Definitions of "Global Warming"

[Hogeye]

(Cross-posting from a discussion about global warming on Anti-state.com:)

Good discussion. BTW, the phenomena that carbon dioxide is good for plant growth is called the "CO2 fertilization effect" (or fertilizer effect.) Google that, and get tons of info.

The two cheap solutions, alternatives to the massive State intervention favored by closet authoritarians ("watermelons" - green on the outside and red on the inside) were informative. These were 1) iron fertilization of oceans and 2) seeding the atmosphere with aerosols, in case you missed it.

I don't see the difference between answers 2 and 3 in the poll. Combining these two would seem reasonable, which would make it the favorite.

About the "conspiracy" of State and scientific community (or more precisely, those who receive govt subsidies, ranging from universities to NASA): like most alleged "conspiracies, it is really an invisible hand process - a set of perverse incentives. Researchers don't have to collude to want to grab research subsidy money. Politicians don't have to conspire to want votes of constituents and special interests.

A point that I don't think anyone has mentioned yet: the very term "global warming" is quite ambiguous. This accounts for some of the answers. Depending on the def, I could vote 1, or as I did, 2. "Global warming" could be taken to mean

1) Literally, the earth's climate is getting warmer. (Almost certainly true, for the late 20th century.)

2) The theory that the earth's atmosphere is getting warmer due in part to anthropogenic (man-caused) factors. (Very likely true.)

3) The theory that the earth's atmosphere is getting warmer due to anthropogenic greenhouse gasses due to the greenhouse effect. (Iffy; it depends on how you interpret "due to". Saying greenhouse gasses "contribute to" warming is more reasonable.)

4) The theory that the earth's atmosphere is getting catastrophically warmer due to anthropogenic greenhouse gasses due to the greenhouse effect. (Doubtful. The Medieval Warm Period aka MWP was probably as warm or warmer, and catastrophic sea-level rises or other Gorisms didn't occur.)

5) The theory that the earth's atmosphere is getting catastrophically warmer due to anthropogenic greenhouse gasses due to the greenhouse effect, and the only solution is massive government intervention on a national and international level. (Absolutely false.)


(4) is the most common definition, I'd say, and the one given in Creighton's "State of Fear." The people that voted for option one - it's a hoax - probably were thinking of definition (5). The people who voted for option two or three probably had definition (2) in mind.

My main question for global warming alarmists is, "Why didn't it happen during the MWP?" The alarmists like to ignore or evade the MWP, even though there is ample scientific evidence (e.g. ice bores) that it was global, and also solid historical evidence (the Viking settlement of Greenland and subsequent collapse - cf: "Collapse" by Jared Diamond for one good account.) My favorite wisecrack to an apocalypse abuser: "If you're worried about greenhouse gasses, then stop breathing!"

[Savonarola]

... Creighton's "State of Fear."

I never get tired of seeing this. It just goes to show that -- rather than getting information correct -- Hogeye is more interested in latching onto ideas to parrot.

[Hogeye]

??? Mentioning a book? Is that blasphemous or something, Sav?

(What gets me is folks who hysterically criticize "The DiVinci Code" without having read it, or "State of Fear" without having read it.)

[Doug]

??? Mentioning a book? Is that blasphemous or something, Sav?

(What gets me is folks who hysterically criticize "The DiVinci Code" without having read it, or "State of Fear" without having read it.)

DOUG
I have a copy of State of Fear if anyone wants to borrow it. And keep it.

I also have a copy of The DaVinci Code to loan out.

[Savonarola]

??? Mentioning a book? Is that blasphemous or something, Sav?

What's this? You don't understand what I'm trying to say? Well of course you don't, because -- as I said -- you don't pay enough attention to anything but what you want to see. I'm content to leave you in the dark, too, because I find it rather funny.

(What gets me is folks who hysterically criticize "The DiVinci Code" without having read it, or "State of Fear" without having read it.)

As soon as you see me hysterically criticize either book without reading it, you be sure to let me know.