Pollutants May Have Held Global Warming At Bay

No they haven't. They've theorized a possible solution. The other answer, that they haven't known what they've been f***ing talking about for the past 20 years, just isn't as palatable to them or the people who write their checks.

This is great. Thanks for posting this article. No we all can clear our conscious about polluting and generally being major dicks to the planet and other species that live here. Who cares about the rain forest, who cares about the ocean. We're stopping global warming!

This is f**g comical. The very thing causing "global warming" is now stopping it.

So, does this mean that those scientist are saying global warming has stopped?

you gotta be kidding me! They finally admitted they have no idea what the hell is going on, yet "energy prices will necessarily skyrocket".....

"Sending sulfur into the air isn’t helpful, though. In addition to causing respiratory problems, sulfur aerosols combine with water vapor to form acid rain, which harms ecosystems and damages buildings. “You wouldn’t want to increase the amount of junk in the air to decrease the effects of global warming,” cautions climate scientist Gavin Schmidt of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York."

I think that's also quite an important part of the article. You know, like shooting yourself in the face cures your headache.

They had to come up with something to explain the utter and complete lack of factual data to support anthropogenic global warming.

I doubt that any reliable data on the amount of pollution coming out of China over the last ten years even exists. Sure, the existence of pollution is no secret, but the exact levels at enough points to build a model? Unlikely.

This idea does fall in line with speculations I've seen that the "global cooling" of the 70s was an artifact of pollution, and that with more stringent regulations on emissions we saw temperatures spike. But I'd be far more likely to entertain these theory revisions if the AGW crowd hadn't started out by screaming "It's settled science, question us and you're deniers that will destroy the earth!"

I read about this possibility years ago. Climatologists were tossing around the idea that increased green-house gases would actually stabilize the atmosphere and lead to a greener earth. After-all, much of the "pollutants" are plant-food or food for small organisms.

This is why it is a good idea not to go all-in on these issues, like "I believe in Global Warming, that makes me superior to you fools who do not." That kind of thing. Even if it was true, I say its the investment that is troublesome.

>> The other answer, that they haven't known what they've been f***ing talking about for the past 20 years, just isn't as palatable to them or the people who write their checks.

Wrong. There is a consensus in the scientific field of climate change. The consensus is that global warming is real and that it is due to human activity, mostly greenhouse gasses like pollutants by cars and industry.

NOWHERE in the article does it claim any different. Maybe read the article first. Let me quote:

"A new study demonstrates why global surface temperatures defied a decades-long trend and didn’t continue to rise between 1998 and 2008"

Or in other words: temperatures didn't rise as fast as they expected.
This does not mean global warming is not real. (I really have to spell this out?)

>> This is f**g comical. The very thing causing "global warming" is now stopping it.

Wrong. It's not or was not stopping it, it was slowing it down during a certain period of time.

"This looks like a very solid, careful statistical analysis of the factors influencing recent global temperature changes,” says climate scientist Michael E. Mann of Pennsylvania State University, who was not involved in the study. “There is a clear impact of human activity on the ongoing warming of our climate."

I'm not an expert, I'm just quoting the article.

>> So, does this mean that those scientist are saying global warming has stopped?

No. The answer is in the article.

>> you gotta be kidding me! They finally admitted they have no idea what the hell is going on

Wrong. See above. Or let me use another quote:

"“Humans do two things to the planet,” Kaufmann says. “They warm it by emitting greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide and methane, and they cool it by emitting these sulfur aerosols.”

>> yet "energy prices will necessarily skyrocket".....

I could not find this quote in the original article. If you are going to make stuff up do not try to pretend it's coming from the original article.

>> They had to come up with something to explain the utter and complete lack of factual data to support anthropogenic global warming.

Wrong. See above or read the article. There is a consensus in the scientific world that supports global warming. This article does not say any different, it just increases our knowledge of what's going on.

>> This is why it is a good idea not to go all-in on these issues, like "I believe in Global Warming, that makes me superior to you fools who do not."

If you are not a scientist or a scientist involved in the field of climate change the only thing you can do is to rely on the consensus in the world of science in this field, if there is a consensus. There is a consensus that supports global warming.

I really feel like a genius sometimes.

>> "If you are not a scientist or a scientist involved in the field of climate change the only thing you can do is to rely on the consensus in the world of science in this field, if there is a consensus. There is a consensus that supports global warming."

This is asinine, ignorant, bullshit. There is absolutely nothing inherent in the condition of being a "scientist" that makes such people any more capable of discerning truth than does being a "phlebotomist" or "Vitalist". The only advantage you have is being trained in a small area of epistemology, the epistemology of science, but that also has the potential of making you epistemically challenged. I'm pretty sure William Kingdon Cliffords The Ethics of Belief, William James' The Meaning of Truth & What Pragmatism Means, or Susan Haack's New Criterion are not required reading to become a climatologist. As such they are dabbling in a judgment system they only dimly understand. Those are just references, however, what I mean to point to is this lack of understanding of understanding itself, which is a serious problem for anyone proposing to have understanding.

>>"what I mean to point to is this lack of understanding of understanding itself, which is a serious problem for anyone proposing to have understanding."
The word recursive comes to mind...

@ Ryan S

OK. So I should just listen to you then, is that it?

I continued this dialog with a co-worker which unearthed some interesting points. For example scientific epistemology was drastically changed by Karl Popper's falsifiability criteria.

This is the thing about science, it is an evolving methodology that is frequently revised according to the insights of scientific epitemologists. The people I've mentioned; Wiliam James, William K. Clifford, Susan Haack and Karl Popper are such scientific epistemologists who have laid the foundations for the scientific method we now possess, but there is no guarantee that our current methods are fool-proof or even very productive. It is possible to appear to be making progress while actually regressing or causing destruction.

The scientific method is aimed at generating statistically probable theories out of myriad conflicting hypotheses. In other words, individual scientists may still be unabashedly deluded and subject to environmental pressures such as peer influence. It is actually extremely common; Pat Churchland doesn't have dinner dates with Sam Parnia, and Peter Fenwick doesn't go to the cinema with Roger Bingham. Rather, Sam Parnia, Peter Fenwick, Dean Radin, and Melvin Morse go to brunch together while Roger Bingham, Michael Shermer, Dan Dennet and Phil Plait hang out on the weekends.

What I mean to say is that they routinely fight amongst themselves and congregate into birds-of-a-feather groups, refusing to see the other's side and looking for ways to debase the other group's convictions. Sam Parnia gave a lengthy lecture/presentation on Flora.TV that looks-over the works of Morse, Fenwick, Blackmore, Radin and Himself, while over-looking the works of Shermer, Bingham, Dennet and Plait. Meanwhile, the Skeptics look-over their own work and over-look the work of the Parapsychologists. It happens all the time, but it is difficult to see if you think that the entire scientific establishment consists of the regular members of the Skeptics Society or The Science Network, and not the members of the Parapsychological Association or the editors of the Journal of Parapsychology, Journal of Near-Death Studies, Journal of Consciousness Studies, Journal of the Society for Psychical Research and Journal of Scientific Exploration.

These researchers are equipped with a method of challenging each other's biases, but not of overcoming their own biases. If the duality between the skeptics and the parapsychologists should prove to be wrong, both sides will have a hard time letting go of it. Whatever theory seeks to dissolve the illusion of conflict will run up against resistence from all sides. The philosopher in the true sense of the word, whose concern is for the personal attainment of truth, must necessarily surpass the limitations of the scientist and become his/her own skeptic, which should include listening to conflicting ideas with as much openness and skepticism as anything else. A good balance of openness and skepticism that revolves around truth and not advancing one's own ideology or career. That is what is ultimately required, everything else is dabbling. It won't matter how much specificity a person learns within a particular field of research, if they continue to rend the field into two discrete camps, one of which houses their self-worth, and the other acts as their archnemesis. How can anyone see beyond such attachments and definitions? This is what makes "scientists" generally inadequate theorists and debators.

@hmmm...

No, you should release your grip on beliefs as if they were defining of your character and learn to hold multiple theories in mind simultaneously and weigh them according to their weight in reason and experience. Become a skeptic and opponent of everything with the ultimate goal of discovering what is true, yet never being satisfied of having found the truth. Don't take climatologists word for it, if you are genuinely concerned, study climatology and any and all alternatives and withhold judgement until you are left no choice but to believe.

If listening to me helps you achieve that goal, great, otherwise, don't waste your time.

I'd just like to point out to those of you for which it isn't clear: Skeptics generally accept the scientific consensus that global warming is due to humans, and label those who call themselves "climate skeptics" as "global warming deniers".

Yup, skeptics resort to preschool tactics too.

Ever heard of argumentum ad populum and argumentum ad verecundiam? Combined they amount to the fallacy of appealing to "scientfic consensus" as if that alone were evidence of anything conclusive.

Scientific Consensus
Definition:
The Scientific Consensus represents the position generally agreed upon *at a given time* by *most* scientists specialized in a given field.

Source: GreenFacts

More:
Scientific Consensus does NOT mean that:

•all scientist are unanimous: disagreements may occur and can be necessary for science to progress,
•the position is definitive: the consensus can evolve with the results from further research and contrary opinions.

Therefore, Scientific Consensus is NOT a synonym of "Certain Truth".

But when the scientific expertise to judge a scientific position is lacking, the best choice is to rely on the Consensus.

_______________________

It is a kind of error to go from "scientific consensus" to "You global-warming deniars are wrong", the latter statement reflects an intellectual certainty unwarranted by consensus. The response it begs seems to be "Interesting, why do you feel that way?" Because maybe there is yet something the "scientific consensus" is not taking into account which the "denier" is taking into account. Wikipedia relates to evolving consenses:

How Consensus Can Change Over Time

Among the most influential challengers of this approach was the historian Thomas Kuhn, who argued instead that experimental data always provide some data which cannot fit completely into a theory, and that falsification alone did not result in scientific change or an undermining of scientific consensus. He proposed that scientific consensus worked in the form of "paradigms", which were interconnected theories and underlying assumptions about the nature of the theory itself which connected various researchers in a given field. Kuhn argued that only after the accumulation of many "significant" anomalies would scientific consensus enter a period of "crisis". At this point, new theories would be sought out, and eventually one paradigm would triumph over the old one — a cycle of paradigm shifts rather than a linear progression towards truth. Kuhn's model also emphasized more clearly the social and personal aspects of theory change, demonstrating through historical examples that scientific consensus was never truly a matter of pure logic or pure facts.[7] However, these periods of 'normal' and 'crisis' science are not mutually exclusive. Research shows that these are different modes of practice, more than different historical periods.[2]

Lastly, some more radical philosophers, such as Paul Feyerabend, have maintained that scientific consensus is purely idiosyncratic and maintains no relationship to any outside truth.[8] These points of view, while provoking much discussion, have generally not caught on, even with philosophers.[citation needed]

See: Theories and sociology of the history of science

The withdrawal of philosophy into a "professional" shell of its own has had disastrous consequences. The younger generation of physicists, the Feynmans, the Schwingers, etc., may be very bright; they may be more intelligent than their predecessors, than Bohr, Einstein, Schrödinger, Boltzmann, Mach and so on. But they are uncivilized savages, they lack in philosophical depth – and this is the fault of the very same idea of professionalism which you are now defending.[6]

- Paul Feyerabend

These guys have an interesting paradigm: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=atgtJKpHkwo&feature=fvst

Become a skeptic: Believe only what *I* tell you to believe.

HA!

BTW - Industrial Pollution, FTW! :-P

I'm all for skepticism, but there are a few problems with it in this case.
The first one is that the climate is a very chaotic thing to study. It's a bit more like human psychology than the nice (almost) mechanistic field of, say, astronomy. Therefore, proving a trend like global warming in such a way that no one will find anything say about it seems to be extremely difficult.
There IS good evidence that global temperatures are rising unnaturally, and this rise coincides pretty neatly with the rise in CO2 concentrations due to the industrial revolution.

As Ryan S pointed out "The Scientific Consensus represents the position generally agreed upon at a given time by most scientists specialized in a given field."
So for the time being, most people who specialize in the study of climatology agree that global warming is a real issue. They also generally agree that drastic actions have to be taken, and they need to be taken yesterday.
True, that is a huge investment, but in my sense investing in clean energy and clean industry can not be detrimential in the long run. NOT taking action however, according again to the "scientific consensus", could be a bit disastrous.

@Seban678 I have no problem taking action from scientific consensus, so long as it is reasonable and doesn't violate fundamental human rights (like eugenics). My point is toward the identity and convictions of laypeople in the public who bicker and complain and make headlines.

Guys like Pat Buchanan who try to tell you "God wants x" or Richard Dawkins who'd have you believe religion is the "root of all evil".

Ryan, you started off well, but you had a relapse (i.e., went off on a diatribe again). I think you may be improving, but you've been sounding bitter lately.

Remember...

Vigorous writing is concise. A sentence should contain no unnecessary words, a paragraph no unnecessary sentences, for the same reason that a drawing should have no unnecessary lines and a machine no unnecessary parts. - William Strunk, Jr.

@Ted

I agree with you Ted, but necessity is elusive. Perhaps I feel it necessary to remark on matters of depth wherein others only see matters as shallow. Then, to them it would seem unnecessary.

A non-conformist is one who conforms to the prevailing paradigms of non-conformity.

All of matter is merely energy condensed into a slow vibration. We are all of one consciousness, experiencing itself subjectively [as individuals]. There is no such thing as death and life is only a dream with an imagination of ourselves. - Bill Hicks

The above quotation could be applied justifiably to absolutely everything, since everything is predicated on reality experiencing itself subjectively, there is always a trace pattern extending from this ontological certainty which tends to characterize the entire event. That is what enables me to relate everything to the principal of existence; it all exists, and so must necessarily relate to existence, or else it wouldn't exist. This also means it is bound to the conditions of existing. It is a lot easier than it seems since much of what is done, is done in glorification of this fact, but only to one sees the necessity of it.

The major problem with this hypothesis is that China hasn't cooled, despite all the pollution apparently floating over that country.

http://awesternheart.blogspot.com/2011/07/more-on-chinese-aerosols-explanation.html

Rember all the smog that was constantly forming over Beijing during the Olympics?
It is apparently like that all the time.

@ Ryan S
"Richard Dawkins who'd have you believe religion is the "root of all evil"."

"Dawkins has said that the title 'The Root of All Evil?' was not his preferred choice, but that Channel 4 had insisted on it to create controversy."

@Jessss,

He has no backbone? That's not surprising. But have you read "The God Delusion"?

"Though the details differ across the world, no known culture lacks some version of the time-consuming, wealth consuming, hostility provoking rituals, the anti-factual, counter-productive fantisies of religion."
— Richard Dawkins (The God Delusion)

If so it might be worth reading "The Dawkins Delusion" by theologian Alister E. McGrath.

This debate between Dawkins and McGrath from "The Root of All Evil" is a good primer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wxc0NpTZE18 (Part 1 of 15)

I also recommend McGrath's "Christian Theology" and "Christian Spirituality" previews of them can be found on Google Books.

If everything is subjective, then we have no basis or motivation for communication at all. One could say we have no need for it. What you feel is necessary to communicate, and another would feel is unnecessary is irrelevant, all things considered. Of course, that in itself is a subjective opinion, and could be considered completely irrelevant. The concept negates itself.