Are people who don't accept the reality of global warming the same people who....?

Doctors can't get to take their blood pressure medication?



Doctors have a hard time getting some patients to take blood pressure medications consistently. These patients don't see any obvious and dramatic benefits, so they don't take it consistently (which is very important). Some may even stop taking it..



High blood pressure doesn't make you feel bad, which is why everyone needs routine testing. So patients don't feel "better" on medication, it just changes some numbers on a blood pressure test. AND dramatically lowers the risk of heart attack, stroke, etc., of course. Which is why people SHOULD take it when prescribed.



Most people don't "see" global warming, unless they're maple syrup farmers in Vermont, hunters in Maine, or something like that. The risks are only some numbers changing on a chart, and changing pretty slowly, a few hundredths of a degree per year. The change is pretty much swamped out by variations in weather they DO notice.



I've thought that if a serious "skeptic" here (like Meadow), got a degree in science, her attitude would no doubt change a great deal. Global warming is the epitome of a "data driven" science. The proof of global warming frequently demanded here is in the data. The rhetoric of the "skeptics" may appeal to some, but the data shows overwhelmingly that their arguments are very likely wrong. The "alarmism" or hypocrisy of some people about the issue may be annoying, but it doesn't change what the data says.Are people who don't accept the reality of global warming the same people who....?
Lots of different people tend to need to see in order to believe. It's very difficult for people to adapt to something that is far off in the future, and driven by a very complex science. Some warmist want to change human nature,economic and political systems so the simple analogy you give seems inadequate. I agree that alarmism doesn't change the data but it is more than annoying it creates opposition. Any group who says the world is going to end unless you follow us are going to be met with skepticism.
Okay so what is your question then? Are you attempting to imply there is a common link between blood pressure monitoring, Maple syrup farming and inconsistencies in global temperature recording that you wish to know about?



Sorry to answer your question with a question be I cannot see what it is that you are going on about.Are people who don't accept the reality of global warming the same people who....?
Actually, I have read the articles posted here supposedly proofing global warming is man made. I find it very insulting that these same "scientists" will show how natural effects have a stronger effect then throw in a paragraph about how man is causing it and that is considered "good" science now days.
a more apt analogy would be to the people eighty to a hundred years ago who refused to take medicine that contained radioactive salts such as radium even though the consensus was that radioactivity was a quick cure all for many medical conditions

http://www.popsci.com/scitech/article/20…

I suspect all your "adjusted" AGW data came from the same place this "medicine was supposed to be applied.

http://www.orau.org/ptp/collection/quack…Are people who don't accept the reality of global warming the same people who....?
No.



What, now you're going to try to convince the gullible that your "solutions" to a non-problem are essential even though their results won't be noticed?



Open your eyes... if the syrup farmers in Vermont are noticing warming, what are the orange farmers in Florida noticing?
Bob,



Unfortunately, the data that serves as the very backbone of the AGW 'cause'.... is corrupted..... by poor siting and maintenance of measuring equipment and by shameful and corrupt manipulation of data.



Bad data = Bad science.
No.



And you might be surprised how many "skeptics" have college and post bac. education and research experience.



In fact your Q and A's ooze with a marginal understanding of science.
Climategate "hide the decline"



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nEiLgbBGK…
Are alarmists like hypochondriacs that insist they are ill even when there is nothing wrong with them? They see every little ache and pain as something that is going to kill them.



We are lucky to live in warm times. We currently live in an interglacial period that is NATURALLY warmer than 95% of the last 2 and a half million years. We are not responsible for that warming.



In addition, we currently live in the MODERN MAXIMUM. That refers to the number of sunspots. The number of sunspots corresponds roughly to how active the sun is. The number of sunspots has been recognized for a long time to correspond roughly with climate. About 300 years ago, we came out of the Maunder Minimum (minimum number of sunspots) corresponding to the Little Ice Age. Since then we have generally warmed.



Perhaps you got a degree in science, you might be able to comprehend the above facts.



Global warming is the epitome of politically driven science. Your data is suspect and frankly not that alarming.



Just as a side note, do you really think warming would hurt maple syrup or hunting in Maine? Wild unsubstantiated claims from alarmists never cease to amaze me.
In all seriousness Bob, doesn't it bother you that any attempt, by a group of highly qualified scientists who dispute the findings of the warmers, to debate this in public is always rejected?



Doesn't it also bother you that top-rated climatologists who disagree with the findings are shouted down and firmly admonished to shut up?



Then there is the utterly false statement made that the cause of GW is a settled matter and is indisputable, when there are many people standing up and saying: "The Emperor doesn't have any clothes!"



Are you really comfortable with this level of dictatorial arrogance?
And Gore is a scientist???

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monckt…

Why won't Gore debate Monckton?

http://www.prisonplanet.com/lord-monckto…



Warming and cooling is a natural process and sunspots may a part of that process

Ice cores show natural warming and cooling cycles.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Vostok…



CO2 is not a problem

If you want to limit CO2 emissions then stop breathing, because you are emitting CO2.



My point is that almost everything on the planet emits CO2, including oceans, rocks, animals, decaying matter. Etc...Etc.... CO2 is used by plants just like we use oxygen. CO2 is not a toxic gas, it is an essential gas. It is not causing warming. When the globe gets warm, then more CO2 is released into the air.



98% of the greenhouse warming is caused by H2O vapor. H2O is water and it is covering 70% of our planet. We can't do anything about the greenhouse effect.



Human actions only contribute a very tiny fraction of the CO2 which is being released into the atmosphere every day. If you are going to be an environmentalist, then oppose something that is actually a toxic problem and stop worshiping the CO2 warming religious cult, which is actually a communist conspiracy.

http://romanticpoet.wordpress.com/2009/0…



I believe in a true science, not a cult movement or a communist conspiracy.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/200…

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jaNcQ4Wj7…

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PMe5dOgbu…

http://www.larouchepac.com/lpactv?nid=10…

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VHxcwE6Q7…



QUOTE from HAWAI'I FREE PRESS:

"95% water vapour" Global warming debunked by New Zealand Meteorologist

Friday, June 26, 2009

“It is time to attack the myth of global warming,” he said.



Water vapour was responsible for 95 per cent of the greenhouse effect, an effect which was vital to keep the world warm, he explained.



“If we didn’t have the greenhouse effect the planet would be at minus 18 deg C but because we do have the greenhouse effect it is plus 15 deg C, all the time.”



The other greenhouse gases: carbon dioxide, methane, nitrogen dioxide, and various others including CFCs, contributed only five per cent of the effect, carbon dioxide being by far the greatest contributor at 3.6 per cent.



However, carbon dioxide as a result of man’s activities was only 3.2 per cent of that, hence only 0.12 per cent of the greenhouse gases in total. Human-related methane, nitrogen dioxide and CFCs etc made similarly minuscule contributions to the effect: 0.066, 0.047, and 0.046 per cent respectively.



“That ought to be the end of the argument, there and then,” he said.



“We couldn’t do it (change the climate) even if we wanted to because water vapour dominates.”

http://www.hawaiifreepress.com/main/Arti…



My conclusion:

In light of studies done by real scientists that aren't on Al Gore's payroll, I believe that there is really nothing to discuss concerning AGW, because it doesn't exist. When global warming does happen, we can't do anything about it anyway, because water vapor dominates. We can't do without water on our planet and we don't have a thermostat hooked up to the sun.
Possibly, but it's hard to say.



Other than concern about side effects, there's not much motivation not to take the medication, and thus little reason not to trust the doctor's diagnosis and prescription.



On the other hand, there's strong motivation not to believe climate scientists on global warming. Fear of bigger government, carbon taxes, higher gas and energy prices, etc.



There's probably some overlap between AGW deniers and people who refuse to take blood pressure medication, but I think the motivations are a bit different. It doesn't so much boil down to whether or not they can understand the experts, it boils down to whether or not they want to believe them.
Wasted time, Bob. If you want to run with the ball, making comparisons like this only compromises your credibility as a trustworthy individual capable of disseminating truthful information.



Global Warming is the epitome of speculative science. The data is real, but the conclusions made upon them rely heavily upon statistical inference. And if you haven't been paying attention over the past 15 years, no warming that is statistically significant has taken place.



Your willingness to disregard this simple notion is fatal. I encourage you to visit Realclimate (AGW blog) and browse through the comments section. Look specifically for Gavin's remarks to those comments -- he seems to be the only one there capable of talking about the uncertainties present in the actual science. The fact remains, the political and ideological claims being made can't be supported by the science -- 100 year predictions? Good luck with that...looks like we're already having problems out of the chute.



On a more pointed note, have we yet to determine how that data was processed? In such a "data driven" science, shouldn't disclosure be an important aspect within the discovery process? Tick tock...tick tock.



The intent to marginalize skeptics defines your position well. The science seems to be an ancillary issue w/ other more pointed endeavors in the cross-hairs?
The sun is the only source for heat in the solar system. When it is in a high activity made as it has been since 1720 the planets of the solar system warm up, this is science. The atmospheres of the planets retain some of this heat for short or long periods depending on the humidity of the atmosphere. So the equation needs to be stated that a region with high atmospheric humidity will retain warmth longer than a region with low atmospheric humidity will. Co2 has little to no effect on climate as it is pure and simple cheap natural plant food released by warming oceans during climate optimums to support better plant growth.



Co2 has almost no effect on the planets climate. For example both Mars and Venus have about the same percentage of co2 in their atmospheres at around 95%. But Venus has a couple of percent of humidity and is extremely hot while Mars has no humidity and is very cold. So the factor that controls the climate temperature of a planet is atmospheric humidity not co2. Real scientists know this because they have run experiments for thousands of years producing solid reliable evidence that humidity causes the world to stay warmer than when humidity is absent. Low humidity and the region cools rapidly at night. High humidity and the region will retain much of its heat through the night. Very simple science that has been well understood for many thousands of years by moderates and conservatives, but not one single liberal mind has ever grasped this simple fact.





http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Gal…

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peer_review

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_…

http://www.examiner.com/x-4648-Atlanta-W…



http://docinthemachine.com/2007/02/15/fl…

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/ice_ag…

http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1…

http://m.climaterealists.com/index.php?i…

http://minnesotansforglobalwarming.com/m…

http://swampie.wordpress.com/2009/01/11/…
The alarmism is a big issue with me and it's very, very dangerous. It drives out rationality and replaces it with emotive knee-jerk responses and those can have very bad consequences.



My answer, in as much as as it does answer your question, is that we can only come to the most honest position as we can after considering all of the facts as best we can. Do I know that AGW is bad science? No, but I distrust the vague phrasing and suppositions. Could it be correct? Yes, of course, a lot of very clever people are studying it and they say it is.



My position is that the science is very far from settled and it is just plain wrong to say that it is - climatology is such a new science and the climate such a massively complex phenomena, how could it possibly be settled?



I argue against trusting the AGW theory as I think the debate has been largely elided and this is very wrong. There is a great deal that is not known and it helps no one to pretend that it is.



So, does that mean we do nothing and risk catastrophe? No, and this is the bit I don't quite grasp. I'm all in favour of clean energy and I think most people are - so why don't governments actively pursue this whilst at the same time engaging people in the debate on AGW and funding genuinely independent research (please don't try and tell me it's independent now, I can cite dozens of well-respected scientists who feel they were excluded or forced out of the debate).



Instead, neither side is happy. We have waste twenty years trying to chase some bizarre derivatives market in carbon trading and emissions are steadily rising worldwide. Imagine if the $100 billion or so spent on all this had gone to fund research in renewable energy - where would we be now?



--------------------------------------…



EDIT -



Bob, the Vermont syrup thing is not global warming but an observed effect of the North Atlantic Oscillation. See http://nsidc.org/arcticmet/patterns/arct…



""This keeps much of the United States east of the Rocky Mountains warmer than normal""

.