Forums

Bear With Me...Another Topic on Climate Change

Bear With Me...Another Topic on Climate Change

Clearly not all Tesla owners are concerned about climate change nor is the fact that the Tesla is electric a motivator or all owners. But there has been some good discussion on this site about climate change and we know that Tesla's founder is interested in it. So please bear with me as I open other topic on climate change on this website.

I’m serious that science is better...hence my handle. So serious that I often ask for citations to comments and arguments, no matter the side.

(Side note: I don't see a preview option for posts on this site so I apologize if my use of html is not rendered correctly and my post is filled with stray gobbledygook).

SamO and has written in detail about climate change and so has Mike83. So maybe these questions are directed to them but I’d welcome responses from anyone who adds light. Sorry for the request for extra work: No good deed goes unpunished. Pejoratives and personal attacks need not be included; they don't add much light to the discussion.

I turn my back on arguments that are couched in terms of lies but I do pay attention to arguments that claim failed models. In particular, I’m curious if some of the statements made by deniers have basis in facts or studies which can be cited. Here are some of them:

Has IPCC chairman Rajendra Pachauri admitted that their [sic…it’s not clear who they are] models did not predict what we call the pause?

Is there really a pause in warming? Or if IPCC really does refer to a pause is it a pause in the rate of increase or a pause in absolute increase?

There’s what appears to be a good discussion of Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) using satellite data to measure temperature anomalies (see http://www.remss.com/research/climate). I’m okay with a model that doesn’t predict the future perfectly. Nature is more complex than our understanding presently captures. And, I’m not at all worried that some of our models are presented in probabilistic terms…after all, quantum physics, the most accurate modeling system our species has devised, posits outcomes in terms of probability. But, I am curious about the RSS implications in which satellite data for the troposphere since 2010 in the tropics appears to diverge from climate models. On the other hand, the data for the troposphere in polar regions and for the stratosphere in all regions appear to be almost spot on.

I’m sorry if I’m causing extra work for anyone.

I know that much of the animus expressed towards climate change amelioration is because Al Gore champions it. It doesn’t matter if Mr. Gore does or does not use a lot of fossil fuel himself. Similarly, it’s a red herring to comment on the number of people who use private jets to go to Davos. That’s why I’m asking for responses that rely on data that can be cited.

Dramsey | 05/04/2015

Has IPCC chairman Rajendra Pachauri admitted that their [sic…it’s not clear who they are] models did not predict what we call the pause?
"They" = the IPCC, and yes, Rajendra Pachauri really did admit that. Here's a Google search on the topic.

That said, it should be noted that he later retracted this claim, and that he's the formerIPCC head, having quit in February of this year after a sexual harassment complaint.

Is there really a pause in warming? Well, that's an excellent question. It depends on how you measure the temperature of the globe; how the data is massaged and normalized, and what biases (scientific) are applied. As you might imagine, collecting data from umpty-thousands of terrestrial sensors of hundreds of different types and making all the data make sense is a non-trivial effort. NOAA has designed and is deploying a new network of standardized measuring stations that should help ameliorate this problem. Some prefer to rely on satellite data, since it's more consistent.

Similarly, it’s a red herring to comment on the number of people who use private jets to go to Davos.

Not really; that (and Al Gore) are valid data points. They tell us that there are a lot of people making a lot of noise about being concerned about climate change, while obviously not believing in it themselves. Why don't they believe it? (I will concede one could make the argument that they believe it, but by virtue of privilege or station do not feel compelled to do anything about it personally.)

Mr_Anderson | 05/04/2015

I drive an ICE, but I still "believe" in man-made climate change. Al Gore can try to change how we derive and use energy and still continue to use our current model until we do change. He must still function in society while trying to change society. Otherwise, he would never be heard and never accomplish anything. Pointing to his use of fossil fuels as definitive proof that he doesn't care about climate change is evidence that you obviously don't care about being intelligent.

Dramsey | 05/04/2015

Pointing to his use of fossil fuels as definitive proof that he doesn't care about climate change is evidence that you obviously don't care about being intelligent.

Mmm, I wouldn't say "definitive proof". But it does look kinda suspicious, don't you think? I mean, it's not just that he uses energy from fossil fuels, he uses a whole lot of it.
You may have missed the original reporting; it was some years ago and (oddly enough) not widely covered. But as in all things, Google is your friend. His home used between 12 and 20 times the power the average American home did. He had several SUVs and was driving a Cadillac Escalade in the mid-2000s.

In 2007, after the news about his house broke, he refitted it with PV and LED bulbs. Perhaps he used some of the money he saved on energy to buy his $9 million dollar, ocean front house in Montecito. Given the beach location, I'd guess he's not too concerned about rising sea levels. And given that the house was built in 1940, I'd also guess it's not too energy efficient. Perhaps he plans to retrofit it.

As for why Al is so passionate about the environment? Well, I can't know his mind, of course, but as the New York Times points out, it's made him a boatload of money.

Solarwind | 05/04/2015

I am no scientist but you do not have to be a genius to figure this out, its just common sense. If you can't live in your garage with your ICE running, then it will eventually get you outside also. Just like in your garage the time you have depends on the size of the garage and the number of cars running in it. When burning fuel for energy, it is only half of the equation, the other half, AIR, is not being paid for.
On earth it depends on human population and fuel consumption (burning) taking place. Every person adds pollution by requiring air, food, transportation, heat, and cooling. Some types of burning (gas, oil, coal) undoubtedly have more effect then others but all are detrimental. So far the focus has been on CO2 but as I see it, that is only the tip of the iceberg. (pun intended) The other poisons and depletion of oxygen will soon be a worry also. The slash and burning of our forests will soon be a problem and will only get worst with increased demand for food.

The climate deniers have spent millions to convince the gullible that climate change is a hoax because it is a multi trillion dollar business, and we don't want to disrupt that. The use of coal / oil and our atmosphere, has made it possible for the population to go from 1 billion to 16 billion in just 100 years.

Brian H | 05/04/2015

Very confused mishmash. The ONLY issue with the climate debate is CO2, which by (unsupported other than a vague hand-wave in the general direction of the IPCC, despite legal requirements to do their own science) EPA fiat is deemed a pollutant responsible for imminent (just not quite here yet or visible in the data) catastrophic global warming.

Its rise is responsible for a crucial ~14% rise in agricultural productivity, greening of arid areas from the Sahel to Mongolia, and a general greening of the planet. Trying to stifle its production is astronomically costly, especially for undeveloped nations, and has led to reams of idiotic economic policies, reversing mankind's long-held goal of making energy cheaply available from compact sources. Sad and stupid.

Grinnin'.VA | 06/04/2015

@ Brian H | April 5, 2015

The ONLY issue with the climate debate is CO2, ...

Its rise is responsible for a crucial ~14% rise in agricultural productivity, greening of arid areas from the Sahel to Mongolia, ...

PLEASE provide a reference or link to a scientific source for this claim.

BTW, many of the farmers in California are suffering through the worst drought they've ever seen, threatening to increase food costs for most of the U.S.

Dramsey | 06/04/2015

Grinnin',

Here you go, straight from the pages of National Geographic:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/11/1122_021125_CropYields.html

Money quote:

"The researchers found that elevated carbon dioxide levels had an overwhelmingly positive effect on the reproductive traits of crop plants. The analysis revealed a 25 percent increase in total seed weight, a 19 percent increase in the number of flowers, a 16 percent increase in number of seeds, and a 4 percent increase in individual seed weight."

Dramsey | 06/04/2015

Solarwind, actually, being a scientist-- or at least having some scientific education-- really helps when discussing this stuff, as your post illustrates.

The thing that will kill you if you leave your car running in the garage is carbon monoxide. It's not a problem even in slow, heavy traffic since it quickly becomes CO2 out in the open by grabbing another oxygen molecule.

By your reasoning, water is bad since staying under water will cause you to drown.

Oxygen depletion is not an issue. The plant coverage of the globe is increasing, not decreasing, and has been doing so for decades:

http://www.rationaloptimist.com/blog/the-greening-of-the-planet.aspx

7thGate | 06/04/2015

Well, I mean, its pretty well established scientifically that increased CO2 concentrations increase crop yields on many plants up to a point (a point that appears to be higher than today's concentration). As far as I can tell, the general scientific consensus is that increased CO2 will help grow more food, while the climate change side effects from increased CO2 will cause problems growing food, with the result being a mix of winners and losers in the near to intermediate term based on geographic location, with the negative effects dominating as warming increases in the long term.

You can see this in the IPCC 2001 WG II report section on crop yields, shown here: http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg2/index.php?idp=563. (I usually try and use the IPCC as a source for climate change because, frankly, anyone can find at least one paper that says almost anything. The IPCC is supposed to be aggregating things in such a way to reflect scientific consensus, so they should be a good source).

This is an older report that is phrased in a much more positive way about the possible effects of climate change on crop yields than the more recent assessments. The more recent reports seem to have less information about why things will get better or worse, but you can see a greater breakdown by cause in the 2001 report. Note that one of the listed factors from climate change that will positively affect crop yields is "positive physiological effects of CO2", and that they specifically mention there is a big difference between crop yield models that include the direct effects of CO2 and those that don't. Presumably this is because CO2 is directly beneficial and indirectly harmful, so you have to include both pieces or your model gets really wrong.

The 2013 policy summary mixes all the scenarios together in a bar graph (http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/syr/AR5_SYR_FINAL_All_Topic..., page 16), which makes it really hard to tell if moderate warming/emissions is still projected to be generally helpful for crop yield. It could be; over 20% of the model/scenario combinations for 2100 are predicting an increase in yield due to climate change. It isn't possible to tell why those models are making that prediction when everything is commingled like that, but it seems likely that it is some combination of projected benefits from moderate warming, a low emissions scenario and a strong adaptive response on the part of farmers. That is a bit of conjecture on my part though, the way the data is presented you can't really get a good feeling for what is likely to happen based on different degrees of warming.

Grinnin'.VA | 06/04/2015

@ Dramsey | April 6, 2015

Grinnin',

Here you go, straight from the pages of National Geographic:

You're cherry picking and ignoring the parts that don't fit with your thinking' This report also says:

"But there's a trade-off between quantity and quality. While crops may be more productive, the resulting produce will be of lower nutritional value."

"There will be winners and losers," said Curtis. "We may end up with a bunch of fast growing weedy species."

"Most scientists believe the increasing levels of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases is causing global climate changes that could melt ice caps, raise sea levels, create deserts, and intensify adverse and unpredictable weather conditions such as tropical storms."

That doesn't sound like a beneficial tradeoff to me.

science-isbetter | 06/04/2015

Thanks for continuing the discussion. As we can see from this thread, one of the benefits of asking for citations is that we can see what is actually written and avoid wrong conclusions from statements quoted out of context. Thanks to those who went to the references and analyzed them.

Whether or not there is a pause is relevant...if not crucial... to the arguments about climate change. Dramsey notes that it's hard to collect the data and that satellites are more consistent. It's precisely that satellite data quoted in http://www.remss.com/research/climate that could indicate a pause although those graphs are pretty jagged.

I would think that we would all like to know more about any purported pause. If anyone can add information about that, it would be welcome.

While waiting for that, it's worth noting the remss.com website I referenced. Whether or not there's a pause it's pretty clear we have a positive temperature anomaly in the north polar troposphere. That's where ice cap melting will cause serious problems. It would be nice to see a similar graph for the south polar troposphere, but I cannot find it on the remss.com website.

The RSS data show cooling in the global stratospheric temperature and one should not be misled by those who quote this out of context. The stratosphere has a much smaller effect on the surface of our planet.

Finally, just a small nitty comment to Dramsey and why I asked who the they was in Brian H's statement that Rajendra Pachauri admitted that their models were wrong. I'm under the impression that the IPCC collects and analyzes data presented by scientists around the world. The IPCC has no research of their own...but I could be wrong about that.

Dramsey | 06/04/2015

@Grinnin',

No cherry-picking here. You quite specifically asked for a cite to back up Brian's assertion that increased atmospheric CO2 could improve crop yields. I provided one such cite and a quote illustrating the precise point you asked about.

You didn't say "Provide a detailed analysis of the current thinking on the plusses and minuses of crop yields vs. crop quality as a function of atmospheric CO2." The Nat Geo article aside, you might be surprised to find there's not a lot of consensus on that subject, but there is pretty broad consensus on the crop yield issue.

Dramsey | 06/04/2015

science-isbetter,

I'm under the impression that the IPCC collects and analyzes data presented by scientists around the world. The IPCC has no research of their own...but I could be wrong about that.

Many IPCC members are scientists, but you're correct: their main purpose is to collate and analyze existing reports and data.

They have been accused of, shall we say, non-scientific things, such as destroying data, falsifying results, and working to keep dissenting voices from publication. Google "climategate".

Homebrook | 06/04/2015

Grinnin', you said, "BTW, many of the farmers in California are suffering through the worst drought they've ever seen, threatening to increase food costs for most of the U.S."

California is experiencing a drought, but this drought is not worse than what has been seen before even in our own lifetimes. The worst was probably in the 1930's dust bowl. There was another 1986-91, which was one of the longest ever observed. What is important to understand is that droughts are absolutely typical in California and should never be a surprise. Its just the way it is here and we'd all better get used to it. It has nothing to do with the imagined "global warming" hoax.

Brian H | 06/04/2015

science;
the title of the IPCC is the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and its remit is specifically to advise governments on the impact of humans on the climate, which it assumes. Its final summary report is edited and rewritten by a panel with one rep from each government (all 194 of them), few or none of whom are scientists. It often does violence to the underlying studies from its Working Group 1 & 2 sources, leading to the resignation of several group lead editors.

It is a fundamentally political body, conceived originally by Maurice Strong, whose basic goal is the de-industrialization of the planet's economy.

Believe it at your peril.

SamO | 06/04/2015

Thanks for keeping these threads at the top Brian. Your Luddite responses and lack of citations are all the proof that anyone needs that you don't have a clue what you're talking about.

;-)

science-isbetter | 06/04/2015

@Homebrook. Wasn't the depression era "dustbowl" in Oklahoma and Texas?

Do you have any more information about the California drought from 1986-91? Was it worse than the current drought?

One could probably argue that a drought in 1986 could be part of climate change.

Dramsey | 06/04/2015

Of course the climate is changing; the climate is always changing. The Thames river in England used to freeze solid-- they held fairs on it. And Greenland was named that for a reason, although it's not terribly green today.

The world has been both warmer, and far colder, than it is today.

Here's what we know:

-- Global average temperatures have risen in the 20th century
-- CO2 concentrations have gone up dramatically in the 20th century

And, that's pretty much it. Is there a correlation? Maybe. Ideally what we'd do is set up a few hundred Earths, with different atmospheric CO2 concentrations, and see what happens. But we can't do that, so the only option available is to create models, collect data, and make predictions. As you might expect, accurately modeling the climate-- to the point where we can make accurate predictions about future climate-- is fiercely difficult. So far the models have done a poor job of making predictions; specifically, temperatures have not risen to the degree predicted. This has led to questions about the models (was the effect of aerosols and clouds properly accounted for? What about radiative forcing?), as well as speculation that the "missing heat" is being somehow stored deep in the oceans (apparently this theory has been discarded).

So the models need work. That's fine. What's not fine is that the results from these models are never reported with any kind of caveats; rather, they're simplified into absolutes.

For example, you may have seen recent headlines trumpeting "2014 is the warmest year on record" from both NOAA and NASA. But when you read the reports in detail, you see two things:

1. The margin of warming is much smaller than the margin of error in measurement. Really, I'm sure these people understand the concept of "significant figures", so reporting temperature deltas of hundreds of a degree when your measurement accuracy is only to a tenth of a degree is just wrong.

2. Again, if you read the actual reports, you'll see that the probability of 2014 being the warmest year on record is less than 40%. So the headline should have read:

2014 Probably Not The Warmest Year on Record

Doesn't have quite the same impact, does it? So that's not what they went with.

Understanding climate change is important; regardless of the cause, we need to be able to predict it so we will know how to respond. However, the issue has become very strongly politicized, and reporting can be very inaccurate, as I've shown above. Rather than spend my time actively investigating each report, I tend to reflexively simply disbelieve them all. You know the aphorism about the boy who cried wolf? It's like that.

science-isbetter | 06/04/2015

@Brian H: I don't know about Maurice Strong's relationship to the IPCC but I guess I have to call your attention to your comment that "...whose [Strong's] basic goal is the de-industrialization of the planet's economy."

I'm just trying to learn as much as I can and am working to understand the "Pause" if any (yes, I've seen it capitalized). But as to Strong and de-industrialization, note that among the many activities in which Strong has apparently served, he counts: "a Senior Advisor to the President of the World Bank, a Member of the International Advisory of Toyota Motor Corporation." (See http://www.mauricestrong.net/index.php/short-biography-mainmenu-6). He was also CEO of Ontario Hydro.

There is also some work in conjunction with North Korea and Peking University.

I don't find any of this to be dispositive. So let's not get caught up in Maurice Strong's bio...that can only lead to an ad hominem argument and it's not clear what his role on the IPCC is considering all the other authors and editors.

Why do you say (about the IPCC) that "few or none of whom are scientists." Please see: https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/ar5/ar5_authors_review_editors_updated.pdf. Sergey Palstsev at MIT jumps off the page as do Linda Mearns, Ronald Kwok (NASA JPL), Shigeru Aoki and I stopped checking as most turn out to be scientists. Am I looking at this incorrectly?

Since I'm new to this group, I followed your arguments with great interest...as noted the "Pause" is important, if real. But your comment about IPCC authors/editors is confounding.

science-isbetter | 06/04/2015

@Dramsey: While NASA did say that there was a 38% chance that 2014 was the warmest year ever, note that NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) gives a probability of 48%. That is not what's particularly compelling: the graph associated with the report is: It shows both NOAA's and NASA's data to reflect a temperature increase of 1.5 degrees Fahrenheit over 1880. This may or may not agree with the climate change models (it appears to be consistent for the north polar region) but it does tend to put to rest the postulated "Pause" that I am researching and asking for help on.

When I first started posting here (whew! why is a Tesla website a place for trying to get to the bottom of the reality of climate change?) I mentioned that RSS (Remote Sensing Systems) provide data that may not be consistent with global climate change. But the NASA/NOAA report notes that 2014 RSS data has 2014 as the sixth warmest on record and 2014 UAH data (UAH is also based on satellite data) suggest that 2014 was the third warmest (lower troposphere).

For the source material of this post, see: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/briefings/201501.pdf

Grinnin'.VA | 07/04/2015

@ Dramsey | April 6, 2015

@Grinnin',

No cherry-picking here.

IMO, you quoted the part that 'supports' the deniers' agenda and omitted the part that doesn't. To me, that's cherry picking.

You didn't say "Provide a detailed analysis of the current thinking on the plusses and minuses of crop yields ...

OK. Please provide fair and balanced summary statements made by real climate scientists on this issue! (So far, you haven't done that.)

Brian H | 07/04/2015

Dramsey;
Gore quickly glossed over the sequence when he pointed out the correspondence of CO2 levels to temperature in his "Inconvenient" film. Warmists have been trying to rationalize the inconvenient precedence of temperature changes ever since.

Dramsey | 07/04/2015

IMO, you quoted the part that 'supports' the deniers' agenda and omitted the part that doesn't. To me, that's cherry picking.

I provided exactly what you asked for, a cite supporting Brian's claim that increasing atmospheric CO2 levels increased crop yields. You moved the goalposts, then castigated me for not providing additional information you newly deemed relevant.

OK. Please provide fair and balanced summary statements made by real climate scientists on this issue!

I am not your Google research bot. Honestly, I find it odd that as someone interested in climate change, you had apparently never heard of (increased crop yields resulting from increased atmospheric CO2) before, since it's hardly a new phenomenon, with reports going back over a decade. If you do your own research (i.e. spend 30 minute poking about with Google), you'll find that it's a very complex subject not amenable to be summarized in Twitter-sized chunks.

Not that that's ever stopped anyone.

Dramsey | 07/04/2015

science,

It shows both NOAA's and NASA's data to reflect a temperature increase of 1.5 degrees Fahrenheit over 1880.

One thing you must realize when looking at these charts is that NOAA and NASA both have a long history of adjusting temperature records downwards, which is something you might want to take into consideration.

Grinnin'.VA | 07/04/2015

@ Dramsey | April 7, 2015

I presume that the reason that you didn't provide a link to a legitimate scientific source for the claim that increasing CO2 levels are good for crops is that you don't have such a link.

IMO, you should back up your claims with references to legitimate sources. Otherwise, I assume you're just blowing smoke -- making unsubstantiated claims.

Frank.B.Smith | 07/04/2015

@Dramsey

You said "And Greenland was named that for a reason, although it's not terribly green today." At the time Eric the Red named the land Greenland it was covered with ice. That name was a marketing ploy to encourage others to move there.

science-isbetter | 07/04/2015

@Dramsey:

You write that NOAA and NASA both have a long history of adjusting records downwards. I'm surprised by your point. If they are adjusting temperatures downwards wouldn't that mean that the temperature rise is greater than their graphs suggest? Perhaps you meant that they increase records upwards. If I'm missing your point please let me know.

Also, I looked at the links you quoted (adjusting temperature records downwards). Thank you for providing links. As others have noted, the provision of citations allows the inquirer to see what was said.

One link in particular, provided by you, supports manual adjustments of data (http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2015/02/manual-adjustments-in-the-tempera...).

The reasons for manual adjustment of at least some data seem plausible.

"However, manual adjustments are not, as some skeptics seem to argue, wrong or biased in all cases. There are real reasons for manual adjustments to data — for example, if GPS signal data was not adjusted for relativistic effects, the position data would quickly get out of whack."

"The technology the station uses for measurement changes (e.g. thermometers to electronic devices, one type of electronic device to another, etc.) These measurement technologies sometimes have known biases. Correcting for such biases is perfectly reasonable (though a frustrated skeptic could argue that the government is diligent in correcting for new cooling biases but seldom corrects for warming biases, such as in the switch from bucket to water intake measurement of sea surface temperatures)."

"Even if the temperature station does not move, the location can degrade. The clearest example is a measurement point that once was in the country but has been engulfed by development (here is one example — this at one time was the USHCN measurement point with the most warming since 1900, but it was located in an open field in 1900 and ended up in an asphalt parking lot in the middle of Tucson.)"

Manual adjustments to data is troublesome when there is no explanation...agreed. Bad practice.

Next, I will try to figure out if there have been manual adjustments to Remote Sensing Systems (RSS quoted elsewhere in this thread) and UAH data. From what I've read, it appears that RSS is less susceptible to systematic errors. The RSS data initially is troubling to those who are convinced of anthropogenic climate change. However, close analysis of RSS data appears to show increase in temperature in the north polar troposphere (see http://www.remss.com/research/climate).

Brian H | 07/04/2015

science;
the downwards adjustments are for historical and past records, to give the appearance of warming trends and to exaggerate them. There are many examples, including efforts to erase previous warm periods from the Medieval Warm Period to the warming spike in the '40s. Modern records are hiked to steepen the slope further. Criminal.

Grinnin'.VA | 11/04/2015

@ Brian H | April 7, 2015

the downwards adjustments are for historical and past records, to give the appearance of warming trends and to exaggerate them. There are many examples, ...

Without credible scientific references, this claim lacks objective credibility. Or put more plainly, you seem to be repeating idle rumors by rumormongers.

IMO, you're attacking climate science without any legitimate cause. And I think that's a dishonorable thing to do.

alanwwebb | 11/04/2015

Not the warmest year? Gee whiz, actually within margin of error? Irrelevant.

This is the latest in a series of warm years, in a series of warm decades. While the ranking of individual years can be affected by chaotic weather patterns, the long-term trends are attributable to drivers of climate change that right now are dominated by human emissions of greenhouse gases," said GISS Director Gavin Schmidt.

alanwwebb | 11/04/2015

he downwards adjustments are for historical and past records, to give the appearance of warming trends and to exaggerate them. "

One of Brian's myths.
Adjustments are made for normal, reasonable reasons, such as eliminating duplicate records from the same station or eliminating station readings that are impossible (for instance a lowest reading higher than all the higher readings in stations around it).

http://berkeleyearth.org/summary-of-findings

Brian H | 12/04/2015

Within the margin of error means statistically indistinguishable. Zero difference.

maxr | 12/04/2015

Some of you guys may not realize it but Climate Change deniers is a truly Made In America phenomenon.
Seems like the rest of the world figured it out. No one else claim Climate Change is a Hoax. I'm not quite sure why but I believe the reason may be that in the US this has become a political debate, whereas in Europe for example our politics fight on any possible topic, but not this obvious one.

I'm also surprised to read again and again the same argument by deniers : "Climate change always existed on earth, we've seen much hotter or cooler periods on this planet. So what tells us this is not the natural process of climate?"
I'm sorry if this has been answered already but it seems as some deniers are still using this old claim. Well the answer is pretty simple: True climate change is natural. Yes. But this type of climate disruption happens on hundreds of thousands of years, maybe sometimes and at the quickest in thousands of years. This allow all species to use the law of Darwin and adapt over various generations. And yet most species goes extinct on those abrupt but very slow changes. The species who reproduce faster, like insects, or who already live in an ecosystem with strong season temperature differences, like non-tropical species, or more prone to generational mutations will have better chances of surviving.
But if you disrupt the climate at a speed (in 200 years) that is so fast in terms of species evolution you simply don't offer any chance for adaptation.
Tropical trees are among the most threaten species by a Lightning Fast Climate Change. Too bad they host (and allow sustainable life for) 70% of all earthly biodiversity.

Brian H | 12/04/2015

Silly statements and arguments. The changes in the late 19th C and early 20th C were larger and quicker than anything seen recently.

Pristine unaltered stations in the US show little or no change in the last century. Significant alterations to the record have been made, without documentation, to give the appearance of drastic changes.

Grinnin'.VA | 19/04/2015

@ maxr | April 12, 2015

Seems like the rest of the world figured it out. No one else claim Climate Change is a Hoax. I'm not quite sure why but I believe the reason may be that in the US this has become a political debate, ...

The political debate about climate change is a recent thing. A generation ago, both Republicans and Democrats believed in climate change caused by humans.

IMO, the political "debate" has been generated by one primary cause: money flowing from fossil fuel interests to politicians.

SamO | 19/04/2015

Please provide ANY citation for this:

"Pristine unaltered stations in the US show little or no change in the last century. Significant alterations to the record have been made, WITHOUT DOCUMENTATION, to give the appearance of drastic changes."

Should be very easy to find this. This is the lodestone of discoveries of "altered" data . . .

This is why nobody believes anything you say.

Dr. Curry does not agree with this statement. You hijack her small intellectual betrayal and multiply it.

Brian H | 19/04/2015

The AGW BS castle is crumbling. Come up with a way to make CO2 cause the temp changes which precede CO2 changes? Or the reversal of ice sheet maxima while CO2 remains high for millions of years? Etc.