Dissent on AGW from the left-wing

Well, with respect, I think probably it will continue regardless of articles posted on the web-site "Social Democracy for the 21st Century". I say "probably" because, while I think there's extremely sound reasons for expecting our CO2 emissions to alter the climate's behaviour (by retaining more heat in the system), as a layperson I can't say for sure that there are not many unknowns also in play - and neither do I expect such absolute certainty about future temperatures from people who work in climate science.   But so far as I can see, each knew challenge in understanding and modelling what's happening is leading to deeper understanding. Although the article is very impressive, in the end it only comes down to the 3 points at the end:

1. A flat trend in global temperatures since 1998

2. the IPCC’s predictions for the 2000s are wrong, and

3. a major study by climate scientists attributes one third of the warming of the 1990s to water vapour and the stall in the temperature rise from 1998 to less water vapour in the atmosphere.

It seems to me that the first 2 are dealt with well at www.realclimate.org – see

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/07/warminginterrupted-much-ado-about-natural-variability/

and

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/11/busy-week-for-water-vapor/

The last point is disputed amoung climate scientists, but anyway, Easterbrook doesn't see why another factor causing a short-term cooling trend should change the basic prediction of long term warming.    I come back to the science that seems incontravertable to me:    It's a fact that different gases naturally have a “greenhouse” effect in the atmosphere”, and we have released vast amounts of CO2 into that atmosphere...   Hence the so-called greenhouse effect.

But I agree there's no need to close debate, insult dissenters, pretend we know for sure what will happen next, or invest our identities in protecting our theories or beliefs. Sometimes guilty myself, and am trying to do better!

HOWEVER – This extremely credible theory which is apparently supported by observable evidence, demands immediate political and social action as a precautionary measure – we can't really afford to stop trusting our intelligence at the very point where it is potentially going to save our species.   If we are to act as a rational society we will:

Take the warnings seriously

As a precautionary measure, change our energy source as quickly as possible

This response has many implications for the way we organise our lives (publically owned mass-transport systems, energy security, energy justice etc), and it also answers many of our other current challenges, including the urgent need to limit our poisoning and consuming of the planet as a whole.

It's necessary to take a stand and act, and the left's debate should no longer be about that, but rather about figuring exactly which path to follow in as flexible, honest, realistic and acceptable a way as possible.

I understand the feeling Biff, and I would have agreed with you a few months ago.   But the sceptics have very skillfully created the impression in the wider world that 1) The science is not settled, and 2) We campaigners have a belief, and are not open to discussion.   We need to counter this mis-representation if we want to get/keep the mass of our fellow citizens firmly on board.  The writers of such articles may or may not deserve respect, but visitors to these pages certainly DO.   Some of these are people who are sceptical because for them doubting MGW is a "convenient un-truth", but others are checking things out because they genuinely fear being bamboozled by the powers that be.   If any of us have the inclination to patiently answer the sceptics points, it will do us no harm.   Either that or we can just completely ignore them as not being appropriate items for discussion on this site.   Either way, in my opinion, it would be better to vent our impatience with such time-wasting discussions elsewhere.  AGW is real AND we live in a world where taking action on it is always going to be a political issue.   Again, recent experience shows that.   So the development of a viable political programme which can unite the maximum number of working people around combatting climate change is now essential.

"... But like the Flat Earthers, global warming deniers should be treated with the same contempt."

Biff, you do yourself no favours by donning the blinkers in this manner (open your eyes and maybe you shall learn something), nor do you win friends and influence people (and like it or not, to prevail a doctrine or cause needs to continuously recruit new membership in order to perpetuate it's core beliefs)

It's precisely this contemptable disregard for anyone who doesn't subscribe to your own belief that is alienating the agnostic general population (whose favour you rely on to have any hope of achieving the social-political influence to which you aspire) from your crusade in droves.

I want to believe in AGW, because, if it's man-made, it can be reduced. I am, however, still open-minded.

Can anyone point me to a good refutation of the arguments in "superfreakonomics" by Levitt and Dubner, namely:

 CO2 is only .04% of atmosphere.

the space between molecules is 200x their diameter

only 8% of infrared spectrum can make CO2 molecules give off heat, and only if it collides with them.

97% of the CO2 is from non-human sources.

 Apparently, James Peden has written a layman's guide to this (not read yet) at tinyurl.com/2zmvhl

Thanks.

 Stronger still since the Met Office's latest review of papers issued since the 2007 ipcc report.

I understand the feeling Biff, and I would have agreed with you a few months ago.   But the sceptics have very skillfully created the impression in the wider world that 1) The science is not settled, and 2) We campaigners have a belief, and are not open to discussion. 

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 

The skeptics have piled-on nothing but PR nonsense, blogs repeating blogs. 

Where do you document anything serious?

Science is never settled so what the hell are you talking about or trying to claim ?!

Does CO2 sequester extra heat on this planet, YES, YES, YES

Does the distribution of that heat hold mysteries and surprised, yes - but that doesn't change the physics!

Yes I am open for discussion, but you have nothing to offer but blogs of blogs, that is bs upon bs.

Come up with some climate data, have you checked out the Cryosphere lately?; How about seed planting charts?; Have you looked at any of the studies reporting biological migrations upon this little blue emerald of ours?

WHERE IS YOUR PROOF OF REASONABLE DOUBT ? ? ?