Not Logged In Log In   Sign Up   Points Leaders
Follow Us    1:58 AM

Message Forum - Read Message

Category: World news > Topics Add to favorite topics   Post new topicPost New Topic
Author Topic: Science Says Global Warming Is Real. Skeptics Say No. Back to Topics
SemiSteve

Champion Author
Tampa

Posts:19,170
Points:428,325
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Apr 22, 2013 3:42:18 PM

"The scientific opinion on climate change is that the Earth's climate system is unequivocally warming, and it is more than 90% certain that humans are causing most of it through activities that increase concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, such as deforestation and burning fossil fuels. In addition, it is likely that some potential further greenhouse gas warming has been offset by increased aerosols.[1][2][3][4] This scientific consensus is expressed in synthesis reports, by scientific bodies of national or international standing, and by surveys of opinion among climate scientists. Individual scientists, universities, and laboratories contribute to the overall scientific opinion via their peer-reviewed publications, and the areas of collective agreement and relative certainty are summarised in these high level reports and surveys."

Scientific opinion on climate change - wiki

"National and international science academies and scientific societies have assessed the current scientific opinion, in particular on recent global warming. These assessments have largely followed or endorsed the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) position of January 2001 which states:

An increasing body of observations gives a collective picture of a warming world and other changes in the climate system... There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities.[5]

The main conclusions of the IPCC Working Group I on global warming were the following:

1. The global average surface temperature has risen 0.6 ± 0.2 °C since the late 19th century, and 0.17 °C per decade in the last 30 years.[6]
2. "There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities", in particular emissions of the greenhouse gases carbon dioxide and methane.[7]
3. If greenhouse gas emissions continue the warming will also continue, with temperatures projected to increase by 1.4 °C to 5.8 °C between 1990 and 2100. Accompanying this temperature increase will be increases in some types of extreme weather and a projected sea level rise.[8] From IPCC Working Group II: On balance the impacts of global warming will be significantly negative, especially for larger values of warming.[9]

No scientific body of national or international standing maintains a formal opinion dissenting from any of these three main points; the last was the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, which in 2007 updated its 1999 statement rejecting the likelihood of human influence on recent climate with its current non-committal position.[10][11] Some other organizations, primarily those focusing on geology, also hold non-committal positions."

--Some scientists oppose the AGW theory. Wiki has a list of them here.



[Edited by: SemiSteve at 4/22/2013 3:45:53 PM EST]
REPLIES (newest first) Post a Reply
Profile Pic
ministorage
Champion Author Louisville

Posts:12,119
Points:1,109,475
Joined:Oct 2008
Message Posted: Aug 31, 2013 10:46:38 AM

airfresh, I prob should have put quotes around it. Yeah, I think Pierre was diplomatically being a wee bit conservative. The takeaway is that almost all of us are part of the 97%. Albeit meaningless, at least we can all feel part of the team now. ;-P
Profile Pic
airfresh
Champion Author Massachusetts

Posts:17,701
Points:1,015,335
Joined:Aug 2007
Message Posted: Aug 31, 2013 9:52:24 AM

<<<Has climate science gotten so bad that it is now resorting to utterly phony claims?>>>

Now?? heh heh heh
Profile Pic
ministorage
Champion Author Louisville

Posts:12,119
Points:1,109,475
Joined:Oct 2008
Message Posted: Aug 31, 2013 8:34:12 AM

Thanks Panama I need to watch that.

Last October, Dr. Judith Curry on the anti-scientific non-consensus. Curry has been highly critical of some of her team members, "....this has degenerated into the use of ‘consensus’ by certain individuals as a power play for influence in the policy and political debate surrounding climate and energy policy."

Curry is an important bridge to seeing into the mind of AGW scientists, because she is one. She wrote a paper in 2005 linking hurricanes to global warming. Since her paper, this has been the longest stretch without a major hurricane since the 1800s (Sandy was barely a Cat1, but came ashore during full moon/high tide).

Curry questions what we really know about AGW. She has addressed the "Uncertainty Monster". She is already writing critically about UN IPCC's AR5, because leaked parts of the upcoming report indicate it is still on the same track (over-estimating climate's sensitivity to CO2).

In July, she wrote that the conclusion of the Cook survey is meaningless, because it is so loose even AGW skeptics would identify in that 97%. I haven't seen a scientific study yet that shows a majority (let alone close to 97%) of scientists believe who human activity is causing (or going to cause) dangerous global warming. They're much more loose--getting scientists to agree that it has warmed this last century, and whether human activities have contributed.

She is troubled by the "tribal nature" in climate science, troubled by the stonewalling by climate scientists over the release of data for independent reviews. She has written that climatologists should be more transparent, and that they should engage with skeptics rather than demagogue them and blow off their concerns. She has a blog that welcomes input from both sides of the debate.

Dr. Curry is the only AGW-believing scientist I know of who is willing to question what we know and to actually show a desire to follow the scientific method. Somewhat enigmatic as she straddles this fence, she is seemingly much more a friend to AGW skeptics than her colleagues in the AGW cabal, of whom she has been highly critical.

Dr. Curry, who is Department Chair at the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, Georgia Institute of Technology, is comfortable in her skin and does not seem concerned about becoming a statistic like Bob Carter and Murray Salby for being willing to question what we know about anthropogenic global warming and the greenhouse effect hypothesis.

They were essentially kicked off the Titanic for questioning its integrity and for questioning the speed at which the ship is blindly racing through a field of icebergs. Clearly, some AGW scientists are going to ride their self-induced Titanic all the way to the bottom (e.g., Michael Mann and Kevin Trenberth).

Curry has opened a door to a lifeboat for others to join her when the time comes to abandon ship. It's 11:45 p.m. and the ship is taking on water in the engine room.

IMHO

[Edited by: ministorage at 8/31/2013 8:43:43 AM EST]
Profile Pic
Panama19
Champion Author Louisville

Posts:30,326
Points:3,104,410
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Aug 31, 2013 2:39:29 AM


ministorage, Your Lomborg link didn't work. Try this one.

"Richard Tol has tried to replicate their study and it turns out they have done pretty much everything wrong. And they don’t want to release the data so anyone else can check it"

Now THERE's a surprise!

Profile Pic
ministorage
Champion Author Louisville

Posts:12,119
Points:1,109,475
Joined:Oct 2008
Message Posted: Aug 30, 2013 10:10:18 PM

German publication Der Spiegel: Scientists Hopelessly Stumped By Present Ocean Cooling

Right now we have over 65% more Arctic sea ice area, a record high sea ice area around Antarctica, a record low tornado season, record late start start hurricane season, 15 years of no global warming, a cooling tropical Pacific and a “strongly cooling Southern Ocean”.


Profile Pic
ministorage
Champion Author Louisville

Posts:12,119
Points:1,109,475
Joined:Oct 2008
Message Posted: Aug 30, 2013 5:29:58 PM

Lomborg On Cook 97% Survey: It Turns Out They Have Done Pretty Much Everything Wrong

Has climate science gotten so bad that it is now resorting to utterly phony claims? Cook confirms that indeed it has.
Profile Pic
ministorage
Champion Author Louisville

Posts:12,119
Points:1,109,475
Joined:Oct 2008
Message Posted: Aug 30, 2013 4:38:56 PM

SemiSteve: "I see that many of our skeptics are going into ignore mode...."

Bury the truth if you might try, but I won't let you get away with it, Steve. So I'll repeat my post from below (which you ignored).

SemiSteve: "Certainly is amazing that all of a sudden the right has seized on this concept that the earth has been cooling for 15 years. Or is it 12. Or is it 17. Or 163? Whatever.... And hasn't this all taken place DURING that last 15 years? Funny how public perception manipulation works."

Would you believe Richard Harris of left-winged NPR and the Journal Nature? They're now saying EXACTLY what many AGW skeptics have been saying:

"A study in the journal Nature could help explain why the Earth's average temperature hasn't increased during the past 15 years — despite a long-term trend of global warming." "A Cooler Pacific May Be Behind Recent Pause In Global Warming"

Get that? They're attributing 15 years of no warming (the time period that you mocked me and others over) from a "long-term trend" to cooler ocean cycles. The article also discusses particulates from volcanoes adding to this very real phenomenon--all of which are exactly what I and others have discussed on these climate-related threads for years. (Except that when we discussed these things you insinuated we were spouting fossil fueled-lies.)

A major divergence is that your warm-earther geniuses are clinging to the recent anti-scientific and ludicrous CYA notion of Kevin Trenberth's that the deep oceans may have sucked out the missing surface heat which was caused by AGW. IOW, after they couldn't find the heat they predicted that was supposed to be trapped by AGW--which was a "travesty"--so they made up a new hypothesis on the fly that the heat is sinking to the bottom of the oceans (because it's not at the surface). I have witnessed, to my astonishment, ignorant idealogues will swallow almost any non-scientific notion as long as a 'scientists' say it and as long as certain news outlets report it.

SemiSteve: "Funny how public perception manipulation works."

Yes, but actually, it is very sad. Perceptions have indeed been manipulated.

All that's left for the slow-learners you put your faith in, is to attribute ocean cycles to solar output cycles, and AGW will be officially pushing up daisies. We're almost there.
--------------------

Address this first, then perhaps we'll talk about oysters. You can try to ignore the truth if you wish, but I'm certainly not buying your own con game 'shell' game. I'll be happy to repeat this post as many times as you'd like until you address it.

You want some cred? STOP changing the subject.

[Edited by: ministorage at 8/30/2013 4:46:22 PM EST]
Profile Pic
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:19,170
Points:428,325
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Aug 30, 2013 2:25:25 PM

I see that many of our skeptics are going into ignore mode on the issue of reducing CO2 due to the resultant build up of carbonic acid in the sea which is impacting shell fish.

I am sadly dissappointed; but not particularly surprised. This has been deemed a 'liberal cause;' and for the prejudiced that's all they need to know.

I understand that many on the decks of the Titanic joked about things until it was glaringly apparent they were wrong as well.

***

ldheinz, Thanks for the interesting links and taking the discussion seriously and intelligently.

I believe you've drawn an incorrect conclusion from the linked materials. CO2 may have been a factor in the explosion of life during the cambrian period but nothing there indicates CO2 was good for humans or hard-shelled sea creatures. Corral reefs only need 10,000 years to form. The linked graph shows 10K years as a blip; since it covers over 500 million years.

Basically, you've gone back in time way too far to make your argument stick. The things you are trying to correlate do not overlap.

If current era humans manage to destroy corral reefs and hard-shelled sea creatures through massive release of CO2 there is no telling if and when these things would ever return.

Did you know that each oyster filters 50 gallons of murky water per day?

"Since colonial times, the Chesapeake (meaning "great shellfish Bay" in Algonquin) has lost more than 98 percent of its oysters. Gone are the days when oyster reefs posed navigational hazards to Chesapeake Bay explorers or watermen pulled 17 million bushels of oysters each year. Now, Maryland and Virginia watermen and the seafood industry have lost $4 billion in income in the past 30 years alone. But as recent studies find, all is not lost.

A two-month Maryland Department of Natural Resources survey conducted in 2011 revealed higher levels of oyster reproduction and a lower mortality rate. In fact, Chesapeake Bay oysters seem to be growing heartier and more robust. Given that each adult oyster filters and cleans up to 50 gallons of water per day—gobbling up algae, and removing dirt and nitrogen pollution—that's good news for the health of the Chesapeake Bay and for us."

50 gallons filtered per day per oyster

Profile Pic
ldheinz
Champion Author Chicago

Posts:23,127
Points:2,924,795
Joined:May 2006
Message Posted: Aug 30, 2013 12:16:52 PM

SemiSteve: "Certainly is amazing that all of a sudden the right has seized on this concept that the earth has been cooling for 15 years. Or is it 12. Or is it 17. Or 163? Whatever.... And hasn't this all taken place DURING that last 15 years? Funny how public perception manipulation works."

ministorage - "Would you believe Richard Harris of left-winged NPR"

Note how the liberals complain about Rush Limbaugh being allowed to speak at all, even though his show takes no funding from liberals, but the left won't financially support their cause and so they require government funding forcibly taken from the right to support their liberal agenda. And then they have the nerve to complain?
Profile Pic
mudtoe
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:13,646
Points:1,846,675
Joined:May 2008
Message Posted: Aug 30, 2013 11:08:44 AM

panama: "All that supports their beliefs is their ideology."


They would tell us that the sun rose in the west and set in the east, and do it with a straight face, if they thought that doing so would advance the agenda.


mudtoe
Profile Pic
ldheinz
Champion Author Chicago

Posts:23,127
Points:2,924,795
Joined:May 2006
Message Posted: Aug 30, 2013 8:38:08 AM

SemiSteve - "We only like herrings of a certain acceptable color. The rest we are prejudiced against; so we deem it is OK to discriminate on the basis of color."

And speaking gibberish is a Red Herring as well. What about my proof that the Earth currently has very low Co2 levels by a historical basis?
Profile Pic
Panama19
Champion Author Louisville

Posts:30,326
Points:3,104,410
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Aug 30, 2013 8:29:27 AM


ministorage, "There is not an honest one in the whole bunch"

There cannot be.

Their assertions are contrary to the observable facts.

All that supports their beliefs is their ideology.

Profile Pic
ministorage
Champion Author Louisville

Posts:12,119
Points:1,109,475
Joined:Oct 2008
Message Posted: Aug 30, 2013 7:05:28 AM

johnny: "I had no idea that Cook was this bad."

The whole lot of them are. There is not an honest one in the whole bunch.
Profile Pic
ministorage
Champion Author Louisville

Posts:12,119
Points:1,109,475
Joined:Oct 2008
Message Posted: Aug 30, 2013 6:35:46 AM

SemiSteve: "Certainly is amazing that all of a sudden the right has seized on this concept that the earth has been cooling for 15 years. Or is it 12. Or is it 17. Or 163? Whatever.... And hasn't this all taken place DURING that last 15 years? Funny how public perception manipulation works."

Would you believe Richard Harris of left-winged NPR and the Journal Nature? They're now saying EXACTLY what many AGW skeptics have been saying:

"A study in the journal Nature could help explain why the Earth's average temperature hasn't increased during the past 15 years — despite a long-term trend of global warming." "A Cooler Pacific May Be Behind Recent Pause In Global Warming"

Get that? They're attributing 15 years of no warming (the time period that you mocked me and others over) from a "long-term trend" to cooler ocean cycles. The article also discusses particulates from volcanoes adding to this very real phenomenon--all of which are exactly what I and others have discussed on these climate-related threads for years. (Except that when we discussed these things you insinuated we were spouting fossil fueled-lies.)

A major divergence is that your warm-earther geniuses are clinging to the recent anti-scientific and ludicrous CYA notion of Kevin Trenberth's that the deep oceans may have sucked out the missing surface heat which was caused by AGW. IOW, after they couldn't find the heat they predicted that was supposed to be trapped by AGW--which was a "travesty"--so they made up a new hypothesis on the fly that the heat is sinking to the bottom of the oceans (because it's not at the surface). I have witnessed, to my astonishment, ignorant idealogues will swallow almost any non-scientific notion as long as a 'scientists' say it and as long as certain news outlets report it.

"Funny how public perception manipulation works."

Yes, but actually, it is very sad. Perceptions have indeed been manipulated.

All that's left for the slow-learners you put your faith in, is to attribute ocean cycles to solar output cycles, and AGW will be officially pushing up daisies. We're almost there.

The... tide is turning.

[Edited by: ministorage at 8/30/2013 6:44:57 AM EST]
Profile Pic
johnnyg1200
Champion Author St. Louis

Posts:8,151
Points:1,208,340
Joined:May 2011
Message Posted: Aug 29, 2013 9:36:14 PM

I had no idea that Cook was this bad. It’s the first time I ran across anything that was traced back to him.

Thanks.
Profile Pic
ministorage
Champion Author Louisville

Posts:12,119
Points:1,109,475
Joined:Oct 2008
Message Posted: Aug 29, 2013 9:15:47 PM

Thank you Johnny. I read a few scathing reviews about the Kook survey earlier this summer. It has been a particular embarrassment for John Kook, who is not a scientist, let alone a climate scientist. Whenever anyone links to his site, I immediately know their level of understanding.

Without taking anything away from your excellent post, I'd like to take this opportunity to fill in some gaps about the mess that is John Cook of "Skeptical Science." He's a third-rate propagandist who found a niche. Skeptical Science is a falsely-named, bullet-points-for-arguing-with-skeptics site, and he's been in trouble a lot. He has changed key points in articles on his site after considerable discussions had taken place, deleted posts by skeptics, who were being respectfu--simply stating the truth. He has shown himself to be less than familiar with the concept of integrity and high ethical standards (at least he has that in common with some of the climatists with whom he identifies).

He was recently caught in possession of doctored photos that appeared to be a false flag in the making. His site inadvertently left a private link open to Nazi images and other photoshopped photos of skeptics' faces on bodies that are not their own, as well as a photo of Kook himself in a Nazi uniform. I was immediately reminded of the Gleick FakeGate scandal last year. Whatever he was up to, he is screwy, to put it mildly. But he carries the water for the warm-earthers, so he is tolerated (birds of a feather...).

After the Kook--a cartoonist--started his propaganda site, he tailored his own little gig with the U of Queensland, which amounts to basically government-paid propagandist for the Australian carbon tax. He is paid to write PR and articles, and he give talks around the country on the fears of climate change and the benefits of skyrocketing energy prices in Australia. Frequently he is misnamed a climate scientist. Of course, nothing could be further from the truth.

The way back machine keeps old web pages. In an effort to make himself seem more credible, he deleted THIS PAGEearly on. (He was more honest in the beginning.)

It's worth reading. HERE also. His current "about" looks nothing like his original one in the link above.

With people like Kook as the type people Michael Mann et al have doing their bidding for them, that alone would portend an ominous end. With or without him, the collapsing science of AGW is a house of cards in free-fall.
Profile Pic
johnnyg1200
Champion Author St. Louis

Posts:8,151
Points:1,208,340
Joined:May 2011
Message Posted: Aug 29, 2013 6:47:16 PM

Some time back around May of 2013 John Cook from the University of Queensland released a study that reported 97% of all peer reviewed literature supports the idea of manmade global warming. This was received with much brew ha-ha from the main stream media, sights like the misnamed Skeptical Science (who should have been more skeptical) and some of the sheeple here on GB as proof of something. What it was supposed to be proof of I don’t know because consensus science means nothing.

It turns out that the 97% consensus claim is much like a lot of the other claims made by the manmade global warming supporters is full of holes. The author of the report that claimed97% consensus was asked by another respected scientist to provide information on his study. Originally Mr. Cook only handed over 12% of the requested information. This is a typical ploy used by the manmade warming supporters. I guess that after you are no longer a student you aren’t required to show your work.

Over time and after more requests for more information the scientist did get more information but not all that was requested. Here is some of what he had to say in an open letter about the 97% consensus.

1.“The paper purports to estimate the degree of agreement in the literature on climate change. Consensus is not an argument, of course, but my attention was drawn to the fact that the headline conclusion had no confidence interval, that the main validity test was informal, and that the sample contained a very large number of irrelevant papers while simultaneously omitting many relevant papers.”

2. “Furthermore, the data showed patterns that cannot be explained by either the data gathering process as described in the paper or by chance. This is documented. I asked Mr Cook again for the data so as to find a coherent explanation of what is wrong with the paper. As that was unsuccessful, also after a plea to Professor Ove Hoegh-Guldberg, the director of Mr Cook’s work place, I contacted Professor Max Lu, deputy vice-chancellor for research, and Professor Daniel Kammen, journal editor. Professors Lu and Kammen succeeded in convincing Mr Cook to release first another 2% and later another 28% of the data.”

2.5 here is more on the data requests. “Mr Cook, backed by Professor Hoegh-Guldberg and Lu, has blankly refused to release these data, arguing that a data release would violate confidentiality. This reasoning is bogus.”


3. “I also asked for the survey protocol but, violating all codes of practice, none seems to exist. The paper and data do hint at what was really done. There is no trace of a pre-test. Rating training was done during the first part of the survey, rather than prior to the survey. The survey instrument was altered during the survey, and abstracts were added. Scales were modified after the survey was completed. All this introduced inhomogeneities into the data that cannot be controlled for as they are undocumented.
The later data release reveals that what the paper describes as measurement error (in either direction) is in fact measurement bias (in one particular direction). Furthermore, there is drift in measurement over time. This makes a greater nonsense of the paper.”

There is more in the linked letter you can read for your self

Maybe if some like Skeptical Science and others had been more skeptical of a 97% result this piece of fiction would not have been able to pass a science.
By the way the man asking for the information and who was so critical of the report was the UN IPCC Lead Author Dr. Richard Tol so I don’t think he is a paid for denier funded by big oil.


[Edited by: johnnyg1200 at 8/29/2013 6:51:33 PM EST]
Profile Pic
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:19,170
Points:428,325
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Aug 29, 2013 2:24:53 PM

"SemiSteve, mentioning scandals is just a red herring."

--We only like herrings of a certain acceptable color. The rest we are prejudiced against; so we deem it is OK to discriminate on the basis of color.
Profile Pic
FluffyDogAttack
Champion Author Riverside

Posts:1,770
Points:190,965
Joined:Oct 2012
Message Posted: Aug 29, 2013 2:13:08 PM

Family Feud Survey Says:

10 out of 10 plants say they like Co2 and use it on a daily basis.
Profile Pic
Hemond
Champion Author Providence

Posts:11,849
Points:173,085
Joined:Oct 2006
Message Posted: Aug 29, 2013 1:49:43 PM

::::Only the government can take my money and force me to support things that I know are wrong.

Such as Obamacare.
Profile Pic
ldheinz
Champion Author Chicago

Posts:23,127
Points:2,924,795
Joined:May 2006
Message Posted: Aug 29, 2013 1:41:35 PM

SemiSteve, mentioning scandals is just a red herring. The climate con artists are forcibly taking our money and using it to lie to us to get even more money. THAT'S on topic.

As for Co2 levels, here is a graph of historical Co2 levels. As you can see, Co2 levels of 400 PPM are extremely low by historical standards, with levels as high as 6000 PPM common in the past. What did these cause? The Cambrian Explosion, that's what, which was the greatest increase in new life forms in the history of the Earth. Co2 is GOOD FOR US.
Profile Pic
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:19,170
Points:428,325
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Aug 29, 2013 1:12:28 PM

Even if you don't believe in global warming there is a strongly compelling reason to reduce CO2 emissions.

Nigh levels of CO2 are causing ocean acidification. This is destroying corral reefs and the ability of shell fish to survive. Many of these organisms form the basis of sea life upon which other fish depend.

I've begun a new topic to discuss this emerging threat to the food supply for humans:

We Must Reduce CO2!
Profile Pic
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:19,170
Points:428,325
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Aug 29, 2013 1:07:15 PM

I support your right to believe anything you wish, ldheinz. If you think the American public has not been forced to pay for the lies of any of those scandals you are entitled to think so.
Profile Pic
teacher_tim
Champion Author Maryland

Posts:18,978
Points:820,280
Joined:May 2004
Message Posted: Aug 29, 2013 1:01:17 PM

A Jazeera America, which bought Current TV from Al Gore, featured an article on Global Warming on their first day, using Al Gore and the IPCC as its source. I wonder if that was part of the sales contract stipulations. You know, "good faith" and all that.
Profile Pic
ldheinz
Champion Author Chicago

Posts:23,127
Points:2,924,795
Joined:May 2006
Message Posted: Aug 29, 2013 12:57:51 PM

SemiSteve, NONE of the corporations and people that you mentioned have or ever had the power to take your money without your consent and force you to financially support something that you are opposed to. That immorality is reserved to the government, which makes your comment irrelevant to what I said. Only the government can take my money and force me to support things that I know are wrong.
Profile Pic
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:19,170
Points:428,325
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Aug 29, 2013 12:40:36 PM

"At least when businessmen lie, they are paying for it themselves, and not making US pay to be lied to."

--I simply can not in the name of all that is good let this go without a comment.

Ken Lay

Bernie Madoff

Jack Abramoff

PG&E

Worldcom

Enron

Chiquita

Adelphia

Arthur Andersen

Bear Sterns

Lehman Brothers

Countrywide Mortgage

AIG

Dupont

Exxon

BP
Profile Pic
Hemond
Champion Author Providence

Posts:11,849
Points:173,085
Joined:Oct 2006
Message Posted: Aug 29, 2013 5:57:29 AM

The use of the term "denialist" or "climate denier" is particularly ugly. There was a time in science when skeptics were considered the most honorable members of the scientific world.

Not any more, at least not in climate science. The normal methods of science have been perverted and politicized by groups like the IPCC.

Groups like the IPCC insist that 'the science is settled" when the truth is its anything but settled.
Profile Pic
ldheinz
Champion Author Chicago

Posts:23,127
Points:2,924,795
Joined:May 2006
Message Posted: Aug 29, 2013 1:47:02 AM

SemiSteve - "I'm surprised the right hasn't tried to change the name of Sun-day to something like 'Burn-day' or maybe 'Drill-day'."

But I'm not surprised that you're still making up weird stuff for your opponents to believe. How about addressing what the right ACTUALLY says? That's a lot harder, isn't it?

SemiSteve - "And hasn't this all taken place DURING that last 15 years?"

The data was being withheld, and it took until recently for the courts to force the climate liars to release the data, and then they had to admit that it was all made up. Now, can we get our money back?

SemiSteve - "Sounds like it all came out of a fossil-fuel billionaire's playbook to keep the gravy train coming. "

No, we were all conned by the lying left, and were taxed to pay for their lies. Now, can we get our money back? At least when businessmen lie, they are paying for it themselves, and not making US pay to be lied to.

Profile Pic
Panama19
Champion Author Louisville

Posts:30,326
Points:3,104,410
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Aug 29, 2013 12:51:03 AM


SemiSteve, "Certainly is amazing that all of a sudden the right has seized on this concept that the earth has been cooling for 15 years. Or is it 12. Or is it 17. Or 163? Whatever. Very interesting how first we saw: 'Well there is global warming but it isn't human-caused'."

It all depends upon the time frame we examine. If you look at the four centuries since the depth of the Little Ice Age the climate has clearly warmed.

If you look at the past decade the climate has clearly cooled; if you look at the past 15 years the climate has leveled off; if you look at the three decades before that the climate was clearly warming.

If you look at the atmospheric CO2 levels you will see a steady rise.

So, if man has caused the climate to warm by releasing CO2 into the atmosphere, how do you explain the lack of climate warming for the past decade and a half while atmospheric CO2 has reached record modern levels?

This is not rocket science, man. Are you at all capable of connecting the dots?

Profile Pic
johnnyg1200
Champion Author St. Louis

Posts:8,151
Points:1,208,340
Joined:May 2011
Message Posted: Aug 28, 2013 11:49:17 PM

“It is time to find another emergency.”

Great link!

I have one that I will work on later tonight.
Profile Pic
mudtoe
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:13,646
Points:1,846,675
Joined:May 2008
Message Posted: Aug 28, 2013 6:59:22 PM

SS: "And hasn't this all taken place DURING that last 15 years?"


It took a number of years to get through the lies, such as the infamous hockey stick graph, the East Anglia data manipulation, and Al Gore's lies in his movie. It's only in the last year or so that this data, although it's been collected for a long time, has been able to see the light of day.


mudtoe
Profile Pic
ministorage
Champion Author Louisville

Posts:12,119
Points:1,109,475
Joined:Oct 2008
Message Posted: Aug 28, 2013 6:48:59 PM

Steve, You should at least try to have some understanding before making a demagogy-filled diatribe like that. The global temperature is what it is. It really is not that complicated. The data I provided are from the Hockey Team; it is not propaganda from the fossil fuel industry.

The climate emergency has been cancelled. These are the waning days, and as the rhetoric is heating up, the science behind the global warming scare is cooling off. It is time to find another emergency.

In the coming months and years, you'll be seeing a lot of articles that they got it wrong. When there is a new emergency (likely World War III), global warming fears will quickly fade into the background, never to be resurrected again. Special interest groups are seeing a major power grab slipping through their hands.

If Obama has his way, the only thing taxing energy industries even further will do is make energy more expensive (it will do absolutely NOTHING AT ALL to the temperature on earth).

All of us will pay a price for climate alarmism implemented as policy. But the people who will be hurt the worst will be the poor.

[Edited by: ministorage at 8/28/2013 6:53:31 PM EST]
Profile Pic
FluffyDogAttack
Champion Author Riverside

Posts:1,770
Points:190,965
Joined:Oct 2012
Message Posted: Aug 28, 2013 5:51:14 PM

How's that manipulation thing working for ya?

Oh man, so bleedin' funny around here sometimes!
Profile Pic
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:19,170
Points:428,325
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Aug 28, 2013 3:33:47 PM

I'm surprised the right hasn't tried to change the name of Sun-day to something like 'Burn-day' or maybe 'Drill-day'.

Certainly is amazing that all of a sudden the right has seized on this concept that the earth has been cooling for 15 years. Or is it 12. Or is it 17. Or 163? Whatever. Very interesting how first we saw: "Well there is global warming but it isn't human-caused." (we could never be at fault. We are golden. Everything we do is for goodness. It is good that some 'heros' are able to be billionaires from delivering fossil fuels) Then it has finally progressed to "There is no global warming. We are actually cooling."

And hasn't this all taken place DURING that last 15 years?

Funny how public perception manipulation works.

Sounds like it all came out of a fossil-fuel billionaire's playbook to keep the gravy train coming.
Profile Pic
ministorage
Champion Author Louisville

Posts:12,119
Points:1,109,475
Joined:Oct 2008
Message Posted: Aug 25, 2013 5:31:24 PM

RAB2010: "The scientific data necessary to support the theory that the Earth is warming does not exist; data is not available for a substantial period of time, and is only available for a very brief and recent period."

There is no need to be low-hanging fruit for the warm-earthers. Without making stuff up, there are plenty of data that refute the warm-earthers' claims of out-of-control, "tipping point" global warming. I have corrected their BS claims plenty. And now I'm going to correct yours.

Marked by periods of rising and falling temperatures, the global average temperature has risen .8 degree C from 1850 to July 2013 (or, since the end of the Little Ice Age). The inconvenient truth is that, *that warming* is well within the range of natural climate variability.

This overall warming trend over the past 163 years can be broken down into smaller cycles:

-Warming from <1850 to 1878
-Cooling from 1878 to 1911
-Warming spike from 1911 to 1945**
-Cooling from 1945 to 1976
-Warming spike from 1976 to 1998**
-Cooling from 2001 to present [or flat from 1998]

Things have been cooling-down for 12 years, but some of our politicians have told us the global temperature has been rising faster than we could have predicted a decade ago (rolling my eyes).

**The two periods of warming spikes above are very similar (almost identical). One (we are told) was the result of natural climate variation. The other (we are told) is the result of the added 4% of CO2 that is released into the atmosphere by human activity (the other 96% is naturally occurring--out of the ground and out of the oceans). One can choose different start and end dates, but the global temperature patterns for these two periods are nearly identical, nonetheless. I defy anyone to challenge the veracity of my claim.

The MAIN point of contention is not global temperature, but *why* the temperature is what it is. CO2-centric theorists have predicted that at some point increasing atmospheric CO2 should create a measurable hot spot in the atmosphere over the tropics (or, "trapped heat"). But, heat continues rising and escaping into space as always (4 decades of radiosondes and satellites looking for this elusive hot spot have not recorded it).

IOW, instead of the UN IPCC's predicted "positive" feedbacks, we're getting *negative* feedbacks. This real-world experiment does not agree with the hypothesis--in spite of belief by many that it should occur.

Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth
-- Albert Einstein

[Edited by: ministorage at 8/25/2013 5:40:40 PM EST]
Profile Pic
noseatbelt
Champion Author Indiana

Posts:8,133
Points:212,590
Joined:Feb 2004
Message Posted: Aug 25, 2013 4:46:20 PM

obama admit he is wrong, never happen in his warped little mind, he is never wrong, about anything.
Profile Pic
RAB2010
All-Star Author Kalamazoo

Posts:641
Points:76,670
Joined:Mar 2010
Message Posted: Aug 25, 2013 4:38:59 PM

The scientific data necessary to support the theory that the Earth is warming does not exist; data is not available for a substantial period of time, and is only available for a very brief and recent period. Stupid will believe any lie that comes down the highway.
Profile Pic
WES03
Champion Author Maryland

Posts:6,927
Points:1,746,290
Joined:Feb 2009
Message Posted: Aug 25, 2013 3:33:07 PM

Global warming (and cooling) is a natural earth cycle. 10,000 years ago we were in an ice age.
Profile Pic
mudtoe
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:13,646
Points:1,846,675
Joined:May 2008
Message Posted: Aug 23, 2013 8:54:02 AM

Hemond: "To watch the IPCC, Obama, Gore, the NOAA, NASA, and all the left wing climate pressure groups with egg on their faces."


They are like Wiener in NYC. They have no shame.


mudtoe
Profile Pic
SE3.5
Champion Author Indianapolis

Posts:23,187
Points:3,738,240
Joined:May 2004
Message Posted: Aug 23, 2013 8:16:27 AM

"I saw this news item and thought it was appropriate here."

Very appropriate.
Profile Pic
Hemond
Champion Author Providence

Posts:11,849
Points:173,085
Joined:Oct 2006
Message Posted: Aug 23, 2013 2:04:06 AM

It is getting tiring now. To watch the IPCC, Obama, Gore, the NOAA, NASA, and all the left wing climate pressure groups with egg on their faces. When are they simply going to man up and admit they were wrong?
Profile Pic
ldheinz
Champion Author Chicago

Posts:23,127
Points:2,924,795
Joined:May 2006
Message Posted: Aug 23, 2013 12:53:18 AM

Climate Theories Crumble as Data and Experts Suggest Global Cooling

I saw this news item and thought it was appropriate here.
Profile Pic
ministorage
Champion Author Louisville

Posts:12,119
Points:1,109,475
Joined:Oct 2008
Message Posted: Aug 22, 2013 2:10:01 PM

teacher tim: "I noticed that Al Jazeera America posted an article on the IPCC and Al Gore on their web site the first day. No mention of anything more recent. So much for objective news, lol."

If they need some copy, they can link to this...

UN Scientists Who Have Turned on the UN IPCC & Man-Made Climate Fears....a very small sampling of what current and former UN scientists have to say about the UN’s climate claims and its scientific methods.

"Warming fears are the “worst scientific scandal in the history…When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.” - UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist.

“The IPCC has actually become a closed circuit; it doesn’t listen to others. It doesn’t have open minds… I am really amazed that the Nobel Peace Prize has been given on scientifically incorrect conclusions by people who are not geologists.” – Indian geologist Dr. Arun D. Ahluwalia at Punjab University and a board member of the UN-supported International Year of the Planet.

“Temperature measurements show that the [climate model-predicted mid-troposphere] hot zone is non-existent. This is more than sufficient to invalidate global climate models and projections made with them!”- UN IPCC Scientist Dr. Steven M. Japar, a PhD atmospheric chemist who was part of Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) Second (1995) and Third (2001) Assessment Reports, and has authored 83 peer-reviewed publications and in the areas of climate change, atmospheric chemistry, air pollutions and vehicle emissions.

UN IPCC Scientist Kenneth P. Green Declares ‘A Death Spiral for Climate Alarmism’ – September 30, 2009 – ‘We can expect climate crisis industry to grow increasingly shrill, and increasingly hostile toward anyone who questions their authority’ - Dr. Kenneth Green was a Working Group 1 expert reviewer for the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 2001

‘The whole climate change issue is about to fall apart — Heads will roll!’
--South African UN Scientist Dr. Will Alexander, April 12, 2009 – Professor Alexander, is Emeritus of the Department of Civil and Biosystems Engineering at the University of Pretoria in South Africa, and a former member of the United Nations Scientific and Technical Committee on Natural Disasters.

“I was at the table with three Europeans, and we were having lunch. And they were talking about their role as lead authors. And they were talking about how they were trying to make the report so dramatic that the United States would just have to sign that Kyoto Protocol,” Christy told CNN on May 2, 2007.
–- Alabama State Climatologist Dr. John Christy of the University of Alabama in Huntsville, served as a UN IPCC lead author in 2001 for the 3rd assessment report and detailed how he personally witnessed UN scientists attempting to distort the science for political purposes.

“Gore prompted me to start delving into the science again and I quickly found myself solidly in the skeptic camp…Climate models can at best be useful for explaining climate changes after the fact.”
-– Meteorologist Hajo Smit of Holland, who reversed his belief in man-made warming to become a skeptic, is a former member of the Dutch UN IPCC committee.

“The quantity of CO2 we produce is insignificant in terms of the natural circulation between air, water and soil… I am doing a detailed assessment of the UN IPCC reports and the Summaries for Policy Makers, identifying the way in which the Summaries have distorted the science.”
-– South African Nuclear Physicist and Chemical Engineer Dr. Philip Lloyd, a UN IPCC co-coordinating lead author who has authored over 150 refereed publications.

“The claims of the IPCC are dangerous unscientific nonsense” – declared IPCC reviewer and climate researcher Dr Vincent Gray, of New Zealand in 2007. Gray was an expert reviewer on every single draft of the IPCC reports going back to 1990, author of more than 100 scientific publications.

“After reading [UN IPCC chairman] Pachauri’s asinine comment [comparing skeptics to] Flat Earthers, it’s hard to remain quiet.”
-– Climate statistician Dr. William M. Briggs, who specializes in the statistics of forecast evaluation, serves on the American Meteorological Society’s Probability and Statistics Committee and is an Associate Editor of Monthly Weather Review.

UN IPCC Lead Author Tom Tripp Dissents on man-made warming: ‘We’re not scientifically there yet’ – July 16, 2009

The UN IPCC’s Kevin Trenberth’s claim that the UN IPCC is an “very open” also needs examining. The IPCC summary for policymakers is used to scare politicians and goad the public into action. The UN is all about politics.

UN special climate envoy Dr. Gro Harlem Brundtland declared “it’s completely immoral, even, to question” the UN’s alleged global warming “consensus,” according to a May 10, 2007 article. Sounds scientific, doesn’t it?

For more: Report

[Edited by: ministorage at 8/22/2013 2:18:56 PM EST]
Profile Pic
teacher_tim
Champion Author Maryland

Posts:18,978
Points:820,280
Joined:May 2004
Message Posted: Aug 22, 2013 2:04:25 PM

I noticed that Al Jazeera America posted an article on the IPCC and Al Gore on their web site the first day. No mention of anything more recent. So much for objective news, lol.
Profile Pic
Tru2psu2
Champion Author Winston-Salem

Posts:17,560
Points:2,093,715
Joined:Feb 2004
Message Posted: Aug 21, 2013 5:18:51 AM

Don't buy it!
Profile Pic
Panama19
Champion Author Louisville

Posts:30,326
Points:3,104,410
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Aug 21, 2013 2:40:39 AM


AC-302, "There is also a longer sunspot cycle, overlaid on the 'normal' sunspot cycle, can't remember how long that one is..."

There are actually many cycles superimposed upon one another. As I understand it the gravitational pull of the planets drive the jet stream of plasma under the surface of the sun and eddy currents on the margins of this Jetstream form the sunspots of lower energy as well as the hotspots of higher energy output.

The multiple tidal pulls of the planets with different orbital periods and tidal strengths combine constructively and destructively to cause the complex but predictable cycles of fluctuations in the solar output.

See SOLAR ACTIVITY: A DOMINANT FACTOR IN CLIMATE DYNAMICS

Figure 2


[Edited by: Panama19 at 8/21/2013 2:44:00 AM EST]
Profile Pic
AC-302
Champion Author Los Angeles

Posts:30,838
Points:3,424,370
Joined:Aug 2004
Message Posted: Aug 21, 2013 1:03:24 AM

There is also a longer sunspot cycle, overlaid on the "normal" sunspot cycle, can't remember how long that one is..
Profile Pic
johnnyg1200
Champion Author St. Louis

Posts:8,151
Points:1,208,340
Joined:May 2011
Message Posted: Aug 20, 2013 9:42:20 PM

The problem I have with CO2 centric global warming is first we were told that until roughly sometime in the late 80’s or early 90’s natural variability was what drove the climate. The in the late 80’s to early 90’s CO2 became the main driver in the climate. I can’t find the link but I’m sure that someone wants to argue that claim some of the smarter people here can help me out.

The point is that the claim was made that CO2 was the “main driving force” in the climate and it would have catastrophic results if left unchecked. If you ignore the hindcasting and look only at the forecasting things went well for the idea of CO2 centric global warming for about ten years. After that reality and the forecast started to split. As the split started the Co2 centric promoters claimed it was just a blip. Then as the split got worse and blip couldn’t explain the divergence the data was changed and still they couldn’t get the forecast to come into line with the real world.

Now back to where I started this. We were told that Co2 was now the main driving force in the climate and natural variability was no longer a major influencing factor. If this was true we would see global temp continue to climb at least a little. This would have to happen if Co2 was the main driving force as claimed as Co2 levels continue to rise. No matter what excuses are use to explain the failure of the models one fact is inescapable, warming has stopped and even some of the Co2 supporters are now saying that we may be headed for about 30 years of cooling even as Co2 levels continue to climb. If this is true how Co2 can be the main driver of the climate as claimed?

If we don’t see at least some warming in the next five to ten years, without more data manipulation which is easy to catch now, I would say the idea of Co2 centric warming will go the of snake oil.

[Edited by: johnnyg1200 at 8/20/2013 9:45:38 PM EST]
Profile Pic
ministorage
Champion Author Louisville

Posts:12,119
Points:1,109,475
Joined:Oct 2008
Message Posted: Aug 20, 2013 9:01:21 PM

ministorage: "Solar cycles are proving to be what controls climate on this earth."

Weaslespit: "It is certainly a major variable. The sun does not output a constant amount of energy..."

Be careful what you say. If witch burning were still allowed, you would be burned at the stake for uttering such blasphemy against the Church, along with me. Going into the AR5, the CO2-centrics--whose CO2-centric climate graphs have been wrong consistently--are doubling down that CO2 is controling the climate. They say that the 4% of CO2 added by man is causing a catastrophic global warming crisis.

But, of course the climate has been cooling as CO2 in the atmosphere rises, with no warming for 16-17 years. It went the opposite direction of those who believed so strongly in the models which have heavily exaggerated CO2's abilitiies for radiative forcing.

The CO2-centrics--whose reputations are dependent on proving the greenhouse theory of warming is correct--will (and are) at all costs, avoid solar activity and subordinate ocean cycles as the controllers of the earth's climate.

Since 2002, the sun’s activity has been cooling, and so has the global temperature. CO2-centrics would have us believe it is coincidence.

It doesn't matter how many surveys are given to scientists--the runaway greehouse effect hypothesis is falling to pieces. Four decades of radiosondes and satellites continue to show us that heat continues escaping into space as it always has.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
“Future generations will wonder in bemused amazement that the early 21st century’s developed world went into hysterical panic over a globally averaged temperature increase of a few tenths of a degree, and, on the basis of gross exaggerations of highly uncertain computer projections combined into implausible chains of inference, proceeded to contemplate a roll-back of the industrial age.”

--Dr. Richard Lindzen, Atmospheric Scientist--Massachusetts Institute of Technology.



[Edited by: ministorage at 8/20/2013 9:04:39 PM EST]
Profile Pic
Hemond
Champion Author Providence

Posts:11,849
Points:173,085
Joined:Oct 2006
Message Posted: Aug 19, 2013 9:59:46 PM

::::Also too many syllables in one word. Remember the target audience.:::


What do you mean? Sun-day only has 2 syllables....
Post a reply Back to Topics