At WUWT, one thing we pride ourselves in is helping visitors learn about the issues and the science, even if those visitors should already know what these things mean. Take for example, Michael Tobis proprietor of “Only In it for the Gold” and “Planet3.0”, both heavily pro-warming sites. Readers may remember Mr. Tobis from his famous F-word Fusillade.
Mike came to WUWT to ask a simple question, and of course, we are always happy to help him out.
Original comment asking to define “CAGW” here.
Honestly, I thought most everyone (especially the bloggers) in this debate knew this term, but apparently not. So, this post will make sure everyone does now.
CAGW is an abbreviation for Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming
For more abbreviations, see our WUWT Glossary Page
Michael Tobis says (January 31, 2012 at 10:35 pm): “I do not know what the proposition I am supposedly defending actually is.”
I think we can take this as the “elevator definition” of CAGW.
[quote] Michael Tobis said: I find it interesting that nobody has actually come up with a definition as yet. I would like something in the form “advocates of CAGW believe that … “. Please be specific. Then I can tell you whether I am or am not a CAGW advocate.]
You’re a coy rascal, aren’t you. You recently made a somewhat colorful statement that veritably screamed a very specific understanding of the definition. So YOU tell US exactly what is it that you think you’re f%^#!ng saving the f%&*#ng world from, and there’s your answer.
CO2 a gaseous weapon?
@Michael Tobis says:
January 31, 2012 at 10:35 pm
I wouldn’t worry about the AGW part as it is only the C part that matters, if the C part does not come to fruition then the rest is chicken little screaming. So where do we go to check the C part, well that’s easy use your search engine of choice and search for ‘IPCC’ and ‘Computer models’ and you will be able to assess for yourself if the C part is any good.
Hope this helps.
And I always thought the CAGW was the title of these Enviro jolly’s they have in Rio and any other hot country they can, Come And Get Wasted.
Mr. Tobias;
if you are looking for a definition for 8 years then you are probably asking the wrong question. The biggest and most common dispute is over what level of warming effect is required to distinguish CAGW from plain ol’ non-catastrophic AGW. That’s a difficult question and one can distinguish the two by by saying CAGW justifies drastic actions while plain ol’ AGW only justifies non-drastic actions (that doesn’t help much and shifts to differentiating drastic from non-drastic action, but I repeat that’s a difficult question). There might be some other point of confusion, but if you want to know what distinguishes CAGW from AGW , then ask that question.
“The only way to simplify ourselves out of the present mess is by cutting our population 80%, unfortunately.”
Gore: We need a definition for CAGW.
Mann: I’m not gonna try it – you try it!
Gore: I know! Let’s get Mikey! He hates Everyone!
(but here’s the bit left out of the commercial)
Mikey: f*^* f$&^ f&^%!
Gore: that works!
Michael Tobis says:
January 31, 2012 at 10:35 pm
“To my knowledge it is not used by actual climate scientists in any context.”
Michael, with all due respect (granted I have seen little to demonstrate your level of knowledge, but what do I know)…but I digress…I think I might be able to enlighten you on CAGW usage:
http://bit.ly/wVS3AZ
Andrew
Jennifer, the answers may have been a little bit “beside the point” but there were some real corkers among them. Certainly brightened my day! Thanks to all above.
An excellent discussion of possible scenarios is taking place over at Judith currys:
http://judithcurry.com/2012/01/31/climate-scenarios-2015-2050/#more-6931
It is the C in CAGW that skeptics maintain is not supported by the science, and that the extent to which the A in the GW (which few skeptics dispute) can be actually be attributed. The post I linked is as good a rational assessment of what to make of potential climate change (including possible cooling as well as warming) as any I have seen.
Actually, I think this would be better described as an acronym table. But I am very concerned that the IPCC is described as the, “physical basis for climate change.” I think it would simply be described as the, “intergovernmental panel on climate change,” and leave it at that. For me that description is both misleading and unnecessarily honorific.
Michael Tobias:
Defining CAGW is easy. If you fear being locked up forever for the lies you spread when it all goes public, then you are a worshiper of CAGW. You and your people are costing countries billions of dollars each year, you advocate the dispossession of people’s lands for corrupt and wasteful carbon markets, you force Govts to extract more and more taxes out of ordinary people to pay for the demands, you force energy prices so high that people can’t even feed their own children, you brainwash large segments of the population, demand the wholesale slaughter of billions of people, and destroy honest science that will result in science and technology being set back for decades.
I hope you don’t mind that I wish you would be the first volunteer in your genocide program.
Jason Calley> …It has to be catastrophic. If it is NOT catastrophic, then there is nothing to get so worried about
Obviously. No-one ever worries about things that are short of catastrophic. Things that are merely bad, or unpleasant, you just ignore I suppose?
mt>> “To my knowledge it is not used by actual climate scientists in any context.”
Andrew> http://bit.ly/wVS3AZ
Not a substitute for thought I’m afraid. Your link points mostly to “skeptic” sites but not to any scientists that I could see.
Perhaps you could accept mt’s challenge and actually find an actual usage by actual scientists?
Climate Armageddon Goes Wobbly.
I think this tale illustrates very well what CAGW means (chicken little -1943)
dwright:- January 31, 2012 at 7:59 pm: Conspiracy Among Greedy Watermelons
david:- January 31, 2012 at 11:52 pm:
“advocates of CAGW believe that … “.
..by promoting a coming global disaster, that only a world government can deal with, they can concentrate power into an omnipotent governing elite. It is essentially a socialist ideal. CAGW is purely a political construct. It is also an attempt by these people to save their ideology from oblivion after the failure of the socialist and communist states in the former east block.
Brilliant, guys: those two go together so well. One is a very amusing definition of the acronym and the other fully describes its fundamental meaning. Can’t be bettered for an answer to MT himself.
Thinks: say MT out loud and that describes his argument(s)!
Mr. Tobis,
The definition is explicit in the meanings of the individual words. It isn’t code for anything. You really need it defined???
@ur momisugly William N. Connolly
Jason Calley> …It has to be catastrophic. If it is NOT catastrophic, then there is nothing to get so worried about
Obviously. No-one ever worries about things that are short of catastrophic. Things that are merely bad, or unpleasant, you just ignore I suppose?
Hi William! I think you have what is called a “false dichotomy”. My actions are not limited by two choices; catastrophic worry, or inaction. Just like you, I am faced with events that are bad or unpleasant; I just deal with them — no worries. None of those bad or unpleasant things require me to impose restriction, regulation, taxes, rationing or legal and social sanctions on the use of energy for the entire industrialized world. None of those bad or unpleasant things require that I support the death of billions of people.
Crackpot Academics’ Green Waffle
dwright:- January 31, 2012 at 7:59 pm: Conspiracy Among Greedy Watermelons
david:- January 31, 2012 at 11:52 pm:
“advocates of CAGW believe that … “.
..by promoting a coming global disaster, that only a world government can deal with, they can concentrate power into an omnipotent governing elite. It is essentially a socialist ideal. CAGW is purely a political construct. It is also an attempt by these people to save their ideology from oblivion after the failure of the socialist and communist states in the former east block.
——————————————————————————————————————————–
Brilliant, guys, these fit perfectly: one gives the meaning of the acronym whilst the other states its fundamental purpose and together they answer Mr. MT in full.
Thinks: say MT out loud – it says what his arguments are!
“Perhaps you could accept mt’s challenge and actually find an actual usage by actual scientists?”
Well, Judy Curry uses it:
http://judithcurry.com/2011/08/04/carbon-cycle-questions/
JC> Your original assertion amounted to “if it is not catastrophic, do nothing”. You’ve now realised that is wrong; good. Now you’re inventing strawmen about “support the death of billions of people”. So we’re faced with the prospect of global warming, and we need to have a rational discussion about what we might wish to do about it. We’ll need to know how large the temperature change is likely to be, and what effects that might have. Caricaturing it as CAGW and inventing gigadeaths is a way of avoiding rational discussion.
@ur momisugly William M. Connelley
mt>> “To my knowledge it is not used by actual climate scientists in any context.”
Andrew> http://bit.ly/wVS3AZ
“Not a substitute for thought I’m afraid. Your link points mostly to “skeptic” sites but not to any scientists that I could see.
Perhaps you could accept mt’s challenge and actually find an actual usage by actual scientists?”
William,
Surely you jest…(and don’t call me Shirley)…If offended…lighten up…this is a funny thread…heck Tobis last post at his low traffic website mocks Fox News with some Muppet clip…so the ‘gloves’ are off…or in ‘mt’s case, I guess the hand puppets are on.
I most certainly will accept ‘mt’s’ F*#king challenge…I actually find it “Sofa King” easy as SNL is known to say…(google it if you are confused)
But before I do, William, allow me do make a few statements…
The basic premise you and the good doctor assert is somewhat of a Red Herring wouldn’t you say?
Think about it…its all marketing…let Hansen and Gore be the bombastic blowhards bloviating ad nauseam all the while the “Real (Climate) Scientists do the ‘science’. We have all read about how this ‘science’ is conducted thanks to a few of those Brilliant ‘Peer Reviewed’ tenured climate scientists at UEA not having a F…ing clue about stuff that is actually FACT. The FACT is…and you don’t have to be very intelligent to know this William…EMAILS are FOREVER, lol.
Also, I assume you are aware of Googles ‘secret formulas’ that are used to…search for stuff…I ain’t saying they are overtly doing anything nefarious William, I am stating facts. Google customizes searches based on how they track you. Keywords are often used…results may vary…combine that with the ‘Red Herring’ above.
Therefore, if the challenge is to “find an actual usage by actual scientists?” I had already done it before I opened my big yapper, lol. You see William, I am not a ‘Real Climate’ scientist…I actually do original research, publish it and defend my assertions publicly. http://bit.ly/wVS3AZ results for you to try to reproduce my results (I don’t want to sit through one of Steve ‘Climate Audits) I argue it is a very good example of the Scientific Process. Please correct my assertions if you can.
When I searched Google I found this on the first page yesterday, but it seems to be on the second page today…if I graphed it…it might look something like…a “Hockey Stick” upside down. But I suck at Excel…so you can if you want. I have heard Phil Jones knows a thing or two about Excel…so I am in good company…I think.
Ever heard of this guy?
Richard Lindzen
He was a lead author of Chapter 7, ‘Physical Climate Processes and Feedbacks,’ of the IPCC Third Assessment Report on climate change.
“In this recently presented paper by Dr. Richard Lindzen, published here in its entirety, he describes
the origins of global warming alarm, the political agenda of the alarmists, their intimidation tactics,
and the reasons for their success. Also, in painstaking detail, he debunks their key scientific claims
and counterclaims.”
http://uhaweb.hartford.edu/LGOULD/LINDZEN_Expose_30Sept2008.pdf
Now…feel free to respond, ‘mt’ as well. However, I think you should just ‘go away or I shall taunt you a second time…’ http://youtu.be/A8yjNbcKkNY?t=1m58s
Andrew
Michael Tobis says:
January 31, 2012 at 10:35 pm
“To my knowledge it is not used by actual climate scientists in any context.”
Lead squirrel, James Hansen, predicted that Manhattan would be under water by now.
But then again, not everyone would define that as catastrophic.
http://foia2011.org/index.php?id=7&search=catastrophic&sisea_offset=20
“You’ve said that “The only way to simplify ourselves out of the present mess is by cutting our population 80%, unfortunately.”
That was in response to a suggestion that we reduce our technological level to that of the nineteenth century. It was against “simplification” in that sense.
Without context, this is basically a (yet another, I might say) misattribution.
Mardler attempts an actual definition, in that he says “advocates of CAGW believe that…”
Under Mardler’s definition I am not a CAGW advocate. Nor is anyone on the RC board, I would venture, nor anyone in the Obama administration. I suppose people who believe this sort of thing exist but I don;t know any by name.
Does someone have an alternative definition which people actually advocate?
The problem here is that you are using this expression without defining its limits. It’s difficult to discuss a proposition that is undefined.