Why I think Climate Change Denial is little more than pseudoscience. - Part 1

[boutons_deux]

Manny trashing talking a pin which does nothing but mark the crossover date?

[MannyIsGod]

WTF is the crossover date and why is it relevant? The importance in that chart is with the time series of the 3 factors and how they relate to one another, not that point. The chart in the paper is good. That graphic is terrible. They should have just used the initial chart.

Its figure 4.

http://cliserv.jql.usu.edu/paper/CA_drought_final.pdf

To be fair, thinkprogress didn't it up though. The University press release did. Its their graphic.

Relevant:
http://www.phdcomics.com/comics/arch...p?comicid=1174

[Big Empty]

i kinda wish Gore never made that do entary. Now global warming is just political football instead of acknowledging there appears to be problem that points to humans causing it.

[boutons_deux]

i kinda wish Gore never made that do entary. Now global warming is just political football instead of acknowledging there appears to be problem that points to humans causing it.

Gore's film did not cause Repugs to politicize/deny AWG and shill for their paymasters BigCarbon against AGW.

[boutons_deux]

G.O.P. RIVALS QUESTION RUBIO’S IGNORANCE CREDENTIALS

WASHINGTON — After claiming on Sunday that human activity does not cause climate change, Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Florida) suddenly found his ignorance credentials under attack by potential rivals for the 2016 Republican Presidential nomination.

“Now that Marco’s thinking of running for President, he doesn’t believe in climate change,” said Texas Governor Rick Perry. “To those of us with long track records of ignorance on this issue, he seems a little late to the rodeo.”

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Kentucky) echoed Gov. Perry’s criticism, calling Rubio a “dummy-come-lately” on climate change.

“At the end of the day, I have faith that Republican voters can tell the difference between someone who’s truly uninformed and someone who’s just faking it,” he said. “These comments by Marco don’t pass the smell test.”

By Sunday evening, a defensive Sen. Rubio was pushing back against the attacks, telling reporters, “Any questions about the authenticity of my ignorance are deeply offensive to me.”

“My refusal to accept the scientific research on climate change is a matter of public record,” he said. “On this issue and many others my ignorance should take a back seat to no one’s.”

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blog...edentials.html

[xrayzebra]

Someone let Al Gore know the South Pole isn’t melting. Antarctic sea ice coverage reached record levels for April, hitting 3.5 million square miles — the largest on record.

It was a cold summer down in Antarctica, with sea ice coverage growing about 43,500 square miles a day, according to the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSDC). April 2014 beats the previous sea-ice coverage record from April 2008 by a whopping 124,000 square miles.

But even with autumn in full swing in the South Pole, “record levels continue to be set in early May,” reports the NSDC. Sea ice levels have been “significantly above” satellite data averages for 16 consecutive months.

The most pronounced growth in sea-ice coverage is in the eastern Weddell Sea and areas south of Australia and along the southeastern Indian Ocean, according to NSDC. And temperatures in the Weddell Sea region have been 1 to 2 degrees Celsius below the 1981 to 2010 average during March and April. Similar cooling trends have lowered average temperatures along the southern Indian Ocean by 2 to 3 degrees Celsius.

“However, across much of the far Southern Hemisphere, temperatures have been above average: For example, in the southern Antarctic Peninsula, temperatures have been 1 to 2 degrees Celsius (2 to 4 degrees Fahrenheit) above average; in the southern South Pacific, temperatures have been 1.5 to 2.5 degrees Celsius (3 to 4 degrees Fahrenheit) above average, and up to 4 degrees Celsius (7 degrees Fahrenheit) above average in the area near the South Pole,” NSDC notes.

Antarctica has seen huge sea-ice growth throughout this year and last, which caught many climate scientists by surprise — some more literally than others.

In late December, a group of tourists and climate scientists got caught in Antarctic ice pack about 1,500 miles south of Tasmania. The expedition sought to do ent how global warming has changed the region in the last century, but instead made world headlines for getting stuck in record levels of ice.

“We’re stuck in our own experiment,” the Australasian Antarctic Expedition said in a statement. “We came to Antarctica to study how one of the biggest icebergs in the world has altered the system by trapping ice.”

The expedition was eventually rescued by helicopter and brought back to Australia. To make a bad trip worse, the ice breaker that rescued the expeditionaries also got stuck in some ice on its way back.

But while eastern areas of Antarctica are growing rapidly, scientists are warning that the continent’s western ice sheet has begun to collapse.

“Today we present observational evidence that the [ice sheet] has gone into irreversible retreat,” said Eric Rignot, the lead author of a study claiming the ice sheet was collapsing. “It has reached the point of no return.”

Rignot told reporters at a press conference hosted by NASA that the slow collapse of the glacier could raise sea levels between 10 and 13 feet.

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2014/05/12/gl...#ixzz31cImNlzJ

[FuzzyLumpkins]

You did okay with the source but do you really need you to bold for us? Thanks for the link cause I am not reading your edit.

[Wild Cobra]

The study referenced in the boutons post above is one of the best examples of showing the anthropogenic effect on atmospheric patterns and how it exacerbates certain aspects of them. They showed the effect AGW has had and how it contributed to the severity of the drought extremely well, IMO. Too bad the article felt the need to butcher the graph and put a pin where it makes no sense.

I disagree. I'm old enough to remember talk about natural cycles of the winds, of more than 30 years, and see them as well.

[boutons_deux]

Crazy Climate Economics

Everywhere you look these days, you see Marxism on the rise. Well, O.K., maybe you don’t — but conservatives do. If you so much as mention income inequality, you’ll be denounced as the second coming of Joseph Stalin; Rick Santorum has declared that any use of the word “class” is “Marxism talk.” In the right’s eyes, sinister motives lurk everywhere — for example, George Will says the only reason progressives favor trains is their goal of “diminishing Americans’ individualism in order to make them more amenable to collectivism.”

So it goes without saying that Obamacare, based on ideas originally developed at the Heritage Foundation, is a Marxist scheme — why, requiring that people purchase insurance is practically the same as sending them to gulags.

And just wait until the Environmental Protection Agency announces rules intended to slow the pace of climate change.

Until now, the right’s climate craziness has mainly been focused on attacking the science. And it has been quite a spectacle:

At this point almost all card-carrying conservatives endorse the view that climate change is a gigantic hoax, that thousands of research papers showing a warming planet — 97 percent of the literature — are the product of a vast international conspiracy. But as the Obama administration moves toward actually doing something based on that science, crazy climate economics will come into its own.

You can already get a taste of what’s coming in the dissenting opinions from a recent Supreme Court ruling on power-plant pollution. A majority of the justices agreed that the E.P.A. has the right to regulate smog from coal-fired power plants, which drifts across state lines.

But Justice Scalia didn’t just dissent; he suggested that the E.P.A.’s proposed rule — which would tie the size of required smog reductions to cost — reflected the Marxist concept of “from each according to his ability.” Taking cost into consideration is Marxist? Who knew?

And you can just imagine what will happen when the E.P.A., buoyed by the smog ruling, moves on to regulation of greenhouse gas emissions.

What do I mean by crazy climate economics?

First, we’ll see any effort to limit pollution denounced as a tyrannical act. Pollution wasn’t always a deeply partisan issue: Economists in the George W. Bush administration wrote paeans to “market based” pollution controls, and in 2008 John McCain made proposals for cap-and-trade limits on greenhouse gases part of his presidential campaign. But when House Democrats actually passed a cap-and-trade bill in 2009, it was attacked as, you guessed it, Marxist. And these days Republicans come out in force to oppose even the most obviously needed regulations, like the plan to reduce the pollution that’s killing Chesapeake Bay.

Second, we’ll see claims that any effort to limit emissions will have what Senator Marco Rubio is already calling “a devastating impact on our economy.”

Why is this crazy? Normally, conservatives extol the magic of markets and the adaptability of the private sector, which is supposedly able to transcend with ease any constraints posed by, say, limited supplies of natural resources. But as soon as anyone proposes adding a few limits to reflect environmental issues — such as a cap on carbon emissions — those all-capable corporations supposedly lose any ability to cope with change.

Now, the rules the E.P.A. is likely to impose won’t give the private sector as much flexibility as it would have had in dealing with an economy-wide carbon cap or emissions tax. But Republicans have only themselves to blame: Their scorched-earth opposition to any kind of climate policy has left executive action by the White House as the only route forward.

Furthermore, it turns out that focusing climate policy on coal-fired power plants isn’t bad as a first step. Such plants aren’t the only source of greenhouse gas emissions, but they’re a large part of the problem — and the best estimates we have of the path forward suggest that reducing power-plant emissions will be a large part of any solution.

What about the argument that unilateral U.S. action won’t work, because China is the real problem? It’s true that we’re no longer No. 1 in greenhouse gases — but we’re still a strong No. 2.

Furthermore, U.S. action on climate is a necessary first step toward a broader international agreement, which will surely include sanctions on countries that don’t participate.

So the coming firestorm over new power-plant regulations won’t be a genuine debate — just as there isn’t a genuine debate about climate science.

Instead, the airwaves will be filled with conspiracy theories and wild claims about costs, all of which should be ignored. Climate policy may finally be getting somewhere; let’s not let crazy climate economics get in the way.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/12/op...f=opinion&_r=0

yep, the Repug/Fox/VRWC/BigCargon anti-EPA game plan is very predictable.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Someone let Al Gore know the South Pole isn’t melting. Antarctic sea ice coverage reached record levels for April, hitting 3.5 million square miles — the largest on record.

It was a cold summer down in Antarctica, with sea ice coverage growing about 43,500 square miles a day, according to the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSDC). April 2014 beats the previous sea-ice coverage record from April 2008 by a whopping 124,000 square miles.

But even with autumn in full swing in the South Pole, “record levels continue to be set in early May,” reports the NSDC. Sea ice levels have been “significantly above” satellite data averages for 16 consecutive months.

The most pronounced growth in sea-ice coverage is in the eastern Weddell Sea and areas south of Australia and along the southeastern Indian Ocean, according to NSDC. And temperatures in the Weddell Sea region have been 1 to 2 degrees Celsius below the 1981 to 2010 average during March and April. Similar cooling trends have lowered average temperatures along the southern Indian Ocean by 2 to 3 degrees Celsius.

“However, across much of the far Southern Hemisphere, temperatures have been above average: For example, in the southern Antarctic Peninsula, temperatures have been 1 to 2 degrees Celsius (2 to 4 degrees Fahrenheit) above average; in the southern South Pacific, temperatures have been 1.5 to 2.5 degrees Celsius (3 to 4 degrees Fahrenheit) above average, and up to 4 degrees Celsius (7 degrees Fahrenheit) above average in the area near the South Pole,” NSDC notes.

Antarctica has seen huge sea-ice growth throughout this year and last, which caught many climate scientists by surprise — some more literally than others.

In late December, a group of tourists and climate scientists got caught in Antarctic ice pack about 1,500 miles south of Tasmania. The expedition sought to do ent how global warming has changed the region in the last century, but instead made world headlines for getting stuck in record levels of ice.

“We’re stuck in our own experiment,” the Australasian Antarctic Expedition said in a statement. “We came to Antarctica to study how one of the biggest icebergs in the world has altered the system by trapping ice.”

The expedition was eventually rescued by helicopter and brought back to Australia. To make a bad trip worse, the ice breaker that rescued the expeditionaries also got stuck in some ice on its way back.

But while eastern areas of Antarctica are growing rapidly, scientists are warning that the continent’s western ice sheet has begun to collapse.

“Today we present observational evidence that the [ice sheet] has gone into irreversible retreat,” said Eric Rignot, the lead author of a study claiming the ice sheet was collapsing. “It has reached the point of no return.”

Rignot told reporters at a press conference hosted by NASA that the slow collapse of the glacier could raise sea levels between 10 and 13 feet.

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2014/05/12/gl...#ixzz31cImNlzJ

Too bad the study being referenced is talking about a glacier that is currently on land and is moving out to sea. I want you to think on how something like that happening would effect the amount of ice in the sea.

[Wild Cobra]

G.O.P. RIVALS QUESTION RUBIO’S IGNORANCE CREDENTIALS

WASHINGTON — After claiming on Sunday that human activity does not cause climate change, Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Florida) suddenly found his ignorance credentials under attack by potential rivals for the 2016 Republican Presidential nomination.

“Now that Marco’s thinking of running for President, he doesn’t believe in climate change,” said Texas Governor Rick Perry. “To those of us with long track records of ignorance on this issue, he seems a little late to the rodeo.”

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Kentucky) echoed Gov. Perry’s criticism, calling Rubio a “dummy-come-lately” on climate change.

“At the end of the day, I have faith that Republican voters can tell the difference between someone who’s truly uninformed and someone who’s just faking it,” he said. “These comments by Marco don’t pass the smell test.”

By Sunday evening, a defensive Sen. Rubio was pushing back against the attacks, telling reporters, “Any questions about the authenticity of my ignorance are deeply offensive to me.”

“My refusal to accept the scientific research on climate change is a matter of public record,” he said. “On this issue and many others my ignorance should take a back seat to no one’s.”

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blog...edentials.html

Leave it to Larry Finkelstein to link an article that misquote a republican.

Our climate is always changing, I do not believe that human activity is causing these dramatic changes to our climate the way these scientists are portraying it, and I do not believe that the laws that they propose we pass will do anything about it, except it will destroy our economy.

Seriously... The New Yorker...

What is wrong with his words? He didn't deny man made climate chane, he said he didn't believe man made climate changes were dramatic!

It doesn't take much to send lib s into a tizzy...

[boutons_deux]

the joke article was on the money: M.R.-for-Pres is denying AGW, dramatic or not, is not a problem, slavishly conforming to the BigCarbon dictates.

and EPA or other regs, ALL regs, will be economic disasters, USA-destroying TRAINWRECKS, exactly as marxist/socialist/takeover ACA is destroying USA.

[TheSanityAnnex]

Seriously... The New Yorker...

Seriously...it's the New Yorker

[SnakeBoy]

G.O.P. RIVALS QUESTION RUBIO’S IGNORANCE CREDENTIALS

WASHINGTON — After claiming on Sunday that human activity does not cause climate change, Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Florida) suddenly found his ignorance credentials under attack by potential rivals for the 2016 Republican Presidential nomination.

“Now that Marco’s thinking of running for President, he doesn’t believe in climate change,” said Texas Governor Rick Perry. “To those of us with long track records of ignorance on this issue, he seems a little late to the rodeo.”

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Kentucky) echoed Gov. Perry’s criticism, calling Rubio a “dummy-come-lately” on climate change.

“At the end of the day, I have faith that Republican voters can tell the difference between someone who’s truly uninformed and someone who’s just faking it,” he said. “These comments by Marco don’t pass the smell test.”

By Sunday evening, a defensive Sen. Rubio was pushing back against the attacks, telling reporters, “Any questions about the authenticity of my ignorance are deeply offensive to me.”

“My refusal to accept the scientific research on climate change is a matter of public record,” he said. “On this issue and many others my ignorance should take a back seat to no one’s.”

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blog...edentials.html

The inability of some people on this forum to recognize weak satire never ceases to amaze me.

[MannyIsGod]

Gore's film did not cause Repugs to politicize/deny AWG and shill for their paymasters BigCarbon against AGW.

Reaction to a film by a very polarizing figure absolutely contributed to the level of GOP denial on global warming.

[MannyIsGod]

I disagree.

No one cares.

[Wild Cobra]

No one cares.

Yes, I know. The indoctrinated youth like you don't care about the facts.

[boutons_deux]

Reaction to a film by a very polarizing figure absolutely contributed to the level of GOP denial on global warming.

The reaction was orchestrated by BigCarbon as is all AGW denying. Anything, like a film, that comes along will be ridiculed and trashed by BigCarbon.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

The inability of some people on this forum to recognize weak satire never ceases to amaze me.

Is that what you are calling your copouts when you feel like you are losing your arguments nowadays?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Leave it to Larry Finkelstein to link an article that misquote a republican.



Seriously... The New Yorker...

What is wrong with his words? He didn't deny man made climate chane, he said he didn't believe man made climate changes were dramatic!

It doesn't take much to send lib s into a tizzy...

The article is about Perry and Rand disputing it. Your dumbass recognizes that right?

[SnakeBoy]

Is that what you are calling your copouts when you feel like you are losing your arguments nowadays?

I don't do satire, never been good at it.

The article is about Perry and Rand disputing it. Your dumbass recognizes that right?

smh

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I don't do satire, never been good at it.



smh

Didn't see it was Borowitz at first. Shoot me.

[xrayzebra]

The reaction was orchestrated by BigCarbon as is all AGW denying. Anything, like a film, that comes along will be ridiculed and trashed by BigCarbon.

Hey boutons, how much "BigCarbon" do you think we would have to pile on to melt the Arctic Ice? And how long would it have to burn?
Just curious.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Hey boutons, how much "BigCarbon" do you think we would have to pile on to melt the Arctic Ice? And how long would it have to burn?
Just curious.

You reconciled the ice shelf falling off the landmass and an increase of ice in the sea? Or are you going to just ignore it so you can blithely believe as you want to believe?

[TheSanityAnnex]

The article is about Perry and Rand disputing it. Your dumbass recognizes that right?