Climate change hoax exposed?

[sunfish]

Over 150 Frozen Sharks Found Along Gulf Coast as Winter Storm Hits Region | Rock City Times (http://www.rockcitytimes.com/150-frozen-sharks-gulf-coast-winter-storm-hits-region/)

[CountryBoy1981]

http://jazzroc.files.wordpress.com/2008/11/global_warming_bull.gif

[Funkthulhu]

http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/cold.png

[caliboy1994]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/33/Arctic_sea_ice_loss_animation.gif

http://boygeniusreport.files.wordpress.com/2014/01/climate-change-33.gif

What more proof do you need than statistics?

[CountryBoy1981]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/33/Arctic_sea_ice_loss_animation.gif

http://boygeniusreport.files.wordpress.com/2014/01/climate-change-33.gif

What more proof do you need than statistics?

Your proof shows that the Earth is warming like it did prior to the black plague, except it is not as warm now as it was then according to scientists. If you had the same video of the time lapse on Mars you would be seeing about the same thing: Mars Melt Hints at Solar, Not Human, Cause for Warming, Scientist Says (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html)

There is one thing that Mars and Earth have in common and it is not humans producing CO2.

[CountryBoy1981]

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-A4W11yVkXDY/UUs1qhbwErI/AAAAAAAAHAc/yDSjEthvhZI/s1600/Global_Cooling_1.gif

[Funkthulhu]

Your proof shows that the Earth is warming like it did prior to the black plague, except it is not as warm now as it was then according to scientists. If you had the same video of the time lapse on Mars you would be seeing about the same thing: Mars Melt Hints at Solar, Not Human, Cause for Warming, Scientist Says (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html)

There is one thing that Mars and Earth have in common and it is not humans producing CO2.

Uh, did you actually read that article you linked to? Because it says in the article that this (now 7 year old hypothesis) is pretty much complete bunk. This "global warming hoax" idea of pointing to Mars and saying the Earth's problem is not anthropogenic is a farce! The Mars Warming argument is a myth with as little fact to it as the argument that immunization causes autism.

So, yeah, stop using the Mars argument; to those with an understanding of standard orbital oscillations, Milankovitch cycles and their affect on planetary climate you just sound uneducated.

[Funkthulhu]

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-A4W11yVkXDY/UUs1qhbwErI/AAAAAAAAHAc/yDSjEthvhZI/s1600/Global_Cooling_1.gif

The 1970s Ice Age Myth and Time Magazine Covers – by David Kirtley – Greg Laden's Blog (http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2013/06/04/the-1970s-ice-age-myth-and-time-magazine-covers-by-david-kirtley/)

So, yeah, that picture is photoshopped BS.

Also, a 1971 paper by Stephen Schneider, then a climate researcher at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center in Maryland, US. Schneider's paper suggested that the cooling effect of dirty air could outweigh the warming effect of carbon dioxide, potentially leading to an ice age if aerosol pollution quadrupled. After doing some further research and a lot of math he retracted that statement. There were a few papers about science that was not fully understood at the time which suggested we might be entering a global cooling trend, but had no numbers to back it up. Mostly they were just looking at the same Milankovitch forcing and ice-core records that showed when the last couple ice ages happened and they took a guess. All of the theories in these papers have since been disproven, often by the original scientist who published it!

However, the media of the time ran with it, and so you get all the "OMG ICE AGE!!!" stories of the 1970's that have very little, if any, actual science in them.

(How many of these anti-anthropogenic, Warming-Hoax fallacy myths are we going to debunk today?)

[caliboy1994]

Your proof shows that the Earth is warming like it did prior to the black plague, except it is not as warm now as it was then according to scientists. If you had the same video of the time lapse on Mars you would be seeing about the same thing: Mars Melt Hints at Solar, Not Human, Cause for Warming, Scientist Says (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html)

There is one thing that Mars and Earth have in common and it is not humans producing CO2.

Didn't you post that same article a few pages back? And it was thoroughly debunked? And yes, humans are producing CO2. That is a fact. That's like saying that fireplaces don't produce smoke.

[CountryBoy1981]

Whether the cover is faked doesn't matter, global cooling was the big science scare of the 1970s, here is a link with some info:

Popular Technology.net: 1970s Global Cooling Alarmism (http://www.populartechnology.net/2013/02/the-1970s-global-cooling-alarmism.html)

[CountryBoy1981]

Didn't you post that same article a few pages back? And it was thoroughly debunked? And yes, humans are producing CO2. That is a fact. That's like saying that fireplaces don't produce smoke.

Debunked by whom? The global warming scientists who are dependent on government grants to keep their jobs?

[caliboy1994]

Whether the cover is faked doesn't matter, global cooling was the big science scare of the 1970s, here is a link with some info:

Popular Technology.net: 1970s Global Cooling Alarmism (http://www.populartechnology.net/2013/02/the-1970s-global-cooling-alarmism.html)

Saying that the defunct global cooling alarmism in the 70s is makes global warming invalid is like saying that the defunct theory of spontaneous generation makes germ theory invalid. You can't use previous science that has been proven wrong to attempt to debunk science that has so far been proven right now. Not only is that logically fallacious, it flies straight in the face of the scientific method. You know how you debunk climate change? Become a climate scientist yourself, do a scientific study, and if you manage to conclusively disprove global climate change, collect your Nobel Prize and go home. But clearly you are no climate scientist so you have no authority to make these kinds of statements and expect them to be accepted as true.

Debunked by whom? The global warming scientists who are dependent on government grants to keep their jobs?

No, I debunked it, because the Russian scientist assumed that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas, which goes against 150 years of established scientific knowledge. Also, the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature study, which proved for the umpteenth time that climate change is happening, was funded by the Koch Brothers, not the government. Your argument is invalid.

[CountryBoy1981]

Saying that the defunct global cooling alarmism in the 70s is makes global warming invalid is like saying that the defunct theory of spontaneous generation makes germ theory invalid. You can't use previous science that has been proven wrong to attempt to debunk science that has so far been proven right now. Not only is that logically fallacious, it flies straight in the face of the scientific method. You know how you debunk climate change? Become a scientist yourself, do a scientific study, and if you manage to conclusively disprove global climate change, collect your Nobel Prize and go home. But clearly you are no scientist so you have no authority to make these kinds of statements and expect them to be accepted as true.



No, I debunked it, because the Russian scientist assumed that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas, which goes against 150 years of established scientific knowledge. Also, the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature study was funded by the Koch Brothers, so your argument is well....sort of...invalid.

So now you are the authority on whose study is credible based on who is funding what? Have you graduated with a degree in climate science, if not, according to your own words you have no authority to make any kind of statements either. I studied global warming in college also (actually was duped into believing it at the time). I guess neither of us should even be debating this in this thread then since we have no authority.

[caliboy1994]

So now you are the authority on whose study is credible based on who is funding what? Have you graduated with a degree in climate science, if not, according to your own words you have no authority to make any kind of statements either. I studied global warming in college also (actually was duped into believing it at the time). I guess neither of us should even be debating this in this thread then since we have no authority.

I am an environmental science major, and I very well might go into climate science. I have studied climate change both in college as a part of my curriculum and independently myself. I should probably rephrase what I said. Those who attempt to debunk climate change without using science have no authority whatsoever. If we are using actual scientific data and studies as our sources to debate this, then of course we can debate it, even if we are not scientists. If you are one of those people who say things like "GLOBAL WARMING IS A HOAX" without any evidence to back it up, THEN you have no authority to debate it. Sen. Inhofe and the people over at Wing Nut Daily are perfect examples of these people. So, if you use actual science to try and make an argument, then you are able to draw conclusions based on your sources. But I have every right to debate and attempt to debunk the conclusions you draw, and even question the credibility of the sources that you cite. Same goes for you. Neither of us, since we are not scientists (for me at least, not yet) have the authority to expect what we say be accepted as true by the broader community, because we haven't done independent research or experimentation on it.

[CountryBoy1981]

I am an environmental science major, and I very well might go into climate science. I have studied climate change both in college as a part of my curriculum and independently myself. I should probably rephrase what I said. Those who attempt to debunk climate change without using science have no authority whatsoever. If we are using actual scientific data and studies as our sources to debate this, then of course we can debate it, even if we are not scientists. If you are one of those people who say things like "GLOBAL WARMING IS A HOAX" without any evidence to back it up, THEN you have no authority to debate it. Sen. Inhofe and the people over at Wing Nut Daily are perfect examples of these people. So, if you use actual science to try and make an argument, then you are able to draw conclusions based on your sources. But I have every right to debate and attempt to debunk the conclusions you draw, and even question the credibility of the sources that you cite. Same goes for you. Neither of us, since we are not scientists (for me at least, not yet) have the authority to expect what we say be accepted as true by the broader community, because we haven't done independent research or experimentation on it.

The issue with this is you have disagreed with scientists because they were funded by the coke brothers. You have to understand the structure of science funding. You either get it from a private organization or you get it from the government. If you get it from the government you have to extole the general consensus belief or you lose your funds for research. The progressives also know that if you teach it as fact to the high school and college students they won't question it.

[caliboy1994]

The issue with this is you have disagreed with scientists because they were funded by the coke brothers. You have to understand the structure of science funding. You either get it from a private organization or you get it from the government. If you get it from the government you have to extole the general consensus belief or you lose your funds for research. The progressives also know that if you teach it as fact to the high school and college students they won't question it.

I'm not categorically disagreeing or agreeing with scientific studies. The Koch-funded study actually confirmed that climate change is happening. As do 99.99% of all climate change-related studies (which are conducted by MANY different institutions) regardless of where their funding is coming from. You're also forgetting that universities and NGOs also fund climate change studies. Ask yourself this for a moment. If you think you might have cancer and consult 10 different oncologists, and 9 out of 10 say you have cancer, what will you believe? It's the same sort of situation.

[sunfish]

The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it."
~ Neil deGrasse Tyson

[CountryBoy1981]

I'm not categorically disagreeing or agreeing with scientific studies. The Koch-funded study actually confirmed that climate change is happening. As do 99.99% of all climate change-related studies (which are conducted by MANY different institutions) regardless of where their funding is coming from. You're also forgetting that universities and NGOs also fund climate change studies. Ask yourself this for a moment. If you think you might have cancer and consult 10 different oncologists, and 9 out of 10 say you have cancer, what will you believe? It's the same sort of situation.

There is a difference. Even if I did not have cancer that doctor would still be employed treating other cancer patients. If global warming is falsified the climate scientists are out of work.

[caliboy1994]

There is a difference. Even if I did not have cancer that doctor would still be employed treating other cancer patients. If global warming is falsified the climate scientists are out of work.

You're just skirting around my question. And if global warming was falsified then the graph of summer Arctic ice volume over time wouldn't look like this:

http://neven1.typepad.com/.a/6a0133f03a1e37970b015435e069be970c-pi

[CountryBoy1981]

You're just skirting around my question. And if global warming was falsified then the graph of summer Arctic ice volume over time wouldn't look like this:

http://neven1.typepad.com/.a/6a0133f03a1e37970b015435e069be970c-pi

I would expect the graph to look like that as I would presume that throughout hundreds of years during periods of warming it would resemble that graph. The Earth does not stay the current temperature year after year, there are warming periods and cooling periods.

Now answer my question, what would climate scientists do if global warming was falsified?

[Funkthulhu]

Countryboy, it is obvious from your posts that you have absolutely no idea how science funding works. . .

Let us pretend for a brief moment that there were a paradigm shift in the understanding of global warming. It would start with a few papers, and as more scientists checked the data they would run their own experiments and write their own papers. The grant-funding would be insane if all your applicants wanted to bust out this new idea, and science funding would probably (at least for awhile) go up to accommodate all this new research. This, in turn would mean more and higher paying jobs for scientists whether they work for private industry or the government. So, right there, your premise is completely false.

Now, about who funds what. Have you looked at congress lately? They couldn't agree that water was good if their heads were on fire. But you say they've already agreed not only that there is global warming and it is anthropogenic, but also that the science funding (quite literally a drop in the federal budget bucket) must be so heavy handedly controlled that they will only fund science that agrees with their opinion? As for the Koch brothers, caliboy already pointed out that their own study showed that climate change was happening. If anything, the fact that the scientific community is wary of tainted money in their science means that the papers written with that money will receive more than the average amount of peer-review scrutiny. If the science is politically/economically biased and the conclusions are proven wrong than the Theory is stronger for having disproven some opposition. If the conclusions are shown to be correct by peer-review the Theory is stronger because even those in conflict with the results still came up with the same results. (and just to be clear, what you call "theory" a scientist calls a Hypothesis, and what a scientist calls a "Theory" the rest of the world calls a fact. . .)

Science, in general is a self-correcting system that cannot long be duped be even the most industrious of usurpers.

http://betternature.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/warminghoax.jpg

[Abnshrek]

http://betternature.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/warminghoax.jpg

So, is that why cars aren't more fuel efficient or have like another gear for interstate travel? MPG is outdated being set @ 55MPH with all the interstates, and country roads where the speed limit is higher than 55.. 65 here in LA, and 70 mph in Texas.. Now the people speeding surely aren't getting good gas milage.. I like how all the Cars that get crappy mileage compared to what they could get are all painted to be so fun to drive..

[Funkthulhu]

So, is that why cars aren't more fuel efficient or have like another gear for interstate travel? MPG is outdated being set @ 55MPH with all the interstates, and country roads where the speed limit is higher than 55.. 65 here in LA, and 70 mph in Texas.. Now the people speeding surely aren't getting good gas milage.. I like how all the Cars that get crappy mileage compared to what they could get are all painted to be so fun to drive..

I would love to be able to afford something new and German. The exterior and interior design meant for long-term Autobahn driving speeds and new smooth transmission designs with upwards of 10 or 12 "gears" even though you can't feel the shift. . . And, compared to American standards, ridiculous MPGs (And Diesel cars!).

automotive bliss

[Abnshrek]

I would love to be able to afford something new and German. The exterior and interior design meant for long-term Autobahn driving speeds and new smooth transmission designs with upwards of 10 or 12 "gears" even though you can't feel the shift. . . And, compared to American standards, ridiculous MPGs (And Diesel cars!).

automotive bliss

Bliss is right I rented a VW Passat to go to the 2013 Gulf Coast Banana Convention (as my squeeze calls it) that thing hauled, drove like a dream, and still got 36 MPH's.. So as long as its German its Engineered to get it.. well for the most part.. Nothing is certain.. I think the Worst rental has been a Nissan, talk about some crappy mileage I should've drove my Suburban, and it was a Beep Beep..WTF?.. :^)

[Nicolas Naranja]

I have added in the past seven years of data and now there is no statistically significant increase in temperatures over that time period. While there is a numerical increase since the 1920s, there has actually been a numerical decrease in temps since 1990.


I originally wrote this based on a talk I went to seven years ago:

The increase in average temperature in Belle Glade over 90 years is well documented and easily accessible. The lows have gotten warmer during most months. However, January has seen a decrease in average temperatures over time.

[CountryBoy1981]

I have added in the past seven years of data and now there is no statistically significant increase in temperatures over that time period. While there is a numerical increase since the 1920s, there has actually been a numerical decrease in temps since 1990.


I originally wrote this based on a talk I went to seven years ago:

The increase in average temperature in Belle Glade over 90 years is well documented and easily accessible. The lows have gotten warmer during most months. However, January has seen a decrease in average temperatures over time.

I would naturally expect temperature increases because of the growth of the cities, buildings, and roads. I think we all know that the warmest location is next to a building structure, it simply holds in more heat than bare ground.

[Nicolas Naranja]

I would naturally expect temperature increases because of the growth of the cities, buildings, and roads. I think we all know that the warmest location is next to a building structure, it simply holds in more heat than bare ground.

The Belle Glade weather station is a rural site. It is 3 miles from an urbanized area and 1/2 mile away from any buildings. The warming that is happening around the world is very real, but it is not evenly distributed. I would argue that on a local level, land use changes have more impact. A plowed field will have wider swings in temperature than a forest or prairie. Similarly, the Belle Glade site was a swamp, all that water dampens the intraday variability in temperature. We rarely get above 95 and rarely get below 35.

[caliboy1994]

I have added in the past seven years of data and now there is no statistically significant increase in temperatures over that time period. While there is a numerical increase since the 1920s, there has actually been a numerical decrease in temps since 1990.


I originally wrote this based on a talk I went to seven years ago:

The increase in average temperature in Belle Glade over 90 years is well documented and easily accessible. The lows have gotten warmer during most months. However, January has seen a decrease in average temperatures over time.

This "slowdown" has been observed worldwide and is partially due to the fact that humans have all but stopped emitting CFCs into the atmosphere thanks to the Montreal Protocol. CFCs are some of the most powerful greenhouse gases, with hundreds to thousands of times the warming potential of CO2. Their levels are now relatively stable in the atmosphere.

The recent "slowdown" of warming trends associated with climate change (which is not at all that significant) could also be a result of the fact that we're entering a cooler phase of the PDO cycle right now (see below). But there is still an overall warming trend. That cannot be refuted.

http://www.data.kishou.go.jp/kaiyou/shindan/b_1/pdo/winpdo.gif

[Nicolas Naranja]

When I put the data in a linear model, my r-squared is tiny and my p-value is insignificant. While there is a positive trend over the period, it seems to be dwarfed by the overall natural variation. None of the journals I publish in would let me publish about something with a r-square of 0.01 and a p-value of 0.2.


This "slowdown" has been observed worldwide and is partially due to the fact that humans have all but stopped emitting CFCs into the atmosphere thanks to the Montreal Protocol. CFCs are some of the most powerful greenhouse gases, with hundreds to thousands of times the warming potential of CO2. Their levels are now relatively stable in the atmosphere.

The recent "slowdown" of warming trends associated with climate change (which is not at all that significant) could also be a result of the fact that we're entering a cooler phase of the PDO cycle right now (see below). But there is still an overall warming trend. That cannot be refuted.

http://www.data.kishou.go.jp/kaiyou/shindan/b_1/pdo/winpdo.gif

[momoese]

For anyone who is interested in weather patterns, here is is 2013.

A Year of Weather 2013 - YouTube (http://youtu.be/m2Gy8V0Dv78)

[Yug]

95%-of-climate-models-disagree-with-actual-observations (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/02/10/95-of-climate-models-agree-the-observations-must-be-wrong/)

(excerpt from article)
These are all interesting exercises, but they miss the most important point: the climate models that governments base policy decisions on have failed miserably.

I’ve updated our comparison of 90 climate models versus observations for global average surface temperatures through 2013, and we still see that >95% of the models have over-forecast the warming trend since 1979, whether we use their own surface temperature dataset (HadCRUT4), or our satellite dataset of lower tropospheric temperatures (UAH):

(chart)

Whether humans are the cause of 100% of the observed warming or not, the conclusion is that global warming isn’t as bad as was predicted. That should have major policy implications…assuming policy is still informed by facts more than emotions and political aspirations.

And if humans are the cause of only, say, 50% of the warming (e.g. our published paper), then there is even less reason to force expensive and prosperity-destroying energy policies down our throats.
(end excerpt)

(my comment: Are the people behind 95% of the 'Global Warming' climate model predictions 'cooking' the data or just too dumb to be 'scientists'?)

[Lucasme]

95%-of-climate-models-disagree-with-actual-observations (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/02/10/95-of-climate-models-agree-the-observations-must-be-wrong/)

(excerpt from article)
These are all interesting exercises, but they miss the most important point: the climate models that governments base policy decisions on have failed miserably.

I’ve updated our comparison of 90 climate models versus observations for global average surface temperatures through 2013, and we still see that >95% of the models have over-forecast the warming trend since 1979, whether we use their own surface temperature dataset (HadCRUT4), or our satellite dataset of lower tropospheric temperatures (UAH):

(chart)

Whether humans are the cause of 100% of the observed warming or not, the conclusion is that global warming isn’t as bad as was predicted. That should have major policy implications…assuming policy is still informed by facts more than emotions and political aspirations.

And if humans are the cause of only, say, 50% of the warming (e.g. our published paper), then there is even less reason to force expensive and prosperity-destroying energy policies down our throats.
(end excerpt)

(my comment: Are the people behind 95% of the 'Global Warming' climate model predictions 'cooking' the data or just too dumb to be 'scientists'?)

Andrew Dessler's New Paper Debunks Both Roy Spencer And Richard Lindzen

Posted on 6 September 2011 by Rob Painting, dana1981

Andrew Dessler, a climate scientist at Texas A&M University, has released a scientific paper (Dessler 2011) that looks at the claims made by two of a small group of "skeptic" climate scientists who regular SkS readers will be familiar with: Roy Spencer and Richard Lindzen. Both were co-authors on peer-reviewed papers released this year (Spencer & Braswell [2011] & Lindzen & Choi [2011]) which, once again, sought to overturn the orthodox view of climate. Dessler (2011) finds that the conclusions of these two papers are unsupported by observational data.

Spencer & Lindzen: Tipping reality on its head

The Spencer/Braswell and Lindzen/Choi papers have an unusual take on global warming: rather than warming causing a change in cloud cover (i.e. acting as a feedback to either increase or reduce warming), both papers claim that it's the other way around - changes in cloud cover cause changes in the surface temperature (in the present case, warming).

Spencer/Braswell and Lindzen/Choi look at the relationship between changes in ocean heat, cloud cover (directly affecting the amount of heat lost to space), and global surface temperature over recent decades. The idea is, if the change in surface temperature over that period is affected by changes in cloud cover, but changes of the surface temperature associated with the ocean warming are small, then changes in cloud cover must be driving the present global warming.

Dessler: Putting reality back on its feet

Putting aside the problems with their energy budget equation, Dessler looks at the values Spencer/Braswell and Lindzen/Choi use for their calculations. Rather than examine the data for two of the terms in their equation (heating of the climate by the ocean & change in cloud cover allowing heat to escape to space), Lindzen and Spencer approximate them from other observations, and their results rely heavily on assumptions about the size of these values.

Rather than rely on assumptions, Dessler uses other observational data (such as surface temperature measurements and ARGO ocean temperature) to estimate and corroborate these values. Dessler finds that, in contrast to Spencer/Braswell and Lindzen/Choi, the change in cloud cover is far too small to explain the short-term changes in surface temperature, explaining only a few percent of surface temperature change. In fact, the heating of the climate system through ocean heat transport is approximately 20 times larger than the change in top of the atmosphere (TOA) energy flux due to cloud cover changes. Lindzen and Choi assumed the ratio was close to 2, while Spencer and Braswell assumed it was close to 0.5.

Dessler finds that the short-term changes in surface temperature are related to exchanges of heat to and from the ocean - which tallies well with what we know about El Niño and La Niña, and their atmospheric warming/cooling cycles.

Spencer & Braswell: A classic example of cherrypicking

In order to claim that the climate models differ from observations when comparing the surface temperature and energy leaving the Earth at TOA with the lead-lag between them, Spencer/Braswell cherrypick observational data and model results that show the greatest mismatch (Figure 1).

http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/2_Dessler_2011.gif



Figure 1: Dessler (2011) reconstruction of Spencer & Braswell's figure 3, showing relationship between top-of-atmosphere (TOA) net flux and surface temperature, as a function of lag between them. The blue line is the observational data chosen by Spencer and Braswell. The red lines show other available observational data. The shading represents the two-sigma uncertainty of two of the data sets. The black lines show climate model results. The black lines with crosses show the climate model runs chosen by Spencer and Braswell in their paper.

The blue line in Figure 1 is the TOA and Hadley Centre surface temperature data chosen by Spencer/Braswell, and the red includes other datasets of the surface temperature. The black lines are the 13 climate model runs, with the 'crosses' indicating 5 of the 6 models analysed by Spencer/Braswell. Although Spencer/Braswell analyzed 14 models, they only plotted the 3 with highest and 3 with lowest equilibrium climate sensitivities.

In the process, Spencer and Braswell excluded the three climate model runs which best matched the observational data. Dessler found that these three model runs were also the ones which are among the best at simulating El Niño and La Niña, which is not surprising, given that much of the temperature change over 2000-2010 was due to the El Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO). Thus Dessler concludes that

"since most of the climate variations over this period were due to ENSO, this suggests that the ability to reproduce ENSO is what's being tested here, not anything directly related to equilibrium climate sensitivity."

Violating the Laws of Thermodynamics

Dessler also examines the mathematical formula that both studies use to calculate the Earth's energy budget, and finds that it may violate the laws of thermodynamics - allowing for the impossible situation where ocean warming is able to cause ocean warming.

Much ado about nothing

The short-term change in surface temperature over the 2000-2010 period is a result of ocean heat being exchanged with the atmosphere (via ENSO). This in turn alters atmospheric circulation, which alters cloud cover, but the impact of cloud cover on surface temperature only explains a small percentage of the surface temperature change. Thus the lead-lag relationship between heat leaving the Earth at TOA and surface temperature reveals nothing about what is driving the short-term surface temperature change.

In short, the "skeptic" hypothesis that changes in cloud cover due to internal variability are driving global warming does not hold up when compared to the observational data. Once again we have two heavily-hyped "skeptic" papers that have failed to live up to their billing.



Climate Misinformer: Roy Spencer

Dr. Roy Spencer is a principal research scientist for the University of Alabama in Huntsville, as well as the U.S. Science Team Leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer (AMSR-E) on NASA’s Aqua satellite. He is known for his work with the satellite-based temperature monitoring for which he and Dr. John Christy received NASA’s Exceptional Scientific Achievement Medal [Wikipedia].

Dr. Spencer suggests that global warming is mostly due to natural internal variability, and that the climate system is quite insensitive to humanity’s greenhouse gas emissions.

Other professional affiliations: Dr. Spencer is on the board of directors of the George C. Marshall Institute, a right-wing conservative think tank on scientific issues and public policy. (http://marshall.org/climate-change/95-of-climate-models-agree-the-observations-must-be-wrong/) He listed as an expert for the Heartland Institute (http://www.cornwallalliance.org/blog/item/prominent-signers-of-an-evangelical-declaration-on-global-warming/), a libertarian American public policy think tank. Dr. Spencer is also listed as an expert by the International Climate and Environmental Change Assessment Project (ICECAP), a global warming "skeptic" organization

[caliboy1994]

95%-of-climate-models-disagree-with-actual-observations (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/02/10/95-of-climate-models-agree-the-observations-must-be-wrong/)

(excerpt from article)
These are all interesting exercises, but they miss the most important point: the climate models that governments base policy decisions on have failed miserably.

I’ve updated our comparison of 90 climate models versus observations for global average surface temperatures through 2013, and we still see that >95% of the models have over-forecast the warming trend since 1979, whether we use their own surface temperature dataset (HadCRUT4), or our satellite dataset of lower tropospheric temperatures (UAH):

(chart)

Whether humans are the cause of 100% of the observed warming or not, the conclusion is that global warming isn’t as bad as was predicted. That should have major policy implications…assuming policy is still informed by facts more than emotions and political aspirations.

And if humans are the cause of only, say, 50% of the warming (e.g. our published paper), then there is even less reason to force expensive and prosperity-destroying energy policies down our throats.
(end excerpt)

(my comment: Are the people behind 95% of the 'Global Warming' climate model predictions 'cooking' the data or just too dumb to be 'scientists'?)


You do realize that you're citing a denialist who isn't even a climate scientist, who regularly twists data in his favor, and whose old, recycled talking points have been disproven over and over again, right? And you're the one who always complains that we are citing "biased" or "left-wing" sources.

Anthony Watts | DeSmogBlog (http://www.desmogblog.com/anthony-watts)

[Funkthulhu]

Did you know that you are allowed to change your mind?

Scientists do it all the time. They look at the evidence and if it doesn't jive with what they think they already know they will reassess their knowledge. After a cursory round of mental conflict resolution they will either accept the new data and make whatever changes to their world view as necessary, Or they will continue to do research and experiments to determine if there is anything to the new data that needs exploring.

This is what it means to be a skeptic. Being a skeptic is NOT automatically naysaying anything that doesn't agree with your opinion. That is being closed-minded (though, ironically, the ones who are will usually be the first to cry that their debate opponent is the one who is closed-minded).

Furthermore, the scientific community has already moved on past "is global warming a thing that is happening" (it is) and gone right past it to "Is the phenomenon of global warming anthropogenic" (it is) and even further to "how do we curtail human activities that are causing global warming?". Nobody arguing here against anthropogenic global warming (and local climate change) is going to shift that paradigm in any way. The naysayers are useful, as science does not stay strong without opposition and the retesting of ideas. But, again, nobody on this or any other non-scientific forum on the internet is going to accomplish anything in that regard.

Which brings the bigger question. In the shadow of such overwhelming evidence that Anthropogenic Global Warming is a real, active phenomenon, why do so many continue to throw so much easily deflected fodder at the concept and refuse to accept? Why, to simplify, can't some people change their minds?

Is it Political? Do your preferred talking heads tell you that understanding global warming somehow undermines your moral or ethics? How you vote? How big a paycheck Exxon will give out as Christmas bonus this year?

Is it personal? Do you refuse to change your mind because that would show you are fallible and not a god unto yourself?

Is it in defense of your species? Do you have some responsibility or empathic response to accepting that your small taxonomical group is destroying its own environment?

I am really curious. . . do you actually think this is some sort of conspiracy? That the whole of the scientific community is somehow trying to pull the wool over your eyes? And to what ends would that lead? How would duping the public on something like this benefit science or the world at all?

The scientific community has already accepted anthropogenic global warming as FACT.

What non-scientific "thing" is keeping you from doing the same?

[Nicolas Naranja]

First, I will agree that the globe as a whole is warming, and that humans are responsible for some of it. However, I don't think that there is really much we can do about global except quit having children. We can address certain parts of the problem, but it seems that the real issue is that there are billions of people on the planet that need to be fed, transported, and energized. Here is an interesting thought. About 1.7 billion tons of sugar from sugarcane is produced each year. There are about 6 CO2 per sugar molecule. We release 9 billion tons of CO2 per year from burning fossil fuels. For a mere $1,246.00 from each and every American we can totally offset the World's fossil fuel emissions buy buying sugar and burying it in a deep hole. By including Europe, we could bring the cost down.




Is it Political? Do your preferred talking heads tell you that understanding global warming somehow undermines your moral or ethics? How you vote? How big a paycheck Exxon will give out as Christmas bonus this year?

Is it personal? Do you refuse to change your mind because that would show you are fallible and not a god unto yourself?

Is it in defense of your species? Do you have some responsibility or empathic response to accepting that your small taxonomical group is destroying its own environment?

I am really curious. . . do you actually think this is some sort of conspiracy? That the whole of the scientific community is somehow trying to pull the wool over your eyes? And to what ends would that lead? How would duping the public on something like this benefit science or the world at all?

The scientific community has already accepted anthropogenic global warming as FACT.

What non-scientific "thing" is keeping you from doing the same?

[CountryBoy1981]

Whether you believe in global warming or not, you will not make the planet a cleaner/healthier place by destroying industry and technology advancements due to regulations. Water, air and everything else is cleaner in the first world countries than it was about 100 years ago. The only thing you will accomplish by forcing green technology before its ready (such as solar panels) and regulations is create a less healthy environment. I think there would be a lot of Americans who would go back to burning wood to heat their homes if heating costs were to rise significantly due to regulations/carbon credits. The global warming sheep are cutting off their nose to spite their face with their solutions.

[Funkthulhu]

Whether you believe in global warming or not, you will not make the planet a cleaner/healthier place by destroying industry and technology advancements due to regulations. Water, air and everything else is cleaner in the first world countries than it was about 100 years ago. The only thing you will accomplish by forcing green technology before its ready (such as solar panels) and regulations is create a less healthy environment. I think there would be a lot of Americans who would go back to burning wood to heat their homes if heating costs were to rise significantly due to regulations/carbon credits. The global warming sheep are cutting off their nose to spite their face with their solutions.

Again, you obviously don't understand how environmental regulations work. You just said that our water and air is cleaner than it was 100 year ago (even 20 years ago!) So obviously, our regulations are working. Most of the people who call me or my agency are looking for answers about how they can be more green because they want to be. Even the most obstinate of business owners will whistle a different tune when we show them how adhering to the regulations will actually save them money. Nobody has ever made progress by destroying industry. But by passing regulations to make those industries more efficient they not only produce less carbon, but also produce more product for the same amount of raw materials. Furthermore, if there are no targets on the amount of pollution or the efficiency of production there will be no capitalistic endeavor to ever produce a more economic solar panel or a more efficient wind turbine. If anything it is the Global Warming deniers who willing spite their own faces just to say "See, it isn't working!"

[CountryBoy1981]

Again, you obviously don't understand how environmental regulations work. You just said that our water and air is cleaner than it was 100 year ago (even 20 years ago!) So obviously, our regulations are working. Most of the people who call me or my agency are looking for answers about how they can be more green because they want to be. Even the most obstinate of business owners will whistle a different tune when we show them how adhering to the regulations will actually save them money. Nobody has ever made progress by destroying industry. But by passing regulations to make those industries more efficient they not only produce less carbon, but also produce more product for the same amount of raw materials. Furthermore, if there are no targets on the amount of pollution or the efficiency of production there will be no capitalistic endeavor to ever produce a more economic solar panel or a more efficient wind turbine. If anything it is the Global Warming deniers who willing spite their own faces just to say "See, it isn't working!"

You seem to not understand how capitalism works. What regulations produced Microsoft, the NFL, Amazon.com and countless other businesses? Adhering to regulations will save you money only as much as shooting yourself in the foot saves your life (instead of shooting yourself in the head).

[caliboy1994]

You seem to not understand how capitalism works. What regulations produced Microsoft, the NFL, Amazon.com and countless other businesses? Adhering to regulations will save you money only as much as shooting yourself in the foot saves your life (instead of shooting yourself in the head).

I'd like to reiterate on Funkthulhu's statement. You are missing the point of environmental regulations. And you seem to have an aversion to regulation in general. You do realize that without environmental regulations, the water you're drinking would poison you, the air you breathe would suffocate you, and the chemicals in your food would give you cancer? Do you want to see lack of environmental regulations looks like? Look no further than China.

http://media.salon.com/2013/12/china-shanghai-pollution.jpeg2-1280x960.jpg

Yes, that is a city you are looking at. But you can't see many of the buildings because of dense industrial smog. Maybe if China had passed something akin to the Clean Air Act things would be better, hm? I don't know about you, but I'd rather have a slightly smaller economy with some regulations than have my children turned autistic by lead and mercury in the air. Or have myself die of lung cancer at age 50 because of air pollution. I'd also not like to have industrial pollutants in my drinking water, thank you very much. Did you hear about what is happening in Russia at the Sochi Olympics right now? The water in the hotels looks like apple juice because it is contaminated. This, my friend, is what lack of proper regulation looks like:

http://blog.sfgate.com/travel/wp-content/blogs.dir/2230/files/2014/02/SPORTS_OLY-WATER_TB-300x300.jpg

And then there are plenty of examples of improper regulation in the United States. Like the lack of regulation of endocrine disrupting compounds, which are turning our male children effeminate and causing premature puberty in girls. Or the inadequate oversight of our good friends over at Freedom Industries, the party responsible for the chemical spill in West Virginia. And of course, the whole point of climate regulations is to try and mitigate things like the polar vortex, which is also responsible for my state's ongoing record-breaking drought. Not to mention the long-term effects we will see from anthropogenic climate change, and that we are already beginning to see. No, I think it's people like you who call for less regulations that are shooting themselves in the foot. Or even, dare I say it, shooting themselves in the head.

[caliboy1994]

When I put the data in a linear model, my r-squared is tiny and my p-value is insignificant. While there is a positive trend over the period, it seems to be dwarfed by the overall natural variation. None of the journals I publish in would let me publish about something with a r-square of 0.01 and a p-value of 0.2.

You bothered to plot all of that data and find a best-fitting line and calculate an r squared value? Wow, I did not expect that. :ha: By the way, that chart is of the PDO index, not of temperatures. It's a measurement of a long-term climate cycle, which is similar in a way to El Nino/La Nina but over a longer time span (i.e. decades). It's a cycle that affects global climate, and its effects can be seen in overall global average temperatures. I don't think doing all of that work would get you anywhere, it's more of a variable that affects natural variations in the overall warming trend.

[PR-Giants]

US oil glut - NYTimes - Feb 12, 2014 (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/13/business/energy-environment/an-oil-industry-awash-in-crude-argues-over-exporting.html?_r=0)

"Michael C. Jennings, chief executive of the HollyFrontier Corporation, said in an interview that he could support ending the oil export ban as long as other regulations that he said penalize the refiners, including federal mandates for the refining of expensive biofuels, were also reformed."

With U.S. Awash in Oil, Nat'l Interest Argument for Keystone Weakens | InsideClimate News - May 21, 2013 (http://insideclimatenews.org/news/20130521/us-awash-oil-natl-interest-argument-keystone-weakens?page=show)

http://i979.photobucket.com/albums/ae272/keithpr1/global-warming-proof_zpsac03627c.jpg (http://s979.photobucket.com/user/keithpr1/media/global-warming-proof_zpsac03627c.jpg.html)

[CountryBoy1981]

I'd like to reiterate on Funkthulhu's statement. You are missing the point of environmental regulations. And you seem to have an aversion to regulation in general. You do realize that without environmental regulations, the water you're drinking would poison you, the air you breathe would suffocate you, and the chemicals in your food would give you cancer? Do you want to see lack of environmental regulations looks like? Look no further than China.

http://media.salon.com/2013/12/china-shanghai-pollution.jpeg2-1280x960.jpg

Yes, that is a city you are looking at. But you can't see many of the buildings because of dense industrial smog. Maybe if China had passed something akin to the Clean Air Act things would be better, hm? I don't know about you, but I'd rather have a slightly smaller economy with some regulations than have my children turned autistic by lead and mercury in the air. Or have myself die of lung cancer at age 50 because of air pollution. I'd also not like to have industrial pollutants in my drinking water, thank you very much. Did you hear about what is happening in Russia at the Sochi Olympics right now? The water in the hotels looks like apple juice because it is contaminated. This, my friend, is what lack of proper regulation looks like:

http://blog.sfgate.com/travel/wp-content/blogs.dir/2230/files/2014/02/SPORTS_OLY-WATER_TB-300x300.jpg

And then there are plenty of examples of improper regulation in the United States. Like the lack of regulation of endocrine disrupting compounds, which are turning our male children effeminate and causing premature puberty in girls. Or the inadequate oversight of our good friends over at Freedom Industries, the party responsible for the chemical spill in West Virginia. And of course, the whole point of climate regulations is to try and mitigate things like the polar vortex, which is also responsible for my state's ongoing record-breaking drought. Not to mention the long-term effects we will see from anthropogenic climate change, and that we are already beginning to see. No, I think it's people like you who call for less regulations that are shooting themselves in the foot. Or even, dare I say it, shooting themselves in the head.

You have too much faith/love for the government. How do you ever make it out of your front door without asking the government's permission?

[sunfish]

The World's Largest Solar Plant Started Creating Electricity Today (http://gizmodo.com/the-worlds-largest-solar-plant-started-creating-electr-1521998493)

[caliboy1994]

You have too much faith/love for the government. How do you ever make it out of your front door without asking the government's permission?

No, I realize that environmental regulations are necessary. I don't understand why you feel the need to make a straw man argument and characterize everyone who realizes that as "government lovers." Besides, who else is going to protect us from these sorts of things? The industry? No, polluting is cheaper for them than making sure everything is clean. So if there are no regulations, they WILL pollute. This is exactly what is happening in countries like China, Mexico, and Indonesia right now. What do these countries all have in common? A lack of proper regulation, of course. Regulation is here to protect us, and I don't think you get that.

You seem to think that the free market is the solution to everything. Yes, the free market is a very efficient system (and probably the best we have right now), but it has really deep flaws of it. The problem of externalities such as pollution is probably one of those biggest problems. An externality is a good or bad (usually bad) side effect that arises from market transactions (i.e. a chemical plant that dumps their waste into a river may pollute the drinking water of a town downstream). And regulations are here to deal with that. The [relatively] clean and healthy environment of the United States that we all take for granted was brought to you by environmental regulations. I'm not sure why it's so difficult for you to wrap your head around that.

[Funkthulhu]

You have too much faith/love for the government. How do you ever make it out of your front door without asking the government's permission?

Huzzah, baseless insults! It means you have no argument left, you've lost. Thanks for playing. . .

[caliboy1994]

Huzzah, baseless insults! It means you have no argument left, you've lost. Thanks for playing. . .

inb4 we get called socialists, communists, or Marxists. :08:

[CountryBoy1981]

Huzzah, baseless insults! It means you have no argument left, you've lost. Thanks for playing. . .

Wait a couple years when you feel duped.

[CountryBoy1981]

inb4 we get called socialists, communists, or Marxists. :08:

I hope y'all aren't taking offense to any of this; I am only intending to have a civil debate, not name calling.

[caliboy1994]

I hope y'all aren't taking offense to any of this; I am only intending to have a civil debate, not name calling.

No offense taken. And we'll see who will feel duped in a few years. :lurk:

[Funkthulhu]

Well, that's that then. . .

Uh. . .

How 'bout them Olympics?

[caliboy1994]

Well, that's that then. . .

Uh. . .

How 'bout them Olympics?

In my closet-sized room, I don't have access to a TV so I haven't been up to date. :ha:

[Richard]

In the tropics, the winter temps have been way above normal pushing winter north and causing lots of calamity in northern latitudes. Consider that in February the midnight temperatures in the tropics have been in the high 80's. Let's hope the predicted summer temperatures of 110-120F in the tropics are not a reality. In that case the crops will rot and SE Asia will starve.

[caliboy1994]

In the tropics, the winter temps have been way above normal pushing winter north and causing lots of calamity in northern latitudes. Consider that in February the midnight temperatures in the tropics have been in the high 80's. Let's hope the predicted summer temperatures of 110-120F in the tropics are not a reality. In that case the crops will rot and SE Asia will starve.

Here's a useful metric, something climate scientists call "climate departure." It's the estimated year at which the lowest temperatures are greater than what the highest temperatures were previously. Some of these predicted departure years, especially for the tropics, are really scary.

Interactive Map Shows When Your Community Could Reach ‘Climate Departure’ | EcoWatch (http://ecowatch.com/2013/10/18/interactive-map-shows-when-your-community-could-reach-climate-departure/)

On the flip side, climate and geological records from the deep past suggest that during the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum (as well as a few other events), a prolonged period of intense global warming tens of millions of years ago that led to an extinction event, tropical rainforests actually proliferated and expanded (http://newsdesk.si.edu/releases/smithsonian-scientists-find-rainforests-can-take-heat). But that's not to say the same will happen today. The PETM was most likely caused by a period of intense volcanic activity, and CO2 levels took tens of thousands of years to build up in the atmosphere as opposed to tens. So back then, the rainforests had ample time to evolve and adapt. This is not the case today, unfortunately. Either way, I wouldn't want to risk it. We need to start taking bold action, despite my potentially vain attempts to remain optimistic.

[Richard]

Here's a useful metric, something climate scientists call "climate departure." It's the estimated year at which the lowest temperatures are greater than what the highest temperatures were previously...

Nice reference map, thanks. As an "old-Admiral (http://alstewart.com/publicfiles/LYRICS_oldadmirals.htm)", I find this stuff really scary.

"The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it."
~ Neil deGrasse Tyson


Although Tyson's quote should be tempered with science's view of "the ultraviolet catastrophe" prior to Plank's development of quantum theory, and theories about the propagation of light (not withstanding ancient Greek theory) prior to the Michelson–Morley experiment.

[caliboy1994]

Although Tyson's quote should be tempered with science's view of "the ultraviolet catastrophe" prior to Plank's development of quantum theory, and theories about the propagation of light (not withstanding ancient Greek theory) prior to the Michelson–Morley experiment.

Very true, very true (I do know a thing or two about quantum physics, but clearly you know a lot more about it than me, I get your point :ha:). But I think the quote was more directed at people who say that the Earth is 6,000 years old and that last night's snowstorm proved that global warming isn't real. :waving:

[Yug]

Niagra Falls Freezes over Again! (Dang, that global warming stuff!!)

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2014/03/04/article-0-1C05881400000578-796_964x601.jpg

Niagara-Falls-comes-to-frozen-halt-AGAIN-subfreezing-temperatures-freeze-millions-gallons-water-normally-flow-over-Falls (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2572681/Niagara-Falls-comes-frozen-halt-AGAIN-subfreezing-temperatures-freeze-millions-gallons-water-normally-flow-Falls.html)

[CountryBoy1981]

Niagra Falls Freezes over Again! (Dang, that global warming stuff!!)

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2014/03/04/article-0-1C05881400000578-796_964x601.jpg

Niagara-Falls-comes-to-frozen-halt-AGAIN-subfreezing-temperatures-freeze-millions-gallons-water-normally-flow-over-Falls (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2572681/Niagara-Falls-comes-frozen-halt-AGAIN-subfreezing-temperatures-freeze-millions-gallons-water-normally-flow-Falls.html)

It has to be a fake picture and it is warmer than normal because of global warming because we are told so by scientists.

[harveyc]

The World's Largest Solar Plant Started Creating Electricity Today (http://gizmodo.com/the-worlds-largest-solar-plant-started-creating-electr-1521998493)

Looks very expensive! See this table?

The World's Largest Solar Plant Started Creating Electricity Today (http://gizmodo.com/http-img-gawkerassets-com-img-19fkeawf225b6jpg-origin-1522054698)

[CountryBoy1981]

Looks very expensive! See this table?

The World's Largest Solar Plant Started Creating Electricity Today (http://gizmodo.com/http-img-gawkerassets-com-img-19fkeawf225b6jpg-origin-1522054698)

The question I have is if people don't care about the higher cists associated with it, then why isn't all of California getting its water from desalinization plants. There is no excuse for running out of water when there is a huge ocean next to you.

[Funkthulhu]

It has to be a fake picture and it is warmer than normal because of global warming because we are told so by scientists.

Y'know, if I keep saying the following over and over enough times, maybe it will sink in. . .

Global Warming = increased AVERAGE temperature of the ENTIRE planet

Higher Average Temp = More Energy in the Atmosphere and Ocean

More Energy = Increased strength and variability of LOCAL weather events

Therefore Global Warming = Local Climate Change (Up or Down, often both in the same year)

I could go into the recent fluctuations in the Jetstream, the disturbance of the normal Polar Vortex or any number of other system changes, but I want to keep this simple.

"Global Warming is false because it is Cold Where I Live (or over there) Right Now" is a completely stupid and uneducated argument with no logical stability or scientific defensibility.

[CountryBoy1981]

Y'know, if I keep saying the following over and over enough times, maybe it will sink in. . .

Global Warming = increased AVERAGE temperature of the ENTIRE planet

Higher Average Temp = More Energy in the Atmosphere and Ocean

More Energy = Increased strength and variability of LOCAL weather events

Therefore Global Warming = Local Climate Change (Up or Down, often both in the same year)

I could go into the recent fluctuations in the Jetstream, the disturbance of the normal Polar Vortex or any number of other system changes, but I want to keep this simple.

"Global Warming is false because it is Cold Where I Live (or over there) Right Now" is a completely stupid and uneducated argument with no logical stability or scientific defensibility.

Then please explain to me why localized events are used by the warmists as evidence that global warming is occurring? The climate scientists use it all the time even though the overall global temperature has not increased since the 1990s.

[Funkthulhu]

Then please explain to me why localized events are used by the warmists as evidence that global warming is occurring? The climate scientists use it all the time even though the overall global temperature has not increased since the 1990s.

They aren't (by scientists at least) and it has (go look at how many of the top 10 hottest years have been since 2000). . .

Let's get meta for a moment.

What is it about global warming/climate change deniers that prevents them from accepting the concept as fact? While the phenomenon has been dragged kicking and screaming into the political arena by both Left and Right, the concept itself is scientific and apolitical. Furthermore, it is not in any way religious and does not negate or disprove the existence of anybody's flavor of invisible sky-bully.

Why do deniers hang on to every miniscule thread of evidence (often woe-fully outdated and completely disproven) that supports their opinion when there is such an insurmountable edifice of evidence showing it to be a real, true, and factual phenomenon? And why will they so arrogantly dismiss any of that insurmountable evidence out of hand as not being significant?

Don't reply with more woo-woo about this graph, that paper, or the nutter spewing who-knows-what on Faux-News. Furthermore, don't bring in your politics, belief system, or your economics. Address the question at hand. What is it that makes this concept so difficult to wrap your head around when there are so many other science facts you just take for granted or at face value?

Why, in short, must you continue to deny long established fact? What does it gain you? And what are you so terrified of if you were to accept what has already been proven?

[Yug]

Then please explain to me why localized events are used by the warmists as evidence that global warming is occurring? The climate scientists use it all the time even though the overall global temperature has not increased since the 1990s.

(psst because it's OK when they do it)

By the way, here is an article on a pretty large local 'region'
http://www.gannett-cdn.com/-mm-/d44e830666e6443d7e276da24caef7d81629add5/c=8-6-509-384&r=x404&c=534x401/local/-/media/USATODAY/USATODAY/2014/03/05//1394055840000-cursnow-usa.gif
North American snow cover at 3rd-highest level on record :coldbanana:

north-america-snow-cover (http://www.usatoday.com/story/weather/2014/03/05/north-america-snow-cover/6089667/)

[Lucasme]

:ha::ha::ha::ha:http://www.picamatic.com/show/2010/04/16/08/01/10194672_645x498.jpg:ha::ha::ha::ha:

[harveyc]

Funk, I'm not going to answer your supposed questions that you've qualified with many restrictions and assumptions.

Additionally, I'm maybe what I'd say is a GCC agnostic. There is too much poor quality information on both sides of the argument.

Many scientists seem to be of the view that they are all-knowing and that their knowledge is somehow perfected. Forty years ago there were predictions we were going to freeze. We're much smarter now, apparently. Will we be much smarter yet in another 40 years and have different theories on what is happening.

When was the fist time that the global warming alarmists first predicted that our climate would be more erratic and include colder winters? I believe the scientific community first referred to this climate concern as "global warming", then changed to "global climate change" and then, it seems (to me, from memory) that after we had many hurricanes one summer there was reference to all of this increased energy due to climate warming. From an objective back-seat view, this seems to be changing predictions to fit the actual experiences.

Additionally, it seems you want others to change their behavior to prevent GCC but have not indicated what you are doing.

Further, most people with a religious faith don't believe in a "sky bully". That is a very ignorant and rude comment.

Lucas, I won't go to the trouble of digging up a photo, but you can play sheep all you want.

[Yug]

...
When was the fist time that the global warming alarmists first predicted that our climate would be more erratic and include colder winters? I believe the scientific community first referred to this climate concern as "global warming", then changed to "global climate change" and then, it seems (to me, from memory) that after we had many hurricanes one summer there was reference to all of this increased energy due to climate warming. From an objective back-seat view, this seems to be changing predictions to fit the actual experiences.
...
Lucas, I won't go to the trouble of digging up a photo, but you can play sheep all you want.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Y2TsDkCRWhk/UPTX-37-42I/AAAAAAAAAx4/Zz5TMLB9NJI/s1600/TV-Sheep-Brainwashing.jpg
:coldbanana: Believe in global-warming climate change. Believe in climate change. Believe in climate change. Believe in climate change. Believe in climate change. Believe in climate change. Believe in climate change. Believe in climate change. Believe in climate change. Believe in climate change. Believe in climate change. Believe in climate change. Believe in climate change. Believe in climate change. Believe in climate change. Believe in climate change. Believe in climate change. Believe in climate change. Believe in climate change. Believe in climate change. Believe in climate change. Believe in climate change. Believe in climate change. Believe in climate change. Believe in climate change. Believe in climate change. Believe in climate change. Believe in climate change. Believe in climate change. Believe in climate change. Believe in climate change. Believe in climate change. Believe in climate change. Believe in climate change. Believe in climate change. Believe in climate change. Believe in climate change. :coldbanana:

[CountryBoy1981]

http://www.politifake.org/image/political/0912/not-only-a-member-al-gore-and-the-church-of-climatology-political-poster-1261583223.jpg

[CountryBoy1981]

My copy of the leaked final draft of the world’s most influential global warming report, despite authors of the highest reputation, reads like something from a mental hospital with no doctors or nurses.

The 31-page “Summary for Policymakers” of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change announced the authors' stunning concession that computer-modeled forecasts of imminent planetary catastrophe were catastrophically wrong – global surface temperatures haven’t risen significantly in the last 15 years – but, even with many other doubts, also insisted that the IPCC is more confident than ever that global warming is mainly humans’ fault.

Then European Union Climate Change Commissioner Connie Hedegaard told the London Telegraph that EU policy on global warming is right even if the science is wrong. That’s nuts, but that’s Big Green: Facts don’t matter.

IPCC authors confident their global warming predictions were wrong | WashingtonExaminer.com (http://washingtonexaminer.com/ipcc-authors-confident-their-global-warming-predictions-were-wrong/article/2536082)

Our predictions are wrong, but its a scientific fact!

[starling]

Only the scientifically illiterate or slanted creationist right-wing neo-Calvinists contest whether anthropogenic particulate emissions equate to warming. There is in fact no debate in climatology as to whether this is 'true' or not. How particles trap photons within the atmosphere has been understood to science the romantic period. I could prove this to the deniers on this site, if only they were able to read mathematical language, but alas I heavily suspect this is far beyond their powers of intellect.

[Yug]

Only the scientifically illiterate or slanted creationist right-wing neo-Calvinists contest whether anthropogenic particulate emissions equate to warming. There is in fact no debate in climatology as to whether this is 'true' or not. How particles trap photons within the atmosphere has been understood to science the romantic period. I could prove this to the deniers on this site, if only they were able to read mathematical language, but alas I heavily suspect this is far beyond their powers of intellect.

Perhaps by couching it in mathematical greek the intent is to make it non-understandable so you have to just 'trust' them that it is correct (better than having something understandable that they themselves could clearly see is totally bogus)

(and you are showing yourself to be an arrogant 'twit' re math language - you know nothing of the schooling or intellectual abilities of those on this site. Only an arrogant ass would assume that his position is that of the intellectuals, and anyone else that believes differently is ignorant :waving: just who the hell do you think you are?!? )

[starling]

Perhaps by couching it in mathematical greek the intent is to make it non-understandable so you have to just 'trust' them that it is correct (better than having something understandable that they themselves could clearly see is totally bogus)

(and you are showing yourself to be an arrogant 'twit' re math language - you know nothing of the schooling or intellectual abilities of those on this site. Only an arrogant ass would assume that his position is that of the intellectuals, and anyone else that believes differently is ignorant :waving: just who the hell do you think you are?!? )

How can I put this is a way you'll understand.....

'we' have tried making the science intelligible to 'you' (the right-wing proletariat). You have chosen to reject these commonsense explanations on ideological grounds, not scientific grounds. And Yes; I do consider you ignorant, because you cannot interpret the mathematical language which describes the hard science that is anthropogenic climate change. Therefore, your opinion is automatically invalidated on the subject, because it is unqualified. If you can explain to me, please, how being totally bereft of any technical knowledge or understanding about the mechanics of a specific scientific process qualifies your opinion on said process, I'd like to hear that argument.

I have a degree in science (not climatology) and currently major in methodology/statistics. I will never respond to anything you post under any circumstances ever again. Please reserve your opinions and critiques to the culinary aspects of different varieties of bananas. I'm sure you're killer at that.

toodles.
s

[scottu]

How can I put this is a way you'll understand.....you can't, cause it's stupid!

[CountryBoy1981]

When I put the data in a linear model, my r-squared is tiny and my p-value is insignificant. While there is a positive trend over the period, it seems to be dwarfed by the overall natural variation. None of the journals I publish in would let me publish about something with a r-square of 0.01 and a p-value of 0.2.

Looks cyclical to me.

[Richard]

Looks cyclical to me.

Yes, linear modeling hardly seems appropriate. On the otherhand, in college math departments we usually make a steep learning curve for non-linear statistics: typically a course in differential stochastic equations is a prerequisite -- a junior level course.

[Funkthulhu]

So, basically, the answer to my question is:

"This cherry-picked data is bad, so all science everywhere forever is bad."
"I can't answer with all your restrictions because that would cut to the heart of the matter and that would not only scare me but also negate my opinion."
also, "here's some pictures I think is funny"

Glad we cleared that up

[harveyc]

So, basically, the answer to my question is:

"This cherry-picked data is bad, so all science everywhere forever is bad."
"I can't answer with all your restrictions because that would cut to the heart of the matter and that would not only scare me but also negate my opinion."
also, "here's some pictures I think is funny"

Glad we cleared that up

Your analysis is deeply flawed.

You are not as smart as you believe you are.

Grow up.

[Funkthulhu]

Sorry, when all the evidence supports my position I get cocky.

You have my apologies for this breech of professionalism.

[caliboy1994]

So far all of the denialist arguments on here are either cherry picked, recycled and disproven talking points, or just outright lies. I'd like to see you deniers prove using FACTS that the post-Industrial Era warming trend doesn't exist, and that CO2 levels are virtually the same as they were 250 years ago. Then we'll talk.

[Yug]

Good video here - definitely worth watching
Arrogant/ignorant Liberal Regressive Explains Global Warming (http://www.theminorityreportblog.com/2014/04/07/video-liberal-progressive-explains-global-warming-and-what-to-do-about-it/)
Video: Liberal Progressive Explains Global Warming and What to Do About It


How can I put this is a way you'll understand.....
...
If you can explain to me, please, how being totally bereft of
...
I will never respond to anything you post under any circumstances ever again.
...


:woohoonaner: OK, SHYTEHEAD... go away and STFU! :waving: I'll enjoy the silence from your sinkhole. :0517: (and again, you have NO idea what I or anyone else here have by way of education you arrogant arse, yet you assume I am "totally bereft of any technical knowledge or understanding...") (and when I point out your overtly arrogant elitist position, you become even more arrogant and elitist - your way or the highway - and you still aren't even curious about my credentials?!? I see you quite clearly - anyone that agrees with you is somehow more intelligent than anyone that disagrees with you. What 'chutzpah'! :ha: )

I had to add this for the perpetually arrogant/ignorant...

My mathematics credentials alone are:
linear algebra
abstract algebra - tested out early
trignometry
probability
statistics
complex variables
discrete math
calculus I
calculus II
calculus III
differential equations
modeling and simulation
(and this is just from one degree, I have others)

So don't go on wasting words about how I'm too ignorant to understand the math or science behind the argument - the math is massaged/altered, and the 'science' is highly suspect in its integrity, and you already admitted you have no climatology degree yet you babble and blather on, and pontifiate from your self-assumed soapbox high atop mount Olympus deigning to attempt to 'instruct' us lowly knuckle-dragging troglodytes so far far below your (self) esteemed 'personage'. You are lifted up in your own pride and arrogance; nothing more.

[Funkthulhu]

Good video here - definitely worth watching
Arrogant/ignorant Liberal Regressive Explains Global Warming (http://www.theminorityreportblog.com/2014/04/07/video-liberal-progressive-explains-global-warming-and-what-to-do-about-it/)
Video: Liberal Progressive Explains Global Warming and What to Do About It




:woohoonaner: OK, SHYTEHEAD... go away and STFU! :waving: I'll enjoy the silence from your sinkhole. :0517: (and again, you have NO idea what I or anyone else here have by way of education you arrogant arse, yet you assume I am "totally bereft of any technical knowledge or understanding...") (and when I point out your overtly arrogant elitist position, you become even more arrogant and elitist - your way or the highway - and you still aren't even curious about my credentials?!? I see you quite clearly - anyone that agrees with you is somehow more intelligent than anyone that disagrees with you. What 'chutzpah'! :ha: )

I had to add this for the perpetually arrogant/ignorant...

My mathematics credentials alone are:
linear algebra
abstract algebra - tested out early
trignometry
probability
statistics
complex variables
discrete math
calculus I
calculus II
calculus III
differential equations
modeling and simulation
(and this is just from one degree, I have others)

So don't go on wasting words about how I'm too ignorant to understand the math or science behind the argument - the math is massaged/altered, and the 'science' is highly suspect in its integrity, and you already admitted you have no climatology degree yet you babble and blather on, and pontifiate from your self-assumed soapbox high atop mount Olympus deigning to attempt to 'instruct' us lowly knuckle-dragging troglodytes so far far below your (self) esteemed 'personage'. You are lifted up in your own pride and arrogance; nothing more.

Okay, we've established that you're educated, but you're still not acknowledging the science or the math. With that much experience in math one would think that you could just burn through all the data and see that the only massaging (or outright fabrication) of data is coming from the denier side of the argument.

Also, I went to your website to watch your video. Even though it is a right-wing nut-job blog covered from head to toe in "BUY GUNS!" and "*BLEEP* OBAMA" 'Murica! ads, I watched it anyway. It is the most simplistic dismissive denyist video I've seen for some time. It tries to be funny, but really just underlines all the ways that the Denier argument has no leg to stand on and must resort casting the opposition is a bad light and committing every logical fallacy of argument it can without actually disproving the position or providing any facts of its own. At the same time it forwards libertarian thinking and isolationism as a good thing and ties those political ideals to the denier position.

So, yeah. . . maybe you should go to your own sinkhole for a while and think about the facts and what you've done.

The uneducated and ignorant can be taught and lifted up.
Those with education and intelligence who choose to be willfully ignorant of stuff they can understand, but refuse to because they don't like it. . . that's just a slap in the face of humanity and sets us all back a few paces.

[starling]

lol ok Yug. Are you Batman too?

What peculiar aspect of climate science relating to global warming is it that you take issue with? I'm asking you about the theory and the Data here.

[sunfish]

Like the other reviews suggested I added extra Italian seasoning, and instead of just a small tomato, I used a can of Italian style :goteam:

[Yug]

Okay, we've established that you're educated, but you're still not acknowledging the science or the math. With that much experience in math one would think that you could just burn through all the data and see that the only massaging (or outright fabrication) of data is coming from the denier side of the argument....
Well, this is total BS. When you are so intentionally ignoring very incriminating E-mails from the U of East Anglia that were discussing altering the data to 'prove' and support their agenda, it is no wonder that no evidence what-so-ever would ever be accepted by you or by anyone else that is so close-minded.

For anyone with a more balanced view: (and more info to be dutifully ignored by the rest...)
Suppression of Alternate Data (http://www.thegwpf.org/scientists-in-cover-up-of-damaging-climate-view/)

This information was suppressed, not because it was incorrect, but because it "was harmful to the cause". I thought that science was the examination of facts in pursuit of truth, but apparently it has morphed into a 'cause' now, and anything that does not bring about furtherance of their 'cause' must be automatically discounted with no regard as to whether it may be true. (kinda sounds like some here...)

the-bullying-of-bengtsson-and-the-coming-climate-disruption-hypocalypse (http://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/05/the-bullying-of-bengtsson-and-the-coming-climate-disruption-hypocalypse/)

(love the term "hypocalypse" :ha: )

(snippet)

Lennart Bengtsson being bullied by colleagues is only the latest example of bad behavior by climate scientists who have made a deal with the devil. They have exchanged their scientific souls for research grants, prestige, and easy access to scientific journals to publish their papers.
...
As I have always said, if you fund scientists to find evidence of something, they will be happy to find it for you. For over 20 years we have been funding them to find evidence of the human influence on climate. And they dutifully found it everywhere, hiding under every rock, glacier, ocean, and in every cloud, hurricane, tornado, raindrop, and snowflake.

So, just tell scientists 20% of their funds will be targeted for studying natural sources of climate change. They will find those, too.

(end snippet)


Now, see how this grabs you...
where-did-97-percent-global-warming-consensus-figure-come-from? (http://dailycaller.com/2014/05/16/where-did-97-percent-global-warming-consensus-figure-come-from/)

(snippet from article)

"A paper by five leading climatologists published in the journal Science and Education last year found that Cook’s study misrepresented the views of most consensus scientists."

The definition Cook used to get his consensus was weak, the climatologists said. Only 41 out of the 11,944 published climate studies examined by Cook explicitly stated that mankind caused most of the warming since 1950 — meaning the actual consensus is 0.3 percent.

“It is astonishing that any journal could have published a paper claiming a 97% climate consensus when on the authors’ own analysis the true consensus was well below 1%,”

(end snippet)

Pretty obvious now why the report by the 5 CLIMATOLOGISTS (capitalized in case someone says they are not climate scientists) was suppressed.

Now comes the character assassination of the authors, the discounting of the publishing sources, the claims of flawed data or flawed methodology yada yada yada...

[barnetmill]

The latest article to come to my attention:

Parts of West Antarctic ice sheet starting to collapse, scientists find

Sea levels could eventually rise as much as 3 metres,

Read more: Parts of West Antarctic ice sheet starting to collapse, scientists find (http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Parts+West+Antarctic+sheet+starting+collapse+scientists+find/9830861/story.html)

I believe the above prediction was for by the end of the century.

There is no question that there has been a gradual warming in some far southern and northern areas. This has happened before and will go the other way again with time. The problem was when Former VP Al Gores tried to turn it into a political tool when he sought the presidency. This was all of course after he invented the internet. The climate is changing which is always true. What was wrong were the exaggerations and fabrication of "information" by the pro-global warming group. I think things will hold together for at least the next 30 years by which time I will be gone. I would be cautious about buying water front property that is real low.

[Funkthulhu]

Yug,

If you're going to link to a bunch of articles in your argument, you had best make sure that you pick websites/publications that are not so completely skewed toward denierism that we could take anything they print seriously.

The argument for or against the existence of Global Warming/Climate Change is over. You are debating against the existence of a fact at this point. You can't even really argue against the warming being anthropogenic either, as that is generally accepted across the board. Your articles are bunk, they are not peer-reviewed, it is all politically motivated propaganda to maintain the status-quo for those who make money off burning fossil fuels. What's sad is that they've got you so bamboozled that you'll go toe-to-toe with complete strangers in their defense and they didn't even have to pay you to do it.

You are the man who bursts into a bakery, gets up in the baker's face and says, "I don't believe yeast exists!" and then expects everybody to take your opinion as equal importance as reality.

Give it up, you're not actually doing any good for anybody, including yourself.

[Yug]

Yug,

If you're going to link to a bunch of articles in your argument, you had best make sure that you pick websites/publications that are not so completely skewed toward denierism that we could take anything they print seriously.So when denier-ism = sanity, you choose differently? Not surprised.

The argument for or against the existence of Global Warming/Climate Change is over.
Get that from your buddy algore? You remember him, eh? He's one of the guys that is getting rich off all this stuff - but you don't see him as an opportunist, you ignore all his mountains of cash, and further ignore all the carbon emissions put out by his flying around the globe to present this fraud, and ignore his humongus electric power usage at his huge house (funded by the rubes that buy into this, unpaid rubes, mind you) Nope, none of that matters, you see him as a prophet (more like profit...) and savior. It's all the OTHER guys that are doing this for $$$, not rich ole' algore. Nope, couldn't possibly be him. Are you aware that algore owns oil-producing property? (nope, that doesn't fit with the big-oil funding the denier-ism mantra, so we'll ignore that fact)


Your articles are bunk, they are not peer-reviewed, it is all politically motivated propaganda to maintain the status-quo for those who make money off burning fossil fuels. What's sad is that they've got you so bamboozled that you'll go toe-to-toe with complete strangers in their defense and they didn't even have to pay you to do it.
Very convenient ploy to just ignore fact after fact after fact. "They aren't peer reviewed." You just toss that out there as if those 'peers' were some lofty presences on Mt. Olympus who are so far above all this that their 'esteemed' opinions are beyond question. Hey, buddy, get your head out of the clouds. Those peers you believe are so far above reproach are paid by someone, too. That is why they won't review squat that doesn't agree with their agenda. Doesn't sound so unbiased now, eh? The 'peers' that would review them are threatened with their govt grants being cut off unless they play ball. You remember the govt, eh? The govt has the already too powerful control freaks that stand to gain more power and $$ by controlling the trading of 'carbon credits'. They stand to gain, and they control the grant $$ - but of course you still seem them as the altruistic saviors looking out for 'the little guy'. Since when was that ever the case, especially coming from the liberal side, unless they could make some political points off of it? What I don't get is why you can't see the clear bias in the refusal to 'peer review' anything that doesn't go along with the AGW agenda, and the converse if it DOES fit the fraud. The bottom line being: if it agrees, it gets reviewed; if it doesn't agree, it isn't reviewed - and then can therefore be discounted since it lacks 'peer review'. Am I the only one that sees a problem with this?!?

You are the man who bursts into a bakery, gets up in the baker's face and says, "I don't believe yeast exists!"
You pull out as ridiculous an example as that and expect to make your case with it? Get real.
You are the guy walking around with the wool pulled over his eyes (trying to urge others to pull the wool over their own eyes, too) that runs into the wall of REALITY, because he had blind (hey, that's punny!) faith and trust in those that pulled the wool over his eyes, and didn't believe the wall was really there. You are so fanatic, you may even be one of those paid bloggers I've been reading about that actually make $$ spreading lies on behalf of the deep pocket guys (in this case, those like algore making tons of $$ off this scam).


Give it up, you're not actually doing any good for anybody, including yourself.
So, in your opinion, leading people over a cliff on a fool's errand (shilling for your AGW gods, and ruining the U.S. while India and China won't play your game, and continue to pollute and gain strength in the world) is considered to be doing them good? You are a strange sad little man.

[Yug]

Burt Rutan calls Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) a Fraud
An engineering approach to the AGW debate By Burt Rutan

Burt_Rutan_calls_AGW_a_Fraud.htm (http://www.iceagenow.com/Burt_Rutan_calls_AGW_a_Fraud.htm)

(a few snippits from article) :coldbanana:

"One has only to look at the two most notable charts (below) from two United Nations IPCC summary reports, published a decade apart, to realize that something might be seriously wrong."

(see two very different graphs from article depicting temps for last 1000 years - produced by the same source)

"Noting that the “hockey stick” chart was removed in later editions of the IPCC “scientific” reports supports the conclusion that something is indeed wrong. It was removed because an outside investigation was conducted that resembled a proper engineering review - with a finding of fraud."

"Specifically, the fraud was identified by showing that the critical data for the chart came from cherry picking just a handful of Siberian trees (tree ring proxy to estimate temperature), without evidence that the researcher applied the proper scientific method. Using all the data or any random selection of 10% of the tree ring data showed no significant correlation of planet warming to human CO2 emissions.

(and here's my favorite part of the article!!)
"The fraud was not limited to the tree cherry picking. The computer code for presentation had been tweaked such that a hockey stick shape is produced even if the data set is developed with a random number generator!"

(end snippits)
That last part doesn't sound very scientific to me. Sounds pretty manipulated in order to get the result they wanted no matter what the facts were. But this bit of legerdemain will of course be ignored by some folks because it is likely not 'peer reviewed' by peers that stand to lose if they dare to review anything not in keeping with the agenda of their govt 'leash-holders'. :08:
:coldbanana:

This global warming (AGW) business is fraud, not a hoax, as some have stated. See, a hoax suggests a prank, an effort to have fun at someone's expense. Fraud is much more serious, it implies criminal intent. Those involved in falsifying data, in intimidating those who disagree, and profiting from the fear they are creating, deserve more than just exposure, they need to be disgraced, shunned in the scientific community, and perhaps investigated for criminal fraud. Besides creating fear needlessly, empowering an already too powerful government, and harming those who will not be co-opted, they have brought science into disrepute.

[Funkthulhu]

You pull out as ridiculous a website as IceAgeNow.com and expect to make your case with it? Get real.

Sorry, you're still wrong and all of your arguments against me and Anthropogenic Global Climate Change are more or less logical fallacies of argument. (Dragging out Al Gore again? Really? Guy hasn't even done anything for 5 years...)

Peer-reviewed means that it is a scientifically produced paper with research and testable findings that has been reviewed by peers of that scientific branch before publication. It's really not that hard. Think of it as a newspaper reporter asking a couple guys around the office if his new article is factual or not. (and your articles didn't)

But, as we've already discussed and pointed out. When your denial of fact is based on religious/political/economic-agenda dogma there is no amount of hard science that will ever make you change your mind. Your basis for denial is not based in fact or logic, so using those tools to convince you that you are wrong will do no good.

The argument is still over, those who are doing the research are moving on to fixing the problem instead of squabbling over its existence. No amount of "no it isn't!" with you, here, is ever going to change that. However, we live in a (mostly) free world. So if you want to believe the sky is orange and there are elves that steal your socks at night, go right ahead. I won't stop you.

[CountryBoy1981]

But, as we've already discussed and pointed out. When your denial of fact is based on religious/political/economic-agenda dogma there is no amount of hard science that will ever make you change your mind. Your basis for denial is not based in fact or logic, so using those tools to convince you that you are wrong will do no good.

This is the only true statement in your post. How long have you been a member of the Church of Global Warming? Even as the evidence mounts you still cling to your An Inconvenient Truth and listen to your All Gore.

[Funkthulhu]

This is the only true statement in your post. How long have you been a member of the Church of Global Warming? Even as the evidence mounts you still cling to your An Inconvenient Truth and listen to your All Gore.

Don't know what evidence you refer to. All the evidence on this planet in this reality supports my position.

Also, I don't got to church, I'm an atheist.

[Yug]

This is the only true statement in your post. How long have you been a member of the Church of Global Warming? Even as the evidence mounts you still cling to your An Inconvenient Truth and listen to your All Gore.

Yeah, that's pretty much my impression, too. He is totally steeped in the global warming AWG religion that nothing, no matter haw factual, will get through - unless of course it is 'peer reviewed', but nothing that refutes AGW will ever get 'peer reviewed', so it will never get through because it doesn't have a 'peer review', so nothing can refute AGW, etc., etc., etc. Just like Joeseph Heller's Catch-22.

The 'catch' in Catch-22 was that if you didn't want to fly any more bombing missions (WW II setting), you were sane since you didn't want to place yourself in danger by flying more missions. Since you were sane, however, you had to fly more missions (they were short on pilots, and needed the missions to be flown). If you wanted to fly more missions, you were totally bonkers, and as a result could be grounded. You weren't going to be grounded, though, unless you asked not to fly any more missions. The moment you asked to not fly any more missions, however, you were quite obviously sane, and therefore were now eligile to fly more missions. The bottom line was that it was impossible to not fly more missions. In his scenario, any refutation of AGW will not be considered valid without 'peer review', but 'peer review' will not be performed if the article refutes AGW. That is the catch; Catch-AGW.

[Yug]

You pull out as ridiculous a website as IceAgeNow.com and expect to make your case with it? Get real.
So, anything you pull out is valid, and anything anyone else pulls out that refutes AGW is not valid?!? I know who need to get real, here.

Sorry, you're still wrong and all of your arguments against me and Anthropogenic Global Climate Change are more or less logical fallacies of argument. (Dragging out Al Gore again? Really? Guy hasn't even done anything for 5 years...)"I'm right, and you are all wrong, and all your arguments are all wrong." (starting to sound like a whining kid, now. just making a blanket statement.)And, you brought up algore when you used his same argument "The argument for or against the existence of Global Warming/Climate Change is over." For the argument to be over, I'm still seeing more and more evidence based on FACTS, that refutes that claim.

Peer-reviewed means that it is a scientifically produced paper with research and testable findings that has been reviewed by peers of that scientific branch before publication. It's really not that hard. Think of it as a newspaper reporter asking a couple guys around the office if his new article is factual or not.
Talking down to me now? As if I had no idea what a 'peer review' was. Just who the *&%$#! do you think you are?!? We already talked to 'peer review' and how the process was made invalid when the govt is holding the leash of the 'peers' via grant/research $$ which ensures that the 'peers' will reach the outcome the govt desires. THAT politicizes the the issue, not anything I've said or done. When the science is tainted by politics, it becomes non-science (or nonsense, if you will), and any outcome reached after that juncture, MUST be considered tainted and invalidated, also. Was algore a scientist or a political figure? (we know the answer) Yet, it was algore that first started pushing this issue hard. That proves it was tainted and invalidated from the very outset!!

"your denial of fact is based on religious/political/economic-agenda dogma there is no amount of hard science that will ever make you change your mind. Your basis for denial is not based in fact or logic, so using those tools to convince you that you are wrong will do no good.
And, here is a statement that you made which my inescapable conclusion is that it totally applies to you... of course, you are no doubt a hard-core denier when it come to that.


...
So if you want to believe the sky is orange and there are elves that steal your socks at night, go right ahead. I won't stop you.Another tactic right out of Alinsky's Rules for Radicals. Attempt to humiliate and ridicule. I've not used such nonsensical examples. If this is the best you have to shore up your platform, and expect to gain any converts, your position must be pretty weak.

[Funkthulhu]

And yet, after all that dissection, you still have no scientific basis for your opinion.

Have a great weekend!

[CountryBoy1981]

During the Senate hearing, Sessions noted that Obama said in 2012 that the “temperature around the globe is increasing faster than was predicted, even ten years ago,” The president then doubled down on the claim last year, saying “We also know that the climate is warming faster than anybody anticipated five or ten years ago.”

“So, I would ask each of our former Administrators if any of you agree that that’s an accurate statement on the climate. So if you do, raise your hand,” Sessions instructed.

His request was followed by silence and zero raised hands. The EPA administrators, who previously served in Republican administrations, were reportedly invited by Democrats to testify on the Obama administration’s energy policies.

“Thank you, the record will reflect no one raised their hand,” the GOP senator said.

Democrat-Invited Witnesses Refuse To Endorse Obama Climate Alarmism - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=nsNY4uKXXL8)

I find it amazing that this video isn't being displayed throughout the media. Oh wait, I forgot, you can't give the sheeple the truth.

[Funkthulhu]

"Please raise your hands if you think that scientific consensus can be nullified by a democratic vote of non-experts. . .

Let the record note that all GOP advisers raised their hands."

[Yug]

"Please raise your hands if you think that scientific consensus can be nullified by a democratic vote of non-experts. . .

Let the record note that all GOP advisers raised their hands."
Please raise your hand if you think that a 'scientific' concensus (funny, that word 'concensus' doesn't sound much like a scientific method, does it?) made up of 97% non-experts, actually carrys ANY weight what-so-ever. (except to fools, and grape kool-aid drinkers like funk...)

[Funkthulhu]

Please raise your hand if you think that a 'scientific' concensus (funny, that word 'concensus' doesn't sound much like a scientific method, does it?) made up of 97% non-experts, actually carrys ANY weight what-so-ever. (except to fools, and grape kool-aid drinkers like funk...)

So, 97% of scientists that have published papers on the subject all think that global warming is real and caused by humans. You have said they are not experts in their field.

Therefore, by your definition is it impossible to find an expert on this planet.

Keep drinking that Flavor-Aid (they didn't drink Kool-Aid at Jonestown, but everybody thinks they did so it must be true...)

[Yug]

So, 97% of scientists that have published papers on the subject all think that global warming is real and caused by humans. You have said they are not experts in their field.

Therefore, by your definition is it impossible to find an expert on this planet.

Keep drinking that Flavor-Aid (they didn't drink Kool-Aid at Jonestown, but everybody thinks they did so it must be true...)

Here you go manipulating words like your heros manipulated data...

I never referred to any published papers, I was referring to your concensus folks. If they are in the concensus, and are not experts, anything they publish is irrelevant. If they are 'experts' then they no doubt toe the political-agenda line (to keep that grant money they are dependent on), and give whatever result the politicians want - at the moment, that happens to be that AGW is man-made and the worst crisis the world has ever faced, and we need to jump on the bandwagon immediately or all is lost... Of course, this will cause prices to jump in many areas, especially in energy/fuel costs (except to those politically connected - like your hero algore), some products will be too expensive to make now (loss of jobs), and the U.S. will fall further and futher behind India China and Russia economically (because they won't play the game), etc., but we won't let that stand in the way of fleecing the U.S. taxpayers out of more and more $$$. Since the folks that may have published any papers on this issue totally dependent on the $$ from their govt benefactors, their fairness and impartiality are tainted and rendered invalid, and therefore so are their published papers. Any peer review is conducted by likewise-tainted 'colleagues' and is also rendered irrelevant. I could do this all day, but it will have no effect when there is a wall of ignorance shielding the 'intellect' (term used very loosely here) of the 'true believers' from the effects of being exposed to the truth (some folks just refuse to be reached).

[Funkthulhu]

Here you go manipulating words like your heros manipulated data...

I never referred to any published papers, I was referring to your concensus folks. If they are in the concensus, and are not experts, anything they publish is irrelevant. If they are 'experts' then they no doubt toe the political-agenda line (to keep that grant money they are dependent on), and give whatever result the politicians want - at the moment, that happens to be that AGW is man-made and the worst crisis the world has ever faced, and we need to jump on the bandwagon immediately or all is lost... Of course, this will cause prices to jump in many areas, especially in energy/fuel costs (except to those politically connected - like your hero algore), some products will be too expensive to make now (loss of jobs), and the U.S. will fall further and futher behind India China and Russia economically (because they won't play the game), etc., but we won't let that stand in the way of fleecing the U.S. taxpayers out of more and more $$$. Since the folks that may have published any papers on this issue totally dependent on the $$ from their govt benefactors, their fairness and impartiality are tainted and rendered invalid, and therefore so are their published papers. Any peer review is conducted by likewise-tainted 'colleagues' and is also rendered irrelevant. I could do this all day, but it will have no effect when there is a wall of ignorance shielding the 'intellect' (term used very loosely here) of the 'true believers' from the effects of being exposed to the truth (some folks just refuse to be reached).

So, non-experts are still non-experts, but the experts can't be trusted because you have money issues.

Of course, not killing ourselves is going to be too expensive short term so we should commit to death. Also, why should we stop destroying humanity if China and Russia aren't going to stop, too? I mean, if we're not the sole country to blame than it's not all our fault than a little bit of fault is okay to keep burning stuff.

Don't stop believin', man, and keep putting bricks up on your wall...

[Yug]

Here's another one for you to ignore...

:coldbanana: NOAA-data-show-u-s-in-decade-long-cooling/ (http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2014/06/25/government-data-show-u-s-in-decade-long-cooling/) :coldbanana:

Here's a pretty good summation (also to be ignored by those long since brain-dead) :03:

*snip*
Government Data Show U.S. in Decade-Long Cooling
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s most accurate, up-to-date temperature data confirm the
United States has been cooling for at least the past decade. The NOAA temperature data are driving a stake
through the heart of alarmists claiming accelerating global warming.
*snip*

here's another good one...

*snip*
Expect global warming alarmists, now and for the foreseeable future,
to howl in desperation claiming the USCRN temperature data are
irrelevant.

Of course, to global warming alarmists, all real-world data are irrelevant.
*snip* (as in... never let facts get in the way)

According to the article, the data shows a 0.4 C drop in temp just in the last decade. This is more than half of the 'claimed' global warming of the entire 20th century. Sounds like it's time to invest in mink farming.

I'm sure that the land area of the United States, to include Alaska and Hawaii, is just a tiny little 'isolated area' to the 'climate-change/global-warming-mad' alarmists. ;)

And here is yet another item to be ignored by the alarmists...


Global warming computer models confounded as Antarctic
sea ice hits new record high with 2.1million square miles more
than is usual for time of year


Ice is covering 16m sq km, more than 2.1m unusual for time of year
UN computer models say Antarctic ice should be in decline, not increasing


*snip*
It represents the latest stage in a trend that started ten years ago, and means
that an area the size of Greenland, which would normally be open water, is now
frozen.
The Antarctic surge is so big that overall, although Arctic ice has decreased, the
frozen area around both poles is one million square kilometres more than the
long-term average.
*snip*
Antarctic-sea-ice-hits-new-record-high (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2681829/Global-warming-latest-Amount-Antarctic-sea-ice-hits-new-record-high.html)

Of course, if anyone sends any more 'icebreakers' to Antarctica (to again get stuck in the ice ;) ), this will be difficult to continue to ignore. I'm sure, though, that if they sail around enough they ought to be able to find at least one good vid showing some ice breaking off and making a big wave while falling into the ocean (completely ignoring any/all shots showing huge pile-ups of new ice that won't fit into the 'agenda') :coldbanana:
(we'll just have to lump this Antarctica place in with the teeny isolated regions that just don't matter)

[Funkthulhu]

First article: Let's pretend that the US is actually cooling (it isn't), once again you are using the "weather" from a small area to skew your view of the "climate" of the planet. Do you know how much of the planet's surface is covered by the US? Less than 2%

Second article: I have personally explained this one several times, go backtrack in this thread if you have to. Once again, a poor understanding of how weather/climate works. The Antarctic is cold, (big surprise) so ice can form nearly year-round. The excessive melting from the warmer climate is adding fresh water to the sea around the continent lowering the salt content of surface water and allowing more sea ice to form easier. It is still warmer than average.

[harveyc]

Caution: avoid any further personal attacks to avoid account suspension.

[Yug]

Australian Bureau of Meteorology accused of Criminally Adjusted Global Warming
The Australian Bureau of Meteorology has been caught red-handed manipulating temperature data to show "global warming" where none actually exists.by James Delingpole 25 Aug 2014
:coldbanana:
((snip))
At Amberley, Queensland, for example, the data at a weather station showing 1 degree Celsius cooling per century was "homogenized" (adjusted) by the Bureau so that it instead showed a 2.5 degrees warming per century.

At Rutherglen, Victoria, a cooling trend of -0.35 degrees C per century was magically transformed at the stroke of an Australian meteorologist's pen into a warming trend of 1.73 degrees C per century.
((snip))
Australian-Bureau-of-Meteorology-accused-of-Criminally-Adjusted-Global-Warming (http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-London/2014/08/25/Australian-Bureau-of-Meteorology-accused-of-Criminally-Adjusted-Global-Warming) :coldbanana:

[Funkthulhu]

Australian Bureau of Meteorology accused of Criminally Adjusted Global Warming
The Australian Bureau of Meteorology has been caught red-handed manipulating temperature data to show "global warming" where none actually exists.by James Delingpole 25 Aug 2014
:coldbanana:
((snip))
At Amberley, Queensland, for example, the data at a weather station showing 1 degree Celsius cooling per century was "homogenized" (adjusted) by the Bureau so that it instead showed a 2.5 degrees warming per century.

At Rutherglen, Victoria, a cooling trend of -0.35 degrees C per century was magically transformed at the stroke of an Australian meteorologist's pen into a warming trend of 1.73 degrees C per century.
((snip))
Australian-Bureau-of-Meteorology-accused-of-Criminally-Adjusted-Global-Warming (http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-London/2014/08/25/Australian-Bureau-of-Meteorology-accused-of-Criminally-Adjusted-Global-Warming) :coldbanana:

Yep, ya got me, it's all lies, all of it.

obviously a good scientist would forego publishing a peer-reviewed paper about her findings and instead go straight to sensationalist media for a quick gotcha moment. . .

I'll reply more seriously in a month or 6 after the hysteria has died down and after the facts have been analyzed.

[Scuba_Dave]

5 years later this is still going On ???
Can't anyone understand the statement that we can agree to disagree ?
Climate is changing, which way who knows & for how long......
I've read where the melting icecaps/glaciers can cause a slow down in the Gulf stream
...thus global warming could actually cause an Ice Age
Who knows...........I'm more worried about an asteroid
There's one on its way ya know ??

[Rebel1970]

HI
If anyone is old enough to remember Global Cooling from about 40 years ago, well here is the real story. Each University with a science department has to pull a rabbit out of their hats to get Congress to fund their programs. This is a fact. 40 years ago they came up with Global Cooling. What really came from Global Cooling...think about it,,,,ENERGY EFFICIENT APPLIANCES!!! So now these wack-o's are pushing Global Warming. Everyone thought it was a joke when one university wanted money to study the sex habits of the tetessee fly, or how ever you spell it...It worked...Congress shelled out the money. Now who is the joke on? Us tax payers thats who. Get a grip people, the universities are partly to blame for the Global Warming mess, and again Congress bought into it. Just like Harry Reid was elected to help run the country not worry about the NFL Washington Redskins name. If I were the owner of the Redskins, I would drop Washington from the name, PERIOD. Why is there Congressional hearings on the doping of baseball players? Isn't that what the baseball commissioner is for? What do those hearings have to do with running our country? You want limits on congressional terms...You have it...Its called the voting booth. If you elect them, don't complain!!!

[Funkthulhu]

"Every now and again, the myth that “we shouldn’t believe global warming predictions now, because in the 1970′s they were predicting an ice age and/or cooling” surfaces. Recently, George Will mentioned it in his column (see Will-full ignorance) and the egregious Crichton manages to say “in the 1970′s all the climate scientists believed an ice age was coming” (see Michael Crichton’s State of Confusion ). You can find it in various other places too [here, mildly here, etc]. But its not an argument used by respectable and knowledgeable skeptics, because it crumbles under analysis. That doesn’t stop it repeatedly cropping up in newsgroups though."

RealClimate: The global cooling myth (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/01/the-global-cooling-myth/)

The rest of your post is just you ranting about things completely unrelated to this topic of discussion that also make you mad, which I can't really help you with. (but I'll try to help by staying off your lawn...)

[Abnshrek]

There is no such thing as Climate Change.. Its a computer model that's broke.. better off getting a gyspy to read a crystal ball there might be some entertainment in that. :^)

[Funkthulhu]

There is no such thing as Climate Change.. Its a computer model that's broke.. better off getting a gyspy to read a crystal ball there might be some entertainment in that. :^)

Or it's hundreds of models that are in agreement with thousands upon thousands of scientists. . . but hey, what do they know?

[Abnshrek]

Or it's hundreds of models that are in agreement with thousands upon thousands of scientists. . . but hey, what do they know?

know how to rip off the American Tax payer is about it..

[Funkthulhu]

I bet if you put all science funding in one column, and all taxes not collected from oil and gas companies due to subsidies and loopholes in the other, you'd be surprised by the order of magnitude more dollars in the second. . .

I wonder how you define a rip off.

[Abnshrek]

I wonder how you define a rip off.

anything that is complete waste.. :^)

[Funkthulhu]

anything that is complete waste.. :^)

So, denial of reality. Got it.

[Abnshrek]

So, denial of reality. Got it.

No, its just one of many empty things sucking up tax dollars.. I'm sure they have a hell of a lobbist though..

[Funkthulhu]

No, its just one of many empty things sucking up tax dollars.. I'm sure they have a hell of a lobbist though..

The lobbyists are trying to undermine the science. The articles just keep getting published, though. You only have to pay money to a politician if what you're doing it antithetical to rational thought or fair commerce...


That being said. I'm bowing out of this thread (again). None of the deniers here are ever going to change their minds because their belief is not based on facts, but on their own fear of change and their need to maintain the status quo. There is also a disturbing trend of flawed ego wherein the opinion of a person unacquainted with the broad swath of knowledge necessary to pontificate on this subject is held in as high a regard, or equal to, the scientifically backed statements of climate scientists.

As someone who studied both modern and ancient climate change during my undergraduate and graduate degrees I am, quite frankly, tired of complete strangers repeatedly yelling in my face (figuratively speaking) that I am a Liar.

It is not a label I have earned and it is not one I am comfortable being mantled with.

So, congrats, you win. I don't care what you think anymore because it doesn't matter. The world moves on with or without you.

[Going Bananas]

BUMP....
This has got to be the longest thread on here!?
5 years and 31 pages later.
Even Pope Francis has gotten in on the debate
recently by publishing an encyclical.

Now if we can only convince Governor MoonBeam Gerry Brown
that the high speed train in middle California is not such a dire necessity
as the whole state of California is much more in need of water.

Desalination! desalination! desalination! is the only answer!
Whats the governor thinking?

Im voting for Tom Sellick as the next governor for California!
At least hes got us thinking in the right direction!:bananas_b