Can the media's climate change deniers ignore the latest temperature record?
This January, major meteorological organizations throughout the world -- including NASA -- released reports showing that the past decade, 2000-2009, was the warmest on record. The reports undermine the right-wing media's numerous claims that recent snow and cold weather shows that climate change does not exist or has slowed over the past 10 years.
Conservative media's climate change denial obliterated by temperature data
IBD claimed that "the earth hasn't been warming at all, at least not in the last decade." A January 20 Investor's Business Daily editorial falsely claimed, "As it turns out, the earth hasn't been warming at all, at least not in the last decade, and reputable scientists have said it may continue to cool for decades to come."
Cal Thomas claimed climate change consensus "suffered a severe blow" from European winter storms. Asserting that "global warming is a falling doctrine," conservative columnist Cal Thomas falsely claimed on January 14 that the climate change consensus "suffered a severe blow" from recent winter storms in Europe.
NewsBusters' weather report: "Hey Al -- 'Frostproof, Florida' Forecast: 22 Degrees." On January 10, NewsBusters' Mark Finkelstein falsely suggested cold weather in Florida contradicts global warming, stating, "Check out the Weather Channel's forecast for the town of 'Frostproof, Florida' for tonight: 22 degrees -- a full 10 degrees below freezing. Yikes!" Finkelstein added, "Hey Algore: we want our global warming, and we want it now."
Cavuto's flawed "global warming alert": "It is freezing across the entire globe." On the January 9 edition of his Fox News show, Neil Cavuto introduced a segment by saying, "This is our Fox News global warming alert for you," and falsely claimed that "[i]t is freezing across the entire globe"; guest Ben Stein later suggested that "maybe all this talk about global warming needs to be rethought" because of recent cold weather.
Limbaugh climate change rant: "Why don't you man-made global warming" folks "go out and shovel everybody's driveway and sidewalks for free." During the January 8 edition of his radio show, Rush Limbaugh stated, "For all these years we've been hearing about global warming, and nobody forecast this cold front. Nobody forecast this cold spell. Nobody forecast this deep freeze." He later added that "man-made global warming" is "a total hoax" and proposed, "All you man-made global warming B.S. holdouts, do us a favor, why don't you man-made global -- why don't you go out and shovel everybody's driveway and sidewalks for free?"
Hannity touts ice sculptors who cited cold temperatures to claim that global warming "hasn't exactly reached Alaska." Fox News' Sean Hannity stated on the January 7 edition of his Fox News program, "You are looking at a two-ton ice sculpture of the former VP and, yes, he's blowing smoke as he always does. Now, the work of art sits outside a Thrifty liquor store in Fairbanks, Alaska. Now, the artists say that they created the sculpture to show Mr. Gore that global warming hasn't exactly reached Alaska quite yet. In fact, they say that when it was sculpted, the temperatures were 32 below. I like that."
Hannity repeatedly falsely claimed 2009 was the "coldest year on record." As Media Matters for America has noted, on several occasions, Hannity has also falsely claimed that 2009 was the "coldest year on record."
BigJournalism.com debuts with big myth: "[T]he planet is actually cooling." A January 7 post on Andrew Breitbart's BigJournalism.com listed global warming as the top "faux media scares of the past decade," asserting that the threat of global warming "works, except the planet is actually cooling."
Doocy on cold weather: "That global warming thing is really kicking into high gear, isn't it?" On January 5, 6, and 7, Fox & Friends co-host Steve Doocy repeatedly falsely suggested that cold weather contradicts global warming. On the January 5 edition of Fox & Friends, Doocy said of cold weather in parts of the United States, "That global warming thing is really kicking into high gear, isn't it?" On the same day, Doocy posted two Twitter messages stating, "I wonder if Al Gore is shivering somewhere." And on the January 6 edition of Fox & Friends, Doocy said of the weather, "It's not global warming, I'll tell you that!" On the January 7 edition of Fox & Friends, Doocy agreed with global warming critic Lord Nigel Lawson after he asserted that "mind you, there is no warming going on. There's been no warming so far this century at all, as the figures show."
Ingraham and CEI's Horner cited December snowstorms to cast doubt on global warming. On the December 21 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor, guest host Laura Ingraham cited a major East Coast winter storm and said, "But what about global warming, Al Gore? Come on." Ingraham hosted the Competitive Enterprise Institute's Chris Horner, who said that "[w]e've got about 25 inches of global warming the last two days." After Ingraham said that "there's a lot of stuff being shoveled, and it's not just snow," Horner replied: "Well, God exists and has a great sense of humor, and he tends to show it in this context: chasing Al Gore around the world with freezing record temperatures."
Right-wing media seized on snow at Copenhagen conference to deem climate change a "fraud." Right-wing media also highlighted snowfall during the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change in Copenhagen, often suggesting that the winter storm is evidence that climate change is, in Limbaugh's words, "a fraud."
2000-2009 was "by far" warmest decade on record
NASA: "January 2000 to December 2009 was the warmest decade on record." NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) stated on January 21 that "January 2000 to December 2009 was the warmest decade on record. Throughout the last three decades, the GISS surface temperature record shows an upward trend of about 0.2°C (0.36°F) per decade." GISS also said that 2009 "was only a fraction of a degree cooler than 2005, the warmest year on record, and tied with a cluster of other years -- 1998, 2002, 2003, 2006 and 2007 1998 and 2007 -- as the second warmest year since recordkeeping began," according to a NASA analysis of global surface temperature. From GISS:
NASA states that "[t]emperature anomalies are computed relative to the base period 1951-1980."
NOAA: "The 2000-2009 decade is the warmest on record." The National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) stated in its "Global Analysis" of 2009 that "[t]he 2000-2009 decade is the warmest on record, with an average global surface temperature of 0.54°C (0.96°F) above the 20th century average. This shattered the 1990s value of 0.36°C (0.65°F)." NCDC further noted that based on global combined land and ocean surface temperature data, 2009 tied with 2006 "as the fifth warmest [year] since records began in 1880."
Met Office: 2000-2009 "has been, by far, the warmest decade on the instrumental record." The U.K. Met Office stated on December 7 that "[t]he first decade of this century has been, by far, the warmest decade on the instrumental record" and that "despite 1998 being the warmest individual year -- the last ten years have clearly been the warmest period in the 160-year record of global surface temperature, maintained jointly by the Met Office Hadley Centre and the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia."
WMO: "2000-2009, The Warmest Decade." In a December 8, 2009, press release, the World Meteorological Organisation reported that "[t]he decade of the 2000s (2000-2009) was warmer than the decade spanning the 1990s (1990-1999), which in turn was warmer than the 1980s (1980-1989)."
*NOTE: You are probably not going to die right this minute, but unless you've got some sort of magic immortality scheme up your sleeve, you are, in fact, going to die. Eventually.
Oh, and asking your imaginary friend to save you doesn't count.
So, the temperature span for the whole decade was +.12F, and the difference between the 2nd and 6th years was +.04F, meaning that the 'noise' is greater than .04F. What the guy is saying is that the temperature variations are not significant - even the averaged increases are inconsequential.
First off, the source is suspect, Hansen is a political hack. Secondly, the data is suspect, the surface temperatures are distorted by urban heat, and ignore large sections of northern Russia, for example. Lastly, the whole hypothesis has been discredited as mere hysteria.
So the Regressive Uber-Elite logic is as follows: Of course We understand climate change, We are not idiots like the masses We deceive daily. However, Our survival depends solely on maintaining Our status as Uber-elites, and maintaining the divide in power between Uber-elite and steerage class (the victims of catastrophe, such as the Haitians, for example).
As the coming catastrophe unfurls, it will be the Uber-Elites who survive and inherit the Earth, so the last thing We need to do is stop the activity that keeps Us in the Uber-Elite class, to the very last moment. Oil extraction is the most profitable activity ever concieved, so stopping it would be foolish in this strategem.
No, not exactly. You obviously do not understand what you are reading. In comparing the top 6 years you will see trivial differences, but the differences in over 100 years is much larger. Also the averages wont have such a drastic change as you would see year to year because the larger sample size cancels out some of that uncertainty. So, a small but sustained average temperature change might have more significance than a small change between years.
"First off, the source is suspect, Hansen is a political hack."
- Unsubstantiated + Ad Hominem (Dont attack the guy, debate the issue and substantiate it with fact, not opinion.)
"Secondly, the data is suspect, the surface temperatures are distorted by urban heat, and ignore large sections of northern Russia, for example."
-A massive amount of the most brilliant minds on earth have worked on accounting for variables, collecting data from large and diverse samples, including rural areas all over the world (Yes, that includes rural areas in Russia). Multiple disciplines in the scientific community have all independently concluded the same thing and have corroborated information. (I already know that your reply is going to be along the lines of explaining how corrupt the scientific community is and how virtuous all of the reporters that told you global warming is a fraud.)
"Lastly, the whole hypothesis has been discredited as mere hysteria."
-Once again, unsubstantiated rumor within your conservative circle. Outside of that circle you will realize that people actually take the time to find out the facts behind the "climategate" rumors, which is what I would guess you were referring to.
You have to admit though (since the scientists themselve did) that they have lied to us in the past. They have purposefully misled us, with political goals in mind. 2007 nobel peace prize for cliamte research. Check it out.
Why should people be skeptical if that is the case?
now tell me when global warming started, and how do these brains handle the function of exponentiation??
By all means, you first.
Please, go ahead. Make our day! :-)
Galileonardo is a discredited troll, just like Stephen McIntyre is a discredited denier who posed as someone who knew that he was talking about for a while. I'm glad that, for the most part, people just ignored Galileonardo's posts.
But before I go on, I am honored but humbled by your words. To be compared to the most honorable Stephen McIntyre is the highest praise you have ever given me, but I know better than to make such an elevated claim of myself.
Anyway, here you go, though I liked the picture so all could see their net results. Read all about it. Have a look at more graphs and swallow their explanation for their adjustment procedures.
Then maybe go beyond your comfortable little box and see what others have to say. When you're done, let me know if you think there is an unwarranted warming bias.
Shell: "For us the debate on climate change is over. ... We are calling on governments to establish policies that will encourage a reduction in CO2 emissions."
ExxonMobil: "[T]he risks to society and ecosystems from increasing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions are significant."
BP: "BP accepts the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that global warming is unequivocal and 'very likely' due to human activity. We accept that in order to avoid the dangerous consequences of climate change, temperature increases will probably need to be limited to about two to three degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels."
Chevron: "The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change states in its Fourth Assessment Report that most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to manmade GHGs. Chevron is working to be part of the solution to the energy and climate challenge facing the world."
Links:
http://www.shell.com/home/content/responsible_energy/environment/climate_change/
http://greeninc.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/04/08/shell-oil-president-on-cap-and-trade/
http://www.exxonmobil.com/Corporate/energy_climate_views.aspx
http://www.bp.com/sectiongenericarticle.do?categoryId=9028012&contentId=7050978
http://www.chevron.com/globalissues/climatechange/
wow, this is fun looking at it from a trog viewpoint. there is absolutely no brain stress at all. no wonder they all walk around like their on lithium . when you don't try and think the brain is very relaxed.
"And I can't believe that so many people don't know the difference between 'weather' and 'climate'."
Denialists have absolutely no desire to ever know the difference, or to know anything that will topple their self-delusional notions about what is real, and what is fantasy.
Just accept the fact that there are deranged numskulls that are mis-wired in their brains.
Engaging them in a "debate" is completely fruitless.
Here's a sample of what it's like to "debate" these idiots:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/video/2009/12/15/2772906.htm
You almost envy them sometimes. Just lumbering slowly along in their suv's, Rush cranked up on the radio, throwing their trash out the window, on the way to WalMart to buy the next-bigger size sweatpants.
I just can't figure why they're so angry all the time. They should be blissful.
To be so outclassed when it comes to arguments that you collapse to false stories about other people in an attempt to smear them. It's got to be sad to be you.
To be so outclassed when it comes to trying to debate this topic that you fall back on failed, already debunked arguments that fall apart upon the lightest of examination. It's got to be sad to be you.
To be so rabid when it comes to defending the indefensible positions you try to defend that you make a fool of yourself repeatedly. It's got to be sad to be you.
Outclassed? Again, I think your own words can speak to that quite well, especially the class part of it.
Rabid? Come on now. If you're going to steal my material, at least give me credit.
Sad? On the contrary. I'm quite happy. The chips in AGW keep on coming. You're on a sinking ship.
What's sad is that I predict you will be the last AGW cultist standing. Long after SLURTAX and Kernel and Bluff have moved on to greener pastures, you will still be here on your high horse spouting nonsense.
1) There's no global warming.
2) If there is global warming, we're not the cause of it.
3) If we are the cause of it, there's nothing we can do about it anyway.
In any event, the "solution" is to do nothing.
Moreover, such studies have shown that the impact of increased atmospheric CO2 not only cannot but emphatically does not have the impact upon either lithospheric, oceanic, or atmospheric energy budget which is built into the AGW alarmists' computer models. It's simply not that potent a greenhouse gas at the levels indicated or anticipated, and the people who have predicated their "Cargo Cult Science" upon such an effect have failed to take into consideration known mitigatory factors which act to reduce the climate warming effects increasing CO2 levels might impose.
Global climate is a multivariant system with nonlinear responses to inputs, which include extraterrestrial factors that the AGW alarmists have either failed to take into consideration or which these individuals have deliberately evaded. It is understood that these unconsidered factors are demonstrably more important than atmospheric CO2 levels (particularly insolation).
These decidedly non-trivial failures have called the AGW hypothesis into question since the 1980s, and the question has grown more troublesome in recent decades by dint of increasing evidence of instrumental errors in the data sources employed by the AGW proponents and growing acknowledgment that these alarmists had been "cherry-picking" or otherwise deliberately corrupting the datasets from which they were working.
The methodological failings (and ethical transgressions) of the AGW alarmists have long since rendered their work invalid. Their extraordinary hypothesis - that nothing more than human emissions of a readily resorbed and sequestered gaseous product of combustion could possibly cause a significant effect upon global temperatures - required an extraordinarily robust level of support.
They have not only failed to provide this support, but scrupulously honest inquiries into the subject area have demonstrated that their premises (along with their data) do not survive analysis. Their assertions have been disproven, and repeating those assertions (as the author of this piece insists upon doing) does nothing to strengthen them.
There is no evidence of anthropogenic global warming, and certainly no support for the curious notion that human combustion of fossil fuels has had (or could ever have) such an impact upon the planet's climate.
The proposition fails, and therefore actions to reduce the combustion of fossil fuels for no other purpose than to "reduce global warming" is blatant idiocy.
Or political chicanery. I tend to attribute a malignant intention to the advocates of the AGW fraud because the presumption of innocence among such obvious malefactors excessively strains credulity.
--
But argument from authority is a logical fallacy, and while practice in reasoning analytically confers transferable skills, it does not make me a meteorologist or atmospheric physicist.
It does, however, make me better prepared to assess the validity of a climatologist's methodology. That's one of the many reasons why scientists with no axe to grind (especially no grant funding in peril if they speak out) have largely tended to regard the AGW alarmists' dubious output with a jaundiced eye.
Their stuff really never ever passed even the most cursory sniff test.
As for their longstanding refusal to open up their datasets and computer modeling code....
Hoo, boy. Smelled from that moment like what the Merck thugs did to the safety data in the rofecoxib VIGOR study publication back in 2000.
Get stung often enough by Cargo Cult Science, and the honestly skeptical professional develops the sort of sensitivity that the AGW fellahin really don't value in any way at all.
--
The fact remains that whenever you get temperature averaging from across the globe and you know we don't have thermometers on every square inch that you are getting estimates by biased climatologists.
Why do they never show you the argin of error on these things?
Awnser: Because it would always be far above the temperature variation they show.
Textbook junk science
The vast majority of scientists, the ones not paid off by big oil/coal, are biased toward science. Make a note of it.
Scientists catch a mistake and correct it.
Is that what you're going on the record with? It was really that simple? Let's see how IPCC chairman Pachauri reacted when confronted with the actual physical science versus the IPCC's political science:
"We have a very clear idea of what is happening. I don't know why the minister is supporting this unsubstantiated research. It is an extremely arrogant statement."
Now that is classic! Arrogance in the face of adversity? Now where have I seen that before? Another absolute gem:
Pachauri dismissed the report saying it was not "peer reviewed" and had few "scientific citations". [LOL] "With the greatest of respect this guy retired years ago and I find it totally baffling that he comes out and throws out everything that has been established years ago." [Lest you forget that the science is settled]
Do not go gentle Rajendra (since people like to talk about credentials, I thought it worth noting again that they elected a railway engineer to head the IPCC). He digs the hole even further:
In response Pachauri said that such statements were reminiscent of "climate change deniers and school boy science".
I guess this is the "retreat into the ivory tower" Judith Curry spoke of. Then it was Sunita's turn:
Sunita Narain, a member of the Indian prime minister's climate change council and director of the Centre for Science and Environment, said "the report would create a lot of confusion".
A lot of confusion indeed. Don't let the facts get in the way of a good story Sunita. We wouldn't want the unwashed masses to be confused by reality when you have been so busy manufacturing alarm.
"Wow" is right open mind. Was Pachauri being "unscientific" in his response? "Extremely arrogant?" Oh, and it wasn't just "a mistake." As already noted, it appears that there is plenty more political science employed by the scientific body.
Heck, for fun I just found a reference for the New York Times, the IPCC's apparent source for the statement that "Unreliable electric power, as in minority neighbourhoods during the New York heatwave of 1999, can amplify concerns about health and environmental justice" (Wilgoren and Roane, 1999). What was that about "school boy science?"
I appreciate your well-measured response, but I do believe I am being objective. If any player mentioned in this conversation is simply not being objective, it would have to be Pachauri.
His reaction is really unacceptable for the head of a scientific body. Like Mann, his arrogance, self-righteousness, and intimidation tactics represent the anti-science, take-no-prisoner approach to skeptical science. Look at what happened to Nature. Every scientist should see that as abominable. It's just plain sad. Consider their own standards.
Political science runs rampant with AGW. That's why I can't drop it. For some reason, fairness has always been one of the most important things to me, more important than loyalty even. What we have at the moment is a one-sided fight rigged to largely destroy competitive thought. A monopoly. Anti-science. Flat-earther. Inquisitorial. Unfair.
I brought up the strength of my belief in fairness because I have always fought for it. IMO the world is unfairly being presented with false indoctrination and have yet begun to fight (I made that up).
There are paid scientist spokesholes on both sides of this argument. With bias existing on both sides of the issue, are we suppose to disregard any and all data as it is inherently biased? dumb.
The sources of online information available to the honestly interested skeptical examiner of the AGW fraud are so replete that I'd honestly thought citation of specific articles or even summary information Web sites would be unnecessary. That most AGW alarmists are anything but honestly skeptical about this subject has long been obvious, but I'll try to make some useful suggestions.
The appeal to authority ("the overwhelming majority of climate experts around the world," for example) is a logical fallacy, and not a valid argument. In riposte, it is sufficient to cite the case of Ignatz Semmelweis. Commonly, the majority of established "experts" are found to be wrong.
In the sciences, all that matters is congruency with objective reality. Or, to quote Heinlein (1939):
"One can judge from experiment, or one can blindly accept authority. To the scientific mind, experimental proof is all important and theory is merely a convenience in description, to be junked when it no longer fits. To the academic mind, authority is everything and facts are junked when they do not fit theory laid down by authority."
So much for "the overwhelming majority of climate experts around the world" and the utterly bankrupt hypothesis of anthropogenic global warming.
One very good summary Web site is provided by aeronautical engineer and flight test pilot Burt Rutan, who has approached the aubject of AGW with the same kind of lucid skepticism he brings to considerations upon which he must literally bet his life. On his Climate Change Presentations page will be found access to much that is robust and useful.
Frequently updated information can be found at Anthony Watts' excellent Watts Up With That? Web site and Climate Depot, as well as Climate Audit.
A digital reprint of Lindzen & Choi's 2009 paper "On the determination of climate feedbacks from ERBE data," Geophys. Res. Lett., 36, is available online and gives a good example of the conscientious, thorough, and scrupulously accurate scientific research into atmospheric physics which debunks the AGW computer models.
The Science and Public Policy Institute provides another Web site worth examining as a resource making available including an update on Climategate (as of 20 January 2010 and a good brief summary on "The Social Construction" of global warming.
The wealth of information available to demonstrate the failure of the AGW hypothesis - and the blatancy of the AGW fraud - is such that only someone absolutely (either mendaciously or psychopathologically) determined to deny the failure of this concept and all policy predicated upon it could possibly evade confrontation therewith.
So which are you? A liar or a psychopath?
--
Of course they can...and you provided a great post explaining why they not only can ignore the temp. recordings...but more importantly why they should ignore the faulty science of AGW.
Very nicely done!!
They have been whistling past the graveyard for years and the whistling is louder than ever now that the CRU/IPCC scandals have hit (a full third of the entire MMfA AGW spin archive has been manufactured in just the last two months since the CRU story broke). How ever loud their screeches get though, the AGW house of cards will come tumbling down.
"We have a very clear idea of what is happening. I don't know why the minister is supporting this unsubstantiated research. It is an extremely arrogant statement."
Pachauri dismissed the report saying it was not "peer reviewed" and had few "scientific citations"..."With the greatest of respect this guy retired years ago and I find it totally baffling that he comes out and throws out everything that has been established years ago."
In response Pachauri said that such statements were reminiscent of "climate change deniers and school boy science".
What observational studies? All of the national national academies of science disagree and explain that the observed temperature increases are due to increased greenhouse gasses from human activity. Yes, we are talking more than just two or three scientists. They also believe CO2 to have had a major effect as they have observed.
"Moreover, such studies have shown that the impact of increased atmospheric CO2 not only cannot but emphatically does not have the impact upon either lithospheric, oceanic, or atmospheric energy budget which is built into the AGW alarmists' computer models. It's simply not that potent a greenhouse gas at the levels indicated or anticipated, and the people who have predicated their "Cargo Cult Science" upon such an effect have failed to take into consideration known mitigatory factors which act to reduce the climate warming effects increasing CO2 levels might impose."
Well, once again you disagree with almost the entire scientific community, but of course the thousands of climate scientists (and many others) who believe in this conspiracy are too stupid to take into consideration known mitigatory factors. Your being vague once again, so no one can challenge your assertions. What known mitigatory factors?
"Global climate is a multivariant system with nonlinear responses to inputs, which include extraterrestrial factors that the AGW alarmists have either failed to take into consideration or which these individuals have deliberately evaded. It is understood that these unconsidered factors are demonstrably more important than atmospheric CO2 levels (particularly insolation)."
Once again you resort to a vague assertion. What extraterrestrial factors did they not consider? And "non-linear responses to inputs" does not mean we can't make very, very close predictions. And for the one specific you mentioned (insolation), solar activity has been considered and is included in climate models, hypotheses, and conclusions. So what other extraterrestrial data do the scientists supposedly leave out?
"These decidedly non-trivial failures have called the AGW hypothesis into question since the 1980s, and the question has grown more troublesome in recent decades by dint of increasing evidence of instrumental errors in the data sources employed by the AGW proponents and growing acknowledgment that these alarmists had been "cherry-picking" or otherwise deliberately corrupting the datasets from which they were working."
More and more people in the scientific community believe in science change as their evidence continues to build. You mention instrumental errors, but disregard the fact that there is corroborating evidence and tons of samples to choose from. Also the only people acknowledging that the alarmists (aka the entire scientific community minus a few dentists here and there) are corrupting the data, are people who listen to the crazies on the news who "cherry-picked" personal emails, of a few scientists saying 1. That they don't trust one of their colleagues who had been acting unscientifically (It seems they tried to censor him, which is wrong but, these personal emails did show their concern about their colleagues intentions). 2. That they are using a "mike's nature trick" (which was explained in a nature magazine) to calibrate tree ring data so it matches observations. This way there is no difference between the observed data and tree ring measurements (The difference or decline is not reliable so we should not show it/hide it).
"The methodological failings (and ethical transgressions) of the AGW alarmists have long since rendered their work invalid. Their extraordinary hypothesis - that nothing more than human emissions of a readily resorbed and sequestered gaseous product of combustion could possibly cause a significant effect upon global temperatures - required an extraordinarily robust level of support."
Just because you can write beautifully it doesnt change the fact that you write fiction. You should not need to use poetry to jazz up your post. We still see through it. Their methodology is way above your level (as well as their sense of ethics). And no, the hypothesis is not that human emissions of a readily resorbed and sequestered gaseous product of combustion (aka CO2 and/or other gasses) are the sole cause of warming.
"They have not only failed to provide this support, but scrupulously honest inquiries into the subject area have demonstrated that their premises (along with their data) do not survive analysis. Their assertions have been disproven, and repeating those assertions (as the author of this piece insists upon doing) does nothing to strengthen them"
As, we have already narrowed the substance of everything leading up to this point in your post to be non-existent, your assertions are baseless. You are taking the word of a few scientists and politically charged journalists over the overwhelmingly large body of scientists who continuously prove you to be wrong.
"There is no evidence of anthropogenic global warming, and certainly no support for the curious notion that human combustion of fossil fuels has had (or could ever have) such an impact upon the planet's climate"
There is a library of evidence that apparently you don't understand, which curiously is why you failed to make any valid point in your post.
"The proposition fails, and therefore actions to reduce the combustion of fossil fuels for no other purpose than to "reduce global warming" is blatant idiocy."
There are plenty of good reasons besides reducing global warming but I would imagine that you would not understand any of those reasons either. And please, don't assume that your lack of understanding is idiocy on our part.
"Or political chicanery. I tend to attribute a malignant intention to the advocates of the AGW fraud because the presumption of innocence among such obvious malefactors excessively strains credulity."
I am conflicted as to what to attribute your baseless claims, feigned scientific understanding, and unbelievable assertions. Is it stupidity, no your smart enough to have thought up such a creative post. Maybe it is a struggle, to defend your point, as more and more evidence collects against it, and you are grasping to your world view which is a beautiful fiction where the evil scientists are vanquished by the white night, Glenn Beck and his pals who uncovered the three masterminds behind it all. Those IPCC scientists who have been controlling the rest of the scientists the whole time.
You have to understand that scientists don't need global warming to be true to get paid. There is no science conspiracy. And what, you don't think that people get paid to baselessly "debunk" climate change science. Its OK that your wrong. Just let it go. Don't be the last person to believe the world isn't flat.
Apparently this forum is a "warmist" site, and prejudiced accordingly.
--
4) If there is something we can do about it, it would be expensive and it would inconvenience me.
2) If there is global warming, we're not the cause of it.
3) If we are the cause of it, there's nothing we can do about it anyway.
4) If there was anything we could do, it would cost too much.
5) Beside we are all gonna die anyway, so why bother.
6) Jesus is coming soon, so it doesn't matter anyway
I would like you all to educate me. I have looked at this issue for awhile and have come to this opinion...
I don't know.
Being a fan of theoretical physics, this strikes me as the same as the argument over string theory being the long sought after "Universal Theory". Many very brilliant people, much smarter and educated than me, argue passionately for and against the theory, but until we build the impossibly big supercollider, we may never be sure.
However, global warming, climate change or AGW, whatever term you prefer, has many political considerations. There are treaties to sign, global reductions to make, And trillions and trillions of dollars needed to avoid a global doom.
Here are the tiers that need to be decided to determine if global warming needs to be averted at all costs:
1. Is the earth heating or cooling?
2. If tier 1 is yes then is it caused by humans and if it is... what percentage?
3. If tier 2 is a significant percentage, can we stop it?
4. If tier three is yes, What is the cost/benefiet analysis of the actions we take? Can we adapt to rising tempertures easier than trying to avert them?
I know I must seem dreadfully ignorant to not to have faith in the consensus of scientist that warn of us of AGW, so lets start from the beginning.
Tier 1 - Is their a consensus of scientists in pertinent fields of study that the earth is warming? Should we therefore throw out any evidence to contrary from other qualified academics? Let me throw out two links to start out the debate.
I look forward to your links and well thought out opinions in favor of tier 1.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1242011/DAVID-ROSE-The-mini-ice-age-starts-here.html
http://www.odu.edu/ao/instadv/quest/Greenhouse.html
"the 'solution' is to do nothing."
The very definition of "conservatism."
And about that Little Ice Age....how did we warm-up from that time?
I keep forgetting, I know it's all out fault no matter what, but can you remind me again please.
Are you now seriously claiming that the Little Ice Age was caused by the plague having depressed economic activity? And you wonder why skeptics like me disagree with your "robust" evidence for AGW/CO2 forcing? Maybe you'll be lucky and Dolly will swoop in and claim you were using hyperbole. Thanks for the laugh though.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4755328.stmt
If you are seriously asking questions, and not just being sarcastic, you can find answers to yours. They've been asked and answered thousands of times over the past several years.
pathetic....
Proof?
I didn't think so.
I haven't given this a read yet, but it's hot off the presses. I'm guessing page 4 pretty much covers it. They're coming out swinging. Maybe we can both give that a read as well and see if they can back it up.
All of the RAW data should be made available for "peer-review" for duplication and verification.,... NOT.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cgi-bin/res40.pl?page=ghcn.html
CRU used this data, so does NOAA, so does NASA. Stop reading blogs and starting thinking for yourself. Here's CRU's implementation (also publicly available, also on the internet):
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/
Please stop spreading misinformation.
http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/tech-mainmenu-30/environment/2462-nasa-faces-foi-lawsuit-over-climate-data
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/24/the-scandal-deepens-ipcc-ar4-riddled-with-non-peer-reviewed-wwf-papers/
They admitted to using false and biased data. This data was used in a noble prize winning study.
There are a lot of posts before and after this one asking for proof of false data, here it is. They admitted it was false. They also admitted they used is for political purposes.
After what we learned from Phil Jones and Michael Mann their personal feelings about skewing the facts its a wonder anyone can take their research seriously at all.
whine all you want, this is dead, gone give it up, switch to man-made global cooling (see "liberals" 1970)....
Why would NASA throw out data? Oh wait, I forgot. They were being paid off by George Soros.
This might help you to figure out what that eggy substance on your face is.
Come on, wingnuts, I know there's brand new sparkly fresh BS coming out of the Denial Cult, these reruns are boring.
"Laughing uncontrollably" was probably a safer reaction for you than reading. That's natural for a true believer.
I've been completely bored by the sampling of your links I've looked at. I'm not Charlie Brown, you can quit holding out that football, Lucy.
Partial response from RealClimate:
They then provide links that give more information, including how the data is collected, analyzed and biases adjusted for.
The news articles on the D'Aleo/Smith accusations are pretty new. I'm sure further debunking will be forthcoming.
Only an idiot believes that 97% of climatologists could be persuaded to back a position that denialists would have us believe could be debunked by laymen. Unfortunately, there are plenty of those idiots out there.
Your personal contributions have been spectacularly unimpressive.
Full of baseless accusations about the hacked and stolen climate emails? Of course.
Full of baseless assertions about temperature stations and their data being wrongly adjusted without any proof that it actually happened? Of course.
Please don't even waste your time reading any link that this discredited troll posts. It's not worth your time. Ever.
First of all, I asked for "links". I would like to see more than just a graph without an explanation of terms or a description of the data, etcetera.
Secondly, I do not see where your graph supports the argument that "All other levels of the atmosphere show cooling." - which was highlighter's contention.
Cut the kid's games Galileonardo. This is the kind of stuff that bores me.
I keep trying to make people at work understand why you can't use short term trends to prove anything.
(capability of manufacturing processes)
Using them here is just, if not more, silly.
You call it a short trend, so let's look at the longer trend then.
So at the end of the "hottest decade on record" we ended up where exactly against the mean over the last 60 years? Pretty much right on the average, no?
Show us a peer-reviewed graph that shows what you claim this one is showing (and that claim is bogus anyway) and you might get some attention.
Until that time, you have zero credibility based upon your previous behavior. Nothing you post can be trusted or relied upon. Nothing. You're just as looney as Stephen McIntyre is.
That's Beck-level paranoia right there.
Most Climate-related threads here seem to have as many comments by deniers as by sane people. I'm not sure if they're Fox/GOP interns who do it as an assignment, or True Believers who are volunteering to spread the propaganda, but they do seem more committed than I would have predicted.
I'm not saying they bring any more evidence or supporting science than they ever did, but they do seem to be getting more fanatical as their case gets weaker.
Truer words were never spoken. It's especially easy when you wrap yourself up in consensus/science is settled speak, get the backing of Big Gov/NGOland, create a loud "authority" through the IPCC, pervert the peer-review process, gate-keep the journals, have a no-holds-barred strategy to stifle and marginalize dissent, enlist the media and Hollywood to willfully expand upon the alarmist rhetoric, hammer the message incessantly for years, and guilt-trip parents and indoctrinate their children.
Sure. Then it's a piece of cake. That has been the plan all along. And though there were a few loud Galileos, and though the chips in the theory kept coming, it was not until a funny thing happened on the way to Copenhagen that the facade was smashed.
Nice work. But it fails. People will always eventually navigate toward truth. If the path to salvation were truly through CO2 fixes, it would have been all, well most, aboard. But now people are awakening to what's really on trial. And people are realizing that they have been lied to. And people hate being lied to, especially when it entails the F-word, and I think you know which one I am talking about. Cheers!
"People will always eventually navigate toward truth." I hope that is true whether AGW is true or not.
Go Apollo!!
The NASA source for this "temperature" data is Hanson's Goddard lab which is entirely dependent on promoting manmade climate change for its funding. The atmospheric temperature data has been scewed for years as suburbia surrounded most of the measuring stations. Do some of your own research to see how accurate Goddard's work is.
In fact, don't believe anything you are told! Go research this stuff for yourself. Be critical. Find the facts! Learn about the subject and the various arguments. This subject has become political, but it started out as a scientific theory. Theories used to need proof to become accepted - this theory never actually had that - but, it did have the UN's IPCC which was created to find it, and "shock" did!
As for paranoia - what if you are wrong?
Which is referred to as localized micro-climates. This data has been nominalized or not included in over all trends.
but, it did have the UN's IPCC which was created to find it, and "shock" did!
I suppose you also believe in the One World government meme too.
And yes, it is a theory. I may not be "sold" on it (I'm a skeptic) but; the data I have seen for global warming is greater than the data against it.
Page 43: 41. [Providing financial support shall be additional to developed countries' ODA targets.] [Mandatory contributions from developed country Parties and other developed Parties included in Annex II should form the core revenue stream for meeting the cost of adaptation in conjunction with additional sources including share of proceeds from flexible mechanisms.] [This finance should come from the payment of the adaptation debt by developed country Parties and be based principally on public-sector funding, while other alternative sources could be considered.] [[Sources of new and additional financial support for adaptation] [Financial resources of the "Convention Adaptation Fund"] [may] [shall] include:
(a) [Assessed contributions [of at least 0.7% of the annual GDP of developed country Parties] [from developed country Parties and other developed Parties included in Annex II to the Convention] [taking into account historical contribution to concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere];]
(b) [Auctioning of assigned amounts and/or emission allowances [from developed country Parties];]
(c) [Levies on CO2 emissions [from Annex-I Parties [in a position to do so]];]
(d) [Taxes on carbon-intensive products and services from Annex I Parties;]
(e) [[Levies on] [Shares of proceeds from measures to limit or reduce emissions from] international [aviation] and maritime transport;]
(f) Shares of proceeds on the clean development mechanism (CDM), [extension of shares of proceeds to] joint implementation and emissions trading;
(g) [Levies on international transactions [among Annex I Parties];]
(h) [Fines for non-compliance [of Annex I Parties and] with commitments of Annex I Parties and Parties with commitments inscribed in Annex B to the Kyoto Protocol (Annex B Parties);]
(i) [[Additional ODA] [ODA additional to ODA targets] provided through bilateral, regional and other multilateral channels (in accordance with Article 11.5 of the Convention).]]
Pages 18-19: 38. The scheme for the new institutional arrangement under the Convention will be based on three basic pillars: government; facilitative mechanism; and financial mechanism, and the basic organization of which will include the following:
(a) The government will be ruled by the COP with the support of a new subsidiary body on adaptation, and of an Executive Board responsible for the management of the new funds and the related facilitative processes and bodies. The current Convention secretariat will operate as such, as appropriate.
(b) The Convention's financial mechanism will include a multilateral climate change fund including five windows: (a) an Adaptation window, (b) a Compensation window, to address loss and damage from climate change impacts, including insurance, rehabilitation and compensatory components, (c) a Technology window; (d) a Mitigation window; and (e) a REDD window, to support a multi-phases process for positive forest incentives relating to REDD actions.
(c) The Convention's facilitative mechanism will include: (a) work programmes for adaptation and mitigation; (b) a long-term REDD process; (c) a short-term technology action plan; (d) an expert group on adaptation established by the subsidiary body on adaptation, and expert groups on mitigation, technologies and on monitoring, reporting and verification; and (e) an international registry for the monitoring, reporting and verification of compliance of emission reduction commitments, and the transfer of technical and financial resources from developed countries to developing countries. The secretariat will provide technical and administrative support, including a new centre for information exchange.
Page 122: 17. [[Developed [and developing] countries] [Developed and developing country Parties] [All Parties] [shall] [should]:] (a) Compensate for damage to the LDCs economy and also compensate for lost opportunities, resources, lives, land and dignity, as many will become environmental refugees; (b) Africa, in the context of environmental justice, should be equitably compensated for environmental, social and economic losses arising from the implementation of response measures.
Complete with global taxation. Swell. And there's plenty more where that came from.
I'm sorry, I stand corrected.
You are a One World government conspiracy theorist.
Please forgive me for doubting.
One particular thing you said - and we agreed - was about the IPCC reports and the broader climate negotiations were working to the globalisation agenda driven by organisations like the WTO.
Seems pretty straightforward to me. Forgot. You guys suffer from nothing-to-see-here-itis.
The more proofs behind the theory, the more robust that theory. The more the theory can be used to explain or predict phenomena, the more reliable the theory.
There has been a lack of progress by the federal agencies responsible for climate observing systems, individually and collectively, toward developing and maintaining a credible integrated climate observing system, consequently limiting the ability to document adequately climate change.
That's James "Coal trains will be death trains" Hansen, keeper of the GISTEMP data. Doesn't sound too confident in the network, does he?
As far as the Coal train remarks, if Hansen said them than I would condemn them as being hyperbolic, just like I have condemned your hyperbolic rants in the past. There is no place for that kind of rhetoric from either side of the debate.
Pielke:
There remain also important unresolved uncertainties and systematic biases in the surface temperature data used by GISS [and CRU and NCDC] which we reported in the peer reviewed literature.
Hansen:
Quality control checks are regularly performed on that data. The analysis methodology as well as updates to the analysis are publicly available on our website. The agency is confident of the quality of this data and stands by previous scientifically based conclusions regarding global temperatures.
It's dead Jim. The notion that there isn't a warming bias in the surface temperature data. Antiquated. Ditto the surface climate observing systems. Back in "the real world," Jim's "lack of progress" still exists. If anything, all evidence points to a continued deterioration of the quantity and quality of data. That latter link is the data plot for the site in the photo below. You can dig further yourself if you want more of the story.
I do commend you for your stance on Jim CoalTrain's quote, but it was not an isolated incident.
No...that won't work. It'll merely give them a public forum with which to affect some weak minds.
Lynch Mobs maybe?
Snark
How can the media's climate change deniers ignore the latest temperature record?
Today we're having record warm weather. Do you think Cavuto is going to come on and say global warming is back?
Not only were these people asleep when they talked about anecdotal evidence in their Philosophy 101 class, they didn't care.
Dr. Patrick Michaels has demonstrated this effect is a common problem with ground- based recording stations, many of which originally were located in predominantly rural areas, but over time have suffered background bias due to urban sprawl and the encroachment of concrete and asphalt ( the "urban heat island effect"). The result has been an upward distortion of increases in ground temperature over time(2). Satellite measurements are not limited in this way, and are accurate to within 0.1° C. They are widely recognized by scientists as the most accurate data available. Significantly, global temperature readings from orbiting satellites show no significant warming in the 18 years they have been continuously recording and returning data (1).
You can read the rest here:
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/ice_ages.html
No, they are melting because it is getting colder, don't you get it?
Black is white.
Up is down.
Since we are doing "opposites", I'll add one...
Denialists are smart. ;-)
Peer-review, IPCC style! Sound the alarm! The science is settled!
http://www.grist.org/article/the-satellites-show-cooling/
Objection: Satellite readings, which are much more accurate, show that the earth is in fact cooling.
I wonder how long before this one stops coming up?
Answer: There are a few advantages to the satellite readings, mainly the more uniform global coverage and the fact that readings can be taken at different altitudes. However, it is an extremely complicated process which uses microwaves emitted by the oxygen in the atmosphere as a proxy for temperature.
The complications arise from many things, including decay of the satellite orbits, splicing together and calibrating records from different instruments, trying to separate the signals by the layer of atmosphere they originate from, etc. It is a little ironic that the same people who distrust the surface record so happily embrace this even-more-convoluted exercise in data processing!
Anyway, it has been many years since the satellite analysis showed cooling.
Until recently, though, one of the many analyses of tropospheric temperatures did show very little warming and was in direct contradiction to model predictions that say the troposphere should warm significantly in an enhanced greenhouse environment. Something had to be wrong, the observations or the model predictions. Naturally, the skeptics had no doubt it was the models that were off.
However, it turns out that additional errors were uncovered and the MSU Satellite temperature analysis now shows warming well in line with model expectations. Real Climate has a good rundown of the technical details for those with the stomach for it. In short, this long-running debate turned out to be a great validation of the models and a real death blow to the "earth is not warming" crowd.
Is it just for kicks?
Is it for 'you libruls' think you are elite (just because most 'elites' are educated) but actually we know more because because Beck told us?
Is it because they are deniers (of anything they did not see/hear someone they believe in tell them) at heart?
Is it because they are 'I do not belong to no stinking Democrat Party' and are not going to start thinking now?
I mean, they all post like everyone else and yet, one group so chooses to ignore reality and rely on feel good mentality.
I jusy wish they'd latch onto some new material, they seem to be relyimg mostly on stuff that was laughed out of the discussion months or years ago.
You and your ilk are so predictable, its boring to listen to.
Here is some info on the urban heat island stuff.
Notice, the item is from October '06. You're at least three years behind in your propaganda.
I'd suggest you bookmark the site linked to, it covers almost all Denial Cult talking points, and could save you some embarrassment in the future.
I saw that some of the other sheep on this site linked to the same web site. Seems like you are all trained to spew the same talking points.
I'll be looking forward to future ambarrassment.
Only trust data that supports your beliefs.
No one else know what they are talking about unless they share your beliefs.
19) anyone who reads anything beyond "the Limbaugh Letter" is an "(strike)ivory tower(/strike) pointy headed intellectual"
Also:
7) anyone who puts life over profits is a "tree hugger"
8) anyone who refutes or debates "correct" science (Creationism/Intelligent Design, Ecological Stability) is a "sky-is-falling" reactionary
The people with whom you disagree are sheep? Easy on the patronizing rhetoric, it's not helping you.
Thanks for trying to "help" me, though. I really appreciate it.
Among other things, he talks about those "environmentalists" you trust so much.
"No doubt, there are some scientists who want to collect large government grants for studying climate. The recent release of emails from the East Anglia University's Climate Research Unit suggests that some of them want to provide their employers with an unjustified political consensus that serves their purposes."
http://www.examiner.com/x-33398-Public-Policy-Examiner~y2009m12d31-Climate-Change-101-Does-the-IPCC-have-it-all-wrong
You guys don't have a single credible person on your side. Not one.
I don't know where you got that, I've been getting info. on the topic from scores of sources for years. THis is just an easy-to-read one that addresses most of the Denial Cults nonsense in a way that I figured you could understand.
...from an environmentalist web site...
.. that links to Climate Science sites and NASA to back up its info
...that tries to program it's readers...
The "How to talk to a Denier" thing is sort of tongue-in-cheek, similar to a "How to talk to your child about the birds and the bees" guide.
Now, anything to say about the facts at my link, or are you happy to dodge the topic, stick with your BS, and call the science "talking points"?
You should be looking forward to future embarrassment. It doesn't look like you have any desire to avoid embarrassing yourself. Unless you're just incapable of being embarrassed.
Correctamundo!
A hearty well done on your post.
The answer (obviously) is: "Yes. Yes they can."
How do I know this? I know it because they've been doing it very well for the last twenty years, and they see no reason to change the habits of a lifetime today. "They", of course, are the climate change deniers, brought to you by Big Industry! Staring The Oil & Gas Industry, The Coal Mine Owners Of The World, and the politicians that love them.
Seriously, though:
Fox News will keep broadcasting the same old tired lies about global warming and climate change until the truth is so obvious they can't ignore it anymore. At that point they will pretend like they were never climate-change deniers, and move on to some other way to oppose sane and rational government policy. It's what they do. The facts are irreverent to them. Remember: This is the same network that claimed that there were never any terrorist attacks during the Bush Administration; Patently false, but did that stop them from airing it? Hells no.
Depending on the gathering source, you can either have free access to it or pay for access to it. (someone has to pay for all of that equipment)
See, when real scientists publish their research, they also publish the data that they are basing their research on. Wouldn't be much of a research paper if other scientists couldn't examine the data that you're basing your research on, now would it? People who call themselves scientists but don't let anyone see the data that supposedly back up what they claim? We have a word for those people: Crackpots.
As ever, Google is your friend. You'd know this if you'd bothered to type something like "climate change raw data" into Google and then engage the part of your brain that allows you to read.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/data-sources/
^Oh, look! An example you could have found by Goggling for it!*
*May contain RAW data. Keep out of reach of morons. Some learning may occur. Not for use by uneducated idiots. If urge to troll this site again becomes irritated, seek a mental health professional immediately or STFU. This message composed of 100% recycled electrons. No idiots were harmed in the making of this message. Some chickens got eaten, and I set the cat on fire once or twice, but that's it I swear!
Anyway here is the link again.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/24/the-scandal-deepens-ipcc-ar4-riddled-with-non-peer-reviewed-wwf-papers
Most of what you call "RAW" data isn't the raw data you claim it is. In light of admitted false-hoods spread by climate scientists most of the "RAW" data you refer to is subject to serious skeptisism.
You global warming, excuse me, "climate change" people just keep up the good work, Al Gore needs his job.
From the same Grist site I referenced above....
Objection: Global warming is happening on Mars and Pluto as well. Since there are no SUVs on Mars, CO2 can't be causing global warming.
Answer: Warming on another planet would be an interesting coincidence, but it would not necessarily be driven by the same causes.
The only relevant factor the earth and Mars share is the sun, so if the warming were real and related, that would be the logical place to look. As it happens, the sun is being watched and measured carefully back here on earth, and it is not the primary cause of current climate change.
As for the alleged extraterrestrial warming, there is extremely little evidence of a global climate change on Mars. The only piece I'm aware of is a series of photographs of a single icy region in the southern hemisphere that shows melting over a six year period (about three Martian years).
Here on earth we have direct measurements from all over the globe, widespread glacial retreat, reduction of sea ice, and satellite measurements of the lower troposphere up to the stratosphere. To compare this mountain of data to a few photographs of a single region on another planet strains credulity. And in fact, the relevant scientists believe the observation described above is the result of a regional change caused by Mars' own orbital cycles, like what happened during the earth's glacial cycles.
Yes. It also occurred to Climate Change Denial Cultists that they could use this fact to confuse a lot of people. It was pretty clever years ago when they first trotted it out, but just sad that it's still working on some.
Most people are also aware that great forest fires have started without any human intervention . . . but the fact that some forest fires may have started without our intervention does not rule out humans starting one.
Among the studies looking at the cycles include those of ice cores examining cooling and warming cycles of 10-30,000 periods as far back as 600,000+ years. And it is true, like forest fires, warming has occurred without human intervention. Also like forest fires, it is believed warming can be exacerbated by human intervention. And current trends ARE measured against non-manmade ones in the past. While some love to claim that scientists who have studied this for decades simply 'forgot' to factor in past cycles (and I guess should be indebted to those with no background whatsoever for remembering what thousands of experienced researchers overlooked) any serious analysis would lead one to realize that's probably not a realistic outlook.
Also just a note, warming in some areas can lead to cooling in others. It's fairly straightforward to expect atmospheric temperatures at certain altitudes to drop if those at lower altitudes are increased by a greenhouse effect.
How come you do not agree with a statement that says we are no where close to knowing where energy is going or whether clouds are changing to make the planet brighter. We are not close to balancing the energy budget. The fact that we can not account for what is happening in the climate system makes any consideration of geoengineering quite hopeless as we will never be able to tell if it is successful or not! It is a travesty!
I especially like when members of the IPCC are called out for publishing unsubstantiated reports of the catastrophic melting of glaciers. Oh well, I guess we should ignore the glaring facts and just all go along, like happy little lemmings.
Oh, by the way, try comparing the amount of money the AGW contributes versus the oil industry. Just another fact worthy of ignoring I suppose.
Nothing is ever the fault of wingnuts. It's everybody else that has the problem.
No, it's because they refer to what they report as "News". MSM tries to stay away from fiction and misinformation.
By continuing to deny this situation the main-stream media illustrates:
1. Inability to understand or explain the scientific fact of man-made Global warming.
2. Unwillingness to tell their audience the truth because of corporate control/interests.
3. Unwillingness to tell their audience the truth because it is not exciting enough to be "News".
4. A deliberate decision to lie about the facts in order to further the political aims of the media owner.
5. All of the above.
You might just shrug this off as more of the Crazy Media Antics we have come to expect, but the real danger is the willingness of the media to deny scientific facts. Unless people are able and interested enough to investigate and read the source material (the scientific papers).
What if a company that makes Melamine decides to purchase enough of the main-stream media that they can bury any stories about Melamine tainted milk. They just start broadcasting "stories" about how the scientific evidence indicating this chemical is poison are just "Theories" and not really true. In fact, adding this chemical to your food is good for you.
Once you start down the path of allowing media to ignore scientific facts to further a political and/or economic agenda of the media's owner, you put peoples lives at risk.
Crap, now I'm going to get a thumbs down. (OK I really don't care about that.)
Man made global warming is not a fact, it is a theory.
Granted there is a lot a data to support it but; it has not been proven.
There is the possibility that there are other climate mechanisms at work that are causing the increase in temperature.
Of course, no one has come up with a seperate theory that jives with the current data.
"Man made global warming is not a fact, it is a theory."
"a theory is an explanation or model based on observation, experimentation, and reasoning, especially one that has been tested and confirmed as a general principle helping to explain and predict natural phenomena."
http://www.fsteiger.com/theory.html
Hmmm.... So a "theory" sounds a bit more solid than you suggest.
"Granted there is a lot a data to support it but; it has not been proven.
There is the possibility that there are other climate mechanisms at work that are causing the increase in temperature."
Proven? Beyond ALL DOUBT? Beyond a REASONABLE DOUBT? 100% certainty? 95% certainty? You didn't specify as to the level of certainty you were alluding to in your claim. Just where is that "tipping point" to move beyond sheer guessing about ACC (as denialists would like us all to believe while prompting us to drinking their kool-aide), to being certain?
I'm sure there are some denialists who also believe in the fairy tale story of intelligent design, over the proven theory of evolution. (Yes, evolution is also "just a theory.") At which point did evolution pass guessing to certainty?
The scientist knows. Unfortunately, the layman doesn't because they are completely ignorant of how science really works - i.e. they don't know the definition of the word "theory", as it applies to science. Ignorance is ok. We're all ignorant, so at times, we defer to the experts who know better. After all, the reasonable person would prefer a surgeon to operate on them, instead of a self-appointed "expert" who operates a blog page.
s
Ah, but a denialist thinks they knows how this all works - even better than the experts. The denialist just slugs a few beers, or smokes that doobie, and it all becomes clear to them. My! Just how can all these scientists not see how this really works? Denialists are either delusional, or get paid to posts their junk.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/03/science/earth/03climate.html
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/science/global-warming-consensus-vs.html
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=climate-changes-uncertainty-principle
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eUB4j0n2UDU
I believe in the theory of evolution but; it is still a theory.
FYI I'm not a denialist, just a skeptic. Meaning, the data presented to me is convincing but; there are still questions to be answered.
There are always questions to be answered. That's life, and the working foundation of science.
But, there comes a point where we reach the "science is settled" point.
That point is when the existing theories explain what is observed, AND those theories can predict what is expected to be observed, if someone were to look at evidence in another area. This happened for evolution, the general theory of realitivity, plate tectonics, and now for ACC.
If we consistently get data that supports the predictions, then the theory is solid. The science is settled. For all practical purposes, it's a fact. Science then puts the stake in the ground, then moves on.
The facts that greenhouse gases cause warming, and that we are the source of increasing greenhouse gasses is settled. There is more uncertainty about some of the predicted EFFECTS of warming, but warming it is, and it's because of us.
So as a skeptic, you may not be convinced, and that's ok. We're all ignorant about something. But the experts in the field are convinced. At some point, reasonable people (even skeptics) should recognize their own ignorance, and defer the issue to the experts.
It's the denialist who claims they know with certainty that the experts have it wrong, because - it's a conspiracy, science doesn't work, it's always been this way, blah, blah, blah. The foundation of their entire position is based on a house of cards. Completely devoid of any reason or sanity.
So in the end, reasonable people would much rather act on the facts about ACC, based on the decades of work by the experts, than to act on anything Billy-Bob Denialist would come up with while chugging beers with his buddies at the local bar.
As I've posted in the past, here's a great site for skeptics: http://www.skepticalscience.com/
Theory of Relativity = Not Proven?
Theory of Evolution = Not Proven?
Cannot Observe (whatever this means) = Not Proven?
Scientists use Theory and I used FACT on purpose to get this point across. The old canard about "Observing" is just wrong. The rather crude counter-arguments to Global Warming and Evolution rest on this "lack of observation" stuff (this is the 16th century definition of Scientific Process).
There are lots of things we can not directly observe but are still counted as proven Facts. The point is that the Scientific Process is often poorly explained in school (much less the media) and is often reduced to a Cartoon version of itself. I don't advocate blindly trusting all scientific theories (most turn out to be wrong) but when the theory makes predictions and more importantly gives the criteria that would prove itself wrong, then it is on the road to being an established FACT (like Gravity or the theory of relativity).
To ask for definitive proof of a Scientific theory is to misunderstand how Scientific Theories work.
Read some books on how scientific theories are developed and progress.
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/11/03/ghcn-the-global-analysis/
it seems that ~75% (~90% in the US) of the temperature recording sites have been removed from the GIST data set. The preponderance of the sites removed are high altitude and/or high latitude (i.e. naturally cooler). The result is a warming bias introduced into the GIST data.
The Russians have also claimed that this same bias has been applied to temperature measurements from Russia:
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/BOMBSHELL.pdf
If this information is correct, it puts all climate research based on GIST data into serious question i.e. it must be redone with unbiased temperature measurement data (including the graph posted above).
Prior to the CRU email leak, I thought the evidence for global warming was sound. However, following the leak, I decided to (re)investigate and what I've found is troubling. I'm not at all convinced anymore.
If any readers have valid counter information (i.e. web site) to the above links, I'd be very interested. Don't bother with the "consensus" BS (science is NOT done by consensus) nor equally nonsensical "settled science" mantra. I'm not the least bit interested that you have made up your mind and are no longer interested in facts.
But, when the emails of people they don't agree with are hacked, stolen, robbed, etc, the right wing hypocrites all of sudden call them "leaked".
F**king hypocrites.
But I agree, it's nice of the "reasonable non-partisan" type posters to accidentally include wingnut buzz-phrases (Death Tax, ClimateGate, Obamacare, etc. ) to let others know they're just messing around.
On the other hand, there is a good case being made that we're just leaving a minor ice age. Going by the vintage Denier stuff being posted here, it looks like a lot of right wingers have been frozen in an ice block somewhere for a few years.
See, I'm not opposed to anger of any kind, that would be ridiculous, it's a normal human emotion.
whatithink was expressing anger at hypocrisy and dishonesty, at those politicians and media peeps who deceive in order to hinder the progress of the country and science. Good things to be angry about, IMO.
I only mentioned that I didn't understand the anger of so many wingnuts, especially the completely unaccountable types (End Times Enthusiasts, AGW Denial Cultists) who are furious that people they don't know want to get married, or that somebody might suggest they drive to work in something smaller than a large military vehicle, or that they might set their A.C. to a level that wouldn't shrink a polar bear's nads.
Hope that helps.
If you and your control-freak AGW ilk would just drop the silly and self-defeating CO2 AGW scripture, we could refocus ourselves on the actual environmental issues taking place today. The sooner you do, the better. We've got a lot of ground to cover re-establishing scientific credibility and undoing the damage your religion has done to the environmental movement.
From simple minds, come simple solutions.
And another thing stop it with the ellipsis and your using of "NOT" at the end certainly shows that you suck at using slang (and apparently grammar).
Also ignored is this article is a recent discovery:
New data show that the balance between the airborne and the absorbed fraction of carbon dioxide has stayed approximately constant since 1850, despite emissions of carbon dioxide having risen from about 2 billion tons a year in 1850 to 35 billion tons a year now.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/11/091110141842.htm
Since the new temperature data hasn't been factchecked yet, it is irrelevant until such time that it is verified.
This was not a big surprise despite the claim the Science Daily writer made that: "The results run contrary to a significant body of recent research which expects that the capacity of terrestrial ecosystems and the oceans to absorb CO2 should start to diminish as CO2 emissions increase, letting greenhouse gas levels skyrocket." The "body of work" consists of "Several recent studies have highlighted the possibility that the oceans and terrestrial ecosystems have started loosing part of their ability to sequester a large proportion of the anthropogenic CO2 emissions."
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2009GL040613.shtml
Note the word "recent". The past climate computer models have not assumed the airborne fraction would change much. So, Knorr's work does not affect their validity. There is still concern that as the oceans warm, their capacity to absorb CO2 may diminish. That would be really really bad, worse than current models project. If this doesn't happen the situation is still really bad.
From http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/temperaturevariations-in-past-centuries-and-the-so-called-hockey-stick/
One of the important lines from teh article should be:
"Reviews of past scientific research in this area can be found in the following peer-reviewed journal articles"
See? peer-reviewed. It means that others in the same field have studied the same data and came to the same conclusions.
Another important line from the article:
"Numerous myths regarding the “hockey stick” can be found on various non-peer reviewed websites and other non-scientific venues. "
(This http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/myths-vs-fact-regarding-the-hockey-stick/ shows some of the myths and the rebuttals of them)
See the difference between the two? If you need it spelled out, then you're beyond help.
If you read the above articles, two things become clear:
1. It is only climate change deniers that claim the "hockey stick" is the only basis or proof of global warming, when in reality it is one of MANY studies that show global warming.
2. Climate change deniers either don't want to know about the research, know about the research but don't want to read it, have read the research but don't understand it, have read the research, understand it, but blame it on a conspiracy. Whatever the case, it's pathetic.
Gee, let's see, who to believe? Data and information that has been peer reviewed by people who study the stuff for a living?
Or, data that was admittedly not peer reviewed, a blog by a photographer who holds a degree in womans studies (Donna LaFramboise) and writes for the extreme right wing website frontpagemag.com (http://nofrakkingconsensus.blogspot.com/2010/01/more-dodgy-citations-in-nobel-winning.html) or a blog (http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2010/01/and-now-for-amazongate.html) written by a man who's credentials are "After a brief career in the Royal Air Force, Richard North became a local government officer and then ran his own consultancy business for two decades. "(http://www.spinprofiles.org/index.php/Richard_North_(blogger))?
The IPCC is a scientific body. It reviews and assesses the most recent scientific, technical and socio-economic information produced worldwide relevant to the understanding of climate change. It does not conduct any research nor does it monitor climate related data or parameters. Thousands of scientists from all over the world contribute to the work of the IPCC on a voluntary basis. Review is an essential part of the IPCC process, to ensure an objective and complete assessment of current information. Differing viewpoints existing within the scientific community are reflected in the IPCC reports...Because of its scientific and intergovernmental nature, the IPCC embodies a unique opportunity to provide rigorous and balanced scientific information to decision makers. By endorsing the IPCC reports, governments acknowledge the authority of their scientific content. The work of the organization is therefore policy-relevant and yet policy-neutral, never policy-prescriptive.
You, or anyone else for that matter, are yet to utter a word about the apparently widespread use of "unsubstantiated research" used by the IPCC in AR4, research that was not peer-reviewed and was derived from activist groups and media outlets and even blogs!
Sure you guys have paid lip service to the "found it, fixed it" mantra in regards to the Himalayan "research," but you guys have absolutely nothing to say at all about the actual sources the IPCC is using as references for their reports?
They claim "[r]eview is an essential part of the IPCC process." Utter hypocrisy, considering how often the Mannian crowd screeched about skeptic claims not being peer-reviewed.
If I could give you some advice for future crusades, I'd suggest you be a little more discriminating.
Start out with your 200 outdated web sites and Cultist blogs, and narrow it down to a few that you feel are the strongest.
POst links to those "top shelf" sites, and explain why you think they support your point.
You have to understand, most people will give you a chance, but if they click on three or four of your links, and none of them supports you, they may stop giving you the benefit of the doubt.
This shotgun approach to witnessing for your beliefs is just not very effective. If you're trying to win converts, good luck, but try a more focused approach.
I even broke a little news for you by providing you with the IPCC New York Times reference story that I referenced here, here, and here. Amazing what a little independent investigation can accomplish. You really ought to try it some time.
There was also that beautiful link with IPCC Chairman Pachauri's initial reaction to the Raina glacier report. A must read! Talk about a classic example of how "skeptic" science is received by the AGW community (here's another example of the circled wagons I provided). I also helped you learn more about the good Chair's background in climatology, or lack thereof, and another call for Pachauri's resignation.
And what of the direct links to some of the, ahem, peer-reviewed papers used by the IPCC in AR4? Those were "sparkly fresh."
Oh and then there was the Judith Curry piece found here. I don't remember you being around for that one so I'm glad to share it with you. No, honestly. Go ahead. Read it. She's one of yours. And make sure you catch the bonus round down below from the CRU's Mike Hulme. Both real live climate scientists. Hulme wonders aloud whether "the I.P.C.C. has run its course." Good read.
As requested, I also provided the USHCN V1 page where you could find the link to the graph I originally posted and a new one as well.
And I thought you would have liked the next one. It's an article on the decline in the number of surface stations with opinions from all sides including Schmidt and D'Aleo. On the latter, I also gave you his new paper to peruse.
And how could you have missed the Jon Stewart "truth plus - now with lemon" clip? Again, I would have thought both sides of the debate would have enjoyed that one.
Oh, and I almost forgot about fulfilling open_mind's request of leatherhelmet for updated information about the FOIA lawsuit. See? Lots of new stuff to enlighten you. Cheers!
The interesting thing about this graph is that it doesn't use temerature differences, it just shows the raw data. The global temperature doesn't look as dramatic as the NASA charts, does it? The raw temperature data is the coloured line.
Yes, the temperature is climbing, but why has there not been a dramatic increase in the temperature when the CO2 levels seem to be going through the roof. One intersting point is that the mechanism for recording CO2 levels changed in 1959. I wonder if that has anything to do with it?
Also, the raw data shows the Earth has increased in temperature from 13.76ºC to 14.46ºC - that's something the comparison charts don't tell you. Wow, I will have to rush out and buy a gallon of sunscreen.
Also, it took 130 years to raise the temperature by 0.7ºC, that means that it will take another 371 years for us to reach the 2ºC increase mentioned by the UN IPCC. And the mean temperature will be around 16.5ºC. I had better make that two gallons of sunscreen.
Now why is there a gazillion charts on the Internet showing the changes in temperature over time, but very few that actually show the raw data. Simple - it's more dramatic and more urgency can be drummed up with that sort of chart.
It's Al Gore!
It's the IPCC!
It's popular opinion!
It's, it's, it's.... A CONSPIRACY!!!! YAAAAAAA!!!
Conservatards don't have the intelligence to prove anything. So, they just throw crap around like a monkey at the zoo.
http://scienceblogs.com/denialism/deck.php
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v6Gs426XrW4
Decline in Arctic sea ice thickness from submarine and ICESat records: 1958–2008
Decline in Arctic sea ice thickness from submarine and ICESat records: 1958–2008
R. Kwok
Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, California, USA
D. A. Rothrock
Applied Physics Laboratory, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA
The decline of sea ice thickness in the Arctic Ocean from ICESat (2003–2008) is placed in the context of estimates from 42 years of submarine records (1958–2000) described by Rothrock et al. (1999, 2008). While the earlier 1999 work provides a longer historical record of the regional changes, the latter offers a more refined analysis, over a sizable portion of the Arctic Ocean supported by a much stronger and richer data set. Within the data release area (DRA) of declassified submarine sonar measurements (covering ∼38% of the Arctic Ocean), the overall mean winter thickness of 3.64 m in 1980 can be compared to a 1.89 m mean during the last winter of the ICESat record—an astonishing decrease of 1.75 m in thickness. Between 1975 and 2000, the steepest rate of decrease is −0.08 m/yr in 1990 compared to a slightly higher winter/summer rate of −0.10/−0.20 m/yr in the five-year ICESat record (2003–2008). Prior to 1997, ice extent in the DRA was >90% during the summer minimum. This can be contrasted to the gradual decrease in the early 2000s followed by an abrupt drop to <55% during the record setting minimum in 2007. This combined analysis shows a long-term trend of sea ice thinning over submarine and ICESat records that span five decades.
http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035 970c0120a7f518ce970b-pi
There are several interesting points.
1/ It has take 130 years to raise 0.7ºC, so it will probably take 371 years to reach the magical 2ºC as sqwarked by the IPCC.
2/ The mean temperature in 1880 was 13.74ºC and in 2009 it was 14.46ºC. These figures are remarkebly missing from the NASA charts, when you only deal in changes.
3/ The CO2 readings are quite constant from 1880, until they changed the way in which they compile data in 1959, then the CO2 levels skyrocket. Does this mean the first way was wrong, or the second? We will never know exactly.
4/ With the increase in CO2 levels, why was there not a corresponding increase in the temperatures. That's because the insiginifcant CO2 levels in the atmosphere have no relationship to the temperature of the planet.
So there is no manipulation here, It's the raw readings without the use of Microsoft Office sexy charts capability.
Teach me...anyone, that the rising temperature is not a natural event, as it certainly looks like it when you see the raw data.