[Falcon] Re: Global Mean Temperature

[Einhander Sn0m4n]

I don't believe in global warming, certainly not that it could be such a disaster, thus I don't like the premise for the entire story.

That's your opinion. It doesn't have the weight of scientific evidence, unlike climate research. Where is the evidence you base your opinion on?

Despite that I wanted to acknowledge the writer's style and ability.

I'm sure he'll appreciate your compliment.

I hardly expect that the author wants a huge debate about global warming cluttering up the story thread.

Then why the fuck did you contradict yourself by posting such inflammatory shit in the first place? You're perfectly capable of giving your thoughts on the writing style and other mechanics aspects without lambasting the premise of the story.

You'll notice I pointedly decided to start a new thread to alleviate just the consideration you brought up.

[Kittie Rose]

I'm getting tired of "I don't believe in X!"

[Einhander Sn0m4n]

Okay, that was completely unnecessary.

[Falcon]

I don't believe in global warming, certainly not that it could be such a disaster, thus I don't like the premise for the entire story.

That's your opinion. It doesn't have the weight of scientific evidence, unlike climate research. Where is the evidence you base your opinion on?

Even the worst case scenarios that I've seen never come close to the kind of global destruction described in the story. So just pick any science you want and the story is still premised on extreme alarmism that is just too fanciful to make a good story in my opinion.

As for why I don't believe in global warming, I don't think that the science supports the conclusions. The dissent makes a compelling argument on several fronts, such as the notion that solar activity is far more crucial in driving the climate than CO2 levels. (http://www.sciencebits.com/CO2orSolar) Then there is the discrepancy between the surface record and the satellite record. (http://www.john-daly.com/ges/surftmp/surftemp.htm)

There have also been a lot of political questions raised that throw suspicion on the motivations of the main proponents of the pro-global warming advocates. Global warming seems to have become a major haven for anti-capitalists. (http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=15197). The global warming industry reaps billions of dollars a year (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases ... 70202.html) now so they have a significant financial incentive along with an ideological incentive to weave alarmist global warming theories regardless of what the science says.

So whether its science or politics, I think there's good reason to be skeptical of global warming.

I hardly expect that the author wants a huge debate about global warming cluttering up the story thread.

Then why the fuck did you contradict yourself by posting such inflammatory shit in the first place? You're perfectly capable of giving your thoughts on the writing style and other mechanics aspects without lambasting the premise of the story.

You'll notice I pointedly decided to start a new thread to alleviate just the consideration you brought up.

Forgive me for assuming that someone could state an opinion without being ambushed by the PC police. I voiced my disapproval at the premise for the story because the premise is in fact a key component of the story. I thought that the author would want to know that his choice of premise might impede the message he is trying to get across to the reader.

[Einhander Sn0m4n]

First off, I highly don't appreciate your decision to disable the links. It's rude and makes your argument that much more annoying to deal with. Perhaps that's your intent?


Second off, your evidence trends upward in CO2, temperature, and volatility across the board. Global warming is real. Whether it's the Sun or anthropogenic CO2 causing it is irrelevant; it is real and needs to be researched and fixed, not obfuscated by monied interests and ignored. There is proof that A> CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and B> Humans are very good at making it. Hell, your Whitehouse.gov (I'll repeat that again: WHITE FUCKING HOUSE DOT GOV!) link acknowleges the reality of climate change!

The United States joined 112 other nations in finalizing and approving a landmark climate change science report today in Paris, France. Working Group I of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) acted to finalize its contribution to the IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report. The Fourth Assessment Report, consisting of three Working Group contributions and a Synthesis Report, will be released in the fall. The Working Group I portion of the Assessment Report released today represents a comprehensive assessment of the most recent state of knowledge of the physical science of climate change. A Summary for Policymakers, which is a condensed summary of the Working Group I assessment was approved on a line-by line basis by the participating nations over this past week and released in Paris today. The last IPCC assessment of the physical science aspects of climate change was issued in 2001.

"This Summary for Policymakers captures and summarizes the current state of climate science research and will serve as a valuable source of information for policymakers," said Dr. Sharon Hays, the leader of the U.S. delegation at the meeting and Associate Director/Deputy Director for Science at the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy. "It reflects the sizeable and robust body of knowledge regarding the physical science of climate change, including the finding that the Earth is warming and that human activities have very likely caused most of the warming of the last 50 years."

The United States has played a leading role in advancing climate science and observations. Since 2001, the President has devoted nearly $29 billion to climate-related science, technology, international assistance, and incentive programs. Since 2002, the President has spent nearly $9 billion on climate science research -leading the world with unparalleled financial commitment.

These investments have played a key role in enabling the research results summarized in the IPCC Working Group I report. The U.S. delegation to the Working Group I meeting included climate science experts from the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), the Department of Commerce's National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and the U.S. Department of State. The delegation's participation in the meeting followed significant U.S. involvement in the generation of the report, as numerous U.S. climate scientists were involved in its drafting and expert review. In addition, a NOAA climate expert, Dr. Susan Solomon, a senior scientist at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Earth System Research Laboratory in Boulder, Colorado served as co-chair of Working Group I.

The IPCC was established under the auspices of the United Nations Environmental Programme and the World Meteorological Organization to periodically undertake comprehensive and objective assessments of scientific and technical aspects of climate change. The first IPCC Assessment Report was completed in 1990, the second in 1995, and the third in 2001. Today's Working Group I summary represents the first of the current series of three reports, and is focused on the physical science basis of climate change. IPCC's Working Group II meets in Brussels in April to issue a Summary for Policy Makers on climate change impacts, adaptation and vulnerability issues. Working Group III will meet in Bangkok in May to consider a summary report on technical aspects of climate change actions.

IPCC reports are drafted and reviewed by several hundred scientists who are leading experts in their fields from around the world, and contain extensive scientific and technical information and analysis. The drafts go through both expert and government reviews. U.S. government scientists led the U.S. review of the draft, and provided an opportunity through the Federal Register for citizens in the United States to provide expert comments in preparation for this review.

# # #

Third off, this whole bullshit assertion of yours to the effect GW is being used to kill capitalism is seriously damaging your credibility in this matter. No one but oil-industry stooges and blind-faith Bushies believes that GW is a Communist/Terrorist/Dirty-Fucking-Hippie/Etc. plot. Capitalism's main attraction after the possibility of getting filthy rich is its robust adaptability and evolution in the face of change. Communism, feudalism, and all those other bullshit command-economic systems do not react anywhere as well to change as capitalism does.


Last but not least, cry me a fucking river. You can comment on the diction, mechanics, and plot development without casting aspersions on the content of the plot. So long as it's self-consistent, there's no reason to badmouth the story just because you reject the plot premise out of hand. It's like saying Star Trek or Star Wars is written extremely badly because warp drive and turbolasers are beyond the limits of our current scientific knowledge. As for your statement of opinion, you have a right to free speech, but you have a right to be offended by someone else's free speech if they exercise their right to be offended at yours. Don't presume to waive the rights of others. It makes you look exactly like an arrogant child who didn't get his way.

[Kittie Rose]

Communism, feudalism, and all those other bullshit command-economic systems do not react anywhere as well to change as capitalism does.

No, they just make solving proverty and class divide issues practical impossible.

I agree with the sentiment on global warming but don't see the point of dragging this into it, even if he mentioned it.

[Einhander Sn0m4n]

Communism, feudalism, and all those other bullshit command-economic systems do not react anywhere as well to change as capitalism does.

No, they just make solving proverty and class divide issues practical impossible.

That's a way they stifle economic evolution and change.

I agree with the sentiment on global warming

No problem then.

but don't see the point of dragging this into it, even if he mentioned it.

That's EXACTLY why it was dragged in here!

[Falcon]

First off, I highly don't appreciate your decision to disable the links. It's rude and makes your argument that much more annoying to deal with. Perhaps that's your intent?

I didn't intentionally disable links; I'm used to forums that automatically translate urls into clickable links.

Second off, your evidence trends upward in CO2, temperature, and volatility across the board. Global warming is real. Whether it's the Sun or anthropogenic CO2 causing it is irrelevant; it is real and needs to be researched and fixed, not obfuscated by monied interests and ignored. There is proof that A> CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and B> Humans are very good at making it. Hell, your Whitehouse.gov (I'll repeat that again: WHITE FUCKING HOUSE DOT GOV!) link acknowleges the reality of climate change!

What, we're appealing to authority now? I thought the whole point of this rediculous thread was that you didn't like me stating an opinion without backing it up, but now you want to take something the Bush administration says on face value? If you want to argue the scientific merits of global warming that's fine. Saying that the Bush admin "admits" it doesn't cut it. You also seem to have ignored the true substance of my post. I cannot fathom why, you started this.

Third off, this whole bullshit assertion of yours to the effect GW is being used to kill capitalism is seriously damaging your credibility in this matter. No one but oil-industry stooges and blind-faith Bushies believes that GW is a Communist/Terrorist/Dirty-Fucking-Hippie/Etc. plot.

What is that? Is that the very kind of baseless claim that you started this whole thread to wail on me about? I think it is. You haven't even attempted to show that only industry stooges or "blind-faith Bushies" believe that global warming has real credibility problems (you apparently have a five second memory; we just covered that Bush agrees global warming is a problem and funds it to the hilt). If you want to look at who pours more money into what I think you'll find that pro-global warming industry gets far more money than the dissenters. The dissenters all get brow beaten if they dare disagree with global warming in any shape, matter, or form, no matter how based in science or how reasonable.

http://www.cei.org/pdf/5791.pdf
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCulture.asp? ... 0208c.html

People blaming capitalism for global warming.

http://socialismandliberation.org/mag/index.php?aid=761
http://www.socialistparty.net/pub/pages/viewwin05/1.htm

Capitalism's main attraction after the possibility of getting filthy rich is its robust adaptability and evolution in the face of change. Communism, feudalism, and all those other bullshit command-economic systems do not react anywhere as well to change as capitalism does.

Most of the proposals to "fixing" global warming include some kind of anti-capitalist scheme like energy taxes, forced emissions reductions, forced purchase of pollution credits to redistribute wealth to the undeveloped world, etc...

Last but not least, cry me a fucking river. You can comment on the diction, mechanics, and plot development without casting aspersions on the content of the plot. So long as it's self-consistent, there's no reason to badmouth the story just because you reject the plot premise out of hand. It's like saying Star Trek or Star Wars is written extremely badly because warp drive and turbolasers are beyond the limits of our current scientific knowledge. As for your statement of opinion, you have a right to free speech, but you have a right to be offended by someone else's free speech if they exercise their right to be offended at yours. Don't presume to waive the rights of others. It makes you look exactly like an arrogant child who didn't get his way.

Your analogy is not apt. Internal consistency is important to any plot, but if you use a plot that contains current political overtones then you risk turning off the individuals who you may most desire to communicate with. The only one who risks appearing churlish is the person belligerently spoiling for a fight over nothing.

[Surlethe]

Even the worst case scenarios that I've seen never come close to the kind of global destruction described in the story.

Did you read the link I posted on the first page of the thread? It describes a relatively improbable worst-case scenario, but a worst-case scenario nonetheless, and one with destruction that's actually worse than the climate in my story.

So just pick any science you want and the story is still premised on extreme alarmism that is just too fanciful to make a good story in my opinion.

Do you judge all stories by the fancy of their premises? Surely you don't think Star Wars is premised on extreme technology that is just too fanciful to make a good story, do you?

[Singular Quartet]

Not to dogpile, just responding before Einny.

Your comments about "Solar cycles" are complete bullshit.

This is a graph of the CO2 levels in Earth's atompshere for the past 400,000 years (It's read from right to left, rather than left to right) You'll note that we're about 100 parts per million of CO2 above everything in the last near half-million years. There's a few other charts that cover the full 650,000 years that antartic core drilling allows for, and all of them are the same: The same cycle that's repeated, not even reaching 300 ppm. I sadly can't find it, but Al Gore's movie An Inconvient Truth, in the opening thirty minutes or so, has a very nice graphic overlaying tempature change and CO2 that follow each other very clearly.

As to your statements as to science being out: This is a falsehood. Science has never questioned the existence of global warming (There's never been a publishing in a peer-reviewed journal) and the debate as to what's causing it has pretty much ended... in the scientific community. In the political arena, there's plenty of debate, because that's where everybody who likes their profit margins can make the debate.

You have this annoying assumption that scientists have the money to fake all of this evidence. This is wrong. They don't have the money. Most science comes from government grants, corporate grants, universities, and the like. Science doesn't make money unless it's in big business, where the company owns your work.

In essence: The "enviornmentalist lobby" doesn't have the money to wage a propaganda war. They do, however, have the facts.

[Falcon]

Even the worst case scenarios that I've seen never come close to the kind of global destruction described in the story.

Did you read the link I posted on the first page of the thread? It describes a relatively improbable worst-case scenario, but a worst-case scenario nonetheless, and one with destruction that's actually worse than the climate in my story.

I should have said "realistic" worst case scenarios. I see no reason to count any scenario that the imagination can come up with.

So just pick any science you want and the story is still premised on extreme alarmism that is just too fanciful to make a good story in my opinion.

Do you judge all stories by the fancy of their premises? Surely you don't think Star Wars is premised on extreme technology that is just too fanciful to make a good story, do you?

I don't think that Star Wars' premise interferes with its ability to tell the story that it wants to tell. Your premise on the other hand is politically charged and saps my will to read your story. As a skeptic of global warming I suspect that I would be the type of person you would want your message to reach, but I guess I was wrong. Carry on.

Not to dogpile, just responding before Einny.

Your comments about "Solar cycles" are complete bullshit.

This is a graph of the CO2 levels in Earth's atompshere for the past 400,000 years (It's read from right to left, rather than left to right) You'll note that we're about 100 parts per million of CO2 above everything in the last near half-million years. There's a few other charts that cover the full 650,000 years that antartic core drilling allows for, and all of them are the same: The same cycle that's repeated, not even reaching 300 ppm. I sadly can't find it, but Al Gore's movie An Inconvient Truth, in the opening thirty minutes or so, has a very nice graphic overlaying tempature change and CO2 that follow each other very clearly.

That hardly establishes that CO2 is responsible for whatever warming and not some other mechanism. The climate, driven by some other mechanism, could easily be driving CO2 levels rather than the other way around like Gore claims. That is precisely the point I made earlier with this website. http://www.sciencebits.com/CO2orSolar

Solar activity can explain a large part of the 20th century global warming, on condition that there is a strong solar/climate link through modulation of the cosmic ray flux and the atmospheric ionization. Evidence for such a link has been accumulating over the past decade, and by now, it is unlikely that it does not exist.

As to your statements as to science being out: This is a falsehood. Science has never questioned the existence of global warming (There's never been a publishing in a peer-reviewed journal) and the debate as to what's causing it has pretty much ended... in the scientific community. In the political arena, there's plenty of debate, because that's where everybody who likes their profit margins can make the debate.

I disagree; there are plenty of scientists out there producing things like the recent documentary that aired on Channel 4 in england and there's a whole list of dissenters on wiki. Just because most dissenters get brow beaten, shunned, and stifled doesn't mean that they don't have valid points of view.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sc ... _consensus

You have this annoying assumption that scientists have the money to fake all of this evidence. This is wrong. They don't have the money. Most science comes from government grants, corporate grants, universities, and the like. Science doesn't make money unless it's in big business, where the company owns your work.

Those billions the government spends every year go somewhere. Since its being used to fund global warming research it stands to reason that it goes to pay the salaries of scientists who are working on global warming. If global warming went away then those scientists would need to find different work as those billions in government funds disappear. That is at least some incentive to look really really hard for global warming with implications against mankind so that they can do additional research next year, and the next, and so forth.

In essence: The "enviornmentalist lobby" doesn't have the money to wage a propaganda war. They do, however, have the facts.

Simple observation of the nightly news with its unending stream of hollywood stars, singers, etc... tells you that this isn't correct. This is a multi-billion dollar undertaking that incorporates government and special interests who have rather successfully shouted down everyone who disagrees with them.

[Falcon]

Hm, I posted too quickly and there's no way to edit. Hopefully everyone can tell how that was supposed to turn out.

[Darth Wong]

Wow, the "list of scientists opposing X" argument style. It's not like I haven't heard this idiocy before, from creationists. Whoops, you're one of those too, aren't you?

Find me peer-reviewed scientific articles disputing global warming, and then you'll have something. Otherwise you're just spouting hot air. Scientists who spout opinions but won't dare submit an actual paper for peer review are like doctors who smoke cigarettes: not a valid basis of a contrarian argument. Even they know deep down that their opinions are worthless, otherwise they would be submitting real papers instead of putting their names on Wikipedia.

[Surlethe]

I should have said "realistic" worst case scenarios. I see no reason to count any scenario that the imagination can come up with.

Since when have worst-case scenarios been "realistic"? They're the worst case; they're not actually considered what'll probably happen.

I don't think that Star Wars' premise interferes with its ability to tell the story that it wants to tell. Your premise on the other hand is politically charged and saps my will to read your story.

That says more about your ability to suspend disbelief than anything else. In any case, I expect any intelligent reader to realize a couple of things: "global warming is bad!" is not the chief theme of the story; and that civilization being wiped out and humanity reduced to several millions eking out survival is almost absolute worst-case. Also, I'd expect them not to (EDIT -- goddamn it, I fucking forgot to finish this sentence) think that a work of fiction contains realistically accurate climate science, especially when climate science is not the point of the story.

As a skeptic of global warming I suspect that I would be the type of person you would want your message to reach, but I guess I was wrong. Carry on.

What do you think my chief message is, that global warming is bad? I could have set the story on any post-Apocalyptic Earth, but global warming happened to fire my imagination, and I like deserts, so it was this particular climate scenario I chose.

In any case, you seem to assume that I have some sort of agenda to push about global warming in the story, some sort of message to get across about climate change. Why is that?

[Falcon]

Wow, the "list of scientists opposing X" argument style. It's not like I haven't heard this idiocy before, from creationists. Whoops, you're one of those too, aren't you?

Find me peer-reviewed scientific articles disputing global warming, and then you'll have something. Otherwise you're just spouting hot air. Scientists who spout opinions but won't dare submit an actual paper for peer review are like doctors who smoke cigarettes: not a valid basis of a contrarian argument. Even they know deep down that their opinions are worthless, otherwise they would be submitting real papers instead of putting their names on Wikipedia.

Of course, it's always best to trust peer-reviewed science over research which hasn't come under the same scrutiny, but is peer review always fair? An April, 2006 editorial in the Wall Street Journal from Richard Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT, included this paragraph expressing his own frustration at the peer review process:



And then there are the peculiar standards in place in scientific journals for articles submitted by those who raise questions about accepted climate wisdom. At Science and Nature, such papers are commonly refused without review as being without interest. However, even when such papers are published, standards shift. When I, with some colleagues at NASA, attempted to determine how clouds behave under varying temperatures, we discovered what we called an "Iris Effect," wherein upper-level cirrus clouds contracted with increased temperature, providing a very strong negative climate feedback sufficient to greatly reduce the response to increasing CO2. Normally, criticism of papers appears in the form of letters to the journal to which the original authors can respond immediately. However, in this case (and others) a flurry of hastily prepared papers appeared, claiming errors in our study, with our responses delayed months and longer. The delay permitted our paper to be commonly referred to as "discredited." Indeed, there is a strange reluctance to actually find out how climate really behaves. In 2003, when the draft of the U.S. National Climate Plan urged a high priority for improving our knowledge of climate sensitivity, the National Research Council instead urged support to look at the impacts of the warming--not whether it would actually happen.

Mr. Lindzen is criticized by some for taking consulting fees from oil and gas interests.

http://global-warming.accuweather.com/skeptics/
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id ... _article=1

Concludes Lord Monckton, "I challenge you to withdraw or resign because
your letter is the latest in what appears to be an internationally-coordinated
series of maladroit and malevolent attempts to silence the voices of
scientists and others who have sound grounds, rooted firmly in the peer-
reviewed scientific literature, to question what you would have us believe is
the unanimous agreement of scientists worldwide that global warming will lead
to what you excitedly but unjustifiably call 'disastrous' and 'calamitous'
consequences."

That being said, here is a peer-reviewed article that looks at solar activity as being responsible for up to 50% of the observed global warming since 1900. http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2006/2 ... 7142.shtml

That article emerged from a Senate committee website in case you want to see it in context and for links to other related findings, though not peer reviewed to my knowledge.

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm? ... 381DE894CD

[Admiral Valdemar]

Svensmark's and any other cosmic ray or solar cycle papers are invalid as there is NO causal link. They are merely thinking aloud or being disingenuous, which has led to subsequent papers addressing their findings. The IPCC reports certainly don't even touch such issues because they are non-issues.

As for Lord Monckton, I think listening to him would be rather like listening to a plumber on what to do with a faulty gas turbine in a fighter jet. His opinion is worthy very little, not even being an elected member of any House in Parliament. A conservative aristocrat who thinks his voice trumps reason? Say it ain't so.

Lindzen's predictions on global warming have already been surpassed. Shows what he knows about anything climatological.

[Falcon]

I should have said "realistic" worst case scenarios. I see no reason to count any scenario that the imagination can come up with.

Since when have worst-case scenarios been "realistic"? They're the worst case; they're not actually considered what'll probably happen.

I consider worst case to be what is the worst thing that could probably happen. You don't. Misunderstanding over.

I don't think that Star Wars' premise interferes with its ability to tell the story that it wants to tell. Your premise on the other hand is politically charged and saps my will to read your story.

That says more about your ability to suspend disbelief than anything else. In any case, I expect any intelligent reader to realize a couple of things: "global warming is bad!" is not the chief theme of the story; and that civilization being wiped out and humanity reduced to several millions eking out survival is almost absolute worst-case. Also, I'd expect them not to

Except that I felt you stretched it to a point that the message was lost. At least, it was lost to me. I thought you might be interested in that kind of feedback. I suppose not.

As a skeptic of global warming I suspect that I would be the type of person you would want your message to reach, but I guess I was wrong. Carry on.

What do you think my chief message is, that global warming is bad? I could have set the story on any post-Apocalyptic Earth, but global warming happened to fire my imagination, and I like deserts, so it was this particular climate scenario I chose.

In any case, you seem to assume that I have some sort of agenda to push about global warming in the story, some sort of message to get across about climate change. Why is that?

You just said that the message you're trying to get across is "global warming is bad" so my assumption was correct. I said that I felt the premise of your story interfered with that message. I fail to see what the problem is.

[Falcon]

Svensmark's and any other cosmic ray or solar cycle papers are invalid as there is NO causal link. They are merely thinking aloud or being disingenuous, which has led to subsequent papers addressing their findings. The IPCC reports certainly don't even touch such issues because they are non-issues.

As for Lord Monckton, I think listening to him would be rather like listening to a plumber on what to do with a faulty gas turbine in a fighter jet. His opinion is worthy very little, not even being an elected member of any House in Parliament. A conservative aristocrat who thinks his voice trumps reason? Say it ain't so.

Lindzen's predictions on global warming have already been surpassed. Shows what he knows about anything climatological.

The IPCC doesn't want to mention solar causes because then they have no basis for all the political agendas that they're pushing. None of that matters though because for you people the debate is over, its time to jump off the cliff. Any dissent is met with fiat statements and a dogpile too massive for one person to ever hope to combat. Demands for evidence are given with grins because all contrary evidence is simply banished by decree from the orthadoxy that holds all reasonable debate hostage with paranoia and name calling. All I can say is that those of you who have drunk this kool-aid so greedily will deserve what you get when human advancement is ground to a halt by draconian energy policies.

[Admiral Valdemar]

The IPCC doesn't want to mention solar causes because then they have no basis for all the political agendas that they're pushing.

Source for this otherwise baseless assertion?

None of that matters though because for you people the debate is over, its time to jump off the cliff. Any dissent is met with fiat statements and a dogpile too massive for one person to ever hope to combat. Demands for evidence are given with grins because all contrary evidence is simply banished by decree from the orthadoxy that holds all reasonable debate hostage with paranoia and name calling. All I can say is that those of you who have drunk this kool-aid so greedily will deserve what you get when human advancement is ground to a halt by draconian energy policies.

Haha, you make Valdemar laugh. It's not as fun to imagine the planet fighting back and becoming a real threat, as opposed to God, terrorists or commies. I think you're just being a spoilsport, not enjoying the fact that a real threat of Armageddon is fast approaching and nothing your cutesy little army has can stop it.

You shall be the first against the wall when the Evil Liberal Conspiracy takes over when we scare enough people into voting us in power to save them from our concocted "global warming" threat.

Is that last paragraph what you wanted to hear, hmm?

[Falcon]

The IPCC doesn't want to mention solar causes because then they have no basis for all the political agendas that they're pushing.

Source for this otherwise baseless assertion?

Where were the sources for your baseless assertions in the post before this one?

None of that matters though because for you people the debate is over, its time to jump off the cliff. Any dissent is met with fiat statements and a dogpile too massive for one person to ever hope to combat. Demands for evidence are given with grins because all contrary evidence is simply banished by decree from the orthadoxy that holds all reasonable debate hostage with paranoia and name calling. All I can say is that those of you who have drunk this kool-aid so greedily will deserve what you get when human advancement is ground to a halt by draconian energy policies.

Haha, you make Valdemar laugh. It's not as fun to imagine the planet fighting back and becoming a real threat, as opposed to God, terrorists or commies. I think you're just being a spoilsport, not enjoying the fact that a real threat of Armageddon is fast approaching and nothing your cutesy little army has can stop it.

You shall be the first against the wall when the Evil Liberal Conspiracy takes over when we scare enough people into voting us in power to save them from our concocted "global warming" threat.

Is that last paragraph what you wanted to hear, hmm?

Yawn, your taunts would be enjoyable if not for the idiotic policy implications behind them.

[Surlethe]

That says more about your ability to suspend disbelief than anything else. In any case, I expect any intelligent reader to realize a couple of things: "global warming is bad!" is not the chief theme of the story; and that civilization being wiped out and humanity reduced to several millions eking out survival is almost absolute worst-case. Also, I'd expect them not to

Except that I felt you stretched it to a point that the message was lost. At least, it was lost to me. I thought you might be interested in that kind of feedback. I suppose not.

I am interested in the feedback; I'll make use of it, just as I'll take into account criticisms of the bad science in the story. I am, however, curious how the story's theme was lost when I've only barely begun to introduce it (calling it a "message" is stretching it, IMNSHO).

What do you think my chief message is, that global warming is bad? I could have set the story on any post-Apocalyptic Earth, but global warming happened to fire my imagination, and I like deserts, so it was this particular climate scenario I chose.

In any case, you seem to assume that I have some sort of agenda to push about global warming in the story, some sort of message to get across about climate change. Why is that?

You just said that the message you're trying to get across is "global warming is bad" so my assumption was correct. I said that I felt the premise of your story interfered with that message. I fail to see what the problem is.

The problem is that "global warming is bad" is not the main message (if you want to call it a message) I'm trying to get across. As I've been saying, "global warming is bad" is an auxiliary message, which means that it's not important, and it's not the theme, as you keep assuming it is. In fact, the story is not at all agenda-driven; I'm curious for some justification for your assumption of that.

[Admiral Valdemar]

Where were the sources for your baseless assertions in the post before this one?

Lindzen's credibility flawed.

Lindzen being a dishonest little twat.

Svensmark paper debunked.

And I don't even need to say anything on the good Lord, for he is a) not a scientist, b) likely has good stakes within Big Oil, knowing most aristocrats.

Yawn, your taunts would be enjoyable if not for the idiotic policy implications behind them.

I didn't dictate any policy, my good friend. I was simply mocking you.

[Darth Wong]

Of course, it's always best to trust peer-reviewed science over research which hasn't come under the same scrutiny, but is peer review always fair? An April, 2006 editorial in the Wall Street Journal from Richard Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT, included this paragraph expressing his own frustration at the peer review process:

And then there are the peculiar standards in place in scientific journals for articles submitted by those who raise questions about accepted climate wisdom. At Science and Nature, such papers are commonly refused without review as being without interest. However, even when such papers are published, standards shift. When I, with some colleagues at NASA, attempted to determine how clouds behave under varying temperatures, we discovered what we called an "Iris Effect," wherein upper-level cirrus clouds contracted with increased temperature, providing a very strong negative climate feedback sufficient to greatly reduce the response to increasing CO2. Normally, criticism of papers appears in the form of letters to the journal to which the original authors can respond immediately. However, in this case (and others) a flurry of hastily prepared papers appeared, claiming errors in our study, with our responses delayed months and longer. The delay permitted our paper to be commonly referred to as "discredited." Indeed, there is a strange reluctance to actually find out how climate really behaves. In 2003, when the draft of the U.S. National Climate Plan urged a high priority for improving our knowledge of climate sensitivity, the National Research Council instead urged support to look at the impacts of the warming--not whether it would actually happen.

Mr. Lindzen is criticized by some for taking consulting fees from oil and gas interests.

So an industry-paid shill says that the scientific peer-review process is biased, and we're supposed to be bowled over by this?

That being said, here is a peer-reviewed article that looks at solar activity as being responsible for up to 50% of the observed global warming since 1900.

I thought you were trying to imply that such papers were being censored by an evil global conspiracy of dishonest scientists. Why didn't they censor this one?

PS. It's intriguing to think that much of the climate-change could have been caused by solar variations, but that in no way refutes the connection between greenhouse gases and climate. The greenhouse effect is well-researched and the underlying optical mechanism is rock-solid. It does have an effect, and saying that there could be other contributing mechanisms does precisely nothing to change that fact. Even if there are no problems whatsoever with this recent paper's conclusions and we take their worst-case scenario (ironically, after your blanket dismissal of worst-case scenarios earlier), it still means that we have to address the greenhouse-gas situation because we certainly can't do anything about the Sun.

[Admiral Valdemar]

What? No "Mars is warming up too, so it can't be mankind" arguments? I'm disappointed.

[Darth Wong]

You see the same thing with the AIDS skeptics: refute the idea that X causes Y by showing that there could be other contributing factors, even though the fact that X causes Y is not refuted at all by this.