I'm sure Forbes will be called a liberal rag for printing this without caveat and without claiming that climate change is false or not human caused or even beyond repair so why worry about it. But, here it is, some basic data on climate change from a usually non-controversial source.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/petergleick/2012/01/21/2011-climate-change-in-pictures-and-data-just-the-facts/

Thanks to Tony for passing this along.

I would suggest/mention a few things here, but I have said it all before..

Lets look at BASIC info first.
The rise of industrialization around the world..  It went pretty slow in the RURAL countries for a long time.  They had no need to PUSH up production of STUFF, that they could do by HAND/GROUP awareness.  and things got done.

In the USA and Europe+UK...in the 70's there was an uproar about pollution.  IT WAS KILLING PEOPLE/fish/animals/...
We regulated it to death, and charged them for it.
so...They SHIPPED the Pollution OUT... one way or another, it WENT AWAY.(almost)

The idea that a "DOG dont SHIT in his own yard" is BASIC...but HE DID SHIT, someplace.  Just because you cant see it...dont mean its NOT THERE.
WE didnt RETRAIN the corp NOT TO SHIT in our backyard...WE didnt even set out a BOX and train him to SHIT IN THE BOX..  HE now goes over to the neighbors yard, and LEAVES PILES OF IT.

Things really changed, when we went from WOOD boxes to hold stuff, to METAL AND PLASTICS...  We use Plastics for EVERYTHING..  WHY???  leather shoes??  were great.  WOOL and cotton, were WONDERFUL..  AND DURABLE.
WE have to change the PROCESSES for using these materials.  but we dont.  BECAUSE ITS CHEAPER NOT TO.

Don't think I would accept "the facts" presented by someone who isn't impartial. 

http://www.forbes.com/sites/petergleick/2012/01/16/climate-change-disbelief-and-the-collision-between-human-and-geologic-time/

The same way I wouldn't want to be on trial and have the verdict based on "the facts" as presented by the county prosecutor.

Chin---thats about the WEAKEST response I have ever seen.  Approaches mindless lip drooling stupidity of bible quotes.

What "facts" do you disagree with?

You know==be specific.

You know what specific means right?

Pick as many as you like.  Like even one?  I'll wager the fact is you don't have a clue.

Prove me wrong?

Don't think I would accept "the facts" presented by someone who isn't impartial. 

http://www.forbes.com/sites/petergleick/2012/01/16/climate-change-disbelief-and-the-collision-between-human-and-geologic-time/

The same way I wouldn't want to be on trial and have the verdict based on "the facts" as presented by the county prosecutor.

Are you calling Forbes a left wing biased magazine? Why? Because they aren't Faux Spews?

Or, is this specific to Peter Gleick because he has written about climate change before?

Bobbo cannot call for specifics, references, or (Scott's favoirte) peer reviewed data-while going all ad hominem up in here.  This is either a debate or a cage match...but it can't be both.

Gleick is my problem, that's why I posted a link of his from only a couple of days ago.  I thought my comparison discernable, how have I been ambiguous?

Gleick is my problem, that's why I posted a link of his from only a couple of days ago.  I thought my comparison discernable, how have I been ambiguous?

Hm... Being from the other side, I didn't see anything biased in your link either. Perhaps I merely skimmed rather than poured over what was there. How about this? Point to something specific that he said in either article that shows bias. Then we can go from there. Be prepared to back up why you think it is biased with real unbiased data, preferably peer reviewed, or a reputable news source summary of something peer reviewed that explicitly mentions the study so we can check on the bias of your author.

Whats this "bias" BS?  A fact is a fact.  It might be wrong or false but the bias "I" have in setting forth the fact is irrelevant.  What is a claim of bias but a form of ad hominem attack?  Hitler had no balls but he made the trains run on time.  Fact:  Hitler is biased.  Fact:  either the trains ran on time or they didn't.  Claiming a train was 5 minutes late because Hitler has no balls is rather idiotic.  Know what I mean?

Most complaints against AGW do not reveal a bias but rather represent stupidity and lack of logic amounting to false facts.

Chin:  prove me wrong.  Make an actual substantive statement.  I "implore" you to do this.  Every fact you correct only makes your opponents argument stronger or weaker, a change if you will, all dependent on the remaining body of evidence.   Evidence:  once again, the bias may be assumed as always present one way or another but the facts will shine through.

Shine baby shine.

Scott:  stop skimming and start perusing.

Scott:  stop skimming and start perusing.

Ack. Done.

thatsmychin,

Presumably, what you have a problem with is the reference to this peer reviewed study showing that nearly all (~97%) of publishing climate researchers agree that anthropogenic climate change is real. That's not bias. That's fact. The 2-3% who disagree just get a lot of airplay in the mainstream media because of the perceived need to get someone who does and someone who does not believe ACC is real in order to present balance. The problem is that there is no balance. Hardly any climate researchers really doubt ACC. Those who do, like Richard Lindzen, are mostly proven industry shills. But, I suspect you ignore their bias.

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/06/04/1003187107

Scott--I messed that up.  I meant to say "rather than pour over, you should peruse"  of course in reference to your excellent post on words often misused.  Your skimming usually evidences greater comprehension and retention than my own perusing.  The only exception I would mention just to establish my factual approach to this compliment is when it comes to the flexibility involved in approaching a subject with a given definition.  And if that destroys the compliment, then never forget, we could both be wrong in some aspect neither of us recognizes.  We might be ...........  biased.

Scott--I messed that up.  I meant to say "rather than pour over, you should peruse"  of course in reference to your excellent post on words often misused.

I thought about using peruse in that context and would have if I were typing to you. However, I figured sin it is such a frequently misused word, using it correctly with someone who did not participate in the prior discussion could just cause confusion.

Your skimming usually evidences greater comprehension and retention than my own perusing.  The only exception I would mention just to establish my factual approach to this compliment is when it comes to the flexibility involved in approaching a subject with a given definition.  And if that destroys the compliment, then never forget, we could both be wrong in some aspect neither of us recognizes.  We might be ...........  biased.

I'll take the compliment and acknowledge that I may be set in my ways. Of course, we're both biased to some extent. We're both humans. I think you are and hope that I am less biased than most and more willing to acknowledge when I am.

That said, yes, I am rigid about using words as they are defined in the dictionary. I may be wrong about the definition at times, but do believe that it is one way to avoid a lot of confusion.

Not climate change but "close."  "Prophets of Doom" a two hour show on the History Channel--much better than I thought it would be.  Fell on it by channel surfing and just had a 10 minute section of water shortages we are in now.  New fact:  as we reuse our fresh water/recycle our waste water who knows what the "down stream" effects will be?  For instance:  we now find caffeine in fish.  Our water treatment plants don't filter out caffeine.  Maybe its harmless, maybe not.  I did know that drugs, both legal and illegal, are in our water now and that drug usage can be closely estimated for a city by testing its waste water, but I hadn't heard of caffeine before.  I have to admit I thought reverse osmosis would take that stuff out===but OBVIOUSLY not.  Have to go to expensive distillation processes?

I think we are all going to see it in our lifetimes:  the first hard touches of global collapse, the first full turn of the downward spiral?  Even now, its predicted the generation being born right now will not live as long as we do.  Bad diet, pollution, bad life style.  ((Late Edit:  From a different source, the Japanese are expecting continued life expectancy extensions, so the decline may be only USA/some others?  Japan to decline in population by 40% as well.  Not an easy ocean to cross there.  I wonder if they will finally encourage immigration:  all that empty housing?))

Yeap----something to contemplate.

Edit--and the show continues:  USA reached peak oil in 1970=10MM Barrels.  Down to 5 MM now.  World Peak Oil is right about now +/- a decade from now.  With growing demand, how will the decrease in supplies be dealt with?  The point earlier in the show and not connected directly here is that our use of energy and energy technology verges on what could be thought of as "magic."  Magic made possible by energy, energy by oil.

Yes, we are going to see the first real shocks in our lifetimes.  Think I'll stock up on red wine while it is still available and can age, to toast the apocalypse when it comes.  Not gonna fight for survival--just drink out the end.

I guess I need to remember that we (you two and I) are coming from different corners, and percieve things very differently.  Even things as small as a couple of words, "The Facts".  I expected a small degree of impartiality, maybe a concession here or there, or "We still don't fully understand...a,b, or c...but data suggests...."  Gleick's article suggests climate science is the most definitive field in the history of science!

The link to Gleick's previous article was only to show that he is not impartial, and didn't write the later article in response to a 'come to Jesus' moment (like I said, I was expecting a "whoa, this guy is on the level....just the facts).

I didn't post to rebut his facts, but rather what my metaphor implied.  A 'prosecutor' is not going to include facts that do not support his/her case, s/he is not going to present the facts in a way that seems inconseqential, s/he is going to manipulate scale and depth to convince the jury that the facts definitively show the defendant is guilty.

I guess I could point out where I find problems with the facts as 'presented' by Gleik....but I literally don't have the time in my day to take on the burden of response/rebut to Scott's verbose debate behaviour (notice I didn't use the word tactic) once we've carried on for 2 or 3 days.

Sorry thatsmychin. I'm just verbose all the time, debating or not. I'm sort of known for it, and not always positively. But, it's part of who I am.

Your tactic of claiming that facts are not facts but are instead biased and then giving no examples at all leaves at least as much to be desired as mine. Your tactic is to simply state that facts aren't and then walk away as if you've made some point.

You haven't.

I'll leave this post brief out of respect (or at least mock-respect) and say again, please state at least one point that Gleick made that you feel is biased, preferably in the article claiming to be the facts.

Scotty--I think you read too fast and are being WAAAAAYYYYYYY too polite.  Chin is being a complete turd:  "I didn't post to rebut his facts, but rather what my metaphor implied."  He doesn't have the time to even suggest what the incorrect facts are much less provide any link in support of such a claim.

He doesn't even recognize that if he is completely wrong on the subject then he would have no facts himself and could take comfort only in HIS OWN BIAS, and his own Bullshit.  Without any opposing facts, all we can assume is Bullshit.  His self centered idiocy certainly smells like bullshit.

If one is a qualified scientist and offers up a totally accurate scientific paper, what "balance" is required?  2+2 is 4 but to placate my nay sayers who don't have the time to look up opposing facts and think this statement is therefore biased, let me admit that some tarot card readers, astrologists, numerologists and other flim flam artists do like to take in the yokels by claiming that 2 + 2 is 3 or 4 plus or minus 2 depending on how much silver crosses their palm.

What a dolt......I think you've gotten too used to being polite to me and my ravings?  I've led you astray!!!  I apologize.  (ha, ha!)