-
Climate Denial
-
“The sad fact is, our meager individual efforts are simply spitting in the wind.”
So Dalai if there is no climate change/global warming etc. why are efforts meager and not making a difference…under your thesis there is no difference to make. I have previously made the argument that we should be couching strategies to counter-act global warming as pollution control since they are one in the same. I guess that means as long as we change the topic name to “pollution control” you are fine with policies designed to fight climate change…or does what we do to combat pollution have to be neutral when it comes to global warming-
Tobacco industry redux. Confuse the masses. There used to be “no consensus” that tobacco was harmful too.
And I have a bridge I can sell you , cheap.
BTW, I do own a few shares of Tesla. Made a few $, mostly it’s a, “Let’s see what happens” investment.
-
-
I am going to publicly apologize here for my example of alternate medicine and cancer as I did not know it related to your brother Dalai, and I can only say I truly would not have used that example had I known. However, knowing that now, and reading you most recent posts I firmly believe you are entirely emotional and possibly incapable of rational discussion on this topic at this point so this will be my last comment to you in this thread.
-
Quote from DoctorDalai
My condolences on your mother’s passing. Somewhat different situation, but sad nonetheless. Still, using my brother’s foolishness in this manner was rather uncalled for, don’t you think? Heck, even your fellow BELIEVER over-caffeinated said that out loud. But I guess all’s fair when you BELIEVE. You’ve made a lot of things quite clear with that move.
Thank you for condolences, but it is unnecessary as it is long in the past and beside the point. The point of your brother & my mother is that they both believed in irrational ideas that were unsupported by the facts. Irrational thinking is not a good thing.
There is a difference between skepticism and denialism. Science is constant skepticism. Denialism knows it to be a lie. So far the evidence is that global warming is 1. real, and 2, anthropomorphic. Considering that the glaciers are, worldwide melting, warming is real. The suddenness of the large increase in global temperature lends it to be a cause that is not slow natural. Past warming has taken place over thousands of years, today’s warming is within 150 years, coincidental with the beginning of the industrial age and burning coal and fossil fuels on a large scale. You don’t even believe the Earth has warmed in spite of evidence to the contrary so there is no common ground to discuss anything as the facts belie the belief Denialism if a belief not based on any facts. It is not even an alternative idea, it is just no not based on any facts.
[link=http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/11/07/the-rules-of-denialism/]http://opinionator.blogs….he-rules-of-denialism/[/link]
A good first step would be to distinguish between skepticism and what has come to be known as denialism. In other words, we need to be able to tell when we believe or disbelieve in something based on high standards of evidence and when we are just engaging in a bit of motivated reasoning and letting our opinions take over. When we withhold belief because the evidence does not live up to the standards of science, we are skeptical. When we refuse to believe something, even in the face of what most others would take to be compelling evidence, we are engaging in denial. In most cases, we do this because at some level it upsets us to think that the theory is true.
The throes of denial must feel a lot like skepticism. The rest of the world just doesnt get it. [i]We[/i] are the ones being rigorous. How can others be so gullible in believing that something is true before all of the facts are in? Yet a warning should occur when these stars align and we find ourselves feeling self-righteous about a belief that apparently means more to us than the preservation of good standards of evidence. Whether they are willing to admit it or not perhaps even to themselves denialists often know in advance what they would like to be true. But where does that leave the rest of us who think that our own beliefs are simply the result of sound reasoning?
We hear a lot of folks in Washington claiming to be skeptics about climate change. They start off by saying something like, Well, Im no scientist, but and then proceed to rattle off a series of evidential demands so strict that they would make Newton blush. What normally comes along for the ride, however, is a telltale sign of denialism: that these alleged skeptics usually have different standards of evidence for those theories that they [i]want[/i] to believe (which have cherry picked a few pieces of heavily massaged data against climate change) versus those they are opposing.
True skepticism must be more than an ideological reflex; skepticism must be [i]earned[/i] by a prudent and consistent disposition to be convinced only by evidence. When we cynically pretend to withhold belief long past the point at which ample evidence should have convinced us that something is true, we have stumbled past skepticism and landed in the realm of willful ignorance. This is not the realm of science, but of ideological crackpots. And we dont need a poll to tell us that this is the doorstep to denialism.
So far I seen no evidence at all, none, zero, zilch, that warming is a figment of measurements, an anomaly of perception and measurements. I see no evidence that accepting warming, it is “natural” the same as we have had in the prehistoric past.
And then I post the question, why do you accept that warming existed in the past? What proof? More scientists and science lying, creating a hoax of the prehistoric past? After all, how much could the Earth have warmed to global tropic conditions and cooled to an Ice Age & then to our present climate all within 5,000 years?
So what is your proof that the warmers are wrong, there is no warming, period, whether “natural” or anthropogenic. -
They don’t even have enough openness of mind to realize that they pick and choose alarmism causes.
At least realize, whoever is “right” that you are the same as the people you want to control in such a disgusting way. It’s very odd, actually.-
Measuring and noting that the Earth is warming is “alarmist?”
Don’t look now but there are bacteria and viruses and prions and environmental pollution and factors and genetic factors and other things that cause disease.
Sorry, I’m being alarmist.
-
Those are proven. Your ‘facts’ are not.
And every time I suggest putting aside the differences and working toward a cleaner planet no matter who is right, you just go on with your rants.
I conclude you hate conservatives and anyone who disagrees with you more than you love the planet. I’m telling Mr. Obama.-
“Proven” by lying science?
It’s all just a liberal conspiracy hoax to allow physicians and scientists to invent fake treatments for non-existent diseases and conditions. It’s all about the money.-
Yup. And you get your share too. I can show you pictures of people saved by conventional cancer therapy. Show me a picture of a planet saved by BELIEVERS.
-
I could show you pictures of US astronauts on the Moon except we all know that was shot in a Hollywood backlot, not on the real Moon.
-
Global climate warming confusion change is REALLY caused by a Republican-sponsored 5 kilometer wide Death Star parked just outside Earth’s orbit. You can’t see it because it has a cloaking-device. It periodically beams wide-dispersion lasers at the Democratic-run cities to warm them up and irritate their inhabitants.
Are we done yet?-
You can’t fool me, we all know Darth Vader & the Death Star took place,
“A long time ago in a galaxy far, far away.-
“I am not wasting time trying to get you to change your mind”
Well, you probably are wasting time trying to change his mind, but not wasting it calling BS exactly what it is. This is why I inquired as to them having an alternate theory. See, if they had one we could have a discussion (argument) over their functioning theory, and that theory would come with some metrics making it falsifiable through observation. Since they don’t have one you are basically arguing with whatever metrics they made up in their heads, and nobody but they know what those metrics are. You’ll notice I never once demanded they believe even though I am accused of such. Though it seems I am very unfair in suggesting that through their unscientific behavior and voting patterns they will have had their small hand in the eventual outcome be it good, neutral or bad.
-
Keep BELIEVING and maybe Pope Algore will someday take you in the back room and bless you personally.
You keep pretending those who fuel your BELIEF are on the up and up. I’ve presented alternatives and questions, but no…. You
[u][i][b][size=”7″]BELIEVE[/size][/b][/i][/u][/style]
[style=”color: #000000; background-color: #ffffff;”] and no dissent is allowed. [/style]
[style=”color: #000000; background-color: #ffffff;”] But if you’ll excuse me, I’ve got to hop the Imperial shuttle back to the Death Star now. Had to pick up some caviar for Mrs. Dalai at the Giant Gourmet. [/style] -
Dr. D, if only you’d make it a Star TREK analogy, you could probably create your own religion a la Ron Hubbards. I’d follow as long as I wasn’t wearing a red shirt….um….like today. Nevermind.
-
A nice review:
[link=http://www.nationmultimedia.com/opinion/Cold-sun-rising-30272650.html]http://www.nationmultimed…n-rising-30272650.html[/link]
-
A nice review of what…it is an opinion piece that confuses weather with climate and focuses on one source of climate variation. Nobody has said there will not be cold cycles based on solar activity or variation, but that the temperature over what would occur without human activity will be higher. If we are supposed to hit a cold cycle and global temps remain steady, that is warming. Or are you suggesting we should pump more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere to offset the potential cooling solar cycles. Regardless weather anomalies and short periods of record cold do not change the fact that average global temperatures are rising; glacial ice is melting and the oceans are rising. You can hope for the sun to go cold to deflect it but this does not change the effects of human activity on our climate
Meanwhile extreme cold-weather anomalies have occurred around the world. Last year “polar vortices” slammed into the central US and Siberia as a third hovered over the Atlantic. All 50 US states, including Hawaii, had temperatures below freezing for the first time in recorded history. Snowfall records were broken in cities in the US, Canada, Italy, New Zealand, Australia, Japan and elsewhere. Southern American states and central Mexico, where snow is rare, got heavy snow, as did the Middle East.
This past summer the cold didn’t let up, with more temperature records across the US and rare summer snows seen in Canada, the US and China. Birds have migrated early in the last two years. Antarctic sea ice set a new record in 2013 and it was broken again in 2014.
-
I like this one:
[link=https://theconversation.com/the-mini-ice-age-hoopla-is-a-giant-failure-of-science-communication-45037]https://theconversation.c…ce-communication-45037[/link]
Or this one from 2009:
[link=http://arstechnica.com/science/2009/08/another-little-ice-age-solar-activity-and-climate-change/]http://arstechnica.com/sc…ty-and-climate-change/[/link]
Certainly a lot of opinion in both, but what is not opinion is that the “Maunder Minimum” has been a known phenomenon since at least 1976, i.e. it is not new data.
-
Magic can be shown to be as effective as modern medicine by those who believe in magic.
Antarctic sea ice is only selectively growing, the Bellingshausen Sea ice is decreasing, not increasing. And the Antarctic land ice is melting as is the ice in the Arctic Sea and glaciers worldwide. 2014 was recorded as the hottest year on record and 2015 is on its way to equal or surpass that milestone. As for the professor’s information on the Maunder Minimum, I’ve already shown that Denier argument to be bogus as the professor herself never made such claims nor is her information peer reviewed.
There is no science in that Thailand newspaper article, only misinformation. -
[link=http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/cosmic-rays-not-causing-climate-change/]http://www.scientificamer…ausing-climate-change/[/link]
Changes in solar activity, sunspots and cosmic rays, and their effects on clouds have contributed no more than 10 percent to global warming, according to two British scientists.
The findings, published in the journal Environmental Research Letters, reconfirm the basic science that increasing carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are causing most climate change. They also reexamine the alternative case made by climate deniers: that it is the Sun’s changing activity and not us that is causing the Earth to heat up.
The two scientists, Terry Sloan at the University of Lancaster and Sir Arnold Wolfendale at the University of Durham, conclude that neither changes in the activity of the sun, nor its impact in blocking cosmic rays, can be a significant contributor to global warming.
The acknowledged role of sunspots and cosmic rays in forming clouds has been fertile ground for climate deniers, who have cast doubt on whether anthropogenic climate change (in other words, change caused by humans) is occurring at all.
To try to quantify the effect that solar activity whether directly or through cosmic rays may have had on global temperatures in the 20th century, Sloan and Wolfendale compared data on the rate of cosmic rays entering the atmosphere with the record of global temperatures going back to 1955.They found a small correlation between cosmic rays and global temperatures occurring every 22 years; however, the changing cosmic ray rate lagged behind the change in temperatures by between one and two years, suggesting that the cause of the temperature rise might not be attributable to cosmic rays and cloud formation, but could be caused by the direct effects of the sun.
-
Sloan and Wolfendale have been looking at this since 2008 and earlier. CERN actually ran a test of the supposedly disproved hypothesis from Svensmark… and they did not allow interpretation of its results. Wonder what that means…
[link=https://calderup.wordpress.com/2011/07/17/]https://calderup.wordpress.com/2011/07/17/[/link]no-you-mustnt-say-what-it-means/
From CERN itself ([link=http://press.web.cern.ch/press-releases/2013/10/cerns-cloud-experiment-shines-new-light-climate-change):]http://press.web.cern.ch/…light-climate-change):[/link]
[blockquote]The CLOUD result adds another significant measurement in understanding the climate. But it does not rule out a role for cosmic radiation, nor does it offer a quick fix for global warming. [i]This is the first time that atmospheric particle formation has been reproduced with complete knowledge of the participating molecules, [/i]said Kirkby.[i] However our measurements leave open the possibility that the formation of aerosols in the atmosphere may also proceed with other vapours, for which the effect of cosmic rays may be different. This is an important step forward, but we still have a long way to go before we fully understand the processes of aerosol formation and their effects on clouds and climate.[/i]
[/blockquote] The data analysis might not yield quite the result they say:
[link=https://climatesanity.wordpress.com/2008/09/05/applying-monte-carlo-simulation-to-sloans-and-wolfendales-use-of-forbush-decrease-data/]https://climatesanity.wor…forbush-decrease-data/[/link]
[blockquote]Because the standard deviation of the lower cloud cover data is so high (nearly 1%), Sloans and Wolfendales attempt to to use Forbush decreases to verify or reject the possibility that cosmic ray flux changes induce lower cloud cover changes was poorly conceived. The data is far to noisy to tell one way or the other. Claims in the press and the blogosphere that Sloan and Wolfendale have used Forbush decreases to show there is no link between cosmic rays and global warming are just plain wrong.[/blockquote] Another “skeptic’s” view ([link=http://www.sciencebits.com/SloanAndWolfendale):]http://www.sciencebits.com/SloanAndWolfendale):[/link]
[blockquote]Summary
Sloan and Wolfendale raised three critiques which supposedly discredit the CRF/climate link. A careful check, however, reveals that the arguments are inconsistent with the [b]real[/b] expectations from the link. Two arguments are based on the expectation for effects which are much larger than should actually be present. In the third argument, they expect to see no phase lag, where one should actually be present. When carefully considering the link, Sloan and Wolfendale did not raise any argument which bares any implications to the validity or invalidity of the link.
One last point. Although many in the climate community try to do their best to disregard the evidence, there is a large solar-climate link, whether on the 11-year solar cycle (e.g., global temperature variations of 0.1°C), or on longer time scales. Currently, the cosmic-ray climate link is the only known mechanism which can explain the large size of the link, not to mention that independent CRF variations were shown to have climatic effects as well. As James Whitcomb Riley supposedly once said:
[i]”If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, I would call it a duck”[/i].
[/blockquote] Look, even the SciAm review (which originally appeared in the BELIEVER site, The Daily Climate, “[i]the climate change news source published by Environmental Health Sciences, a nonprofit media company”[/i]) of S&W’s later piece says:
[blockquote]They found a small correlation between cosmic rays and global temperatures occurring every 22 years; however, the changing cosmic ray rate lagged behind the change in temperatures by between one and two years, suggesting that the cause of the temperature rise might not be attributable to cosmic rays and cloud formation, but could be caused by the direct effects of the sun.
By comparing the small oscillations in cosmic ray rate and temperature with the overall trends in both since 1955, Sloan and Wolfendale found that less than 14 percent of the global warming seen during this period could have been caused by solar activity.
[/blockquote]
So what’s the problem there? The [i]temperature measurements [/i]are suspect, thanks to the good folks at East Anglia and other similar “scientists” who don’t deserve that designation. Science seeks the TRUTH. These folks have clouded it. No pun intended.
THIS is what happens when politics trumps science, and the scientists become politicians.
So have you BELIEVERS given up any and all devices that produce CO2? Or are you going to pout until everyone else does? Go trade your SUV’s on a bicycle and prove you BELIVE, or you are all nothing but hot CO2. You tease us skeptics (and that’s where I sit no matter your opinion) for being irrational, all the while thinking your BELIEF in the end of the world is perfectly sane and grounded. Interesting coincidence that the solution to your fears is to destroy capitalism world wide. -
Looking into Sloan and Wolfendale (I’d rather be at Smith and Wolensky’s) disclosed an editorial they co-wrote, “Separating Science from Propaganda”. I’m not going to spend $30 for the full article, but here is the abstract:
[blockquote] In the old Soviet Union there was a periodical called The Propagandist’s Notepad devoted to those whose path to happiness lay in “getting the message across”. The demise of the socialist model of wealth creation brought an end to this magazine. In many ways, however, Liz Kalaugher’s opinion article “Communicating climate change” (January pp1617) is a tribute to the need for such a specialized publication today. The article describes ways in which climate scientists can improve how they transmit their message to the public. Unfortunately, physicists tend to be guided by Descartes’s ubiquitous principle of the virtue of doubt, and are inclined to regard “the public becoming increasingly sceptical” as commendable. Indeed, I wish there were more examples of public scepticism.
[/blockquote] Interesting.
This search also led me to a blog entry at [link=http://blog.physicsworld.com/2009/11/16/the-psychology-of-climate-chan/]physicsworld.com[/link]. The comments are notable. In particular, this one is rather poignant:
[blockquote]I certainly cannot speak for everyone, but I believe my personal feelings about climate change will be common to many scientists.
It arises, I think, from a combination of several factors. To myself at least, the root cause is overwhelming frustration at how the scientific process has been applied and become distorted in the area of climate change. The scientific method should be based above all on rational scientific debate. Instead, with climate change, it has become a highly emotive issue. In how many other fields, for example, are scientists labelled sceptics? Is a astrophysicist who believes in MOND labelled a sceptic by the more numerous dark matter proponents? Of course not. Yet the use of sceptic in many reports, including your own here, elicits an emotive response in what should be a field of science. I think that this stifling of scientific debate with emotive responses is what leads to the flood of negative comments in such climate change articles.
As to the nature of scepticism, I think this is individual to each person whether (as the link to the report in your article states) it is due to a short-term world view, single action bias or a finite pool of worry. My personal discomfort with the climate change debate, as a computational physicist specialising in fluid dynamics, is the general lack of understanding by the public in the construction and inherent error in computational systems. Discretisation errors in computations, parameterisation of very complex processes into linear relations, boundary layer coupling, covering the vast parameter space of such models and so forth are hardly discussed. Computational models are a useful tool but no more than a tool. If we truly believe computers can predict the future I dont see how we are any better than Roman haruspices looking at the entrails of animals!
When this is coupled with application of massive economic policy and debate about whether extreme schemes such as blocking out the light from the sun are viable, both of which will affect us all, a backlash of people who feel they are not being heard is, I think, inevitable. This is not to mention a campaign of informing the public using doomsday scenarios and frequent sensational media reporting. There is now an atmosphere of such frustration for reasonable debate that it would hardly be surprising if no amount of applied human psychology could ever win hearts and minds.
[/blockquote] -
27% of democrats are totalitarians:
[link=http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/environment_energy/little_support_for_punishing_global_warming_foes]http://www.rasmussenrepor…ng_global_warming_foes[/link]
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Admiral Ackbar shout’s “It’s a TRAP”
But they keep going full steam ahead. -
For those who resent having to click a link:
[blockquote] Just over one-in-four Democrats (27%), however, favor prosecuting those who dont agree with global warming. Only 11% of Republicans and 12% of voters not affiliated with either major party agree.
After all, just 24% of all voters believe the scientific debate about global warming is over, although thats up from 20% [link=http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/lifestyle/general_lifestyle/july_2014/only_20_think_debate_about_global_warming_is_over]in July of last year[/link]. Unchanged is the 63% who say that debate is not done yet. Thirteen percent (13%) are not sure.
Among voters who believe scientists have made up their minds about global warming, one-in-four (24%) favor prosecuting those who question that theory, but 64% are opposed.
[/blockquote]
It’s painfully clear what at least some of the regulars around here think.-
Where do they stand on prosecuting those who don’t believe in Santa Claus?
-
There is no Sanity Claus. – Marx
-
Disagree…according to Marx, the State is Santa Claus. But there was no clause for sanity among Marxists.
-
Quote from DoctorDalai
Disagree…according to Marx, the State is Santa Claus. But there was no clause for sanity among Marxists.
Seriously Dalai? You have no idea what I’m talking about?
[link=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G_Sy6oiJbEk&ab_channel=WarnerJordanEducation]https://www.youtube.com/w…=WarnerJordanEducation[/link]-
Oh, gotcha Frumious! Good one!
As for the straw-man argument proposed by over-caff, I’ll just say this…Why is it you believe the oil companies could have misled the public, but not academes?
I would like the TRUTH. No one, neither side here possesses the TRUTH. But that doesn’t stop anyone from claiming they do.-
It is a specific possible scenario included in that polls excessive vague BS phrasing of it’s question, for which he accuses people who answered yes of being “totalitarians”. What it tells me is that more than 20+% of people actually thought about the question. Did everyone here read how the question was phrased? I did. The question could have been phrased much fairer “Do you believe the claims of climate scientists should be formally investigated for evidence of fraud?” But I didn’t write the question, and I am not the one here making claims that the poll doesn’t make. You would really answer no? Come on now, last I heard you guys were really big on prosecuting people for lying to the public for political or financial gain.
-
Which academics are lying? All of them except the ones in the denial camp? The academics who believe there is evidence of anthropogenic warming are lying except when they note that some sea ice in Antarctica (Ross Sea) is forming, not melting? Or reporting that past climates thousands & millions of years ago was warmer, then they are telling the truth?
As for companies, it is documented (their own documents) that EXXON had accepted anthropogenic warming a few decades ago & then funded “studies” confusing the analysis. Now they are funding both sides and they aren’t the only one.-
Which academics AREN’T lying? We have no way to tell.
Your example of Sloan and Wolfendale is an interesting case in point. They show that cosmic rays might not make as many clouds as was previously postulated so therefore the media chimes in that the Sun only causes 10% of global climate warming change confusion. See above…their methodology can be questioned. THAT process of [i]questioning[/i], gentlemen, is SCIENCE, not this trumpeting forth that WE HAVE THE ANSWER and EVEN IF WE DON’T THE WOULD COULD END IF WE’RE RIGHT SO YOU BETTER DO WHAT WE SAY garbage.
You’ve got over-caffeinated literally shaking in his boots that the world will end because I don’t BELIEVE 100% that the world will end.
Whose lying? Probably a lot of “experts” on both sides. What to do? I think the science has to be reexamined from the beginning. Find 100 of the best people from academia AND industry and throw in some civilians and go over each and every piece of data. Throw out the hypotheses that (mostly) academics are working backward from and see what the REAL data shows.
The sad fact is we cannot get to the truth with the current situation. My idea would go a long way toward getting there.-
“You’ve got over-caffeinated literally shaking in his boots that the world will end because I don’t BELIEVE 100% that the world will end.”
I assure you, it’s my continuous coffee infusion causing the shakes.
*sip*
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
So, I take it by your responses your really not interested in investigating whether or not multi-billion dollar corporations like Exxon used their money and power to mislead the public by deliberately promoting false science or just outright lied? And much like the tobacco industry these companies are just doing what any good capitalists would do and us destroyers of capitalism are unfairly raining on their parade? Boys will be boys, eh?
-
-
-
The information on Sloan and Wolfendale is not exactly upholding the skeptics arguments about no global warming or that the warming (if it does exist) is caused by cosmic rays and the sun. I was waiting to answer because the argument is not a single sentence, I was up Thursday reading your links & where they brought me.
Basically the CERN CLOUD study is about the natural formation of aerosols and how it varies due to cosmic rays and the effect of solar radiation on solar radiation. Aerosols actually make the climate cooler by reflecting and dispersing solar energy and by the formation of clouds that are more numerous, whiter & last longer, all the opposite of warming. Further the quote you emphasized stated explicitly that solar and cosmic rays could account for no more than 14% of effects, not a major forcing from solar or cosmic rays then.
[link=http://press.web.cern.ch/press-releases/2013/10/cerns-cloud-experiment-shines-new-light-climate-change]http://press.web.cern.ch/…w-light-climate-change[/link]The measured sensitivity of aerosol formation to amines came as a surprise, and points to a potentially significant climate cooling mechanism. Moreover, since amine scrubbing is likely to become an important technology for capturing carbon dioxide emissions from fossil-fuelled power plants, this effect is likely to rise in future.
The CLOUD result adds another significant measurement in understanding the climate. But it does not rule out a role for cosmic radiation, nor does it offer a quick fix for global warming.
I spent some considerable time reading Nir Shaviv’s blog & his conclusions are primarily that he agrees that warming exists but has now rejected CO2 as a primary culprit but doesn’t really explain why except that it is the “popular” belief, ergo he reject it as the sole influence. And then studies solar radiation and cosmic rays as a counter explanation which leaves me baffled at this time wondering exactly what I’m missing in his logic. My primary problem is how he explains 11 and 22 year cycles as a major cause (of warming???)? When the past 150 years & especially the past couple of decades have shown accelerated warming and melting of the Arctic, Antarctic and global glaciers. None of the “skeptics” ever seem to explain how the rapid melting is “normal” and when in the past, recent or thousands or millions of years ago we had similar rapid warming and its cause.
Further solar radiation and warming have actually moved in opposite directions over the recent couple of decades so that while warming has increased, solar radiation has actually decreased.
So other than, “NO!” I see no real arguments or explanations from the skeptic crowd as to what is happening & some even reject that warming is even taking place. How exactly they do that I haven’t the foggiest as if you have eyes you can see the warming.-
But therein lies the problem. I think the data has been manipulated, or at least misinterpreted. HAS there been warming? Many say there has been none for several years now, even in light of CO2 production.
I really like [i]my [/i]idea here…Can’t speak for the oil companies OR the academics, but[i] I[/i] want the truth, and I’ll assume you gents do too. Bluster aside, I think you are sincere in your dire beliefs, although maybe a little misguided, and you might think that of me. Still, there must be some way to review the data with enough safeguards so no one can claim it has been gerrymandered one way or the other.
Don’t tell me we already have the truth. We don’t. But we could get there, well in advance of the planet’s destruction.-
When did skepticism get re-branded as denial?
When did questioning conclusions stop being part of healthy debate or discussion?
When did science start sounding like religious dogma?-
Quote from xrayer31
When did skepticism get re-branded as denial?
When did questioning conclusions stop being part of healthy debate or discussion?When did science start sounding like religious dogma?
When did it start? The science is always questioning. It’s called peer-review and reproducible results. The last 2 storm track predictions had 2 theories & the Europeans’ predictions were the more accurate ones. Were the American predictions religion? Or skeptic? Or denial?
Dogma is what is believed in the absence of any evidence. It is religion.
There is plenty of evidence for anthropogenic warming. If you reject it out of hand because you don;t like the messenger or the results, that’s not skepticism, that’s denial.
Even Cold Fusion had its day to prove whether it existed. It could not be shown or results reproduced, therefore it was rejected.
“Skeptical” models and theory are usually not so much theory as an attempt to blow holes in warming models. The Earth is warming and has been for decades for at least 150 years. Even Shaviv believes warming exists & only seems to reject CO2 as a reason because it’s “popular” and “easy.” But his theory doesn’t fill any gaps that I can surmise from his writing. Can you?
Evolution is accepted theory even though not every prediction is not accurate. It is NOT religion. It is NOT dogma.
People who reject evolution are NOT skeptics. They are not persecuted for having an alternative theory to evolution. They are not being rejected by peer reviewed publications because of bias by the evolutions theory who won’t accept the truth of an alternate theory. Creationism IS religion. Creationism IS dogma.
The people who said tobacco wasn’t proven to cause cancer and disease weren’t providing an alternate theory to disease. They weren’t skeptics. It wasn’t even dogma. It was a lie.
EXXON even now says it believes burning fossil fuels adds to warming.
-
-
Quote from DoctorDalai
But therein lies the problem. I think the data has been manipulated, or at least misinterpreted. HAS there been warming? Many say there has been none for several years now, even in light of CO2 production.
So who is doing the manipulating? Maybe it is the denial camp? Maybe you accept their views out of hand because you neither like the message or the messangers.
“Many say there has been no warming?” What do you say? Winters are colder now then when you were a child? Those “many” agree the graph of Earth’s temperature has risen 1.5 degrees C, they just want to believe the slope has leveled off in 1998. But if you look at the slope it just shows moire change but the slope is still up.
Graphs aren’t too complicated to read in most cases. What does the slope show? It is not rocket science. If you reject the graph, is that skepticism or denialism?
If you are a skeptic you have an alternative explanation of why the graph is or could be wrong and an explanation of what you think is REALLY happening. So far “what is really happening” is not there from the “skeptic” camp. “NO!” is not science or scientific.
-
The graphs, the calculations, the warming…All of it is subject to manipulation. The earth warms and cools over the course of thousands of years all by itself. We don’t KNOW why, we don’t know that we’ve influenced this or not, we don’t know if we can stop it, and we don’t know if we SHOULD stop it.
Exxon is behaving like any other entity would when confronted with a horde of government thugs, I mean lawyers, and I don’t really care what they say or don’t.
You can continue to type until the next Ice Age, and I’m not budging. ALL of the data has to be re-examined in a situation that will eliminate bias. Until then, both sides have too much to gain by lying.
P.S….it’s this sort of thing that sets your “cause” back ages:
[link=http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/11/14/22-times-obama-admin-declared-climate-change-greater-threat-terrorism/]http://www.breitbart.com/…ater-threat-terrorism/[/link]-
Well, you’ve fallen back on the indefensible, “both sides do it,” now.
As for warming & cooling, as you say took place over thousands of years yet in our case is isn’t even hundreds of years being less than 200 years as the warming almost exactly coincides with the industrial age. Coincidence? Must be.
As for “hordes of government thugs” this was in the 1970’s where no “thugs,” hordes or otherwise were involved, it was EXXON’s own hordes of scientist thugs who formed the conclusion that EXXON’s business was contributing to warming. Since then the issue has grown more divisive so if anything, there would be the “hordes of government thugs” later, except EXXON’s fear of these thugs must be invisible as that is when they started paying other “science thugs” to create alternate realities. This is precisely the same scenario progression as when “both sides lied” about tobacco being dangerous to your health & causing cancer.
But s you say, no amount of facts will change your mind. And since facts are irrelevant, and in any case “both sides are lying” about the facts, there is nothing for you to argue anymore.
So, done.-
Yes we are. You won’t accept the possibility that your facts are not facts. Nowhere to go from there.
-
So the great Conservative solution is to threaten scientists…glad to know lawyer Lamar Smith is on the case…he should have a lot to bring to climate science…
[link=http://www.factcheck.org/2015/11/smith-misfires-on-climate-science/]http://www.factcheck.org/…es-on-climate-science/[/link]
At issue is a study led by NOAA scientist [link=https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/about/welcomefromdirector.html]Thomas Karl.[/link] It is one of [link=http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/BAMS-D-14-00106.1]several[/link] [link=http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10584-015-1495-y]recent[/link] peer-reviewed studies showing the so-called global warming hiatus (also known as the pause or slowdown) did not actually occur. Karl and his colleagues updated the global temperature data sets using the most up-to-date readings and analysis; this included more data from ocean buoys and from ship engine intake thermometers, and from an increasing number of land-based weather stations. They concluded: Newly corrected and updated global surface temperature data do not support the notion of a global warming hiatus.’
The other studies have come to similar conclusions.
Publishing in [i][link=http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10584-015-1495-y]Climatic Change[/link][/i], a group of Stanford researchers led by [link=https://woods.stanford.edu/about/woods-faculty/bala-rajaratnam]Bala Rajaratnam[/link] wrote: We find compelling evidence that recent claims of a hiatus in global warming lack sound scientific basis. Another group from universities in the U.K and Australia, as well has from Harvard, writing in the [i][link=http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/BAMS-D-14-00106.1]Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society[/link],[/i] concluded: We show that there are frequent fluctuations in the rate of warming around a longer-term warming trend, and that there is no evidence that identifies the recent period as unique or particularly unusual.[link=https://blog.ap.org/announcements/an-addition-to-ap-stylebook-entry-on-global-warming]Those who reject mainstream climate science[/link] often claim that there has been no warming specifically for 17 years, a claim that relies on cherry-picked data, [link=http://www.factcheck.org/2015/03/cruz-on-the-global-cooling-myth-and-galileo/]as we have written about before[/link]. By starting with 1998, a particularly warm year, the amount of warming over that period appears smaller than starting with 1997 or 1999. The far more relevant [link=http://climate.nasa.gov/]long-term trend, however, is unequivocal[/link]; 14 of the 15 hottest years ever recorded have occurred this century, [link=http://www.factcheck.org/2015/04/obama-and-the-warmest-year-on-record/]2014 was likely the warmest year on record[/link], and NOAA says [link=https://www.climate.gov/news-features/blogs/beyond-data/somewhat-very-extremely-how-likely-it-2015-will-be-new-warmest-year]2015 is extremely likely to supplant it[/link].
Oh but the satellite data
In an email, Smith told us that satellite data in particular has clearly showed [[i]sic[/i]] no warming for the past two decades. This is another common misrepresentation of the facts.
There are multiple satellite data sets of the temperature in the [link=http://scied.ucar.edu/shortcontent/troposphere-overview]troposphere [/link](the lowest atmospheric layer) for example, from NOAA, from a research company called [link=http://www.remss.com/]Remote Sensing Systems[/link], and from a [link=http://nsstc.uah.edu/climate/]research group at the University of Alabama in Huntsville[/link]. The data sets disagree, and the last of those is the only one to show a lack of warming. Though there is some [link=http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2015/mar/25/one-satellite-data-set-is-underestimating-global-warming]disagreement[/link] on the best ways to adjust and interpret satellite data, studies have indicated that correcting the UAH data in certain ways (specifically, removing a particular source of satellite error known as diurnal drift) [link=http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-13-00767.1]would yield similar results to other data sets[/link], indicating more warming.
Furthermore, even researchers who work on satellite temperature data say that the surface measurements used by NOAA and others are the more reliable data sets. [link=http://www.remss.com/about/profiles/carl-mears]Carl Mears[/link], a senior research scientist at Remote Sensing Systems, [link=https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2015/03/24/ted-cruz-says-satellite-data-show-the-globe-isnt-warming-this-satellite-scientist-feels-otherwise/]told the [i]Washington Post[/i][/link] he would trust the surface data a little more.
I am sure Lamar will get to the bottom of this like they have gotten to the rock bottom of all there other sham hearings
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Show of hands…how many BELIEVERS have DRASTICALLY altered their lifestyle, junked their cars, live in unheated caves, ride ONLY a bicycle or electric car, sent carbon tithes to Algore, redistributed their wealth to China and India…
Yeah, that’s what I thought.-
Why do Deniers have to resort to fantasy arguments in order to feel they’ve made some sort of point?
-
Hottest October ever recorded.
[link=https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/capital-weather-gang/wp/2015/11/17/record-crushing-october-keeps-earth-on-track-for-hottest-year-in-2015/]https://www.washingtonpos…-hottest-year-in-2015/[/link]
It was Earths warmest October ever recorded and it wasnt even close. The record-shattering month was right in step with most of the preceding months in 2015 which is positioned to easily rank as the warmest year on record.
New data from the Japan Meteorological Agency and NASA show that the planet obliterated October records established just last year. October 2015 out-baked October 2014 by 0.34 degrees (0.19 Celsius) and 0.32 degrees (0.18 Celsius) in JMA and NASAs analyses, respectively.
-
You can post your data until the next Ice Age if it makes you happy.
Sadly for you and yours IF (VERY BIG IF) you are correct, your socialist pals have hijacked the issue for their own purposes, and you will NEVER get anywhere with right-thinking folks.
[link=http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/11/the_end_of_the_world_all_over_again.html]http://www.americanthinke…ld_all_over_again.html[/link]
[blockquote] Make no mistake: the money and power are huge. What’s at stake is, in effect, a global takeover of the entire energy sector and everything dependent on energy, from oil and gas to electric utilities to construction and transportation. World leaders are salivating over what could be done with the profits from those industries: the votes to be bought, the arms purchased to repress one’s own people, the permanent subjection of liberty. Global hoodlums have been trying to get their hands on this pile of cash for 30 years, ever since environmentalists began issuing their speculative claims of global warming, and now they see their chance.
According to reports, the major obstacle to an agreement has nothing to do with achieving the goal of controlling global temperatures something that is impossible to accomplish, in any case. The main obstacle under discussion is how much the world’s developed nations will fork over to developing nations. One hundred billion dollars, the goal of the failed Copenhagen climate summit, has been deemed insufficient. Third-world fraudsters have their sights set on much greater sums.[/blockquote]
-
Yes Dalai EVERYTHING is a slippery slope to global fascism…but don’t worry the energy sector clearly has YOUR best interest at heart. The Koch brothers care a lot about you …you do realize the EXACT same argument can be easily applied to the small faction of deniers…after all it is the preferred techniques for small minorities wishing to exert power and control
-
Putting your faith in socialist dictator wannabee’s and milquetoast Marxists makes lots of sense, doesn’t it?
-
OK so put your faith in fascists and see if that helps you
-
A. You agree you put your faith in socialists and Marxists? A little honesty at last.
So who are you labeling as fascist?-
.
-
The real scientists speak out against climate alarmism:
[link=http://dailycaller.com/2015/11/20/nonsense-top-scientists-demolish-alarmism-behind-u-n-climate-summit/]http://dailycaller.com/20…nd-u-n-climate-summit/[/link]
[i]”A panel of prominent scientists debunked one of the most popular global warming arguments ahead of a major United Nations climate summit to take place in Paris later this month. The scientists [link=http://www.climatedepot.com/2015/11/19/scientists-declare-un-climate-summit-goals-irrational-based-on-nonsense-leading-us-down-a-false-path/]slammed policies to reduce carbon dioxide emissions as nonsense,[/link] and they criticized politicians and activists for claiming the world was on the path for catastrophic global warming. [/i]
[i] The most important thing to keep in mind is when you ask is it warming, is it cooling, etc. is that we are talking about something tiny (temperature changes) and that is the crucial point, Dr. Richard Lindzen [/i]
[i] Policies to slow CO2 emissions are really based on nonsense, Dr. Will Happer, a physicist at Princeton University, said… They are all based on computer models that do not work. We are being led down a false path, Happer argued… [/i]
[i] Linden and his fellow panelists said claims of the hottest year on record are nonsense because theres so much uncertainty surrounding surface temperature readings especially since scientists often make lots of adjustments to weather station readings.When someone points to this and says this is the warmest temperature on record. What are they talking about? Its just nonsense, Lindzen said. This is a very tiny change period. And they are arguing over hundredths of a degree when it is uncertain in tenths of a degree… And the proof that the uncertainty is tenths of a degree are the adjustments that are being made, Lindzen added. If you can adjust temperatures to 2/10ths of a degree, it means it wasnt certain to 2/10ths of a degree.[/i]The science is settled. Heh!
-
How dare you DOUBT[size=”5″] Der Sofa King BRRRRRRRRRILIANT SCHIENTISTS[/size]!!!!!!
Dumkopf!
(This little bit of sarcasm is brought to you by DoctorDalai.com.)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
[b][/b]
[b]Patrick Moore[/b] is an ecologist who denies that humans cause climate change, and a corporate consultant through his firm [link=http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Greenspirit_Strategies]Greenspirit Strategies[/link]. Moore has consulted for the [link=http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Nuclear_Energy_Institute]Nuclear Energy Institute[/link], and the [link=http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Clean_and_Safe_Energy_Coalition]Clean and Safe Energy Coalition[/link]. He has worked for the mining industry, the logging industry, PVC manufacturers, the nuclear industry and has worked in defense of [link=http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Biotechnology]biotechnology[/link].
Although Moore was once (1981, 1986) a leading figure with [link=http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Greenpeace_Canada]Greenpeace Canada[/link] and subsequently with [link=http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Greenpeace_International]Greenpeace International[/link], in 2008 Greenpeace issued a statement distancing itself from Moore, saying he “exploits long gone ties with Greenpeace to sell himself as a speaker and pro-corporate spokesperson, usually taking positions that Greenpeace opposes
In an interview with French filmmaker Paul Moreira, Patrick Moore claimed that drinking glyphosate was safe, then immediately refused to drink some himself when presented with the opportunity. The interview and Moore’s refusal to sample glyphosate came on the heels of a World Health Organization study that found the active ingredient in [link=http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Monsanto]Monsanto[/link]’s Roundup herbicide is “probably carcinogenic.”
[link]http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Patrick_Moore[/link]-
Make no mistake about it; Lindzen has made a career of being wrong about climate science. Unfortunately, while the Weekly Standard piece goes through Lindzen’s many contrarian climate arguments, it misses the key point that they haven’t withstood scientific scrutiny or the test of time:
Based on his comments in that 1989 talk, [link=http://skepticalscience.com/lindzen-illusion-2-lindzen-vs-hansen-1980s.html]I pieced together[/link] what Lindzen’s global temperature prediction might have looked like, had he made one, and compared it to the prediction made by prominent NASA climate scientist James Hansen in a 1988 paper (like Lindzen, Hansen is now retired).
[link=https://i.guim.co.uk/img/static/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2014/1/4/1388804857237/Hansen_vs_Lindzen_450.jpg?w=620&q=85&auto=format&sharp=10&s=526ef82a2173230530372d760038c96d]https://i.guim.co.uk/img/…73230530372d760038c96d[/link]
[link=http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2014/jan/06/climate-change-climate-change-scepticism]http://www.theguardian.co…mate-change-scepticism[/link]-
Lindzen has been at this for 25 years…even denies there is a strong link between cigarettes and lung cancer…the tobacco industry and climate denial has a lot in common..one of the 3%…so what
-
Hottest year on record – ever. Someday soon, Alaska’s oil exports will be for palm oil.
[link=http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/24/science/climate-change-record-warm-year.html]http://www.nytimes.com/20…-record-warm-year.html[/link]
With some help from [link=http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/17/science/understanding-el-nino.html]El Niño[/link], 2015 will almost certainly finish out its run as the hottest year on record with temperatures on Christmas Eve and Christmas Day predicted to be well above average across much of the United States.
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has announced that last month [link=http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/201511]was the warmest November on record[/link], and the seventh month in a row to break a global temperature record. The global average temperature from January to November was the highest recorded since 1880, when the data was first tracked. That broke the record for the hottest year ever recorded, set in 2014. The temperature from January to November was 0.25 degrees warmer than the same period last year.
Thirteen of the fourteen hottest years in memory have been recorded in the 21[sup]st[/sup] century, a development that goes hand-in-hand with the expected effects of [link=http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/science/topics/globalwarming/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier]climate change[/link].13 out of the past 14 years have been the hottest years? I thought the deniers said there’s been no warming since 1998?
And more information comes out that EXXON agreed that burning fossil fuels is the major contributor to global warming.
[link=http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/12/22/as-documents-show-wider-oil-industry-knowledge-of-co2-climate-impacts-a-take-it-back-proposal/]http://dotearth.blogs.nyt…take-it-back-proposal/[/link]
There are new revelations from the continuing InsideClimate News investigation of what the oil industry knew about the potential climate impacts of carbon dioxide from fuel burning even as it sought delays in related national and international policies.
The headline and deck on todays story neatly summarize the news:
[blockquote] Exxons oil industry peers knew about climate dangers in the 1970s, too. Members of an American Petroleum Institute task force on CO2 included scientists from nearly every major oil company, including Exxon, Texaco and Shell.
[/blockquote] Heres a snippet from Neela Banerjees article, but please read the rest at the link below:
[blockquote] The American Petroleum Institute together with the nations largest oil companies ran a task force to monitor and share climate research between 1979 and 1983, indicating that the oil industry, not just Exxon alone, was aware of its possible impact on the worlds climate far earlier than previously known.
The groups members included senior scientists and engineers from nearly every major U.S. and multinational oil and gas company, including Exxon, Mobil, Amoco, Phillips, Texaco, Shell, Sunoco, and Sohio, according to internal documents obtained by InsideClimate News and interviews with the task forces former director. [[i][link=http://insideclimatenews.org/news/22122015/exxon-mobil-oil-industry-peers-knew-about-climate-change-dangers-1970s-american-petroleum-institute-api-shell-chevron-texaco]Read the rest[/link][/i].]
[/blockquote] In late November, I had an initial email exchange about this notion ([i]removing and sequestering CO2[/i]) with Kenneth P. Cohen, Exxons vice president for public and government affairs. He responded, We actually have some very interesting/promising work underway in the CO2 capture area, but couldnt elaborate at the time. Im looking forward to hearing more.
Addendum, 8:40 p.m. | This story by Bloombergs Eric Roston is relevant, as well: [link=http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-12-22/exxonmobil-and-sierra-club-agreed-on-climate-policy-and-kept-it-secret]ExxonMobil and Sierra Club Agreed on Climate Policyand Kept It Secret[/link]. A forgotten accord reached in 2009 may yet have relevance for the future of U.S. climate policy. -
Here Thor, I stumbled across this about Lindzen. Something for Alda to digest & reject as it doesn’t fit in with his preconceptions.
[link=http://news.yahoo.com/global-warming-hit-plateau-100000352.html]http://news.yahoo.com/glo…plateau-100000352.html[/link]The skeptics’ favorite scientist
Richard Lindzen is a climate change skeptic with a novel theory. The MIT meteorologist concedes that greenhouse gases cause warming, but he believes Earth will be able to regulate its temperature, like a thermostat, thanks to clouds. Lindzen argues that when surface temperature increases, the moist air that rises from the tropics will rain out more of its moisture, leaving less to form the wispy, high clouds known as cirrus. Just like greenhouse gases, those cirrus clouds trap heat in the atmosphere, so a decrease in them would counteract the increase of greenhouse gases. “If I’m right, we’ll have saved money” by not adopting emissions restrictions, says Lindzen, who recently testified before Congress at the request of Republican skeptics. Most climatologists dispute Lindzen’s theory, saying his papers have been riddled with erroneous data and unproven assumptions. [b]Lindzen is “feeding upon an audience that wants to hear a certain message[/b],” says Christopher S. Bretherton, an atmospheric researcher at the University of Washington. “I don’t think it’s intellectually honest at all.”
Well, Lindzen does accept global warming AND that it is anthropogenic, just nothing to worry about. Keep whistling.
And since warming has continued unabated, it looks like Lindzen’s counter theory about clouds is so wrong.-
[link=http://phys.org/news/2015-11-carbon-footprint-email.html]http://phys.org/news/2015…n-footprint-email.html[/link]
[blockquote]
Sending even a short email is estimated to add about four grammes (0.14 ounces) of CO2 equivalent (gCO2e) to the atmosphere.
To put this into perspective, the carbon output of hitting “send” on 65 mails is on par with driving an average-sized car a kilometre (0.6 of a mile).
The culprits are [link=http://m.phys.org/tags/greenhouse+gases/]greenhouse gases[/link] produced in running the computer, server and routers but also those emitted when the equipment was manufactured.
It gets worse when you send an email with a large attachment, which puts about 50 gCO2e into the air. Five such messages are like burning about 120 grammes (0.27 pounds) of coal.
Receiving a spam messageeven if you do not open ithas an environmental impact of 0.3 gCO2e.
The global carbon footprint from spam annually is equivalent to the greenhouse gases pumped out by 3.1 million passenger cars using 7.6 billion litres (two billion gallons) of gasoline in a year.
Here is something to keep in mind the next time you type in a non-essential Google enquiry: A web search on an energy-efficient laptop leaves a footprint of 0.2 gCO2e. On an old desktop computer, it is 4.5 gCO2e.
[/blockquote] So all good BELIEVERS need to get off their computers RIGHT NOW if they truly want to help the planet.-
But as Al Gore notes, alternative and renewables are gaining so that figure of yours is decreasing as solar & wind, etc gains & replaces fossil fuels. That is the point of the article & Gore’s optimism. You must have missed that.
So cheer on. Things are getting better! [:)][:)][:)][:)][:)][:)][:)][:)][:)]
& Happy Holiday!-
Dalai, these guys are hopeless, weird how it’s their religion, yet they dog religion all the time.
In our lifetime we’ll see clear evidence that these “scientists” are wrong, we are disciplined enough already to see that’s the case, but they’ll just go about their business after it’s proven to be the case even by the hoax community itself.
What’s funny is that they level all these claims at me about copping to things, and they won’t ever hold themselves to the same standard – typical stuff from central planners.-
Have fun with this one, Believers…
[link=http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/working-paper-35_2.pdf]http://object.cato.org/si…working-paper-35_2.pdf[/link]-
Small problem with Christy’s observations Dalai, the climate has in fact still warmed in spite of his “predictions.”
Take this!
[link=http://exxonsecrets.org/html/personfactsheet.php?id=903]http://exxonsecrets.org/h…onfactsheet.php?id=903[/link]
[b] [/b][b]Professor and Director, Atmospheric Science Department, University of Alabama at Huntsville[/b]
[i]Alabama State Climatologist. Lead Author, 2001 IPCC TAR. [/i][b]While he now acknowledges that global warming is real and the human contribution is significant[/b], Christy has been a long-time skeptic who previously argued that satellite climate data do not show a trend toward global warming, and even show cooling in some areas. His findings have been widely disputed. [b]Christy now asserts that global warming will have beneficial effects on the planet and that increased CO2 emissions from human activities are a net positive.[/b]
[i]< (mine) We have only to look at Syria’s civil war due to severe drought and resulting refugee crisis to see how global warming will benefit mankind>[/i]Christy was a contributing writer to “Global Warming and Other Eco-Myths,” published by Competitive Enterprise Institute in 2002. He spoke at a June 1998 briefing for congressional staff and media, which was sponsored by the Cooler Heads Coalition.
And this one REALLY proves his creds. Anyone who appears on & agrees with Glenn Beck has only TRUTH on his side, because we know Beck only speaks the truth to the lying science industry.
[b] [/b][b]CNN, Glenn Beck special “Exposed: The Climate of Fear,” May 2, 2007[/b]
[link=http://www.cnn.com/CNN/Programs/beck.climateoffear/]http://www.cnn.com/CNN/Programs/beck.climateoffear/[/link]
Christy is making the identical Pollyanna arguments of Lindzen, “Nothing to see here, keep moving…”
[link=http://www.skepticalscience.com/examining-christys-skepticism.html]http://www.skepticalscien…ristys-skepticism.html[/link]As you can see, this is a very similar alternative hypothesis to that put forth by Dr. Lindzen. In fact, when Dr. Christy says “we” are finding that the climate is insensitive to greenhouse gases, [link=http://www.skepticalscience.com/christy-crock-6-climate-sensitivity.html]he refers exclusively to studies by Dr. Lindzen and Dr. Spencer[/link]. Virtually all other climate science research has found that [link=http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-sensitivity-advanced.htm]the climate is indeed quite sensitive to greenhouse gases[/link], and the work of [link=http://www.skepticalscience.com/Lindzen-Choi-2009-low-climate-sensitivity.htm]Dr. Lindzen[/link] and [link=http://www.skepticalscience.com/roy-spencers-latest-silver-bullet.html]Dr. Spencer[/link] concluding otherwise contains numerous errors. And as with Dr. Lindzen’s alternative hypothesis, every single one of Dr. Christy’s arguments is directly contradicted by the observational data (as illustrated in the links above).
There is an elephant in the room in considering the demonstrably incorrect arguments of Drs. Spencer and Christy. Although we should of course focus on the specific scientific elements of their arguments, it’s important to recognise that these two have spent a large part of their careers getting the tropospheric temperature measurements hopelessly wrong, and therefore coming to an incorrect conclusion about the troposphere warming response to enhanced greenhouse gasconcentrations (see below [+++]).This is bound to have influenced their outlook on this subject – it must be very difficult to throw away a favoured interpretation from 15 or more years of study, and not hope that ones conclusions might yet be vindicated. While its important to address deficient arguments with logic and evidence, its also useful (and may become increasingly so) to try to fathom the psychology that underlies specific examples of scientific misrepresentation. Each of Spencer and Christy and Lindzen is objectively wrong in their essential representations of the science. I think we can at least partly understand some of the reasons for this in the case of the first two.
-
BELIEVERS BELIEVE and skeptics are DENIERS. That sentiment won’t change around here.
But really…they Syrian civil war was caused by Global Climate Warming Chaos Change? Really? Someone needs to adjust their medication a bit. -
Say what you like but the facts are what matters, not what you want to believe.
Syria had a drought which caused food shortages & led to the civil war. You mean you KNOW that the drought was not at all mitigated by climate change in any way? Besides your denier heroes are arguing that climate warming in only beneficial. How would they guarantee that?
[link=http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2015/03/150302-syria-war-climate-change-drought/]http://news.nationalgeogr…limate-change-drought/[/link]
A severe drought, worsened by a warming climate, drove Syrian farmers to abandon their crops and flock to cities, helping trigger a [link=http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2014/03/syrian-war/butler-text]civil war[/link] that has killed hundreds of thousands of people, according to a new study published Monday.
The research provides the most detailed look yet at how climate change may already be helping spark violent political unrest.
“Up until now we’ve understood and established that changes in climate may affect human conflict in the future. But everything until now has stopped short of saying climate change is already having an effect,” says [link=http://www.solomonhsiang.com/]Solomon Hsiang[/link], a University of California, Berkeley professor who has studied the role of climate change in violence. He did not participate in the new study.
But their report, published in the [i][link=http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2015/02/23/1421533112.abstract]Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences[/link][/i], compiled statistics showing that water shortages in the Fertile Crescent in Syria, Iraq, and Turkey killed livestock, drove up food prices, sickened children, and forced 1.5 million rural residents to the outskirts of Syria’s jam-packed citiesjust as that country was exploding with immigrants from the Iraq war. (Related: “[link=http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/08/140829-syria-refugees-united-nations-world/]Half of Syrians Displaced: 5 Takeaways From New UN Report[/link].”)[blockquote] The entire world needs to be planning for a drier future in that area. And there will be lots of global implications.
[/blockquote]After examining meteorological data, the researchers determined that natural variability alone was unlikely to account for the trends in wind, rain, and heat that led to the massive drought. All these factors, combined with high unemployment and bad government, helped tip Syria into violence.
As for medication, you need a reality pill, no more ideological pills for you.
-
[blockquote] After examining meteorological data, the researchers determined that natural variability alone was unlikely to account for the trends in wind, rain, and heat that led to the massive drought. All these factors, combined with high unemployment and bad government, helped tip Syria into violence.
[/blockquote] And here we get back to the basis of our little disagreement. Your heroes have been shown to have MANIPULATED that data. It is therefore completely worthless, as is everything derived from it.
Ever hear of the little boy who cried “Wolf”? This is what your pals have accomplished. They are no longer believable at all. This garbage you just cited above from fellow BELIEVERS is so outrageous, I’m surprised even YOU posted it. But keep posting such drivel. It gives us a MUCH clearer vision into your BELIEF.
Those out there who either stand to profit from the intended wealth-redistribution, or those who have the emotional constitution of a twelve-year-old girl, BELIEVE, or profess to BELIEVE. The rest of us don’t. -
Where is the manipulation? Every single scientist – the 90+% majority all either deliberately manipulated the climate data or are such credulous science fools? Only he very few minority deniers are the correct ones?
Another Catholic Church vs Galileo?
Where is your data to make such a conclusion? Fox News? Where is your data that the climate is not in fact warming? The people you and cigar post generally agree there is warming & agree that it is anthropogenic, they only deny there will be consequences, in fact they generally agree there will be benefits instead.
So where do you get off saying there is no warming? That it is not anthropogenic? Even EXXON and agrees warming is primarily caused by the burning of fossil fuels.
How do you know they are all wrong? -
Might as well call a truce. You BELIEVE and nothing I say will dissuade you and yours. Might as well hope I’m right.
You are being scammed by those who want, well, some of the same things you guys think you want: wealth distribution, One-World Government, “green” energy where the only “green” is the $$$ that go straight to the pockets of the milquetoast Marxist’s cronies, etc. The incentives are too great to ignore.
Using falsified data yields false conclusions. Most [i]skeptics[/i] agree that there hasn’t been warming in 20 years. Some agree with your other points, some don’t. And finally, what did you think EXXON was going to say? They are constantly in the crosshairs of the environmentalist whackos and really don’t want any more governmental oversight and regulation than they already have. That they put on a show of drinking the Koolaide comes as no surprise.
Sorry…no conversion to BELIEF for me.
-
See it is all one being global conspiracy…so devious 97% of scientists are in on it…even the globe is in on it…so devious that Exxon created a bunch of internal documents discussing the presence of global warming even when they were lobbying against policy changes to combat it. You must trust Big Oil…they are your true friends and know what is best for you. Like their friend Big Tobacco, they would never lie to you
-
I don’t trust anyone.
-
Quote from DoctorDalai
I don’t trust anyone.
Including physicians and scientists doing medical research, a fraud with researchers inventing diseases in order to fraudulently take $$$ for fake research & development. Your own brother knew that all physicians lie.
But you do trust Fox News & Rush & their ilk. What’s wrong with that picture?
Maybe hostility to science is a family trait? -
Dalai, I know you already know this, but in case anyone else is reading, don’t pay attention to Frumious’ all-inclusives. Like all other progressives, he attacks motivations and general ideas, not the topic at hand, because distraction and division is the side he aligns himself with.
If we say, for example, that at some point there has been warming and now there isn’t (that’s what the data show) how is that in any way a refutation of our points? The global temperatures have always fluctuated. Anyone with common sense, and not just data, is aware of this fact.
Also, I take science on its face; for what it is. I apply it to each situation about which we discuss, or speak, or argue. Talking about “science” in general and trying to loop us in with some other topic that has nothing to do with the topic at hand (look at Frumi’s last post) is what the guy does every time.
Distraction and division, Frumi, to anyone actually paying attention, is not worthwhile. This is what frauds and liars do, because they want to manipulate others into not paying attention to what matters, or deflect attention from their own mishaps or bad actions or conclusions.
-
Serial Deniers should be brought out of the closet & exposed to the light. The MO is always the same regardless of the issue.
-
What, and then jailed? Or maybe killed? Some of your fellow BELIEVERS think so.
-
Now you are being anoxic.
The Deniers are always the same people making exactly the same arguments about a lot of different topics, whether DDT or tobacco or ozone hole or acid rain or climate change. Take any of their general arguments & you can substitute the topic without noticing anything.
Same ol’ same ol’ BS. There is no substance to any of the arguments, only distraction. The “junk science” (BTW coined by the tobacco industry in their fight to prove cigarettes are not harmful to health) is wholly on the Deniers’ side. -
That’s your opinion. My opinion is that [i][b]both[/b][/i] sides of the argument use junk science and manipulated data. I’m at least being fair, something a BELIEVER cannot accomplish.
-
And I am asking you to point out the junk science from both sides. so far you have said the “[i][b]BELIEVERS[/b][/i]” like me believe in junk science & when pressed you fall back to “both sides” engage in junk science.
So show me please. Where is the junk science? -
Nothing I could show you would convince me, and vice versa.
Don’t you have a PACS to run? -
No junk science to show?
Then exactly how do you get the opinion that it is junk science if you can’t show or explain anything?
How do you call people “[i][b]BELIEVERS[/b][/i]” if you can’t show why we are wrong? Or even your own side why it is correct?
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Climate change is the gravest threat to human civilization as we know it and anyone who can’t see that is ….sorry to sound disrespectful but……a total and utter ignoramus.
Global warming is the gravest threat to the very existence of humanity.
If immediate aggressive action is not taken, we are doomed as a species.
We need clean green energy, 100% recycling, and environmentally sustainable economic growth.
The Dems are more likely to deliver on this than the current panel of people running for President in the GOP.Each and every time I see a tree being cut down, I feel the bile in the back of my throat.
-
“we conclude that future global warming will occur at a pace substantially lower”
So now it is definitely occurring but perhaps not as rapidly as some models predict. Considering Cato’s main libertarian thesis is to do as much nothing as possible, not surprising they advocate doing nothing while confirming global warming is occurring
-
-
Quote from DoctorDalai
Might as well call a truce. You BELIEVE and nothing I say will dissuade you and yours. Might as well hope I’m right.
Sorry, what am I supposed to believe, all science is a fraud? Scientists are all liars lying for the $$$ except for the few Deniers. Many or most of whom also strangely enough fought against all things government regulation regarding banning DDT (Carson has murdered more people in her opposition to DDT than all the wars in the 20th Century), regulating tobacco (does NOT cause cancer), addressing the ozone hole (is not caused by CFCs), addressing acid rain (does not exist), etc, and now of course, anthropogenic climate change.
However most all the people you and cigar present argue that climate warming [u][b]is[/b][/u] real & is, if not “caused” by burning fossil fuels is [u][i]largely[/i][/u] forced by CO2 from burning fossil fuels. Their primary arguments always fall into criticism of what they view as “alarmism,” that climate warming will somehow be beneficial, not harmful at all.
What evidence do you supply other than believing if Al Gore is for it you have to be against it. Being contrary is not evidence. -
I can call you and yours “[i][b]BELIEVERS[/b][/i]” quite easily. You are clearly rabidly immersed in the doomsday scenario. You don’t care that the temperature data have been manipulated, you don’t care that the models don’t work and never have. You can always find yet another prophet of doom to confirm that the sky is indeed falling, and that’s all you want to hear.
I’ve said a dozen times on this thread alone that I don’t believe in gratuitous pollution, that alternative energy sources need to be developed, etc. etc. etc. I’m granting you about 95% of what you want. But like the other big ol’ Leftist cause, your good friends the “palestinians,” you don’t really want to actually do something about anything, you just want to sit and rant and rant and rant about the DENIERS and how they are too stupid or too far right, or this or that to “[i][b]BELIEVE[/b][/i]”. You don’t want to solve any problems, you want to proselytize. I’ve had enough practice deflecting that sort of thing over the years. You’ll find no convert here.
Probably the worst thing that every happened to your CAUSE was AlGore. His utterly laughable hyperbole became the face of Global Climate Warming Chaos Change. Between his profiteering and buffoonery, much of the non-milquetoast Marxist world now looks askance at the BELIEVERS.
Sorry.-
Great post Dalai.
Frumious, what part of his first paragraph don’t you understand? It’s objective fact that the temperatures haven’t been warming recently, have been manipulated, and the models never worked (thats why it’s not science as I’ve stated so many times, the data isn’t there so they do models to create something pseudo-scientific)
You’ve been had. But as a believer, I don’t expect you’ll admit it. Ever.
To do so would actually mean employing science, ironically. You know, reproducibility and skepticism? OH yeah, you forgot those were part of the method. Like Gore, how convenient LOL -
Al has been more accurate than your deniers have been so far.
What data was manipulated where? Models are models & tehre is no model that is 100% accurate anywhere, even disease models. But as in the case with Al, the models have been much more accurate than the deniers’ models – or lack of data anyway.
There have been very few to no peer-reviewed articles with data presented by any deniers to date. Now why would that be unless it’s all hot air with no data to show?
So again, are you forming an opinion based on no data, based on nothing more than your feelings about poor old Al? If even the deniers are all liars why pick only on poor Al?-
The only thing AlGore has been right about is that he could become quite wealthy bilking the likes of you and yours.
Why can’t you let it be and simply go with the fact that I agree many measures need to be taken as I have said so many times?
That would be because you are a
[style=”background-color: #00ff00; color: #ff0000;”][i][b][font=”comic sans ms,sans-serif”][size=”7″]BELIEVER[/size][/font][/b][/i][/style]
and sacrilege is not to be tolerated.
[image]http://sd.keepcalm-o-matic.co.uk/i/keep-calm-because-i-m-a-believer.png[/image]-
I had a bit of an epiphany just now. I’ve been thinking, always dangerous, I know… Why is it so important to the BELIEVERS that we skeptics BELIEVE? They cannot possibly think that me trading my (small) SUV for a Prius (or preferably a Tesla) will have the slightest impact upon the environment and Global Climate Warming Chaos Change. We could all go live in caves with no appreciable dent in the CO2 levels, even assuming that this gas necessary for plant life and thus OUR lives is the big bad culprit…(which I don’t, but go with it).
I did some googling…
[blockquote] It is precisely that requirement of [i]shared[/i] worship that has been the principal source of suffering for individual man and the human race since the beginning of history. In their efforts to impose universal worship, men have unsheathed their swords and killed one another. They have invented gods and challenged each other: “Discard your gods and worship mine or I will destroy both your gods and you!
[link=http://www.goodreads.com/author/show/3137322.Fyodor_Dostoyevsky]Fyodor Dostoyevsky[/link], [link=http://www.goodreads.com/work/quotes/3393910]The Brothers Karamazov[/link]
Fanatics have the look of people who do not masturbate but who think about it almost all time.
[link=http://www.goodreads.com/author/show/18907.Gregory_David_Roberts]Gregory David Roberts[/link], [link=http://www.goodreads.com/work/quotes/3174890]Shantaram[/link]
[/blockquote]
[blockquote] Fanaticism is overcompensation for doubt.
[link=http://www.goodreads.com/author/show/8304262.Roberston_Davies]Roberston Davies[/link]
[/blockquote] Personally, I think the last one says it all. If reasonably intelligent folks like me (hopefully) have doubts about this religious-level BELIEF, maybe there’s something to doubt, eh? Maybe, possibly, the world [i]won’t[/i] end if we don’t redistribute all our wealth to China and India. In other words: MAYBE THE BELIEVERS ARE WRONG! This raises an intolerable level of internal conflict, forcing the BELIEVERS to double down on their questionable BELIEF.
But the spark of reason still burns…It’s OK to doubt…It’s OK to question…It’s OK NOT to BELIEVE…-
A very fair question. I think I will try to answer it. Let’s talk religious belief, or lack thereof. You can say “I believe in God” and I can say “I do not believe in God” and we can go about our happy lives with little concern for the others belief, or lack thereof. Whether God exists or not has no measurable effect upon the world that we observe, nor does the belief in such, or lack thereof, have an effect. As long as you are not using your belief, or lack thereof, to change the world around you I should not care, and I do not care.
I should not care whether you believe in global warming or not, nor should you care about my belief. If all we were talking about was belief in something, but we are not. Obviously, you do care, as do I. If you didn’t care you wouldn’t be spending your time arguing, posting links, calling scientist legitimacy into question, etc. You say “Just let me be with my (non)belief” while also posting long review articles from Cato Institute, on New Years day no less. You do this because I am trying to effect behavioral change at the societal level that I believe will have a positive influence on the environment, and it may ultimately require something of myself as well as OF YOU, and you believe that change is unwarranted and are seeking to prevent that change. And it’s not a simple matter of you taking a passive role “Oh it’s bunk so I will simply not vote for any changes” you are taking an active role, you are engaging in the debate, as am I. If you do not want to have your beliefs challenged simply do not engage in debate.
-
-
-
Quote from Frumious
[i][b]Al has been more accurate than your deniers have been so far.[/b][/i]
This is easily the most asinine statement you’ve made on this board, and that’s really saying a lot.
Do we have to post his alarmist, idiotic predictions for all to see? It’s embarrassing and a VERY long list.
Unreal.-
Over-caffeinated, you clearly haven’t read much of what I’ve posted here. Go back and try again.
I actually agree that we don’t need to graciously pollute, and that alternative energy needs to be pursued. I’ve said that a dozen times. If you truly wanted to fix something, you would be thrilled with that statement and we could then discuss reasonable measures for the future.
But no, that isn’t really what you BELIEVERS want, is it? No, in the usual supreme arrogance of the rabid liberal, you wish to:
“. . .effect behavioral change at the societal level that I believe will have a positive influence on the environment, and it may ultimately require something of myself as well as OF YOU. . .”
And THAT is why you and your fellow BELIEVERS will fail. You won’t rest until everyone BELIEVES. It isn’t enough to discuss how to make things better, we must all BELIEVE as you do. But the fact that I don’t, and many others don’t, is a challenge to your BELIEF system that your intestinal fortitude is simply inadequate to handle. So you boys refuse to let it go.
It must be really, really hard to have to save the entire planet and all 7 or so billion occupants all by yourselves.-
Well Dalai, you have changed, however little, and that is progress.
There was a time when you thought alternative energy was only a crazy liberal idea. Now you think it is a good thing to pursue. Progress.
Polluting was also a personal choice not to be interfered with by liberals who want to “make things better. Now you don’t support “graciously” polluting. Progress.
Next is energy efficiency & LED bulbs, not tungsten. And SUVs with hi mileage. Progress.
I assume you agree tobacco causes health problems in spite of liberal’s belief & wanting to change the world by passing “NO SMOKING” laws. Progress.
Then admission of anthropogenic global warming.
Yes, it is my BELIEF that we can change for the better. I give you history to show progress.
“Today the pits, tomorrow the wrinkles, progress marches on.” -Apologies to Stan Freberg.-
I tried to find any old posts where I dissed alternative energy but I come up empty. It seems that Frumious is almost as good as my wife at remembering something bad I might have said umpteen years ago. I [i]can[/i] find references to reasonable approaches to alternative energy from 2010, so I’m going with that.
If this is your new attitude, Frumious, YOU have changed as well. If we can discuss reasonable measures without the panic and coercion I usually around this issue, we will indeed make progress.
-
-
-
-
-
-
Like you told me long ago, Dalai …
It ain’t worth it.
But I think Frumious is the only one not worth discussing things with, he just wants to argue for arguing’s sake. I think the others are actually somewhat more hospitable to dialogue. Sorry, Frumi, them’s the facts, not trying to point out anything other than the truth. As usual.-
Perhaps, but I prefer to find common ground if it’s possible. Sometimes it isn’t and sometimes it is. Teslas for all!!!
-
Dalai,
It might help you to remember that you were the one who was on “semi-retirement” from Off-Topics for quite sometime making your announced single appearance once a year. I told you to stay and participate because, yes, I enjoy a good discussion and argument & want to find common ground, if any, because I want to understand other viewpoints even if they exist only as political opposition points.
-
-
It would help if you ever presented any “facts” in any your arguments at all, cigar. What are your “factual” arguments on climate warming exactly other than scientists don’t know science?
-
Quote from Frumious
It would help if you ever presented any “facts” in any your arguments at all, cigar. What are your “factual” arguments on climate warming exactly other than scientists don’t know science?
I do all the time but you disregard them. The essence of science is hypothesis, data, and conclusion. Then reproducibility.
How many times do I have to talk about the data ignored and altered so that it won’t show that there isn’t anything close to the conclusion? I’ve listed all the satellite locations and data.
It’s not that they don’t know science, per se, it’s that they conveniently ignore the scientific method, or worse, purposefully do so.
Either way, it ain’t science and there is no such thing as AGW.-
[url=https://www.rt.com/usa/337698-exxonmobil-lawsuit-climate-change/]ExxonMobil climate change cover-up probe to expand as 17 AGs join NY to tackle fossil fuel firms[/url]
It has been nearly five months since Schneiderman launched an investigation into whether ExxonMobil, the largest US gas and oil company, had misled the public and investors about the risks of climate change. His actions were followed by a similar inquiry that had been opened in California earlier this year.
The multi-state effort has now been joined by attorneys general from Connecticut, Colorado, Maryland, Massachusetts, Virginia, and the US Virgin Islands along with another 11 states as a part of an unprecedented AGs United for Clean Power group.
-
Looks like the Liberal Conspiracy Hoax started as long as 60 years ago according to Exxon (then Humble) documents that have resurfaced to the light.
[link=http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/14/science/pressure-on-exxon-over-climate-change-intensifies-with-new-documents.html]http://www.nytimes.com/20…ith-new-documents.html[/link]
Pressure on Exxon Mobil and the energy industry increased on Wednesday with the release of a new cache of decades-old industry documents about climate change, even as Exxon pushed back against efforts to investigate the company over its climate claims through the years.
The documents, according to the environmental law centers director, Carroll Muffett, suggest that the industry had the underlying knowledge of climate change even 60 years ago.From 1957 onward, there is no doubt that Humble Oil, which is now Exxon, was clearly on notice about rising CO2 in the atmosphere and the prospect that it was likely to cause global warming, he said.
Whats more, he said, the documents show the industry was beginning to organize against regulation of air pollution.
Kert Davies, the director of the Climate Investigations Center, a group funded by foundations seeking to limit the risks of climate change, said Mr. Muffetts project has pulled back the curtain on any plausible deniability that Big Oil might have pretended they had on the dangers of climate change. And, he added, the naked truth is pretty ugly.But Michael B. Gerrard, the director of the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law at Columbia Law School, said that the early stirrings of climate science have already been well documented.
[b]It has been known for years that scientists in that era were talking about climate change, he said.[/b]
-
I suggest those who don’t believe in climate change to watch the documentary “Chasing the Ice” on Netflix and tell me that what is occurring is a natural phenomenon.
-
They will, they have, that’s been their argument. “It’s been warmer before” and “It’s been colder before,” climate changes. Of course that is the “opinion” or findings of the self same scientists who are allegedly engaged in this conspiracy so who would believe anything they say anyway?
“I’m not a scientist,” but I know they’re lying.-
“Warming does not exist,” say Republicans who finish the sentence with, “I’m not a scientist.”
[link=https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/capital-weather-gang/wp/2016/05/10/the-most-compelling-visual-of-global-warming-ever-made/]https://www.washingtonpos…bal-warming-ever-made/[/link]
-
-
-
Quote from Frumious
Looks like the Liberal Conspiracy Hoax started as long as 60 years ago according to Exxon (then Humble) documents that have resurfaced to the light.
[link=http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/14/science/pressure-on-exxon-over-climate-change-intensifies-with-new-documents.html]http://www.nytimes.com/20…ith-new-documents.html[/link]
Pressure on Exxon Mobil and the energy industry increased on Wednesday with the release of a new cache of decades-old industry documents about climate change, even as Exxon pushed back against efforts to investigate the company over its climate claims through the years.
The documents, according to the environmental law centers director, Carroll Muffett, suggest that the industry had the underlying knowledge of climate change even 60 years ago.
From 1957 onward, there is no doubt that Humble Oil, which is now Exxon, was clearly on notice about rising CO2 in the atmosphere and the prospect that it was likely to cause global warming, he said.
Whats more, he said, the documents show the industry was beginning to organize against regulation of air pollution.
Kert Davies, the director of the Climate Investigations Center, a group funded by foundations seeking to limit the risks of climate change, said Mr. Muffetts project has pulled back the curtain on any plausible deniability that Big Oil might have pretended they had on the dangers of climate change. And, he added, the naked truth is pretty ugly.
But Michael B. Gerrard, the director of the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law at Columbia Law School, said that the early stirrings of climate science have already been well documented.
[b]It has been known for years that scientists in that era were talking about climate change, he said.[/b]
Another step trying to put some headlines on front pages:[url=https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/03/12/arnold-schwarzenegger-sxsw-trump-big-oil-me-too-217345]Schwarzenegger to Sue Big Oil for First Degree Murder[/url]
The former California governor and global environmental activist announced the move Sunday at a live recording of POLITICOs Off Message podcast here at the SXSW festival, revealing that hes in talks with several private law firms and preparing a public push around the effort.
This is no different from the smoking issue. The tobacco industry knew for years and years and years and decades, that smoking would kill people, would harm people and create cancer, and were hiding that fact from the people and denied it. Then eventually they were taken to court and had to pay hundreds of millions of dollars because of that, Schwarzenegger said. The oil companies knew from 1959 on, they did their own study that there would be global warming happening because of fossil fuels, and on top of it that it would be risky for peoples lives, that it would kill.
Schwarzenegger said hes still working on a timeline for filing, but the news comes as he prepares to help host a major environmental conference in May in Vienna.
[/QUOTE]
-
Good podcast on how the politics of warming changed to something we have to address to a hoax.
[link=https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/31/podcasts/the-daily/climate-change-losing-earth.html]https://www.nytimes.com/2…ange-losing-earth.html[/link]
And The Times magazine section
[link=https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/08/01/magazine/climate-change-losing-earth.html]https://www.nytimes.com/i…ange-losing-earth.html[/link]
Still no climate change? Or Earth has warmed before? When this quickly though?
We are defecating in our nest.
-
New report released on climate change and our non-errorts to address it. Trump’s response is, “Who made the report?” since it’s so obvious that scientists don’t do science like Trump does, they are concerned only with inventing lies.
[link=https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2018/10/10/who-drew-it-trump-asks-of-dire-climate-report-appearing-to-mistrust-91-scientific-experts]https://www.washingtonpos…-91-scientific-experts[/link]
Ninety-one leading scientists from 40 countries who together examined more than 6,000 scientific studies. Specialists like Katharine Mach, who studies new approaches to climate assessment at Stanford University; Tor Arve Benjaminsen, a human geographer at the Norwegian University of Life Sciences; and Raman Sukumar, an ecologist at the Indian Institute of Science.
They are among the members of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a group of scientists convened by the United Nations to make recommendations to world leaders. Their [link=https://www.ipcc.ch/]report[/link], issued Monday, warns of environmental catastrophe as early as 2040 and advises that the worst can only be staved off if civilization is transformed more profoundly than at any point in recorded history.
It was given to me. It was given to me, and I want to look at who drew, you know, which group drew it, because I can give you reports that are fabulous, and I can give you reports that arent so good.”
A 33-page [link=http://report.ipcc.ch/sr15/pdf/sr15_spm_final.pdf]summary[/link] for policymakers includes four main points, A through D, each with an elaborate set of sub points, arranged in digestible paragraphs.
It anticipates skepticism. For each finding, the authors report a level of confidence, from very low to very high, grounded in an evaluation of underlying evidence and agreement. For instance, the scientists have high confidence that human activities are contributing to significant warming and very high confidence that partnerships with nonstate actors, such as the banking system and scientific institutions, would help limit warming to livable levels.
tl;dr Trump doesn’t read.
You know, its an amazing substance. You look at the Indy cars. They run 100 percent on ethanol.
The sum of Trump’s scientific knowledge.
-
I should make a thread here called reality denial
Frumi et al would lead the league
All you do is lose. Do you not admit that reality, either?
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL-
this was great for a couple weeks. No Faggger noting burgers being posted and today we get an avalanche of garbage.
-
Comrade F@gan needs to troll. He’s worried.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
The Left rarely grasps that people do what benefits them, either with the acquisition of wealth or power. You seem to think that the scientists you quote are totally nice and good and immune to monetary influence or any other sort of bribery. You would be just as wrong as if I said the oil companies felt the same way.
As with the bathroom issue, you aren’t content to simply pee in peace. No, everyone has to step-to and BELIEVE. Just for that, I [i]won’t[/i] buy a Tesla. So there.-
[link=http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/sea-level-rise-swallows-5-whole-pacific-islands/]http://www.scientificamer…whole-pacific-islands/[/link]
Sea Level Rise Swallows 5 Whole Pacific Islands[/h1]-
[link=http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2016/05/the_greens_and_nature_worship.html]http://www.americanthinke…nd_nature_worship.html[/link]
Sounds like someone we know.
-
“Biblical view?” That says it all.
As for “religion,” it sounds like a redux of Mistrad’s stupid BS argument that atheism is a religion. American Thinker has its head up somewhere & it’s not in the clouds.
Scientists with an anti-science agenda about environmentalists and regulation and government in general. It’s about an agenda that has nothing to do with science. Real science.
[link=http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/antiscience-beliefs-jeopardize-us-democracy/]http://www.scientificamer…opardize-us-democracy/[/link]
It is hard to know exactly when it became acceptable for U.S. politicians to be antiscience. For some two centuries science was a preeminent force in American politics, and scientific innovation has been the leading driver of U.S. economic growth since World War II. Kids in the 1960s gathered in school cafeterias to watch moon launches and landings on televisions wheeled in on carts. Breakthroughs in the 1970s and 1980s sparked the computer revolution and a new information economy. Advances in biology, based on evolutionary theory, created the biotech industry. New research in genetics is poised to transform the understanding of disease and the practice of medicine, agriculture and other fields.
Yet despite its history and today’s unprecedented riches from science, the U.S. has begun to slip off of its science foundation. Indeed, in this election cycle, some 236 years after Jefferson penned the Declaration of Independence, several major party contenders for political office took positions that can only be described as antiscience: against evolution, human-induced climate change, vaccines, stem cell research, and more. A former Republican governor even warned that his own political party was in danger of becoming the antiscience party.
Such positions could typically be dismissed as nothing more than election-year posturing except that they reflect an anti-intellectual conformity that is gaining strength in the U.S. at precisely the moment that most of the important opportunities for economic growth, and serious threats to the well-being of the nation, require a better grasp of scientific issues.
-
Quote from Frumious
As for “religion,” it sounds like a redux of[b][u] Mistrad’s[/u] [/b]stupid BS argument that atheism is a religion. American Thinker has its head up somewhere & it’s not in the clouds.
whatever happened to him/her?
-
-
-
-
-
[link=http://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-climatechange-idUSKCN11901W]http://www.reuters.com/ar…techange-idUSKCN11901W[/link]
US and China ratify the Paris Climate Agreement.-
trying to remember where I watched this news blip about how people are now able to take a cruise on the Northwest Passage due to ice melt in the summer. It was the first cruise through there to some remote Canadian outpost. There was a quote like “makes you think about global warming” from someone who took the cruise.
-
