Why are most global warming questions answered with extremes?

In all truth because being a political agenda it gets answered politically from both sides and political opinions are normally as hot and bothered as religious ones are. So let us ask two basic points and answer them strictly based on scientific facts that are very well documented based on historical and recent testing of average climate.

First has the average climate temperature increased in the last 150 years/

Yes it has by about 1 degree on the centigrade scale.

Why: because at the starting point of the study in 1850 the worlds climate was about 1.5 centigrade below the average temperature of the last 13,000 years because of a series of 4 solar minimums that had created a 500 plus year long cold period known historically and scientifically as the Little Ice Age. There are a lot of scientists who feel our current modern solar optimum was just another brief warm spell in the continuing LIA because this 100 or so long warm period has not been stable and has had at least one 30 year long cool spell in the middle of it.

Where does our current climate average lie in relation to the high and low temperatures of our current Holocene geologic period that began with the melting of the glaciers 13,000 years ago.

Pretty close to the average but because of the 3,000 year long hot spell know as the Holocene optimum we are currently about .5 centigrade below the Holocene average and it currently looks like the climate is heading into another cool or cold spell with the vast majority of solar scientists predicting a 20 to 80 year long cooling period due to low solar activity.

"I mean why do are so many people unwilling to see through the other side's eyes."

I have worked in science for over 20 years and am always open to 'the other point of view' the problem is deniers don't really have much they will talk about Mar's warming or cosmic rays effect on cloud formation. These two theories are examples the first Mars is actually thought to be related to dust storms over the southern pole and the Northern pole is not affected. The cosmic ray cloud formation theory is an example of the half truths used by some and believed by others as this was a real theory now almost a decade old, the problem is it was shown not not work as a theory a number of years ago, but deniers ignore that little fact.

There are a number of good answers here Dana is one there are others on both sides of the argument I can't comment on jello as he blocked me some time ago, after I pointed out some very basic mistakes in a number of his questions like his suggestion that the atmosphere of Mars was about the same as the top of Everest, which is of course not even close to the reality, I would suggest he has little credibility when it comes to basic science.

Okay let's examine this. You say "I personally think that global warming is natural...I also think that natural global warming is being added onto by AGW."

So, how exactly do you think it's natural? Specifically what natural effect is causing the planet to warm? Is it solar irradiance? The Earth's orbital (Milankovitch) cycles? The El Niño Southern Oscillation?

This is the problem - people think global warming must be natural not for any physical reason, but just because it's "common sense." But once you actually examine the natural effects which can cause global warming (and cooling), it becomes apparent that if not for human effects, the planet would not be warming right now.

http://greenhome.huddler.com/wiki/global-warming-a...

There's also this thought process that people tend to have that when there are arguments on 2 extremes, the reality is somewhere in between. That's simply not always the case. Sometimes the reality is one of the extremes. That's the case with global warming.

*edit* it's not volcanoes - humans emit about 150 more times CO2 than volcanoes. See Myth #3 at the link below.

http://greenhome.huddler.com/wiki/global-warming-m...

IMO, the polarization is due to the lack a "gold standard" of real, hard science. In the absence of hard science, theories provide the next best thing, until there is adequate data to verify or discard them.

The problem with attaching CO2 to human activity is that manmade CO2 is identical to the CO2 from plants, decomposing vegetation, volcanoes, etc. That's where the problem begins. If manmade CO2 was purple, we could identify and calculate its effect. Unfortunately, we have no such marker, and no laboratory large enough to duplicate atmospheric conditions. Enter the computer climate models.

The problem with the models is that the scientists do not fully understand the hundreds of thousands interactions in the atmosphere, which means these interactions must be estimated, and the model is only as accurate as the estimates.

Among these estimates are the "feedbacks", or how atmospheric conditions affect CO2. Recent (2008) research adds evidence to show that the feedback calculations in the computer models result in overstated CO2 effects.

It seems that a reasoned discussion of those facts is far better than reiterating the same old tired mantra, regardless of which side it comes from.

Well...I think when you get into questions and answers that are issues oriented and rely on logic, you'll find more balanced answers. In those exchances, even if 'worst case' scenarios are included in one way or another it is in the context of the range of possibilities. Some people don't really absorb that and see only the extremes...but the media also plays on extremes, as does politics. Extremes are sensational and sell, so you'll see headlines that couch those extremes in big, bold letters. Or sound bytes...and when people don't investigate further or remember just the headlines or sound bytes, they tend to buy into those extremes more.

As long as you bring up two of the main participants here, I'll go ahead and offer than my experience in following Dana's comments is that he is quite thorough in his answers and provides credible links; I don't find his questions or answers extreme when taken in context, I find him very informative and helpful in terms of keeping up to date on developments and research. Dr. Jello occasionally asks questions that I find interesting and thought provoking but he isn't arguing from a position of strength, given the current state of the research and assembled data.

The important part of studying climate change is to dig deeper than the headlines and sound bytes. Here's an interesting headline, for one example:

"Rising seas threaten renowned French coast"

and here is the link to the article:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/franceclimateenvironme...

Now here is a major quote:

" "There is a lack of sand on the beaches, because of a period of warming -- climate change," confirmed Cyril Mallet, geological engineer and project manager for the French geology and mining research agency BRGM.

Climate change means rising sea levels, more violent storms and increasing rainfall in a region already suffering from its location on the Bay of Biscay, where ocean waves carry 500,000 cubic metres (17.6 million cubic feet) -- about 200 Olympic swimming pools -- of sand southward every year.

Cliffs are sliding into the sea, beaches are disappearing, dunes that protect forests, towns and roads are in danger, and the tourism trade is in jeopardy, local experts said."

One can see that this article emphasizes the dire nature of the erosion of pristine beaches, and it is easy to infer that this article is talking about anthropogenic global warming-but it doesn't, really. However it does play into the general public interest and concern about climate change-and that generates revenue.

Is it extreme or alarmist? No, not really, doesn't even claim to add to the evidence or prove anything one way or the other. But without reading it in depth or really analyzing the content, it is easy to put two and two together and make logical leaps of faith. That's what you have to watch out for whether the source is a believer or non-believer. Get past the buzz.

If every person could read the following link, then the discussion of AGW would be more interesting. Just 7 pages,w/ pictures,and easy to understand vocabulary.

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/EnergyBa...

This video from CBC-TV,sheds some light on the reason the 'denial' movement is so vocal. Sort of like how an EMPTY wagon makes the most noise !

http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/denialmachine/video.html

because the threat we face due to climate change is EXTREME

Research grants and control of the masses.