So what this says is global warming is a good thing ...

[QUOTE=Reed_Young;375159]Who do you see playing a similar role to Galileo?[/QUOTE]

The honest scientists who are presenting their evidence and their interpretation of same for peer review.

Many have had their funding cut, and/or are forbidden to publish their research if it supports the anthropomorphic argument for climate change. Both situations have happened in Canada, and probably elsewhere.

But, sadly, we as a species are still mostly driven by "money".

And there is a lot of money to be made by converting Carbon into Carbon Dioxide (and Methane, etc...).

I have long thought that fracking for natural gas, and releasing large amounts of methane in the process, could well neutralize, or worse, any reduction in carbon emissions derived from burning it instead of coal.

I also stand by my previous statement; that [QUOTE]efforts, successes, and failures of policies to control emissions are effectively part of the input to the overall equation.[/QUOTE]

Are sociology, psychology, political science, and anthropology superstitious claptrap? The sciences of humans who will make the decisions regarding climate change are at least as important as the physical sciences, in terms of results.

By the way, I believe this thread started out with the title "Global Warning: hoax or real threat?" (approximately, if my memory serves) which it held for some years. Admittedly even back in 2007 this was a rather silly title, but it did reflect the widespread popular notion of the time that the science behind human-activity-aggravated climate change was flawed and even fraudulent. A glance at the very first post in this thread reveals its original intellectual level.

The thread's location was the Soap Box until very recently.

Just thought I'd point this out because it seems to show how the nature of a discussion topic can change over time. This topic, which is of enormous importance to all of us and our future generations, is certainly, and belatedly, changing.

[url]http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/australiaandthepacific/marshallislands/10883294/World-War-Two-skeletons-washed-from-Marshall-Islands-graves-by-rising-seas.html[/url]

Whatever the confusion such title changes may cause, this latest one seems appropriate. This is one topic like no other where science, politics and economics certainly clash with each other.

[QUOTE=Xyzzy;375318][URL]http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/australiaandthepacific/marshallislands/10883294/World-War-Two-skeletons-washed-from-Marshall-Islands-graves-by-rising-seas.html[/URL][/QUOTE]
If only the Marshall Islands were a stronger world economic force...

anthropomorphic means in the shape of man
 

[QUOTE=chalsall;375224]The honest scientists who are presenting their evidence and their interpretation of same for peer review.[/QUOTE]

Thanks for clarifying that it's the physical scientists studying the climate who you see in the role of Galileo. I wholeheartedly agree.

[QUOTE=chalsall;375224]Many have had their funding cut, and/or are forbidden to publish their research if it supports the anthropo[b]gen[/b]ic argument for climate change. Both situations have happened in Canada, and probably elsewhere.[/QUOTE]

I know that around the same time that at Frank Luntz's advice they stopped saying "global warming" and switched to exclusively saying "climate change" because focus groups showed that the latter term biased participants against recognizing that the phenomena are problematic, the Bush administration illegally interfered with the publication process but Dr. Hansen eventually prevailed and the politicos dropped that issue with a whimper.

Regarding supposedly interrelated topics, scope of the thread and its recent name change, there is absolutely no "political and economic evidence" [b]of[/b] climate change. There are political and economic [b]ramifications[/b] of policy decisions, but the [b]evidence[/b] of global warming is all physical science. There are also political, economic, psychological, and social contributors to each individual's opinions about and understanding of the facts, but none of these alter what the facts really are. When the title was "Global Warming: The Scientific Evidence," the clear message was that this is about the facts which physical science tells us about global warming.

The recent name change re-frames the topic in a manner that happens to be preferred by petroleum and coal industry communications experts because it blurs the distinction between the physical facts and the much more arbitrary social factors, politics and economics; and because it allows them to cynically manipulate findings from the social sciences, especially psychology, to discourage low information voters from dealing with the facts at all. Again, all the [b]evidence[/b] comes from physical science.

As long as the word "evidence" remains in the title, the terms "political" and "economic" are simply non sequiturs.

[QUOTE=Brian-E;375347]But what would there still be, anno 2014, to [I]discuss[/I] in a purely scientific thread about global warming,[/quote]There are still many scientific aspects yet to explore.

Example: the only-a-couple-of-weeks-ago report about the West Antarctica ice sheet's apparently being in an unstoppable slide. Previously, it had been thought that a "sill" would keep it in place.

[quote]given that most of us are not practising climate change scientists?[/QUOTE]Forums like this are where we non-pros can learn/discuss what the pros are finding.

New research into effect of air conditioning in the United States.

[QUOTE]Because the cities are getting hotter as the climate changes, residents are increasingly investing in aircon systems − which discharge heat from offices and apartment blocks straight into the city air. And the vicious circle effect is that cities get still warmer, making air conditioning all the more attractive to residents.

According to scientists at Arizona State University, the air conditioning system is now having a measurable effect. During the days, the systems emit waste heat, but because the days are hot anyway, the difference is negligible. At night, heat from air conditioning systems now raises some urban temperatures by more than 1C, they report in the [URL="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/10.1002/%28ISSN%292169-8996"]Journal of Geophysical Research Atmospheres[/URL].

At present, 87% of US households have air conditioning, and the US – which is not one of the warmer nations – uses more electricity to keep cool than all the other countries of the world combined. To keep the people of Phoenix cool during periods of extreme heat, air conditioning systems can consume more than half of total electricity needs, which puts a strain on power grids.
[/QUOTE]Full press article:
[URL]http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/jun/09/air-conditioning-raising-night-time-temperatures-us[/URL]

[QUOTE=Nick;375398]New research into effect of air conditioning in the United States.

Full press article:
[URL]http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/jun/09/air-conditioning-raising-night-time-temperatures-us[/URL][/QUOTE]The manifesto of the Official Monster Raving Loony Party prepared for a general election here some time back expressly considered this issue. To combat global warming they were going to require that all new buildings have aircon mounted on the outside of the structure.

Sorry to re-introduce politics into the discussion but I believe that innotative ideas like these should be given a wider audience.

It was the [URL=http://mrlp.blogspot.co.uk/2008/10/monster-raving-loony-party-unofficial.html] 2008 manifesto[/url]

[QUOTE=xilman;375401]The manifesto of the Official Monster Raving Loony Party prepared for a general election here some time back expressly considered this issue. To combat global warming they were going to require that all new buildings have aircon mounted on the outside of the structure.[/QUOTE]

And refrigerator doors are to be left open 24/7, yes? By way of doing my little part, whenever I get an ice coffee at my local java joint I make sure to ask for an extra scoop of ice to "fight global warming:.

Here in the SF bay area we're inmidst of one of the typically 2-3 hot spells per year where I actively seek out AC, not having it at home. This year with the ongoing historic drought in CA, though, it's already the 3rd major 3-4-day hot spell since we first touched 100F back on 30 April.

Allegedly the multimonth global climate models are pointing to ~70% odds of an El Nin~o this coming winter - we could really use the above-normal rainfall that usually brings.

====================

[url=http://desmogblog.com/2014/06/07/study-dismisses-geoengineering-quick-fix-global-warming]Study Dismisses Geoengineering Quick Fix For Global Warming[/url] | DeSmogBlog