was certainly no straw man. I was describing the susceptibility of the lay public to smear campaigns, and how a core tenet of these campaigns is sowing faux-discord among the scientific community, as if they cannot agree on anything, so why trust them. Do you not think that Creationists do this, or do you not think that some of the vocal industry advocates do this?

[HeavilyArmed]

[ QUOTE ]
I just think its silly to pretend (if thats what you were doing) that all you are looking for is a plan that makes economic sense.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you can make a convincing case to me, you can sell it to anyone.

Look for things that make stand-alone sense, nuke power for an example. Avoid the appeal to emotion. And don't feel too bad when you discover that nothing you did changed anything for the better.

[HeavilyArmed]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Just look at Creationism/ID.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's a fine straw man you've enlisted. Well done.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you serious? Did you understand the analogy at all, or are you simply saying "Anti-global-warming propaganda != Creationism, therefore this is a strawman." It may have been an inaccurate analogy (it wasn't) but it was certainly no straw man. I was describing the susceptibility of the lay public to smear campaigns, and how a core tenet of these campaigns is sowing faux-discord among the scientific community, as if they cannot agree on anything, so why trust them. Do you not think that Creationists do this, or do you not think that some of the vocal industry advocates do this?

[/ QUOTE ]

Not touching this.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I just think its silly to pretend (if thats what you were doing) that all you are looking for is a plan that makes economic sense.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you can make a convincing case to me, you can sell it to anyone.

Look for things that make stand-alone sense, nuke power for an example. Avoid the appeal to emotion. And don't feel too bad when you discover that nothing you did changed anything for the better.

[/ QUOTE ]

If the last ten years have shown us anything, its that appeal to emotion is by far the most effective tool available.

[Silent A]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I just think its silly to pretend (if thats what you were doing) that all you are looking for is a plan that makes economic sense.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you can make a convincing case to me, you can sell it to anyone.

Look for things that make stand-alone sense, nuke power for an example. Avoid the appeal to emotion. And don't feel too bad when you discover that nothing you did changed anything for the better.

[/ QUOTE ]

Carbon taxes and (especially) tradable emmissions permits make stand alone sense.

[HeavilyArmed]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I just think its silly to pretend (if thats what you were doing) that all you are looking for is a plan that makes economic sense.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you can make a convincing case to me, you can sell it to anyone.

Look for things that make stand-alone sense, nuke power for an example. Avoid the appeal to emotion. And don't feel too bad when you discover that nothing you did changed anything for the better.

[/ QUOTE ]

If the last ten years have shown us anything, its that appeal to emotion is by far the most effective tool available.

[/ QUOTE ]

That is exactly what drives your opposition with such zeal.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I just think its silly to pretend (if thats what you were doing) that all you are looking for is a plan that makes economic sense.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you can make a convincing case to me, you can sell it to anyone.

Look for things that make stand-alone sense, nuke power for an example. Avoid the appeal to emotion. And don't feel too bad when you discover that nothing you did changed anything for the better.

[/ QUOTE ]

If the last ten years have shown us anything, its that appeal to emotion is by far the most effective tool available.

[/ QUOTE ]

That is exactly what drives your opposition with such zeal.

[/ QUOTE ]

Its not MY opposition. I am fairly positive I've never taken a stand on global warming on this forum. I know next to nothing about it, and a lot of the rhetoric I hear from the environmentalists makes me instantly distrustful of nearly everything I do read on the topic. I think I can make a living posting on this topic solely by trying to reign in the intellectual dishonesty and poor reasoning often displayed by EITHER side. If I happen to learn something along the way, excellent.

But I don't need to know anything about global warming to evaluate tactics, or to try and predict what impact certain arguments are likely to have. Fighting fire with fire, while certainly not the 'high road,' is probably at least marginally effective.

[Piers]

[ QUOTE ]
I just think that it's hard for a layman to really know that there is any sort of consensus.

[/ QUOTE ]

Its been a while since I can remember talking to someone who expressed the opinion that global warming was not a serious man made problem. Admittedly I live in England, and most of the people who I socialize with are of above average intelligence.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I just think that it's hard for a layman to really know that there is any sort of consensus.

[/ QUOTE ]

Its been a while since I can remember talking to someone who expressed the opinion that global warming was not a serious man made problem. Admittedly I live in England, and most of the people who I socialize with are of above average intelligence.

[/ QUOTE ]

I would say that someone asserting that with any level of confidence would be a minority in the United States. Maybe not a microscopic minority, but certainly a minority.

[NeBlis]

[ QUOTE ]
Admittedly I am a pretentious ass, and most of the people who I socialize with think they know it all

[/ QUOTE ]

FYP

NeBlis

[dano]

People argue over how much people are contributing to global warming, and the debate is healthy. But like in much of science science, the research into global warming does not come away with certain facts. The scientific method is good for disproving theories, not proving theories. All the researchers can say is that global warming is occuring with X% probability and humans are contributing between A% and B% to the warming with Y% probability. Global warming skeptics have siezed on the fact that the climate system is extremely complex, contains a large amount of variability, and to a great degree is not well understood. The skeptics have used the inherent doubt of science to point out that it is not "clear" that humans are causing global warming and how much they are contributing. And scientifically speaking, the skeptics are correct.

As gambers however we all realize that there is a probability that humans are impacting climate change and that there is a probability that the climate change will have disastrous effects. And those probabilities are enough. We don't need to know that humans are contributing to global warming. We just need to know that we probably are. Probably causing global warming should be enough to make us act to prevent it.

[PairTheBoard]

Any ideas on how to Profit from it?

PairTheBoard

[arahant]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I just think that it's hard for a layman to really know that there is any sort of consensus.

[/ QUOTE ]

Its been a while since I can remember talking to someone who expressed the opinion that global warming was not a serious man made problem. Admittedly I live in England, and most of the people who I socialize with are of above average intelligence.

[/ QUOTE ]

Still, this really comes down to the media, doesn't it? It's perfectly believable to me that the idea of man-made global warming could be false, but we would still see the situation we have today. Ideas have a way of becoming entrenched and self-reinforcing. I can think of plenty of things that are articles of faith for most people, and yet are untrue. When all the people delivering the news have the same opinion, we would expect it to become the prevailing view.

What percentage of the population is actually qualified to judge this question? .001? Even the IPCC report only went with a 90% chance that warming was caused by human activity. I realize that's high, but I think most people who support the idea would agree with 'beyond a reasonable doubt'. In fact, there was a poll (http://thinkprogress.org/2007/02/05/warming-13-percent/) of folks in congress showing that most democrats take this view. (I found it funny that fewer republicans believe it than 8 months ago, even if it's not significant).

I'm honestly not qualified to judge the issue. I believe humans have contributed to the warming based solely on 'common sense', and I could be wrong.

There are other issues, too...I assume there is ironclad consensus that we've altered the pH of the oceans?

[Skidoo]

The ice caps on Mars are shrinking as well, which suggests the problem is alarmingly widespread.

[Piers]

[ QUOTE ]
Still, this really comes down to the media, doesn't it?

[/ QUOTE ]

Depends what we are talking about. Certainly information provided by the media should be treated with great care. For instance I would assume that any in-depth news report is going to have mistakes in, and anything a politician says professionally cannot be considered information.

[ QUOTE ]
What percentage of the population is actually qualified to judge this question?

[/ QUOTE ]

If you dig a little deeper then the popular media, and use your intelligence I think you get a better idea (Or would do if there were any contention). Recent scientific textbooks plus scientific magazines like Nature and Scientific America are a much more reliable source of information, and give a consistent message in the case of Global worming.

[ QUOTE ]
I'm honestly not qualified to judge the issue.

[/ QUOTE ]

Even if you cannot follow the scientific argument, you can judge the people who are making the points. Although the basic idea that, “the data shows the world is getting warmer and come on, what else could be causing it but us?” seems hare to refute.

Maybe there is a critical flaw that everyone has overlooked, but just because someone could hit runner runner quads is no reason not to stick it in with the nuts on the flop.

[HeavilyArmed]

[ QUOTE ]

As gambers however we all realize that there is a probability that humans are impacting climate change and that there is a probability that the climate change will have disastrous effects. And those probabilities are enough. We don't need to know that humans are contributing to global warming. We just need to know that we probably are. Probably causing global warming should be enough to make us act to prevent it.



[/ QUOTE ]
No. You were doing OK up to that last paragraph.

Since the human contribution is unclear, the human ability to reverse this contribution is even more unclear. Not one single measure that costs society can be judged on that basis since the return per dollar is notquantifiable.

Add to that the unknown cost shifts associated with higher temps. Some winners, some losers. Why would the winners willingly pay?

[HeavilyArmed]

[ QUOTE ]
Although the basic idea that, “the data shows the world is getting warmer and come on, what else could be causing it but us?” seems hard to refute.

[/ QUOTE ]

Highbrow EuroThink. Very nice.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Although the basic idea that, “the data shows the world is getting warmer and come on, what else could be causing it but us?” seems hard to refute.

[/ QUOTE ]

Highbrow EuroThink. Very nice.

[/ QUOTE ]

This coming from the guy who is the FIRST one to get up in arms whenever anyone tries to pigeonhole him or classify him as a bigot or racist or anything.

[Duke]

Global warming is happening. How much of an effect on it our industry has had is definitely still up in the air, but the increased global population of "things that fart" is having a huge greenhouse gas impact.

It's fair to say that if we do -not- figure out a way to control our climate, we will end up dying out at some point in the future. The world is much like the sea, in that it has no agendas; it just is. We're lucky to be here at all right now, but it's safe to say that we will not be here forever if we don't produce a way to control it within the limits that our survival requires.

I'm pretty sure we'd have that problem solved by now if we didn't have the vast majority of the population bickering over retarded ideas.

[PairTheBoard]

I wonder if they aren't now underplaying the inevitability of it. We've already lost so much of the Arctic ice cap that the warming effect this has on the ocean may be irreversable.

PairTheBoard

[arahant]

I haven't seen anything that would suggest global warming is going to wipe us out. If it actually reached that point, I'm sure we could come up with some desperate measures: Dumping large amounts of reflective material on the land and into the atmosphere, sequestering carbon on a massive scale...

[Duke]

[ QUOTE ]
I haven't seen anything that would suggest global warming is going to wipe us out. If it actually reached that point, I'm sure we could come up with some desperate measures: Dumping large amounts of reflective material on the land and into the atmosphere, sequestering carbon on a massive scale...

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm looking at past trends, and not the current half-assed understanding of the climate that we're trying to use to make predictions.

An ice age would probably screw us up real good, and since they've happened periodically in the past, well, I don't see why they wouldn't happen in the future. If the whole planet turned into the Sahara for a few thousand years, I'm pretty sure that would mess us up too.

EDIT: And my main point is that the Earth has never been a static thing. It changes all the time for various reasons, even without our influence. I'm saying that with or without our influence, the Earth could easily become unlivable. It's happened before, and the universe has a way of continuing to do what it has done.

So - who cares about Global Warming? Unless it's going to have some impact in 100 years that we can avoid, well, we should look at what will need solving at some point anyhow. This deeper problem is that we need to learn how to control the climate to ensure survival in the near (100k years) term. In the longer term, well, space flight on a massive scale will become a necessity (the sun will go nova).

A lot of fortunate things happened to the planet to allow us to exist at all at this point in time. That same randomness could easily wipe us out if we aren't smart enough to counteract it.

[Piers]

If we did nothing until the symptoms that were going to wipe us out where clearly being experienced worldwide before doing anything, then I think your right there is a decent chance we might find some way to save the species anyway.

[HeavilyArmed]

[ QUOTE ]
In the longer term, well, space flight on a massive scale will become a necessity (the sun will go nova).

[/ QUOTE ]

Long like 3,000,000,000 years. Also our sun goes red giant slowly, not nova.

[PairTheBoard]

I just watched a show on the History Channel about this that said dramatic weather shifts have happened in the past where the transition period has been as quick as a single decade. They seem pretty worried that the melting glaciers and ice caps are reducing the oceans salinity causing a slow down in the global ocean heat conveyer system. This effect could cause a partial shutdown at the northern end of the Gulf Stream and if that happens there will be brutal cold weather in North America and Europe. It sounds like it could happen a lot sooner and faster than people think. They measured a slowdown in the conveyer for the first time in 2004.

PairTheBoard

[Silent A]

[ QUOTE ]
An ice age would probably screw us up real good, and since they've happened periodically in the past, well, I don't see why they wouldn't happen in the future.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm a hydrologist, not a climatologist, but I interact enough with them that I'm proably the next best thing.

[semi-expert mode]
It will happen again. One of the interesting things about the global climate system is that it has 2 relatively stable equilibria. One is a high temperature (like now) and one is a low temperture (ice age). Of the two, the ice ages are way more stable. Basically, there comes a critical gloabl temperature where the polar ice caps grow to the point that they start to reflect so much solar energy back into space that the earth gets cooler and cooler. Once the earth cools past this point it's very hard to reverse. It's much easer to push the climate into an ice age than to push it out. (Thus the interesting, and counter-intuitive, hypothesis that a sudden warming could actually trigger an ice age when melting polar ice shuts down ocean currents).

[ QUOTE ]
If the whole planet turned into the Sahara for a few thousand years, I'm pretty sure that would mess us up too.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thankfully, this won't happen under global warming. Increasing temperatures globally will tend to increase evaporation rates over the ocean resulting in a generally more active hydrologic cycle. This means more rain, but also more evaporation between rains (so water that falls on soils doesn't stay there as long). How these two opposite effects balance out will vary from region to region (and it's really difficult to predict).

[ QUOTE ]
I'm saying that with or without our influence, the Earth could easily become unlivable. It's happened before, and the universe has a way of continuing to do what it has done.

[/ QUOTE ]

I would phrase this differently. People underestimate how good we have it (climatologicaly speaking) in this era. Nothing about global warming should make the planet "unlivable" but gloablly it could make things considerably more complicated. At a minimum, there should be a very significant adjustment cost.
[/semi-expert mode]

[HeavilyArmed]

[ QUOTE ]
Thankfully, this won't happen under global warming. Increasing temperatures globally will tend to increase evaporation rates over the ocean resulting in a generally more active hydrologic cycle. This means more rain, but also more evaporation between rains (so water that falls on soils doesn't stay there as long). How these two opposite effects balance out will vary from region to region (and it's really difficult to predict).

[/ QUOTE ]

Here's a perfect example of what pisses me off most. The potential human cost is in the last sentence and it's "really difficult to predict" because it's 3 levels of speculation deep. In words translated from semi-expert into layman, they have no freeekin idea.

Yet they are in a red hot hurry to re-engineer the global energy diet with no defined costs and benefits. That is poor policy.

[Silent A]

[ QUOTE ]
Here's a perfect example of what pisses me off most. The potential human cost is in the last sentence and it's "really difficult to predict" because it's 3 levels of speculation deep. In words translated from semi-expert into layman, they have no freeekin idea.

[/ QUOTE ]

What's "really dificult to predict" is the balance of more/less rain along with more/less warming at any given location.

What isn't so hard to predict is that most regions of the earth will have some change and that many will have serious changes (particularily areas that are currently on the edge of sustainability right now).

For example, as temperatures rise insects that couldn't survive 20th century winters will move north and encounter vegetaion that have never been exposed to them before. It only takes one new insect species to wreak total havoc on agriculture and forestry.

Also with changing climate will come increased crop failures as the climate becomes less suitable for currnet crops. By the time farmers get a handle on the new climate, allowing them to choose new crops, a lot of resources will have been wasted.

For a final example, consider what happens to area that get more rain and what this could mean for infrastucure. Bridges, levees, etc. that were expected to last 100+ years will now only last something like 50 years. The total cost of improving/relacing this infrastructure could be enormous.

While it's true that we don't know what the effects will be at any given location we do know that there will be effects. We also have a lot of reason to believe that the bad effects will be more than the good (if for no other reason than the fact that adjusting to a new climate has its own associated cost).

[ QUOTE ]
Yet they are in a red hot hurry to re-engineer the global energy diet with no defined costs and benefits. That is poor policy.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a wild over statement. What's being suggested is a several decades long shift from a high intensity fossil fuel economy to a low GHG economy. This can take several forms, several of which can take full advantage of private sector efficiencies.

And as for cost/benefit analysis, this is being done right now. There may be high levels of uncertainty in the numbers, but you're fooling yourself if you think a policy of sticking with the status quo has any more certainty in its future costs and benefits under a new global climate.

[vhawk01]

Yes, yes, thats all well and good, but as long as you can't predict every single detail or give me an itemized cost-benefit analysis that accounts for every variable, I can simply say "You don't know EXACTLY what's going to happen, Chicken Little."

[kurto]

Yes, it would appear that my house is on fire. But I'm not certain that your fire extinguisher is going to fully solve the problem. I think I'll just send the family back to sleep and we'll wait it out. Perhaps by tomorrow morning we'll get a better handle on how serious the fire is and whether or not the fire extinguisher will be helpful.

[Al68]

[ QUOTE ]
Yes, it would appear that my house is on fire. But I'm not certain that your fire extinguisher is going to fully solve the problem. I think I'll just send the family back to sleep and we'll wait it out. Perhaps by tomorrow morning we'll get a better handle on how serious the fire is and whether or not the fire extinguisher will be helpful.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yeah, that's the same thing. Exactly. No hyperbole at all with this one.

[HeavilyArmed]

[ QUOTE ]
And as for cost/benefit analysis, this is being done right now. There may be high levels of uncertainty in the numbers, but you're fooling yourself if you think a policy of sticking with the status quo has any more certainty in its future costs and benefits under a new global climate.


[/ QUOTE ]

Every cost and benefit has an associated probability. It's a huge Charlie Foxtrot. With incomplete science. With nonlinear, chaotic models. With agenda politics.

The result of spending a $1,000,000,000,000 or more worldwide every year will be little more than the largest pissing away of funds I can imagine. And at its root is the absolute uncertainty that the spending will change global climate even a small amount.

[Silent A]

[ QUOTE ]
The result of spending a $1,000,000,000,000 or more worldwide every year will be little more than the largest pissing away of funds I can imagine. And at its root is the absolute uncertainty that the spending will change global climate even a small amount.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you aware that the annual cost of doing nothing has been estimated to reach as high as $20 trillion (US 2002 dollars) annually by 2100?

Also, it's not like the $1 trillion goes down the rat hole. There will be energy consumtion savings, job creation, and new technological industies. World-wide, $1 trillion really just represents a shift in priorities not a drastic economy destroying monster you paint.

And I can imagine bigger examples of "pissing away funds". What's global defence spending up to now? IIRC, it passed $1 trillion a few years ago and continues to climb steadily.

[Silent A]

[ QUOTE ]
Every cost and benefit has an associated probability. It's a huge Charlie Foxtrot. With incomplete science. With nonlinear, chaotic models. With agenda politics.

[/ QUOTE ]

So you're admitting that you have no more idea about what the long term costs and benefits will be of your prefferred policy?

If it's bad policy to choose GHG plan X without a proper accounting of costs and benefits than it's also bad policy to change nothing without a proper accounting of costs and benefits.

[HeavilyArmed]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The result of spending a $1,000,000,000,000 or more worldwide every year will be little more than the largest pissing away of funds I can imagine. And at its root is the absolute uncertainty that the spending will change global climate even a small amount.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you aware that the annual cost of doing nothing has been estimated to reach as high as $20 trillion (US 2002 dollars) annually by 2100?

Also, it's not like the $1 trillion goes down the rat hole. There will be energy consumtion savings, job creation, and new technological industies. World-wide, $1 trillion really just represents a shift in priorities not a drastic economy destroying monster you paint.

And I can imagine bigger examples of "pissing away funds". What's global defence spending up to now? IIRC, it passed $1 trillion a few years ago and continues to climb steadily.

[/ QUOTE ]

Design stand-alone solutions that are self-funding. I'll be your biggest fan.

[HeavilyArmed]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Every cost and benefit has an associated probability. It's a huge Charlie Foxtrot. With incomplete science. With nonlinear, chaotic models. With agenda politics.

[/ QUOTE ]

So you're admitting that you have no more idea about what the long term costs and benefits will be of your prefferred policy?

If it's bad policy to choose GHG plan X without a proper accounting of costs and benefits than it's also bad policy to change nothing without a proper accounting of costs and benefits.

[/ QUOTE ]

A childish dodge, below your station.

[Duke]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The result of spending a $1,000,000,000,000 or more worldwide every year will be little more than the largest pissing away of funds I can imagine. And at its root is the absolute uncertainty that the spending will change global climate even a small amount.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you aware that the annual cost of doing nothing has been estimated to reach as high as $20 trillion (US 2002 dollars) annually by 2100?

Also, it's not like the $1 trillion goes down the rat hole. There will be energy consumtion savings, job creation, and new technological industies. World-wide, $1 trillion really just represents a shift in priorities not a drastic economy destroying monster you paint.

And I can imagine bigger examples of "pissing away funds". What's global defence spending up to now? IIRC, it passed $1 trillion a few years ago and continues to climb steadily.

[/ QUOTE ]

Design stand-alone solutions that are self-funding. I'll be your biggest fan.

[/ QUOTE ]

They should do that with Defense, too.

[Silent A]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Every cost and benefit has an associated probability. It's a huge Charlie Foxtrot. With incomplete science. With nonlinear, chaotic models. With agenda politics.

[/ QUOTE ]

So you're admitting that you have no more idea about what the long term costs and benefits will be of your prefferred policy?

If it's bad policy to choose GHG plan X without a proper accounting of costs and benefits than it's also bad policy to change nothing without a proper accounting of costs and benefits.

[/ QUOTE ]

A childish dodge, below your station.

[/ QUOTE ]

??? How is this childish.

You're at least implying that the status quo is somehow a safer course to take. I'm just saying that with all the research coming in, there's nothing safe about it.

And let's get one thing clear: choosing the status quo is every bit as much a policy choice as choosing to change it.

[SitNHit]

If there is a change in sealevels, etc, blah , etc, it aint us people, just like it aint US that makes it winter, spring, summer then fall.

Anybody remember when the dinosaurs were wiped off the face of the earth and froze to death. I guess they really abused their planet too.

1. History tells us that earth can suffer natural climate damage, 2, we are at the mercy of the Sun, Moon, Stars, Galaxy and Universe.

2. What purpose would it serve in Gods plan to have his planet go through this unless it was the Apacolypse? Hmmm, stay tuned. Oh thats right, more then half of the people here don't believe in God cause they think their minds are so sophisticated that they don't need any aid in solving human problems(not exactly sure on exact numbers)..

Mike

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
If there is a change in sealevels, etc, blah , etc, it aint us people, just like it aint US that makes it winter, spring, summer then fall.

Anybody remember when the dinosaurs were wiped off the face of the earth and froze to death. I guess they really abused their planet too.

1. History tells us that earth can suffer natural climate damage, 2, we are at the mercy of the Sun, Moon, Stars, Galaxy and Universe.

2. What purpose would it serve in Gods plan to have his planet go through this unless it was the Apacolypse? Hmmm, stay tuned. Oh thats right, more then half of the people here don't believe in God cause they think their minds are so sophisticated that they don't need any aid in solving human problems(not exactly sure on exact numbers)..

Mike

[/ QUOTE ]

/images/graemlins/grin.gif I hope you apply this to all of your problems, not just large, global ones. Guys cuts me off in traffic? Gods plan!!! Mugger comes up and robs me? Gods plan!!! Dog won't stop crapping in my yard? God's plan!!!

[Utah]

Is it fair to say it exists? Yes.
Is it fair to say humans had something to do with it?This is far from certain.
Is it fair to say humans can change it? nope
Is it fair to say any human who denies global warming lacks the ability to reason to the point where we should hope they are not in a leadership position in society? Probably yes, if you are simply referring to weather trend. No if you are referring to humans having a statistically significant affect. The scariest type of leader would be one who approaches global warming caused by humans as a fact and who refuses to debate.

[ QUOTE ]
"Feb. 2 will be remembered as the date when uncertainty was removed as to whether humans had anything to do with climate change on this planet. The evidence is on the table."
ACHIM STEINER, executive director of the United Nations Environment Program.

[/ QUOTE ]
Of course....all you need to do is read the U.N. report and.....oh wait....the U.N. hasn't released the report yet....then what "evidence on the table" is he referring to?

[arahant]

[ QUOTE ]


2. more then half of the people here don't believe in God cause they think their minds are so sophisticated that they don't need any aid in solving human problems(not exactly sure on exact numbers)..


[/ QUOTE ]

More like 90%. But that's just because people like you, who recognize that only God is smart enough to solve human problems, tend to just go about their business. Only rarely does one of you pipe up with "Look, I'm too stupid to know the answer, so you must be, too!".

[Utah]

[ QUOTE ]
Is it fair to say it exists? Yes.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am going to amend my answer. It is fair to say it is probably warmer in the last century since instrumental readings were taken. However, it is far to uncertain to place any confidence over a longer time frame such as 400 years or a 1000 years.

I went back and read the NAS Study last night and they do not quantify the confidence they place on comments such as "it is highly likely that the last few decades were the warmest in last 400 years". So, no real faith can be placed in them. Do they mean 50% confidence, 80% confident, 90% confident? But, heck, even if you used 90% confident, there is still a 1 in 10 chance they are wrong on global warming all together over the last 400 years, never mind the effects of man on it.

Also, here is an interesting little tidbit on confidence from the report relating to a something else on page 30:

IPCC 2001 - The increase in temperature in the 20th century is likely to have been the largest of any century during the last 1000 years. It is also likely that, in the Northern Hemisphere, the 1990's was the warmest decade and 1998 the warmest year.4"

4 - the IPCC defines "likely" as having an estimated confidence interval of 66-90 percent, or better than 2 to 1 odds. Note that this falls well short(emphasis added) of the high confidence level (>95%) considered standard (emphasis added)for strong quantitative argument.

So, what do we really have from the bigger known studies:
1) From the IPCC, we have a summary where they refuse to release the data for months
2) From the IPCC, we have analysis that fails to use rigorous confidence intervals
3) From the NAS, we have conclusions that are not even quantified, even though they shrink the holy grail of global warming from 1000 to 400 years
4) From Wegman, we have the Mann's hockey stick shredded.

Yet, given this, we are to take global warming as fact, say the debate is over, and assume that anyone who doubts global warming is unfit for office?

[arahant]

Two questions that maybe someone who knows something about this can answer:

1) In layman's terms, can anyone explain why it isn't obvious that the increase in CO2/methane (we can assume this is human activity, right?) would cause global warming? I mean, isn't the effect pretty simple just based on the properties of CO2? Or is the magnitude in question...?

2)Are there any good economic impact things out there? I realize this must be tremendously complex. But it would seem to me that if we can attach, say, an 80% probability that CO2 emmissions cause such-and-such an impact, we could do a cost-benefit analysis...It may turn out that even if there is only a 10% chance that CO2 will raise temps 5 degrees, it would still be cost-effective to pour a bunch of money into amelioration...

[Utah]

fwiw - Here is an article I came across today.

Antarctic Temperatures Disagree with Climate Model Predictions (http://www.physorg.com/news90782778.html)

Didn't these scientists get the message that the debate is over and warming is an indisputable fact? /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[Utah]

http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1142#comments

Can anyone explain these temperature adjusts? Probably the strongest evidence in my mind of global warming is the instrumental readings of temperatures over the last 100 years. While one can argue about trends and causes, it is near impossible to refute hard data that shows record after record being broken. To be honest, I simply took the reports as fact because, after all, data is data.

Frighteningly though, that does not appear to be the case with the instrumental readings. If I understand things correctly (which is a big "if" in this case) the following is true:

A) The readings are not true readings. They are subject to significant manipulation
B) The manipulations happen often
C) The manipulations have been to make the early years colder and the later years hotter (see chart below)
D) The original data no longer exists
E) Records of the manipulations no longer exist

Can someone tell me the following:
1) Are my statements above true?
2) If they are true, how can anyone even remotely believe that global warming is a fact?
3) If they are true, how can anyone even say that they think significant global warming is likely?
4) Is there a database of raw global temperature readings not subject to adjustments?
5) Is the "industry" even working off a common setting of readings?

NOAA Temperature adjustments between 2000 and 2007
http://www.climateaudit.org/wp-content/uploads/2007/02/uhcn10.gif