Completely independent study, run by skeptics, funded by skeptics. Don't know what else you want.
To show that there is AGW, you need to show three things:
1) it is getting warmer.
2) the warming is unprecedented.
3) the unprecedented warming is caused by CO2 emissions.
Saying, a skeptic agrees on point 1, case closed, is pretty lame, IMHO. You are taking the aside of the reliability of the industrial temperature record and pretending that it is the entirety of the skeptical argument when, in most cases, it is a very small part of it.
Most serious skepticism about AGW is centered around points 2 and 3. The most damning points in the Climate Gate emails surround those points as well. I think you should take the time to understand the actual argument before you so easily dismiss it.
Seed, I completely agree. Having a skeptic say they agree on a single aspect isn't enough, however; I don't think that's the case.
1. We all agree it is warming.
2. There is disagreement here, but I doubt warming is unprecedented personally.
3. It is agreed that some of the warming is the result of our CO2 emissions, how much is up for debate.
It's ideal to have this research carried out such that we eliminate potential errors. What none of us want to see is that we take too long eliminating errors and then find out it was real and too late. Regardless, I still think cutting CO2 emissions in general is a good thing.
Any time someone uses the phrase "it would be ideal" it is usually followed by an excuse as to why it is OK not to do whatever it would be ideal to do.
Now, my reading skills are not that great but...
I think you just claimed to be skeptic to let get my guard down and then tried to sneak in excusing terrible biased climate science in the interest of a diplomatically reworded precautionary principle. Am I mistaken?
ScottL wrote:Regardless, I still think cutting CO2 emissions in general is a good thing.
Not that simple.
There's a price to pay for doing nothing. There's also a price to pay for doing something.
Problem is we still don't know which one is higher.
So, how can you choose?
There are the known effects of cutting CO2 production (the end of civilization as we know it) vs possible, probable, unlikely effects of global warming. I'm putting my efforts into stopping the effort to create a catastrophe. If we have a different one anyway? That is life. As we know it.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
I'm skeptical of the level of effect we have in the short-term, however; I believe in the long term there are consequences to our emissions. To think we have no effect on our system is ridiculous, but to assume warming and cooling trends don't exist naturally is also ridiculous. I'm pro more peer-reviewed research to eliminate potential errors so at the end of the day we can make a well informed decision on which direction we need to take.
ScottL wrote:I'm skeptical of the level of effect we have in the short-term, however; I believe in the long term there are consequences to our emissions. To think we have no effect on our system is ridiculous, but to assume warming and cooling trends don't exist naturally is also ridiculous. I'm pro more peer-reviewed research to eliminate potential errors so at the end of the day we can make a well informed decision on which direction we need to take.
Peer review in Climate "Science"? Totally corrupted.
ScottL wrote:I'm skeptical of the level of effect we have in the short-term, however; I believe in the long term there are consequences to our emissions. To think we have no effect on our system is ridiculous, but to assume warming and cooling trends don't exist naturally is also ridiculous. I'm pro more peer-reviewed research to eliminate potential errors so at the end of the day we can make a well informed decision on which direction we need to take.
Peer review in Climate "Science"? Totally corrupted.
Yeah, AGW arguments based on the precautionary principle could not be more wrong.
Which is vastly more likely to support enough biomass to feed the human race, a warmer planet or a cooler one?
A very, very small chance of an Ice Age should outweigh even a near certainty of any warming within the range of the Earth's history. And since we can't forecast with much certainty at all, based on the PP greenhouse gas emissions controls are a terrible idea.
n*kBolt*Te = B**2/(2*mu0) and B^.25 loss scaling? Or not so much? Hopefully we'll know soon...
Gaea noted that the Earth she had created had lost so much CO2 that the temperature was becoming difficult to control; that chaos would beget ice-age and warmth in flipping train of distruction.
And Gaea found the cleverest ape from among the cleverest apes and nurtured her thru her children and her children's children until there came the ape that was clever enough to find a method to restore the CO2 into the stmosphere.
But Tartarus desired the chaos and destruction so he found some of the clever apes who were too clever by half and he blinded them to the true problem, (too LITTLE CO2) and set them upon a course to prevent the good works of Gaea.
Shall Tartarus or Gaea win the day? Shall the Earth plummet into the hell-pit of world strattling Glaciation or return to the warmth of a thriving ecosphere?
Support the Earth Mother, burn coal and oil and gas.
I find present day research on cloud formation quite interesting. If it suggests ways for altering it we could end up having our first effective weather engineering tool.
"The problem is not what we don't know, but what we do know [that] isn't so" (Mark Twain)
