Steve Netwriter: skeptic or denier? By John Bruno of climateshifts.org On January 2, 2010 and my reply
Steve Netwriter: skeptic or denier?
By John Bruno On January 2, 2010
Oh gosh, I didn't know John Bruno had done me the great honour of writing an article just for me
But I happened upon it late last night, and had to see what he had to say
I'll skip the long quotes, and go for the meat of the article:
Steve Netwriter asked a while back for some info about AGW:Quote:
So I ask for a list of facts supported by overwhelming evidence that are being “denied”. Just saying “AGW” will not do. I require a detailed list of facts with supporting evidence.
Now I have a very simple question.
Where is the AGW?
All I see is a natural fluctuation.?To me the IPCC charts, which only go back about 1000 years, appear to mislead because they do not put the recent temperature fluctuations into context.?Surely one must put things into context. That is after all what Phil Jones, and Michael Mann et al keep repeating in reply to accusations about their emails.
So, I have simply put the IPCC charts into context.?And I repeat
Where is the AGW?
If you claim it is there, how can it be distinguished from the natural variations?
This again is at the heart of this debate, so I am sure you can answer that easily.
This is what John Bruno had to say:
Where is the evidence for warming? There are so many places to go.
Start here: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/05/start-here/
John then includes two graphs, one from 1950, the other from 1880.
My reply to those is: wow, long timescale
I'll quote John and write my reply:
OK, now that we have established that the earth is indeed warming
Umm, well John, you see, I'm, not very confident about the sources of data and the methodology used to process that data to create those graphs. The earth may indeed be warming, whatever that means, how do you sensibly give the earth a temperature?, but I'm far from convinced that those graphs give a true and accurate picture.
why do scientists think most of the observed recent warming is being cause by human activities (e.g, greenhouse gas emissions, deforestation, industrial agriculture, etc)? Because the hypothesis is supported by theory, our knowledge of climate dynamics, past relationships between forcing factors (solar cycles, CO2 conc., etc.) and climate (via paleo-climate records), and the very strong (undeniable) observed relationship between modern CO2 concentration (i.e., increases caused by humans) and temperature.
John, it's interesting that you cite not just CO2 emissions, but "greenhouse gas emissions, deforestation, industrial agriculture, etc". Because that begs the question, how much effect does each have, including the "etc"
Does this large body of theory and evidence lead to 100% certainty? Certainly not. But it would be very hard to make a rationale, skeptical argument that there isn’t a strong likelihood that humans are in large part responsible for the recent (last ~ 100 years) warming on earth.
I agree on the certainty.
I simply ask, how large is "large"?
And since "large" isn't the whole, what else is there affecting the climate?
If one piece in this chain of evidence and logic were broken, I’d become skeptical myself. I hope that happens. Then I can get back to doing the basic science I love and to enjoying my vacation at the beach.
Well John, I don't spend a lot of time on climate these days, I also have things I'd rather be doing. I consider it a bit of a waste of my time.
Maybe the recent news out of Japan on net CO2 emissions will help both of us avoid time wasting
New Satellite Data Contradicts Carbon Dioxide Climate Theory
A previous article re John Bruno and Climateshifts.org:
Why do deniers think the earth is cooling? My reply to John Bruno et al on ClimateShifts