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

[FuzzyLumpkins]

How about specifying how it was ethical first?

How about you defend your statement rather than pretend that you have presumption on any stupidity you come up with?

[Blake]

For you to think I have that much time on my hands must be because you do.

Sorry, I have better things to do than look for things you can. I have a life. Don't you?

If you can't back up your claims, don't ever expect a decent discussion. Instead, expect lols.

Smh.

[Big Empty]

2014 officially the hottest year ever. I cant post all the news articles. Google it

[CosmicCowboy]

2014 officially the hottest year ever. I cant post all the news articles. Google it

LOL

Cherry picking data, much?

That shit works both ways.

http://www.weather.com/news/news/winter-ncdc-state-climate-report-2013-2014-20140313


Winter 2013-2014 was one of the coldest on record in parts of the Midwest, according to the government's official monthly climate report released Thursday.

NOAA's National Climatic Data Center said that the period from December 2013 through February 2014 was the 34th coldest such period for the contiguous 48 states as a whole since modern records began in 1895.

Wisconsin, Michigan, Minnesota, Iowa, Indiana, Illinois, and Missouri registered a top 10 coldest winter. Seventeen other states from Washington state to the northern Gulf Coast to New York were colder than average.

The first two months of 2014 were among the top three coldest on record in the following cities:

Green Bay, Wisc. (second coldest)
La Crosse, Wisc. (third coldest)
Rockford, Ill. (third coldest)
Detroit (third coldest)
Dubuque, Iowa (third coldest)
Waterloo, Iowa (third coldest)
Continuing what was seen in 2013, the number of daily record-low temperatures outnumbered the number of record-high temperatures nationally in early 2014, according to NCDC statistics compiled by meteorologist Guy Walton of The Weather Channel.

[Big Empty]

LOL

Cherry picking data, much?

That shit works both ways.

http://www.weather.com/news/news/winter-ncdc-state-climate-report-2013-2014-20140313
that little spec there in the northern midwest, like a tiny pimple on your behind is the only place where the record cold was CC LOL. http://i.livescience.com/images/i/000/073/404/iFF/temperature-anomalies-2014.jpeg?1421425294

[Blake]

Lol

[boutons_deux]

the gubmint and 1000s of scientists are lying of course, but that "cooling trend" has lots of supporting data

2014 Was The Hottest Year Since At Least 1880, Government Finds
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/16/2014-hottest-year-on-record_n_6479896.html?ir=Green&utm_campaign=011615&utm_medium=email&utm_source=Alert-green&utm_content=FullStory

[DarrinS]

the gubmint and 1000s of scientists are lying of course, but that "cooling trend" has lots of supporting data

2014 Was The Hottest Year Since At Least 1880, Government Finds
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/16/2014-hottest-year-on-record_n_6479896.html?ir=Green&utm_campaign=011615&utm_medium=email&utm_source=Alert-green&utm_content=FullStory





Numerically, our best estimate for the global temperature of 2014 puts it slightly above
(by 0.01 C) that of the next warmest year (2010) but by much less than the margin of
uncertainty (0.05 C). Therefore it is impossible to conclude from our analysis which of
2014, 2010, or 2005 was actually the warmest year.



:lol http://static.berkeleyearth.org/memos/Global-Warming-2014-Berkeley-Earth-Newsletter.pdf

[Blake]

So the the warmest years on record are 2005, 2010 and 2014?

Damn.

[boutons_deux]

nah, global cooling rampant, there's a PAUSE in global warming, BigCarbon says it's so

[DarrinS]

nah, global cooling rampant, there's a PAUSE in global warming, BigCarbon says it's so


No, the data says so.

[DarrinS]

So the the warmest years on record are 2005, 2010 and 2014?

Damn.

Better move to higher ground. :lol

[FuzzyLumpkins]

:lol http://static.berkeleyearth.org/memos/Global-Warming-2014-Berkeley-Earth-Newsletter.pdf

So if it wasn't the warmest then it is up there with the warmest of all time and your dumb ass thinks that is a win. Nevermind that you are back to denying. Still a sophist piece of shit I see.

[DarrinS]

So if it wasn't the warmest then it is up there with the warmest of all time and your dumb ass thinks that is a win. Nevermind that you are back to denying. Still a sophist piece of shit I see.

It warmed a little over 1 degree in the 20th century and now appears to be leveling off. I don't know why you're so angry about that.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

It warmed a little over 1 degree in the 20th century and now appears to be leveling off. I don't know why you're so angry about that.

Who said i was angry? Right now I am laughing at your reading ability.

It said that given the percent error that they could not make a claim of the warmest with certainty. It made no comment on the comparative quantities as a whole. I am not confused by the quantities the anomaly shows itself as. You still are or more likely trying to confuse others. Either way, you are scum.

[boutons_deux]

anthropocene news:

That Was Easy: In Just 60 Years, Neoliberal Capitalism Has Nearly Broken Planet Earth

Pair of new studies show how various forms of human activity, driven by a flawed economic system and vast consumption, is laying waste to Earth's natural systems

http://www.commondreams.org/news/2015/01/16/was-easy-just-60-years-neoliberal-capitalism-has-nearly-broken-planet-earth

[FuzzyLumpkins]

The final numbers are in: 2014 is officially the hottest year on record in the past 135 years, NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) announced Friday.

The record does not come as a surprise as it’s another marker of the sustained accumulation of heat in the atmosphere thanks to the unabated emissions of greenhouses gases such as carbon dioxide. Nine of the 10 warmest years on record have all occurred in the 21st century, with the exception of the blockbuster El Nino year of 1998. It also marks 38 straight years of above-average global annual temperatures.

A Climate Central analysis shows that 13 of the hottest 15 years on record have all occurred since 2000 and that the odds of that happening randomly without the boost of global warming is 1 in 27 million.

According to NOAA, the average global temperature for 2014 was 1.24°F above the 20th century average of 57°F. The year, capped off by a record warm December, surpassed the previous record holders, 2005 and 2010, by 0.07°F. Those numbers confirm the ranking by the Japan Meteorological Agency (JMA) made earlier this month.

Including December, there were seven months in 2014 that set or tied record warmth.

There are small differences in the way various agencies handle global temperature data, yielding sometimes different rankings for particular months and years. But for 2014, there is broad agreement on the ranking, and for all agencies, nine of the 10 warmest years on record have all occurred since 2000.

The lack of any record cold years since 1911 is another sign of the long-term global warming trend. Over that same period, 19 records for hottest year, including 2014, have been set, according to a Climate Central analysis.

Unusual warmth was spread across certain land regions this year, particularly the Russian Far East, the U.S. West, parts of Australia, and Europe, which saw its hottest year in more than 500 years.

But it was the warmth of the oceans that really stood out. Sea surface temperatures for the planet were a record 1.03°F above the 20th century average, surpassing 2003 and 1998 (when an extreme El Nino boosted ocean heat) by 0.09°F.

Every ocean basin had some part of it with record warmth, said Thomas Karl, director of NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center.

How 2015 will shape up is, of course, uncertain, but that ocean heat will play a role, as water responds much more slowly to changes in heat than land. So even if there is an event like a volcano eruption that could cause cooling, that ocean heat isn’t likely to dissipate anytime soon.

“So that gives some added energy for 2015,” Karl said.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/broken-record-2014-proves-hottest-year/

[Wild Cobra]

I'm not surprised that the last few decades are the hottest, but I don't believe it to be 2014 as the hottest. I wonder what the raw temperature records say, before corrections were applied.

[Nero5]

It warmed a little over 1 degree in the 20th century and now appears to be leveling off. I don't know why you're so angry about that.

so where di you get the idea it is leveling off? There is a momentum or inertia in any system change and I suspect that even if the world ceased increasing emissions the temp rise will continue for many decades

[DarrinS]

so where di you get the idea it is leveling off? There is a momentum or inertia in any system change and I suspect that even if the world ceased increasing emissions the temp rise will continue for many decades


http://lmgtfy.com/?q=What+is+climate+change+hiatus%3F

[Blake]

I wonder what the raw temperature records say, before corrections were applied.

"Sorry, I have better things to do than look for things you can. I have a life. Don't you?"

[Wild Cobra]

"Sorry, I have better things to do than look for things you can. I have a life. Don't you?"

I have looked up the local records vs. NOAA. Too bad NOAA doesn't also have an uncorrected set of data accessible.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=What+is+climate+change+hiatus%3F

:lol Typical Darrin, hiding his sources or lack thereof.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I have looked up the local records vs. NOAA. Too bad NOAA doesn't also have an uncorrected set of data accessible.

jfc, you have zero clue about instrumentation. you cannot even argue the validity of their normalization -it is well beyond your scope- so you resort to this wishful thinking bullshit.

again when different instruments and environments are being used to take measurements, you have to normalize. there is nothing meangingful in the raw data because they are not measuring exact the same thing. this should be obvious: balloon data versus surface nor digital as opposed to mercury devices do not measure in the same manner or represent the same thing.

one of the major achievments of the BEST project was to examine and refine those normalizations. I know you want to see the raw data and do some napkin math but thank goodness we are spared your stupidity.

[Nero5]

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=What+is+climate+change+hiatus%3F

http://io9.com/global-warming-hiatus-doesnt-mean-that-temperatures-s-1636344544

[DarrinS]

http://io9.com/global-warming-hiatus-doesnt-mean-that-temperatures-s-1636344544

http://www.stat.washington.edu/peter/statclim/fyfeetal.pdf

[Wild Cobra]

again when different instruments and environments are being used to take measurements,

That's a mighty big ASSumption you have...

The location has not changed, or the surroundings by any significance.

If the instrumentation has changes, then errors between the two cannot be known with certainty, and a 2.3 degree F change is absolutely not warranted.

Why do you repeatedly show yourself to be so fucking stupid?

[boutons_deux]

If global warming is pausing, why is the ground ice in Iceland and Antarctica continuing to melt, why nearly all the world's glaciers melting, receding?

you AGW deniers, your BigCarbon shilling and right-wing ideology pegs as stupid fucks.

[boutons_deux]

The Social Cost of Carbon Is Six Times Higher Than Estimated


What if the social cost of carbon (http://cleantechnica.com/?s=social+cost+of+carbon) – a calculation of economic damage caused by carbon dioxide emissions used as the foundation of American climate policy assessments – was wrong? And not just “oops-I-forgot-a-decimal-point” wrong, but “ruin-your-national-economy” wrong?Unfortunately, according to a new study from Stanford University scientists (http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate2481.html), the price tag for the ever-growing amount of CO2 humanity is spewing into the air is six times higher than previously estimated by the U.S. government.

If true, this higher social cost of carbon has major implications for emissions policy. Not only do the grim economic projections of climate change impacts become much worse in developed nations, they may leave some developing countries unable to sustain economic growth.

A Trillion-Dollar Economic Threat to America?

Economic evaluation of U.S. federal climate policies has hinged on a social cost of carbon (http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/inforeg/for-agencies/Social-Cost-of-Carbon-for-RIA.pdf) estimate since it was first defined in 2010 and subsequently updated to $37 per metric ton of CO2 (http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2013/11/01/refining-estimates-social-cost-carbon) in 2013. The social cost of carbon estimates monetized damages from climate-related impacts (http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/inforeg/for-agencies/Social-Cost-of-Carbon-for-RIA.pdf) like decreased agricultural production, human health, and flood damages, among others.Unfortunately, $37 seems like a dangerously low estimate.

Each metric ton of carbon dioxide emitted into the atmosphere causes $220 in economic damages, say the Stanford researchers. If that seems like a manageable cost, add in context from overall U.S. emissions and a staggering economic threat takes shape.In 2013, American energy sector CO2 emissions (http://www.eia.gov/environment/emissions/carbon/) rose 2.5%, totaling 5,396 million metric tons.

If the Stanford research is applied, America may face a price tag of well over $1 trillion dollars annually just from generating power, not to mention transportation or manufacturing-related emissions. Considering America’s gross domestic product (http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.MKTP.CD) (GDP) was $16.7 trillion in 2013, our carbon costs are significant, to say the least.

Higher Costs Over Time, Higher Social Cost of Carbon

So how have we gotten the social cost of carbon so wrong? Inaccurate economic modeling, in essence, say the Stanford researchers. America’s social cost of carbon (as well as those in Germany, the United Kingdom, Canada, and others) is based on an integrated assessment model (http://www.epa.gov/sustainability/analytics/integrated-assessment.htm) (IAM). IAMs combine myriad inputs to assign costs and benefits to certain actions (in this case cutting emissions), but IAMs assume climate change costs are felt immediately without permanent damage to GDP, and fail to add up how climate change and associated economic impacts add up over time.
http://cleantechnica.com/files/2015/01/Screen-shot-2015-01-15-at-1.06.47-PM-570x233.png (http://cleantechnica.com/2015/01/16/the-social-cost-of-carbon-is-six-times-higher-than-estimated/screen-shot-2015-01-15-at-1-06-47-pm/)
Emissions, temperatures, per-capita GDP charts (http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate2481.html) via Nature Climate Change


The Stanford study arrived at a $220 social cost of carbon by allowing climate change to impact an economy’s development as a certain amount of money is spent adapting to rising seas, hotter temperatures, and stronger storms. “For 20 years now, the models have assumed climate change can’t affect the basic growth rate of the economy,” said Stanford’s Frances Moore (http://news.stanford.edu/news/2015/january/emissions-social-costs-011215.html), a study co-author.

“If climate change affects not only a country’s economic output but also its growth, than that has a permanent effect that accumulates over time, leading to a much higher social cost of carbon.”Put another way, with every extreme weather event caused by climate change, more money must go toward rebuilding or recovering, limiting money available for investment and gradually eroding capital infrastructure like roads and buildings.

Sure, New York and New Jersey recovered from Hurricane Sandy (http://cleantechnica.com/2013/08/21/lessons-from-frankenstorm-investing-for-future-power-disruptions/), but every dollar funding climate resiliency (http://cleantechnica.com/2013/06/19/50-top-us-mayors-launch-climate-change-community-resiliency-campaign/) and repair is one less spent on existing needs, and every day a worker couldn’t work because their business was closed or home destroyed was one less day to generate income.

http://cleantechnica.com/2015/01/16/the-social-cost-of-carbon-is-six-times-higher-than-estimated/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+IM-cleantechnica+%28CleanTechnica%29 (http://cleantechnica.com/2015/01/16/the-social-cost-of-carbon-is-six-times-higher-than-estimated/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+IM-cleantechnica+%28CleanTechnica%29)

[boutons_deux]

Melting glaciers have big carbon impact


studied measurements from ice sheets in mountain glaciers globally, the Greenland ice sheet and the Antarctic ice sheet to measure the total amount of organic carbon stored in the global ice reservoir.
It's a lot.

Specifically, as glaciers melt, the amount of organic carbon exported in glacier outflow will increase 50 percent over the next 35 years. To put that in context, that's about the amount of organic carbon in half of the Mississippi River being added each year to the ocean from melting glaciers.

"This research makes it clear that glaciers represent a substantial reservoir of organic carbon," said Eran Hood, the lead author on the paper and a scientist with the University of Alaska Southeast. "As a result, the loss of glacier mass worldwide, along with the corresponding release of carbon, will affect high-latitude marine ecosystems, particularly those surrounding the major ice sheets that now receive fairly limited land-to-ocean fluxes of organic carbon."

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/01/150119124522.htm?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+sciencedaily+%28Latest+Scienc e+News+--+ScienceDaily%29

[boutons_deux]

state by state tally of AGW-deniers/anti-science/BigCarbon shills
(http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/01/08/3608427/climate-denier-caucus-114th-congress/)
The Anti-Science Climate Denier Caucus: 114th Congress Edition (http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/01/08/3608427/climate-denier-caucus-114th-congress/)


http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/01/08/3608427/climate-denier-caucus-114th-congress/

[FuzzyLumpkins]

That's a mighty big ASSumption you have...

The location has not changed, or the surroundings by any significance.

If the instrumentation has changes, then errors between the two cannot be known with certainty, and a 2.3 degree F change is absolutely not warranted.

Why do you repeatedly show yourself to be so fucking stupid?

:lol

It's not that that the instruments change over time so much although they do. It is that they are different devices measuring different things in different places. An IR thermometer does not behave like a standard mercury for a myriad of reasons. Measuring the temperature of a liquid like water has different responses as opposed to the gas of the atmosphere. They are integrating the data points of thousands of different locations and devices into a single value representing the whole.

None of this is assumption. It's all fact.

It's obvious the entire process is well beyond your scope. You keep handwaving at the raw numbers and acting like you personally could discern some hidden truth if you had them. It's typical stupidity from you. You don't even understand why or what they are doing though.

[Wild Cobra]

Sop in the end, you cannot say 2014 is the hottest.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Sop in the end, you cannot say 2014 is the hottest.

NASA has stated that 2014 was officially the warmest on record. Given the degree error it could be in reality lower but by that same token it could be greater as well.

Officially it is what it is.

In the end, you completely abandoned your argument about the normalization of data. Again.

[Wild Cobra]

You can stay with that statistical, political, dogmatic pseudoscience. I'll stick with reality.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

You can stay with that statistical, political, dogmatic pseudoscience. I'll stick with reality.

Normalization to permute the readings from various devices is well established science and engineering. If that were not the case then things such as supersonic flight and ABS would not work.

What you are doing here is not even pseudoscience. It's just willful stupidity.

[Wild Cobra]

If that were not the case then things such as supersonic flight and ABS would not work.

And it often doesn't work until they test and test and test, under controllable simulated condition. All along, they make variations. It seldom works the first time, and climate cannot be simulated like test lights can.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

And it often doesn't work until they test and test and test, under controllable simulated condition. All along, they make variations. It seldom works the first time, and climate cannot be simulated like test lights can.

ffs, we are talking about the temperature record and normalizing temperature measurements. While it may be fun to compare turbulence responses at 700 mph to the capillary behavior of mercury over the course of years, it's just more stupidity.

This is besides the point anyway. You have consistently claimed that scientists are lying to the public with your climastrologist nonsense. What you are describing here is simple trial and error and since when was that a flawed approach?

[Wild Cobra]

ffs, we are talking about the temperature record and normalizing temperature measurements. While it may be fun to compare turbulence responses at 700 mph to the capillary behavior of mercury over the course of years, it's just more stupidity.

This is besides the point anyway. You have consistently claimed that scientists are lying to the public with your climastrologist nonsense. What you are describing here is simple trial and error and since when was that a flawed approach?
You are the one that made the comparison, you imbecile.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

You are the one that made the comparison, you imbecile.

The comparison was in that they both used normalization with their I/O. That does not mean that everything about them is the same ffs. If anything the point should be that the technique is used to solve much harder problems than merging the temperature record. It's standard practice and you are ignorant to it frankly.

[boutons_deux]

"Dark Money" Funds Climate Change Denial Effort

A Drexel University study finds that a large slice of donations to organizations that deny global warming are funneled through third-party pass-through organizations that conceal the original funder

The largest, most-consistent money fueling the climate denial movement are a number of well-funded conservative foundations built with so-called "dark money," or concealed donations,

It found that the amount of money flowing through third-party, pass-through foundations like DonorsTrust and Donors Capital, whose funding cannot be traced, has risen dramatically over the past five years.

In all, 140 foundations funneled $558 million to almost 100 climate denial organizations from 2003 to 2010.

Meanwhile the traceable cash flow from more traditional sources, such as Koch Industries and ExxonMobil, has disappeared.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/dark-money-funds-climate-change-denial-effort/

[RandomGuy]

How about specifying how it was ethical first?

I'm not the one making a claim sport-o.

Your claim, your burden.

KayBys8gaJY

[RandomGuy]

LOL

Cherry picking data, much?

That shit works both ways.

http://www.weather.com/news/news/winter-ncdc-state-climate-report-2013-2014-20140313

(winces)

Global average is global.

It doesn't work both ways.

[Nero5]

http://www.stat.washington.edu/peter/statclim/fyfeetal.pdf


yay! in the absence of intelligent discussion we're going to play google tennis with dubious sources. This is emblematic of what the climate debate has become: google-fu wars of crackpots

[Nero5]

You can stay with that statistical, political, dogmatic pseudoscience. I'll stick with reality.

ROTFL! Of course we all know NASA are just a puppet on a string for ... !

[Wild Cobra]

The Senate on Wednesday passed a measure stating that "climate change is real and is not a hoax" by a margin of 98-1.

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/senate-votes-98-1-climate-change-not-hoax-n290831

[boutons_deux]

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/senate-votes-98-1-climate-change-not-hoax-n290831

get back to us when the Senate votes 98-1 that global warming is anthropogenic, AND votes to reduce GHG emissions.

[Wild Cobra]

get back to us when the Senate votes 98-1 that global warming is anthropogenic, AND votes to reduce GHG emissions.
Why would they ever do such a stupid thing?

[boutons_deux]

BP Shareholders Urge Oil Giant to Face Up to Climate Risks


A coalition of more than 150 BP shareholders, including Church of England and the UK’s Environment Agency, filed a resolution today requiring the company to assess and manage its climate (http://ecowatch.com/climate-change-news/) risk.

http://ecowatch.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/bpclimate.jpg (http://ecowatch.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/bpclimate.jpg)

“BP and Shell hold our financial and environmental future in their hands. They must do more to face the risks of climate change. Investors can help them by voting for these shareholder resolutions.”In the resolution, shareholders are asking the oil giant to no longer reward climate-harming activities, stress-test its business model against the requirement to limit greenhouse gas emissions in accordance to the UN Climate Change Conference in 2010, and commit to reducing its carbon emissions and investing in renewable energy (http://ecowatch.com/business/renewables/). The resolution will be voted on at BP’s 2015 annual general meeting in April.

The same group filed an identical resolution with Shell last month putting increased pressure on Big Oil to act now to mitigate climate risks.

http://ecowatch.com/2015/01/21/bp-face-climate-risks/?utm_source=EcoWatch+List&utm_campaign=82bf61c598-Top_News_1_22_2015&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_49c7d43dc9-82bf61c598-85879165

as if BigCorp GAF about shareholders

[FuzzyLumpkins]

BP Shareholders Urge Oil Giant to Face Up to Climate Risks


A coalition of more than 150 BP shareholders, including Church of England and the UK’s Environment Agency, filed a resolution today requiring the company to assess and manage its climate (http://ecowatch.com/climate-change-news/) risk.

http://ecowatch.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/bpclimate.jpg (http://ecowatch.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/bpclimate.jpg)

“BP and Shell hold our financial and environmental future in their hands. They must do more to face the risks of climate change. Investors can help them by voting for these shareholder resolutions.”In the resolution, shareholders are asking the oil giant to no longer reward climate-harming activities, stress-test its business model against the requirement to limit greenhouse gas emissions in accordance to the UN Climate Change Conference in 2010, and commit to reducing its carbon emissions and investing in renewable energy (http://ecowatch.com/business/renewables/). The resolution will be voted on at BP’s 2015 annual general meeting in April.

The same group filed an identical resolution with Shell last month putting increased pressure on Big Oil to act now to mitigate climate risks.

http://ecowatch.com/2015/01/21/bp-face-climate-risks/?utm_source=EcoWatch+List&utm_campaign=82bf61c598-Top_News_1_22_2015&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_49c7d43dc9-82bf61c598-85879165

as if BigCorp GAF about shareholders




Votes matter when you get enough of them. I hope when I get as old as you I don't act so defeated.

[boutons_deux]

Votes matter when you get enough of them. I hope when I get as old as you I don't act so defeated.

My guess is that BP shareholders votes will have NO EFFECT on BP policies. Maybe BP will spend more on green-washing advertizing, but nothing else.

[Wild Cobra]

as if BigCorp GAF about shareholders


Depending on the types of shares they hold, the vote can be binding.

[Leetonidas]

:lmao this thread is hilarious

[boutons_deux]

Depending on the types of shares they hold, the vote can be binding.

in theory, but just like your blind ideology, almost never happens. BigCorps have even issued non voting shares to dilute the power of voting shares, etc. shareholders of BigCorp have almost no influence on governance.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

:lmao this thread is hilarious

Did you get to the part where poptart started editing his posts?

[SnakeBoy]

shareholders of BigCorp have almost no influence on governance.

This is very true. It is also a very good thing.

[TheSanityAnnex]

:lmao this thread is hilarious
Did you get to the part where Fuzzy pulled this bitch move?


Ahh, I see your 'Impact of Popular Technology" list. I have a lot more addresses to track down and emails to send.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Did you get to the part where Fuzzy pulled this bitch move?

[/COLOR]

I am still waiting for someone to explain why it's okay for poptart to troll the interwebs to find discrediting things about his political enemies to post on a public site but it's not okay for me to send targeted emails to the people directly involved discrediting him.

Self styled conservatives cheer him but I'm scum? I just think you're butthurt about me because I make fun of you having a hard time reading.

[TheSanityAnnex]

I am still waiting for someone to explain why it's okay for poptart to troll the interwebs to find discrediting things about his political enemies to post on a public site but it's not okay for me to send targeted emails to the people directly involved discrediting him.

Self styled conservatives cheer him but I'm scum? I just think you're butthurt about me because I make fun of you having a hard time reading.

It was a bitch move, own it.

[DarrinS]

It was a bitch move, own it.

^

[FuzzyLumpkins]

It was a bitch move, own it.


I am still waiting for someone to explain why it's okay for poptart to troll the interwebs to find discrediting things about his political enemies to post on a public site but it's not okay for me to send targeted emails to the people directly involved discrediting him.

Self styled conservatives cheer him but I'm scum? I just think you're butthurt about me because I make fun of you having a hard time reading.

Again if it is such an unscrupulous move then please explain how. Or are you too stupid?

You guys are doing the simpleton routine of repeating something over and over again and hoping that it will suddenly become true.

What I think is that you guys don't like me and have that spilling over rather than any actual well thought out basis. Blind, angry, stupidity.

[DarrinS]

Again if it is such an unscrupulous move then please explain how. Or are you too stupid?

You guys are doing the simpleton routine of repeating something over and over again and hoping that it will suddenly become true.

What I think is that you guys don't like me and have that spilling over rather than any actual well thought out basis. Blind, angry, stupidity.


Doesn't take much logic to show that it was a bitch move.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Doesn't take much logic to show that it was a bitch move.

Thing is if it is so simple yet you cannot do it that means you are incapable of doing simple mental tasks. More proof of how dumb you are!

[spurraider21]

https://scontent-b-lax.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xap1/v/t1.0-9/1507690_584263595038808_1564511443757149152_n.jpg? oh=a572d20ba285810d16ad228583d0112b&oe=556C3CA1

[DarrinS]

Climate Change Deniers are Completely Insane (http://themattwalshblog.com/2015/01/28/climate-change-deniers-completely-insane/)





Got this message yesterday from a very concerned climate change alarmist:



Hi Matt, I read you sometimes but I generally find you to be an assh*le. Just being honest. I also think you have a reputation (or you’d like to think you have a reputation) as someone who isn’t afraid to “tell it like it is,” but I think you haven’t earned that. Actually you are very afraid to challenge any republican talking point so you stick to the script on everything. I guess it’s more important to be invited to the parties than to tell the truth.

I’m wondering if you have the guts to address something and actually force your right wing readers to think for themselves. I’m getting really tired of seeing these idiots on Facebook who every time it gets cold or snows start gloating about how it “proves” there is no climate change. You’ve never outed yourself as a climate denier, and I know you like to consider yourself a logical person, so I’m hoping this is one area where you differ from your cohorts. These morons need to be put in their place. Colder temperatures and blizzards ARE CONSISTENT WITH THE SCIENTIFIC MODEL FOR CLIMATE CHANGE. This is why I could never be a republican. I can’t be a part of a group of anti-science climate deniers who would kill this planet if they were given free reign. Prove you’re really “controversial,” Matt, and call your people to task here.

-JM




Hi JM,

I agree with you. Honestly, I never addressed it because I never knew it was such a pervasive problem. But now that you’ve called my attention to it, allow me to be the first to say that climate deniers are lunatics. I’ll take it a step further than you even did, JM, and submit that climate deniers should be banned from teaching, voted out of office, and probably fired from any other job they might hold. Seriously, I can’t hardly believe that anyone could be so foolish and so delusional as to be a climate denier.


I mean, to deny the existence of the climate? That’s madness. The word “climate” means “the composite or generally prevailing weather conditions of a region.” The word “deny” means “to refuse to recognize or acknowledge; disown; disavow; repudiate.” Anyone who rejects or repudiates the existence of weather conditions ought to be scolded and shunned and possibly institutionalized. We all must stand up against these menaces!

Luckily, upon closer inspection, I see that no such view actually exists anywhere in our society. This is just a label you people fabricated because left wing environmentalists are reflexively disingenuous about everything. “Climate denier” may in fact be the most ludicrous assemblage of two words ever concocted by mankind. But it’s not much better than the slightly more specific “climate change denier,” (used in a sentence: “liberal college professors think climate change deniers should be put in prison“) because, despite these marvelous straw men left wingers take so much time building, nobody in the world denies the fact of climate change. If anyone is a climate change denier — that is, someone who denies that climates change — I’d agree that he is an imbecile and probably mentally unstable.

Yet that view doesn’t exist because we all know the climate changes. Of course the climate changes. It’s a climate. That’s what climates do. They change. It gets colder, it gets hotter, it rains, it snows, it does all kinds of things. I don’t deny that, and although I’m not a Republican and I take great exception to that accusation, I feel safe in speaking for them when I say that they neither deny the fact of the climate, nor the fact that the climate changes. Progressives use labels like “climate denier” or “climate skeptic” (for the people who are willing to believe that there might be a climate, but are still a little iffy on the whole thing) because they are not interested in an honest discussion. You either buy in to their environmental dogma one hundred percent, or you will be painted as an idiot, an infidel, and a maniac.

Now, why might a person be skeptical about the theory that humans are causing dramatic shifts to the climate, and that these shifts will eventually kill us all? Have you ever thought about why someone might have these reservations, JM? Have you really taken the time to consider the reasons for this skepticism? Yeah, they’re morons, right, I get it, but have you determined that they’re morons because the media and people on Twitter told you they’re morons, or because you gave their case a fair hearing and came away with the impression that they have absolutely nothing even slightly coherent to say? I’m guessing it’s more the former, which makes you not necessarily a moron yourself, but an intellectually lazy chump who can be easily herded and exploited.

But since you broached the subject, I’m hoping today will be perhaps the first day in your life when you listen to a point of view before deciding to disqualify it.

So, why do so many people have trouble falling in line with the Climate Change Doomsday Cult (CCDC)? Let’s start with history. Just going back through the past few decades, according to left wing environmentalists we should all be dead from an Ice Age, and after that it was a nuclear winter, and after that it was overpopulation. Sprinkle in the various fits of hysteria about how we’re going to run out of oil and end up back living in caves, or run out of rain forest and suffocate to death, or run out of food, or run out of water, or run out of ozone, and you see how people might grow wary of the CCDC’s constant hand wringing about some kind of apocalypse (side note: “Some Kind of Apocalypse” would be a great name for a band). We should have perished 12 times over at this point. There were at least three different global annihilations that should have arrived before the year 2000, and another several since then. We should be starving, sick with radiation poisoning, unable to breathe, freezing from the sub zero temperatures, melting from the scorching heat, and causing entire landmasses to literally tip over due to the excess population. But we’re still here.

Some of these theories, like overpopulation and the Ice Age, have been thoroughly debunked and disproved. Others have simply been abandoned for trendier causes. But in all of these cases, the prophets of doom reaped profits from the doom, while slimy politicians used the hysteria as a means to tax, regulate, and control. Excuse us, JM, but are you really saying that after so many failed and erroneous predictions, we shouldn’t even raise an eyebrow when the very same people come back with yet another one?

Left Wing Environmentalists: Watch out everyone, this is going to kill you!

Everyone: Oh no! What do we do?

LWE: Quick pay more taxes!

Everyone: OK, here you go!

LWE: Just kidding. That probably won’t kill you, but this will!

Everyone: AHHHH!

LWE: No, OK, not that. But this!

Everyone: Dear Lord, help us!

LWE: Alright, never mind, we dodged that bullet. But this new thing will definitely wipe us out!

Everyone: We’re so afraid!

LWE: Scratch that. It’s this. This will do it!

Everyone: Uh, OK, we’re starting to get a little skeptical –

LWE: WHY DO YOU HATE SCIENCE?

How many times do they have to be wrong before our skepticism might be considered reasonable? Because that’s what this is about. Skepticism. You’re saying, just as most progressives say, that it’s “anti-science” to even be skeptical of climate alarmism, which is to say that the prevailing climate theory of the day should be believed regardless of how believable it is. This is the very definition of an unscientific attitude. It’s religious zealotry. Nothing more, nothing less.

Our history lesson isn’t over. Not long ago, nobody talked about climate change — instead it was global warming. If you can recall the year 2007, way back in the distant past, you might remember when Al Gore received a Nobel Peace prize for narrating a science fiction documentary and mentioned in his acceptance speech that the North Polar ice cap would completely melt by the year 2013. But then the year 2013 rolled around, and the Arctic had actually increased in mass by about 60 percent. Man, that’s embarrassing.

Indeed, you wouldn’t expect global warming to melt the ice caps considering the globe hasn’t warmed since about 1997. In other words, by the time Gore jumped on the global warming gravy train, global warming hadn’t been a thing for about a decade. Today, we’re about 219 months and counting since the last time the aggregate temperatures on Earth rose by any statistically significant amount.

What happened next? Well, the same thing that always happens. Progressives repackaged, rebranded, renamed, and came up with a few new marketing tricks. Suddenly, global warming became climate change, and man made climate change is as undeniable as man made global warming, even though global warming didn’t exist.

It was a smart move, though. Progressives realized that global warming — like the Ice Age, or overpopulation, or a nuclear winter — is just too specific. They needed something that could never be truly debunked because, no matter what happens, whatever happens proves them right. Hence, climate change.

“The climate is changing because of people!”

How do you know?

“Because it’s changing!”

Yeah, but–

“Look! It just changed again!”

They came up with a theory that can be validated by any turn of events, which means it can’t be validated by any turn of events. They’ve formulated not that one plus one equals two, or even that one plus one equals four, but that one plus one equals infinity.

Want to see something funny? Here’s a National Geographic headline from September of 2014:

Human-Caused Climate Change Worsened Heat Waves in 2013

Now, here’s one from yesterday:

Blizzard of Nor’Easters No Surprise, Thanks to Climate Change

One theory, two opposite results, both proof of the theory. Does that make sense, JM? Can you, at a minimum, understand why some of us look at that and think “hmmmm”?

On a related note, the subheading under that blizzard article is pretty hysterical: “More extreme storms are expected to fall on the Northeast as climate changes.”

Oh, as the climate changes sometimes snow happens, you say? Yes, it’s called winter in the north east. It’s been this way for a while now, National Geographic. Why are you so surprised that it snowed in Buffalo in January? Aren’t you people supposed to be nature experts?

It’s all so ridiculous, JM. And we haven’t even really gotten to dissecting the actual science here.

As far as that goes, I admit I’m not a scientist, though I suspect neither are you, and neither are most of the people who participate in this debate on either side. Still, even us lowly citizens can know a few things. For instance, we can know that the climate on this planet has changed wildly over the course of its existence. It’s had tropical periods and icy periods and everything in between, and the vast majority of all of that came before the Industrial Age. In fact, human beings have only been industrialized for a tiny fraction of human history, and we’ve been driving cars for an even tinier fraction. We can know, therefore, that temperatures and weather conditions have swung dramatically from one side of the spectrum to the other and back again, and, from a historical perspective, when comparing 200 years of industrialization to the 4 billion years the Earth’s been around, almost all of the warming and cooling happened before any factory was ever built.

We can also know that our CO2 emmissions are dwarfed by the immense amount of carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere by natural (and evil, likely Republican) sources like oceans and vegetation.

We can further know that the Sun — which is big enough to eat a million Earths, and hot enough to make you burst into flames from millions of miles away — really calls the shots in our solar system. If we’re searching for “global warming” culprits, we might want to look at that 27,000,000 degree ball of gas in the sky.

And we can even more confidently know that if human CO2 emissions are a primary driver of global temperatures, it wouldn’t make sense for temperatures to drop or stay stagnate while humanity only continues to increase its CO2 output. But that’s exactly what’s happened. I can know that, and I can know that something doesn’t make sense here. And I can know all of that without being a “scientist.”

Speaking of scientists, it’s probably not worth mentioning at this point that there isn’t any real 97 percent consensus on climate change in the scientific community. That oft-cited figure is based on faulty methodology, cherry picked findings, misleading questions, and misinterpreted results. What do scientists really think? Well, a good number of them are just as skeptical as me, check here, and here, and here for example.

Even the people who believe in man made climate change don’t really believe it. That’s why so few of you folks are actively adjusting your lifestyle in any substantive way. I mean, if you think that the Earth itself is on the verge of a destruction brought upon by human beings and our technology, wouldn’t you clothe yourself in a loin cloth stitched from foliage and run off into the wilderness, living in a hollowed-out tree and subsisting on wild edibles? If you possess the conviction that the planet itself will die if humanity does not make dramatic changes, wouldn’t you begin by making those dramatic changes yourself? But you don’t. Maybe you buy a hybrid, maybe you put a “Save the Earth” bumper sticker on it, maybe you turn your heat down at night, but when it comes down to it, leftwing environmentalists continue on living the same way we all do. They drive around, buy things, watch TV, fly on airplanes, eat at restaurants. They sermonize about the end times but that’s all it is — a sermon. At least other religious cults put their money where their mouth is. You guys use a lot of dramatic language, but do nothing.

So where does that leave us? With, you might say, a few reasons to be have some doubt. But I realize this isn’t about “reasons” for you, it’s about faith. And far be it for me to attack your religion.

Thanks for writing.

-Matt

[spurraider21]

tl/dr.org

[Th'Pusher]

Oh my.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/22/us/ties-to-corporate-cash-for-climate-change-researcher-Wei-Hock-Soon.html?_r=0

[ElNono]

^ would be good to get a breakdown on all the scientists that are on the take and by whom... unfortunately, transparency in politics is pretty much dead.

[HI-FI]

^ would be good to get a breakdown on all the scientists that are on the take and by whom... unfortunately, transparency in politics is pretty much dead.
GFY repug. Obama has been the most transparent president, he even stated as such.

[ElNono]

GFY repug. Obama has been the most transparent president, he even stated as such.

nig knows how to repeat, tbh... :depressed

[boutons_deux]

^ would be good to get a breakdown on all the scientists that are on the take and by whom... unfortunately, transparency in politics is pretty much dead.

I don't see why "Willie" merits an NYT article, because over the years, the pro-AGW/environmentalists have documented many AGW-denying scientists as other "Willies" and politicians on the take, all whores paid by BigCorp/BigCarbon to deny AGW.

[DarrinS]

Oh my.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/22/us/ties-to-corporate-cash-for-climate-change-researcher-Wei-Hock-Soon.html?_r=0

Indeed

http://notrickszone.com/2015/02/09/long-list-of-warmist-organizations-scientists-haul-in-huge-money-from-big-oil-and-heavy-industry/#sthash.JCtj0pH7.dpbs

[Winehole23]

did you read the article DarrinS? Dr. Soon referred to his papers and Congressional testimony in correspondence with his donors as "deliverables" and failed to disclose conflicts of interest to journals in which he was published.

How does that strike you?

[DarrinS]

did you read the article DarrinS? Dr. Soon referred to his papers and Congressional testimony in correspondence with his donors as "deliverables" and failed to disclose conflicts of interest to journals in which he was published.

How does that strike you?


Ooh, "deliverables". That's quite the red flag. :lmao

[DarrinS]

<gasp> IPCC "deliverables"

https://www.ipcc.gov.uk/sites/default/files/Commission%20documents/Item%2021%20-%202012%2013%20Business%20Plan%20Deliverables%20-%20Mid-Year%20Report%20%5BNPM%5D.pdf

[Winehole23]

Ooh, "deliverables". That's quite the red flag. :lmaoactually, the non-disclosure is the bigger issue.

[Winehole23]

"the other side does it too" is hardly exonerating from the standpoint of science and professional ethics

[boutons_deux]

Darrin's delivery boy is paid by BigCorp to lie, IPCC science delivery boys are paid to do science.

[DarrinS]

"the other side does it too" is hardly exonerating from the standpoint of science and professional ethics


As long as your work is sound, it doesn't matter who signs your paycheck. Evil "for profit" BigCarbon sponsors a LOT of climate change research, conferences, etc.

[boutons_deux]

As long as your work is sound, it doesn't matter who signs your paycheck. Evil "for profit" BigCarbon sponsors a LOT of climate change research, conferences, etc.

Can you list any scientists who got paid by BigCarbon/BigCorp whose "sound work" confirmed AGW? :lol

[DarrinS]

Can you list any scientists who got paid by BigCarbon/BigCorp whose "sound work" confirmed AGW? :lol

I already did

:lol :lol :lol

[RandomGuy]

As long as your work is sound, it doesn't matter who signs your paycheck. Evil "for profit" BigCarbon sponsors a LOT of climate change research, conferences, etc.

Link?

Just like cigarette companies sponsored a lot of cancer research?

[RandomGuy]

It was a bitch move, own it.

(shrug)

Getting to the actual people involved is what the internet is for. I have, during the run of this thread, actually contacted one of the scientists involved in some study or another to ask a question and gotten an actual answer.

How exactly is getting to the best information possible a big thing?

[RandomGuy]

lPgZfhnCAdI

"I do not believe the scientists, because it is their profession and not their hobby".

:bang


What's the point of taking the excerpts? When you cherry pick, you can show one side. I wonder what the full C-Span clip would tell us?


That the Republicans on the science oversight panel care far less for actual science than they do the politics and feelings about the "truthiness" of facts.

You tell me, because the nitwit politician is pretty much aping your favorite conspiracy theory, and the one you, and Yoni, have failed so hard in proving, just like Cosmored has failed to prove his.


Well, I disagree, and it is not presented in context. What you posted is very unethical.


By all means, present what you think the proper context for their fucktarded and ignorant statements is.

Unethical, how? Be specific.


How about specifying how it was ethical first?


I'm not the one making a claim sport-o.

Your claim, your burden.

KayBys8gaJY

I will ask again, how was posting a summary unethical?

[boutons_deux]

I already did

:lol :lol :lol

and after they confirmed AGW, they continued to receive $$$ from BigCarbon/BigCorp?

[DarrinS]

and after they confirmed AGW, they continued to receive $$$ from BigCarbon/BigCorp?

There's no need to "confirm" AGW. No one denies the A or the G or the W. The "denial" is about the immediate need to "take action", or else climategeddon.

[boutons_deux]

There's no need to "confirm" AGW. No one denies the A or the G or the W. The "denial" is about the immediate need to "take action", or else climategeddon.

BS, the key denier points are:

1. global warming is not caused by man

2. global warming is natural

3. global warming has paused, so back off, cool it.

4. global warming can't be affected by man one way or the other, so do nothing (and above: emissions regulations, no carbon tax, don't touch BigCarbon/BigCorp profits)

5, AGW is a hoax

6. AGW is world-wide conspiracy.

7. don't call it AGW, call it the harmless sounding "climate change" euphemistic "issue"

[Wild Cobra]

BS, the key denier points are:

1. global warming is not caused by man

Only double digit midgets believe that.

Oops...

My apologies to the little people. I didn't mean to offend you...



2. global warming is natural

Are you saying none of it is natural?




3. global warming has paused, so back off, cool it.

We are still asking for a reliable explanation and model that will hold for the next 20 years.





4. global warming can't be affected by man one way or the other, so do nothing (and above: emissions regulations, no carbon tax, don't touch BigCarbon/BigCorp profits)

Who is saying that? Link please.

Of course we play a role. We just aren't 100% of the changes.




5, AGW is a hoax

6. AGW is world-wide conspiracy.

7. don't call it AGW, call it the harmless sounding "climate change" euphemistic "issue"
My God, you have one active imagination!

[DarrinS]

BS, the key denier points are:

1. global warming is not caused by man

2. global warming is natural

3. global warming has paused, so back off, cool it.

4. global warming can't be affected by man one way or the other, so do nothing (and above: emissions regulations, no carbon tax, don't touch BigCarbon/BigCorp profits)

5, AGW is a hoax

6. AGW is world-wide conspiracy.

7. don't call it AGW, call it the harmless sounding "climate change" euphemistic "issue"


:lmao

[boutons_deux]

:lmao

You right wingers are so misinformed.

I've heard every one of those 7 points repeatedly, and most of them right here from You People.

[Wild Cobra]

You right wingers are so misinformed.

I've heard every one of those 7 points repeatedly, and most of them right here from You People.
Well, your paraphrasing is definately inaccurate.

Are you being intellectually dishonest, or is it stupid ignorance?

I suspect the latter.

[DarrinS]

You right wingers are so misinformed.

I've heard every one of those 7 points repeatedly, and most of them right here from You People.


I've talked about "the pause", or hiatus, which is even acknowledged by the IPCC.

[Winehole23]

As long as your work is sound, it doesn't matter who signs your paycheck. Evil "for profit" BigCarbon sponsors a LOT of climate change research, conferences, etc.Regardless of who signs the paycheck, professional ethics requires disclosure of possible conflicts of interest.

If your work is sound, why would you be furtive about who paid for it?

[DarrinS]

Regardless of who signs the paycheck, professional ethics requires disclosure of possible conflicts of interest.

If your work is sound, why would you be furtive about who paid for it?


Oh well, at least he didn't have to resign amid sexual harassment allegations. That's what happened to the head of the IPCC today.

[RandomGuy]

Regardless of who signs the paycheck, professional ethics requires disclosure of possible conflicts of interest.

If your work is sound, why would you be furtive about who paid for it?

Good question. The answer:

"Because your work might attract a bit more skepticism and scrutiny, or the people paying for it, asked that they not be named as funding sources"

[RandomGuy]

BS, the key denier points are:

1. global warming is not caused by man

2. global warming is natural

3. global warming has paused, so back off, cool it.

4. global warming can't be affected by man one way or the other, so do nothing (and above: emissions regulations, no carbon tax, don't touch BigCarbon/BigCorp profits)

5, AGW is a hoax

6. AGW is world-wide conspiracy.

7. don't call it AGW, call it the harmless sounding "climate change" euphemistic "issue"

Pretty much.

I could comb through the last few hundred pages and find rather specific examples. WC is fond of the conspiracy angle and Darrin parrots it endlessly as well.

[DarrinS]

Pretty much.

I could comb through the last few hundred pages and find rather specific examples. WC is fond of the conspiracy angle and Darrin parrots it endlessly as well.


liar

From a few years back: http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=163637&page=50&p=5414665&viewfull=1#post5414665


No conspiracy here.





No one denies it has warmed in the past century.
No one denies that CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
No one deines that humans emit CO2.

The REAL questions are:

Is CO2 the main driver of the warming?
Is the recent warming significant compared to historical patterns?
Will effects of the warming be catastrophic?
Will drastic cuts in CO2 emissions make much difference?

This is where reasonable people can agree to disagree. Calling people that you disagree with retarded doesn't add much to the debate.

[DarrinS]

Good question. The answer:

"Because your work might attract a bit more skepticism and scrutiny, or the people paying for it, asked that they not be named as funding sources"



The CRU has taken in millions from "BigOil". FYI.

[Th'Pusher]

http://www.newrepublic.com/article/121131/democrats-demand-fossil-fuel-disclosure-climate-denier-studies

[Winehole23]

Oh well, at least he didn't have to resign amid sexual harassment allegations. That's what happened to the head of the IPCC today.for sure you can deflect what you can't rebut, that hasn't changed.

[RandomGuy]

liar

From a few years back: http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=163637&page=50&p=5414665&viewfull=1#post5414665


No conspiracy here.

You really want to go a few rounds on this?

(sighs)

Fine.

Are the scientists who say yes to the REAL questions lying?

[DarrinS]

You really want to go a few rounds on this?

(sighs)

Fine.

Are the scientists who say yes to the REAL questions lying?

They believe it

[RandomGuy]

The CRU has taken in millions from "BigOil". FYI.

https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=greenwashing

[DarrinS]

http://www.newrepublic.com/article/121131/democrats-demand-fossil-fuel-disclosure-climate-denier-studies

So they are going to investigate grants to universities whose professors hold non-alarmists views? Seems legit.

[RandomGuy]

for sure you can deflect what you can't rebut, that hasn't changed.

Ad hominem, spin, repeat.

[RandomGuy]

They believe it

Why? [edit- for sake of clarity]... do the scientists who say that the CO2 emissions put out by human beings is causing warming?]

[DarrinS]

Why? [edit- for sake of clarity]... do the scientists who say that the CO2 emissions put out by human beings is causing warming?]


Why are you putting up this strawman? Skeptics also acknowledge this.

[Th'Pusher]

So they are going to investigate grants to universities whose professors hold non-alarmists views? Seems legit.

It's not about holding non-alarmist views. From the article:

On Tuesday, Congressman Raúl Grijalva, Democratic ranking member of the House Natural Resources Committee, sent requests to seven universities that employ academics known to be partial to fossil fuel interests based on their testimony before Congress. Soon's ethical violations “might not be isolated incidents,” Grijalva warned Georgia Tech, MIT, Pepperdine, Arizona State, the University of Delaware, the University of Colorado, and the University of Alabama, naming specific scientists and asking about the sources of his or her outside funding. The goal of the investigation is to "establish the impartiality of climate research and policy recommendations," writes Grijalva. "Companies with a direct financial interest in climate and air quality standards are funding environmental research that influences state and federal regulations and shapes public understanding of climate science. These conflicts should be clear to stakeholders, including policymakers who use scientific information to make decisions. My colleagues and I cannot perform our duties if research or testimony provided to us is influenced by undisclosed financial relationships.”

[DarrinS]

It's not about holding non-alarmist views. From the article:

On Tuesday, Congressman Raúl Grijalva, Democratic ranking member of the House Natural Resources Committee, sent requests to seven universities that employ academics known to be partial to fossil fuel interests based on their testimony before Congress. Soon's ethical violations “might not be isolated incidents,” Grijalva warned Georgia Tech, MIT, Pepperdine, Arizona State, the University of Delaware, the University of Colorado, and the University of Alabama, naming specific scientists and asking about the sources of his or her outside funding. The goal of the investigation is to "establish the impartiality of climate research and policy recommendations," writes Grijalva. "Companies with a direct financial interest in climate and air quality standards are funding environmental research that influences state and federal regulations and shapes public understanding of climate science. These conflicts should be clear to stakeholders, including policymakers who use scientific information to make decisions. My colleagues and I cannot perform our duties if research or testimony provided to us is influenced by undisclosed financial relationships.”


MIT - Richard Lindzen
Colorado - Roger A. Pielke Jr
Alabama - Roy Spencer, John Christy
Georgia Tech - Judith Curry

Obvious is obvious

[Winehole23]

what's obvious, that researchers are carrying water for donors and hiding the ties?

[DarrinS]

But that "news" about Dr. Willie Soon is earth-shattering.

Greenpeace has been bitching about that guy's funding since 2011

Using waybackmachine:
https://web.archive.org/web/20110701134815/http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/en/campaigns/global-warming-and-energy/polluterwatch/koch-industries/CASE-STUDY-Dr-Willie-Soon-a-Career-Fueled-by-Big-Oil-and-Coal/


For some reason, the NYT decided recently to carry the torch (and pitchforks) for GP. :lmao

[DarrinS]

what's obvious, that researchers are carrying water for donors and hiding the ties?

Not hidden very well, if it's been known for years.

[Winehole23]

obvious, like I said.

is there something about research being sold out to special interests that strikes you as funny? you seem to find all this rather amusing.

[Winehole23]

you also seem to think that because your antagonist lies and cheats, not only it is virtuous for your side to do so as well, it would be remiss for it not to.

[Winehole23]

agree or disagree?

if not, why not?

[DarrinS]

From 2007: http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/global/usa/binaries/2007/5/exxon-secrets-analysis-of-fun.pdf

Best if read with X-files theme music in background

[DarrinS]

MIT - Richard Lindzen
Colorado - Roger A. Pielke Jr
Alabama - Roy Spencer, John Christy
Georgia Tech - Judith Curry

Obvious is obvious



Ha ha. I knew it.

http://democrats.naturalresources.house.gov/documents/letters-seven-universities-asking-documents-climate-change-research

[Th'Pusher]

Ha ha. I knew it.

http://democrats.naturalresources.house.gov/documents/letters-seven-universities-asking-documents-climate-change-research

The goal of the investigation is to "establish the impartiality of climate research and policy recommendations,"

Do you take issue with the above stated goal?

[DarrinS]

The goal of the investigation is to "establish the impartiality of climate research and policy recommendations,"

Do you take issue with the above stated goal?


Meh, that dude's agenda is pretty transparent.


Did he send any letters to other univsersities that received climate science funding from "BigBadOil"? Or just those with non-alarmist profs?

[Th'Pusher]

Meh, that dude's agenda is pretty transparent.


Did he send any letters to other univsersities that received climate science funding from "BigBadOil"? Or just those with non-alarmist profs?

You don't appear to be able to grasp the concepts of conflict of interest and full disclosure.

I'll leave you with this knowing full well emotion and political affiliation drive your decision making process.

On Tuesday, Congressman Raúl Grijalva, Democratic ranking member of the House Natural Resources Committee, sent requests to seven universities that employ academics known to be partial to fossil fuel interests based on their testimony before Congress.

[DarrinS]

You don't appear to be able to grasp the concepts of conflict of interest and full disclosure.

I'll leave you with this knowing full well emotion and political affiliation drive your decision making process.

On Tuesday, Congressman Raúl Grijalva, Democratic ranking member of the House Natural Resources Committee, sent requests to seven universities that employ academics known to be partial to fossil fuel interests based on their testimony before Congress.


He's on a witch hunt

[DarrinS]

He's on a witch hunt

Yep

https://theclimatefix.wordpress.com/2015/02/25/i-am-under-investigation/

http://judithcurry.com/2015/02/25/conflicts-of-interest-in-climate-science/#more-17867

[DarrinS]

http://www.newrepublic.com/article/121131/democrats-demand-fossil-fuel-disclosure-climate-denier-studies

Thanks for posting this, btw

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Why are you putting up this strawman? Skeptics also acknowledge this.

It's so cute when Darrin speak as if he isn't all alone on his sophist "I will say anything to mitigate policy including both sides of this particular question" crusade here. We have tried to talk about and identify skeptics and you end up pissy, afraid to say anything for looking stupid, and leave. That doesn't mean you get to come back and speak for them.

There are no new members. We know that you say anything with the bent of not allowing a curb on CO2 emissions. You claim to be the data entry and gopher bitch for an engineering software company but unless you guys are coming up with the training materials for high volume volume oil pumps and accessories you are wasting their time on something here that isn't even in their interests.

[DarrinS]

It's so cute when Darrin speak as if he isn't all alone on his sophist "I will say anything to mitigate policy including both sides of this particular question" crusade here. We have tried to talk about and identify skeptics and you end up pissy, afraid to say anything for looking stupid, and leave. That doesn't mean you get to come back and speak for them.

There are no new members. We know that you say anything with the bent of not allowing a curb on CO2 emissions. You claim to be the data entry and gopher bitch for an engineering software company but unless you guys are coming up with the training materials for high volume volume oil pumps and accessories you are wasting their time on something here that isn't even in their interests.

WTF are you babbling about?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

liar

From a few years back: http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=163637&page=50&p=5414665&viewfull=1#post5414665


No conspiracy here.

:lol Darrin calling someone out for deception and pretending that his only substance aren't his emails and facebook reposts. How cute.

I have gone back and posted where you go back and forth and back again regarding warming. You know what I am talking about because I have been rubbing your face in it for the past several years now. You aren't that obtuse.

That is the benefit when you will say anything like a sophist piece of shit, you can always go back and cherry pick the quote that matches what you want to say because you have said it all before.

My question is are you going to be such the sophist asshole that you are going to try and act like you have not been trying to say that the warming stopped for the past several years and tried to frame the subject as such?

[DarrinS]

:lol Fuzzy mad

[Wild Cobra]

:lol Fuzzy mad

He really is full of himself.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

:lol Fuzzy mad

And once again Darrin surrenders to unimaginative snark in place of substance. Fact is you have gone from telling us that there was no warming, there used to be warming but now its stopped, nah there was never warming, oh its warming but it doesn't matter anyway, nah its stopped warming, it never warmed but did you know I used to believe in AGW, or whatever else you think will give credence to your oil oligarch overlords interests.

Another word for such behavior is duplicity.

Whether or not I am mad is besides the point. the point here is you have no credibility on this subject and no one should take anything you say as having any worth.

teehee, pumpkin.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

He really is full of himself.

:lol It's hard not to when dealing with such as you and sophie.

[DarrinS]

And once again Darrin surrenders to unimaginative snark in place of substance. Fact is you have gone from telling us that there was no warming, there used to be warming but now its stopped, nah there was never warming, oh its warming but it doesn't matter anyway, nah its stopped warming, it never warmed but did you know I used to believe in AGW, or whatever else you think will give credence to your oil oligarch overlords interests.

Another word for such behavior is duplicity.

Whether or not I am mad is besides the point. the point here is you have no credibility on this subject and no one should take anything you say as having any worth.

teehee, pumpkin.


Wow. Nice meltdown. I think I'll express my own opinions, thankyouverymuch.

In terms of the warming trend of the 20th century and the lack of trend since 1998, I have no opinion. The data speaks for itself. Saying that it warmed in the 20th century by about 1 degree, AND that there's no statistically significant warming in the past 15 years or so, is completely consistent with the data.

[RandomGuy]

Why? [edit- for sake of clarity]... do the scientists who say that the CO2 emissions put out by human beings is causing warming?]


Why are you putting up this strawman? Skeptics also acknowledge this.

Seriously, would it hurt you to put in more than a few sentences?

It wasn't a strawman argument, it was a request for clarification and understanding.

You stated that the scientists who claim there is AGW believe it, and I asked you why that is.

Either you can tell me what you think about that or not.

Since the thread is all about how self-professed sceptics are idiots and/or generally dishonest, your inability or unwillingness to answer a straight question, yet again, proves my point.

So, I will ask yet again, in an attempt to be fair and direct and understand your view point:

Why do the scientists who believe in AGW hold that belief? i.e. what do you think convinced them to believe?

[RandomGuy]

WASHINGTON (AP) — Scientists have witnessed carbon dioxide trapping heat in the atmosphere above the United States, chronicling human-made climate change in action, live in the wild.

A new study in the journal Nature demonstrates in real-time field measurements what scientists already knew from basic physics, lab tests, numerous simulations, temperature records and dozens of other climatic indicators. They say it confirms the science of climate change and the amount of heat-trapping previously blamed on carbon dioxide.

Researchers saw "the fingerprint of carbon dioxide" trapping heat, said study author Daniel Feldman of the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory in California. He said no one before had quite looked in the atmosphere for this type of specific proof of climate change.

Feldman and colleagues used a decade of measurements from instruments in Alaska and Oklahoma that looked straight up into the sky and matched what they saw with the precise chemical composition and heat fingerprints of carbon dioxide trapping heat. Scientists say carbon dioxide from the burning of coal, oil and gas is the chief cause of global warming.

In doing so, the data show clouds, water vapor or changes in sun's radiation are not responsible for warming the air, as some who doubt mainstream climate science claim, Feldman said. Nor could it be temperature data being tampered with, as some contrarians insist, Feldman said.

"The data say what the data say," Feldman said. "They are very clear that the rising carbon dioxide is actually contributing to an increased greenhouse effect at those sites."

The study is good technical work, said climate scientist Andrew Dessler of Texas A&M University, but it is expected — sort of like confirming gravity with a falling rock.

http://news.yahoo.com/scientists-witness-carbon-dioxide-trapping-heat-air-180305626.html

[DarrinS]

Seriously, would it hurt you to put in more than a few sentences?

It wasn't a strawman argument, it was a request for clarification and understanding.

You stated that the scientists who claim there is AGW believe it, and I asked you why that is.

Either you can tell me what you think about that or not.

Since the thread is all about how self-professed sceptics are idiots and/or generally dishonest, your inability or unwillingness to answer a straight question, yet again, proves my point.

So, I will ask yet again, in an attempt to be fair and direct and understand your view point:

Why do the scientists who believe in AGW hold that belief? i.e. what do you think convinced them to believe?


http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=197878&p=7841324&viewfull=1#post7841324


There's no need to "confirm" AGW. No one denies the A or the G or the W. The "denial" is about the immediate need to "take action", or else climategeddon.



If you knew the skeptics position, you wouldn't be asking silly questions.

[DarrinS]

In the climate change debate, people are labeled "skeptics" or "deniers", when they are really just non-alarmists.

[RandomGuy]

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=197878&p=7841324&viewfull=1#post7841324

If you knew the skeptics position, you wouldn't be asking silly questions.

I would not care to assume to speak for you, or assume your beliefs were congruent with others', I would rather you speak for yourself directly.

Fair enough.

Define "alarmism".

[RandomGuy]

http://news.yahoo.com/scientists-witness-carbon-dioxide-trapping-heat-air-180305626.html

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature14240.html


The climatic impact of CO2 and other greenhouse gases is usually quantified in terms of radiative forcing1, calculated as the difference between estimates of the Earth’s radiation field from pre-industrial and present-day concentrations of these gases. Radiative transfer models calculate that the increase in CO2 since 1750 corresponds to a global annual-mean radiative forcing at the tropopause of 1.82 ± 0.19 W m−2 (ref. 2). However, despite widespread scientific discussion and modelling of the climate impacts of well-mixed greenhouse gases, there is little direct observational evidence of the radiative impact of increasing atmospheric CO2. Here we present observationally based evidence of clear-sky CO2 surface radiative forcing that is directly attributable to the increase, between 2000 and 2010, of 22 parts per million atmospheric CO2. The time series of this forcing at the two locations—the Southern Great Plains and the North Slope of Alaska—are derived from Atmospheric Emitted Radiance Interferometer spectra3 together with ancillary measurements and thoroughly corroborated radiative transfer calculations4. The time series both show statistically significant trends of 0.2 W m−2 per decade (with respective uncertainties of ±0.06 W m−2 per decade and ±0.07 W m−2 per decade) and have seasonal ranges of 0.1–0.2 W m−2. This is approximately ten per cent of the trend in downwelling longwave radiation5, 6, 7. These results confirm theoretical predictions of the atmospheric greenhouse effect due to anthropogenic emissions, and provide empirical evidence of how rising CO2 levels, mediated by temporal variations due to photosynthesis and respiration, are affecting the surface energy balance.

[DarrinS]

I would not care to assume to speak for you, or assume your beliefs were congruent with others', I would rather you speak for yourself directly.

Fair enough.

Define "alarmism".


I would say it is the belief that there will be disaster if immediate action isn't taken to curb human CO2 emissions.

[DarrinS]

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/ipcc-chief-resigns-after-sexual-harassment-accusations/


:lol




"For me the protection of Planet Earth, the survival of all species and sustainability of our ecosystems is more than a mission," he wrote. "It is my religion and my dharma "

[Wild Cobra]

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/ipcc-chief-resigns-after-sexual-harassment-accusations/


:lol


"For me the protection of Planet Earth, the survival of all species and sustainability of our ecosystems is more than a mission," he wrote. "It is my religion and my dharma "

Does he go by Greg?

At least he's honest and acknowledges it as a religion!

[DarrinS]

But that "news" about Dr. Willie Soon is earth-shattering.

Greenpeace has been bitching about that guy's funding since 2011

Using waybackmachine:
https://web.archive.org/web/20110701134815/http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/en/campaigns/global-warming-and-energy/polluterwatch/koch-industries/CASE-STUDY-Dr-Willie-Soon-a-Career-Fueled-by-Big-Oil-and-Coal/


For some reason, the NYT decided recently to carry the torch (and pitchforks) for GP. :lmao



lol

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/02/26/the-origin-of-climate-smear/

[RandomGuy]

I would say it is the belief that there will be disaster if immediate action isn't taken to curb human CO2 emissions.

Why is action taken to limit CO2 emissions bad? Setting aside the issue of massive potential risks for a moment.

[boutons_deux]

Sea level “jumps” 5 inches. Probably nothing to worry about
https://grist.files.wordpress.com/2015/02/house-on-stilts.jpg?w=1024&h=576&crop=1

http://grist.org/climate-energy/sea-level-jumps-5-inches-probably-nothing-to-worry-about/?utm_source=syndication&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=feed

[Wild Cobra]

Sea level “jumps” 5 inches. Probably nothing to worry about
https://grist.files.wordpress.com/2015/02/house-on-stilts.jpg?w=1024&h=576&crop=1

http://grist.org/climate-energy/sea-level-jumps-5-inches-probably-nothing-to-worry-about/?utm_source=syndication&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=feed

Only 5 inches?

Whoop-t-do... Scooby doo...

[Wild Cobra]

Ahead of her time in 1998:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1aubZlRnIxI

[Winehole23]

agree or disagree?

if not, why not?DarrinS dodges again.

[Nero5]

http://www.smh.com.au/technology/sci-tech/scientists-know-there-are-more-giant-craters-in-siberia-but-are-nervous-to-even-study-them-20150226-13q7b5.html

[boutons_deux]

I apologize to all you AGW deniers. Senator Inhofe has turned me around, AGW is a huge, conspiratorial hoax!

Senator Inhofe Disproves Climate Change — With A Snowball

http://www.nationalmemo.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/2015-02-26-jim-inhofe-snowball-c-span.jpg


http://www.nationalmemo.com/senator-inhofe-disproves-climate-change-snowball/?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_term=MM_frequency_six&utm_campaign=Morning%20Memo%20-%202015-02-27

[Wild Cobra]

I apologize to all you AGW deniers. Senator Inhofe has turned me around, AGW is a huge, conspiratorial hoax!

Senator Inhofe Disproves Climate Change — With A Snowball

http://www.nationalmemo.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/2015-02-26-jim-inhofe-snowball-c-span.jpg


http://www.nationalmemo.com/senator-inhofe-disproves-climate-change-snowball/?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_term=MM_frequency_six&utm_campaign=Morning%20Memo%20-%202015-02-27



If you pull up the whole video:

http://www.c-span.org/video/?324568-2/us-senate-legislative-business&live=

That clip starts at 1:53:30. He goes on and mentions the 2014 warmest year, and having NASA backtrack when pressed to the 38% probable. He goes on about enumerating record low this winter.

I'm only at the 2 hr point, and he is still speaking of facts.


LOL...

Hockey stick now...

Still watching.

[Wild Cobra]

LOL...

Time, 1974 he mentions:

http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,944914,00.html

Drought blamed because of the global cooling scare, now global warming...

[DarrinS]

http://www.smh.com.au/technology/sci-tech/scientists-know-there-are-more-giant-craters-in-siberia-but-are-nervous-to-even-study-them-20150226-13q7b5.html

Seems plausible

[DarrinS]

DarrinS dodges again.

Scientists should disclose their funding, whether it's Exxon or Greenpeace

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Wow. Nice meltdown. I think I'll express my own opinions, thankyouverymuch.

In terms of the warming trend of the 20th century and the lack of trend since 1998, I have no opinion. The data speaks for itself. Saying that it warmed in the 20th century by about 1 degree, AND that there's no statistically significant warming in the past 15 years or so, is completely consistent with the data.

:lol So all three are true at the same time. Between this and the pedo-stalkeresque "did you know that I used to be a AGW believer like you"line, you are one creepy dude.

Did you read the Politico piece about Soviet style disinformation campaigns that I linked in another thread? You made me think of the people and methods the author describes:


“There is no such thing as objective reporting,” the managing editor of RT, Alexey Nikolov, told me when I interviewed him in 2013. By then, I was based in London again, working in think tanks, and Nikolov met me in his bright, large office at RT’s Moscow HQ. A veteran international reporter, he spoke near perfect English and sat at the top of a very long desk wearing a knowing smile. In the corner was a Kalashnikov, a collector’s item from one of his reporting adventures. “Does it scare you?” he half-joked, when he caught me looking at it.

“But what is a Russian point of view? What does Russia Today stand for?” I asked.

“Oh, there is always a Russian point of view,” he answered. “Take a banana. For someone it’s food. For someone else it’s a weapon. For a racist it’s something to tease a black person with.”

And there you have it: Russia’s opportunistic foreign policy, all wrapped up in a banana metaphor. Thus the Kremlin preaches non-intervention and sovereignty while defending Assad, yet uses the reverse position to justify the invasion of Georgia and annexation of Crimea. Thus it warns against American exceptionalism while claiming that Russia has a special mission to rule over and enlighten its “near abroad.” The Russian point of view is anything the Kremlin wants it to be.

During the conflict over Ukraine, disseminating “a Russian point of view” has increasingly meant helping Russian military and intelligence operations. For example, after Moscow-supported rebels in East Ukraine shot down a Malaysian Airlines jet in July, RT spat out a multitude of conspiracy theories (from claims that the real target of the attack was Putin’s personal plane to assertions that Ukrainian fighter jets were behind the tragedy), in order to direct attention away from the real perpetrators. Another infamous RT story featured a supposed RAND Corporation document, in which the think tank advises Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko to ethnically cleanse eastern Ukraine, bomb it heavily and place locals in internment camps. The fact that the document was found on the fringe conspiracy web-site Before It’s News should have alerted any news editor as to its lack of credibility—but the story found its way onto RT. (It was subsequently removed from the news site proper (after it had been broadly viewed), but continued to be referenced by RT’s opinion contributors.

Some of these tricks smack of an updated model of Active Measures, the Soviet era KGB-run disinformation and psychological warfare department designed to confuse and disorganize the West. Active Measures employed an estimated 15,000 agents at the height of the Cold War, part of whose brief was to place forgeries in international media. Stories ranged from “President Carter’s Secret Plan to Put Black Africans and Black Americans at Odds,” to those that claimed AIDS was a weapon created by the CIA or blamed the United States for the assassination attempt on Pope John Paul II. But if Soviet measures went to great lengths to make their forgeries look convincing, now the Kremlin doesn’t seem to care if it is caught: The aim is to confuse rather than convince, to trash the information space so the audience gives up looking for any truth amid the chaos.

Over a decade since my first visit to that boardroom in Ostankino I now find myself in similarly intense, if less smoky, meetings with government officials in London and Washington. They wonder how to deal with the Kremlin’s masterful use of the media, which NATO’s Gen. Philip Breedlove, the Supreme Allied Commander in Europe, has called “the most amazing information war blitzkrieg known in history.”

[Wild Cobra]

Anyone see the new nature Study?

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature14240.html

Bad news for warmers!

[Winehole23]

from the link, 1st paragraph:



Here we present observationally based evidence of clear-sky CO2 surface radiative forcing that is directly attributable to the increase, between 2000 and 2010, of 22 parts per million atmospheric CO2.

[Winehole23]

bad news for warmists!:lol

[Wild Cobra]

:lol

Just proves you don't understand the study.

Should I elaborate, or give you a day to figure out the impact first?

[Winehole23]

by all means, profe, please explain the importance of the study.

[Wild Cobra]

by all means, profe, please explain the importance of the study.

hint.

It's the 0.2 W/m^2 for the 22 ppm increase.

It's only about 2/3rds the sensitivity claimed by the IPCC et. al.

[Winehole23]

These results confirm theoretical predictions of the atmospheric greenhouse effect due to anthropogenic emissions, and provide empirical evidence of how rising CO2 levels, mediated by temporal variations due to photosynthesis and respiration, are affecting the surface energy balance

[Winehole23]

It's only about 2/3rds the sensitivity claimed by the IPCC et. al.so?

[Wild Cobra]

These results confirm theoretical predictions of the atmospheric greenhouse effect due to anthropogenic emissions, and provide empirical evidence of how rising CO2 levels, mediated by temporal variations due to photosynthesis and respiration, are affecting the surface energy balance

Yes, they say that. However, those aren't the facts in the study. If they don't appeal to authority of printing, they don't get published. It also says that the trend is 10% of the observed warming trend, meaning CO2 only accounts for 10% of the warming!

There is a Al Goolish type movie coming out to appeal to the alarmists/warmists. However, 8 seconds into the YouTube of it, is something that clearly applies to climastrology papers:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j8ii9zGFDtc


keep it simple, people will fill in the blanks with their own ... I hate to say biases... But with their own perspective.

[Wild Cobra]

so?

It is a significant level to reduce the AGW bible by.

[Wild Cobra]

If we use the IPCC accepted radiative formula:

5.35 x ln(392/370) = 0.31 W/m^2.

However, it is reduced now to 0.2 W.m^2.

0.2 / 0.31 x 5.35 = 3.45

This places a doubling of CO2 at:

3.45 x ln(2) = 2.39 W/m^2 instead of the previous 3.71 W/m^2.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

WC please show your source from the IPCC that indicates the exact same forcing is being discussed as the IPCC official number. The reason why I bring this up is because as Manny years ago explained, they view the forcings as an uncertainty within a particular range as they work through various iterations of models. Frankly pretending like there is only one forcing number for C02 is pretty fucking ignorant.

I will await you trying to spin uncertainty.

[Wild Cobra]

It changes the previous assessment of IPCC warming covering 1750 to 2011 from 1.82 W/m^2 to 1.18 W/m^2.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I asked for a source. We have already established you have no credibility.

[Wild Cobra]

WC please show your source from the IPCC that indicates the exact same forcing is being discussed as the IPCC official number. The reason why I bring this up is because as Manny years ago explained, they view the forcings as an uncertainty within a particular range as they work through various iterations of models. Frankly pretending like there is only one forcing number for C02 is pretty fucking ignorant.

I will await you trying to spin uncertainty.
That's because they always used correlation equals causation and couldn't properly account for all variables. This is the first study of it's kind that actually measures the power of CO2 spectra from the sky, over a decade period of time.

They do give an error range. It's something like 0.06 W/m^2.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

That's because they always used correlation equals causation and couldn't properly account for all variables. This is the first study of it's kind that actually measures the power of CO2 spectra from the sky, over a decade period of time.

I didn't ask for your feeble-minded rationalizations on how modeling is done. I asked for something from IPCC indicating their most current official forcing numbers to justify your earlier assertions.

You have a penchant for cherry picking numbers, aggrandizing them and representing them as something they are not. Your failure to produce said numbers speaks to your credibility.

[Wild Cobra]

Fuzzy, are you for published material by Nature, until it disagree with your bias?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Fuzzy, are you for published material by Nature, until it disagree with your bias?

Quote the Nature article then. You are dissembling under examinations and you look like a fool.

[Wild Cobra]

I didn't ask for your feeble-minded rationalizations on how modeling is done. I asked for something from IPCC indicating their most current official forcing numbers to justify your earlier assertions.

You have a penchant for cherry picking numbers, aggrandizing them and representing them as something they are not. Your failure to produce said numbers speaks to your credibility.

The IPCC uses 5.35 x ln(C(new)/C(old)) This is how they calculate the 1.66 W/m^2 in the AR4:

5.35 x ln(379/278) = 1.66.

In the AR5:

5.35 x ln (391/278) = 1.82

How am I cherry picking numbers?

Please explain.

[Wild Cobra]

Quote the Nature article then. You are dissembling under examinations and you look like a fool.

How about Berkley Lab's response:


Both series showed the same trend: atmospheric CO2 emitted an increasing amount of infrared energy, to the tune of 0.2 Watts per square meter per decade. This increase is about ten percent of the trend from all sources of infrared energy such as clouds and water vapor.

Only 10% of the trend... from all sources...

http://newscenter.lbl.gov/2015/02/25/co2-greenhouse-effect-increase/

[FuzzyLumpkins]

The IPCC uses 5.35 x ln(C(new)/C(old)) This is how they calculate the 1.66 W/m^2 in the AR4:

5.35 x ln(379/278) = 1.66.

In the AR5:

5.35 x ln (391/278) = 1.82

How am I cherry picking numbers?

Please explain.


Quote the Nature article then. You are dissembling under examinations and you look like a fool.

As I explained that IPCC implements dozens of models and a range of forcing valuations in their models. When they present their forcings it is done as a range of values.

You have no source from the article you linked or from the IPCC. There is no reason for anyone to pay attention to your napkin math.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

How about Berkley Lab's response:



Only 10% of the trend... from all sources...

http://newscenter.lbl.gov/2015/02/25/co2-greenhouse-effect-increase/


Quote the Nature article then. You are dissembling under examinations and you look like a fool.

How about an ocean solubility chart next? It's obvious you cannot justify your numbers. I will quote the nature article just like Wine did:


These results confirm theoretical predictions of the atmospheric greenhouse effect due to anthropogenic emissions, and provide empirical evidence of how rising CO2 levels, mediated by temporal variations due to photosynthesis and respiration, are affecting the surface energy balance

[Wild Cobra]

From Nature:


This is approximately ten per cent of the trend in downwelling longwave radiation

[Winehole23]

that's putatively a measurable amount of CO2 forcing. far from nothing.

[Winehole23]

backs up Fuzzy more than it does you.

your theory is solar forcing and soot with zero AGW, right?

[Winehole23]

seems you're the one doing selective reading and torturing the data until it says what you want

[Wild Cobra]

that's putatively a measurable amount of CO2 forcing. far from nothing.

Except the downward radiative forcing from the greenhouse effect is greater than 330 W/m^2 already. The 0.31/m^2 is already small. The 0.2 is even smaller.

[Wild Cobra]

backs up Fuzzy more than it does you.

your theory is solar forcing and soot with zero AGW, right?

Changing the argument when you can't win the current one, huh?

[Wild Cobra]

seems to be you're the one doing selective reading and torturing the data until it says what you want

How does it read to you?

[Winehole23]

about the opposite of what you're saying

[FuzzyLumpkins]

From Nature:

please point me to the part of the quote that speaks of IPCC CO2 forcing numbers being what you claim them to be.

you don't have a clue what trend they are talking about in that quote but we will definitely have to go back to Bert.


A stupid man's report of what a clever man says can never be accurate, because he unconsciously translates what he hears into something he can understand.

[Wild Cobra]

please point me to the part of the quote that speaks of IPCC CO2 forcing numbers being what you claim them to be.

It doesn't. The numbers from the IPCC are found in their assessment reports.



you don't have a clue what trend they are talking about in that quote but we will definitely have to go back to Bert.
Increases in radiative forcing trend, and the CO2 accounts for about 10% of the trend increase.

Prove me wrong.

[Winehole23]

having a reliable measurement for CO2 forcing-- if it is that -- is a big deal to the AGW crowd.

[Wild Cobra]

having a reliable measurement for CO2 forcing-- if it is that -- is a big deal to the AGW crowd.

Yes, except that these measurements are only 65% of what they were using in past assessments.

Fuzzy...

The paper does mention the AR5 level of 1.82 W/m^2:


Radiative transfer models calculate that the increase in CO2 since 1750 corresponds to a global annual-mean radiative forcing at the tropopause of 1.82 ± 0.19 W m−2

They reference from the AR5:

Myhre, G. et al. Anthropogenic and natural radiative forcing. In Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (eds Stocker, T. F. et al.) 661 (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2013)

[FuzzyLumpkins]

The footnotes to the quote that WC edited out pointed to:

Prata, F. The climatological record of clear-sky longwave radiation at the Earth's surface: evidence for water vapour feedback? Int. J. Remote Sens. 29, 5247–5263 (2008)

Wang, K. & Liang, S. Global atmospheric downward longwave radiation over land surface under all-sky conditions from 1973 to 2008. J. Geophys. Res. 114, D19101 (2009)

Wild, M., Grieser, J. & Schär, C. Combined surface solar brightening and increasing greenhouse effect support recent intensification of the global land-based hydrological cycle. Geophys. Res. Lett. 35, L17706 (2008)

They are talking about the trend in total brightening and that has not a thing to do with IPCC.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Yes, except that these measurements are only 65% of what they were using in past assessments.

Fuzzy...

The paper does mention the AR5 level of 1.82 W/m^2:



They reference from the AR5:

Myhre, G. et al. Anthropogenic and natural radiative forcing. In Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (eds Stocker, T. F. et al.) 661 (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2013)


since 1750 corresponds to a global annual-mean radiative forcing

So you think that is what they use in their models? :lol you are one dumb motherfucker conflating a 260 year mean with 10% error with individual samples from a recent study.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

This is approximately ten per cent of the trend in downwelling longwave radiation5, 6, 7. These results confirm theoretical predictions of the atmospheric greenhouse effect due to anthropogenic emissions, and provide empirical evidence of how rising CO2 levels, mediated by temporal variations due to photosynthesis and respiration, are affecting the surface energy balance.

IOW because it is 10% of the total brightening we conclude that AGW is proven empirically. Somehow dumbass twists that into supporting his position.

[Winehole23]

I assumed board skeptics were ignoring the article until WC posted it -- it was trending on social media last week.

It's astonishing -- and incidentally hilarious --- that WC thinks the article tends to refute AGW.

[Wild Cobra]

I assumed board skeptics were ignoring the article until WC posted it -- it was trending on social media last week.

It's astonishing -- and incidentally hilarious --- that WC thinks the article tends to refute AGW.

LOL...

You guys are the idiots thinking anyone is saying AGW isn't real.

It is real!

The article shows it isn't as much as previously claimed.

[Nero5]

So, WC ... how many peer reviewed articles were formally published on climate change in the last 5 years?
Then out of the over 1000 articles what makes you think this one is significant?

[RandomGuy]

Anyone see the new nature Study?

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature14240.html

Bad news for warmers!


http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature14240.html

http://www.threadbombing.com/data/media/50/lastweek.jpg

[RandomGuy]

LOL...

You guys are the idiots thinking anyone is saying AGW isn't real.

It is real!

The article shows it isn't as much as previously claimed.

is it as much as the effect of windmills? Do tell.

[RandomGuy]

If we use the IPCC accepted radiative formula:

5.35 x ln(392/370) = 0.31 W/m^2.

However, it is reduced now to 0.2 W.m^2.

0.2 / 0.31 x 5.35 = 3.45

This places a doubling of CO2 at:

3.45 x ln(2) = 2.39 W/m^2 instead of the previous 3.71 W/m^2.

LINK?

I don't really take your word at anything, sorry.

[RandomGuy]

I would say it is the belief that there will be disaster if immediate action isn't taken to curb human CO2 emissions.


Why is action taken to limit CO2 emissions bad? Setting aside the issue of massive potential risks for a moment.


[might have missed the question in the barrage, no real answer that I could discern-rg]

So, assuming you missed the question, why is action taken to limit CO2 emissions bad? Or is it certain actions you don't approve of?

[Wild Cobra]

So, WC ... how many peer reviewed articles were formally published on climate change in the last 5 years?
Then out of the over 1000 articles what makes you think this one is significant?
It is the first to use a more definitive method. They actually measured the change in the spectra levels that are emitted by CO2 over a 10 year period. No other study to date has done what they did.

[Wild Cobra]

http://www.threadbombing.com/data/media/50/lastweek.jpg

Well, sorry, I didn't read your link. Probably because it came from you. Your 'bolded' text in it:

"These results confirm theoretical predictions of the atmospheric greenhouse effect due to anthropogenic emissions, and provide empirical evidence of how rising CO2 levels, mediated by temporal variations due to photosynthesis and respiration, are affecting the surface energy balance."

Nobody disputes this, and the lower levels I point out are not in conflict with this statement. After I actually looked at this study, from a posting on a forum, by a person why has the integrity which you lack... I read it.

[Wild Cobra]

is it as much as the effect of windmills? Do tell.

You mean this wording of mine that gives you a hard-on:

"it is possible that warming for windmills vs. CO2 is about equal, and that the windmills will change the wind/climate in ways worse than CO2 ever could."


I read a few studies that estimated the increased warming from the changing turbulence downstream of windmills, and how it perturbs the existing moisture in plants and soil. I believe I linked in in what ever post you snagged my words from, which are now hard to search for since it's in your signature...

Anyway, the study that attempted to quantify the warming created by this effect claimed it was 1/6h of the warning assigned to CO2. My claim is simply that I don't believe CO2 radiative forcing changes to be as much as claimed by consensus. Now I did pose it as a question...

If they did accurately catch the effects of CO2, which at this time, I will not say they didn't... then the answer to my question is NO!

Keep in mind, there is another peer reviewed study that claims CO2 forcing for a doubling is only 0.43 W/m^2.

Wow...

sidebar...

I normally work a 11 PM to 7:30 AM graveyard shift. I worked 2 hrs overtime until 9:30 today, got home and poured myself a stiff one. The glass is empty, I'm going to fill it again, but I already feel it... rather well... In later posts today, is I seem a bit... off... I probably am...

I should be coherent for the next half hour, but my posts may change in character a bit...

OK...

Back to the 0.43...

If this study happens to be correct, then this is less than 1/8th the 3.71 for doubling posed by the IPCC.

Now... If that study saying windmills caused 1/6th the accepted value for CO2 warming, then windmills cause more warming than than the CO2 they replaced from the fuel burnt to produce the same electricity...

I know, it's not likely to be the case, but... what if...

[Wild Cobra]

LINK?

I don't really take your word at anything, sorry.

LOL...

I understand, as I see most of your posts as BS as well.

Now, under the assumption you are asking for support of the warming formula, let me start with this, which you can verify with a calculator or Excel:

The AR4 claims a 1.66 W/m^2 warming for the period of 1750 to 2004(5?). The use the increase in CO2 from 278 to 379 ppm.

5.35 x ln(379/278) = 1.66

The AR5 claims 1.82 W/m^2 for the range of 278 to 391 ppm for 1750 to 2011.

5.35 x ln(391/278) = 1.82

I don't recall where in the AR4 or AR5 the formula is listed, but they do refer to the study, Myhre et al 1998, and it is is the TAR, table 6.2, the first of three CO2 formulas:

http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x262/Wild_Cobra/Global%20Warming/IPCCformulasedited.jpg

[FuzzyLumpkins]

He still cannot justify his numbers. He is passing off the aggregate average of forcing measurements over 250 years that IPCC lists with a +/-10% degree of error and is trying to pass it off as the exact number they use in their current models. It's been pointed out to him yet he continues to repeat the same shit with the same shitty numbers.

[Wild Cobra]

He still cannot justify his numbers. He is passing off the aggregate average of forcing measurements over 250 years that IPCC lists with 1 10% degree of error and is trying to pass it off as the exact number they use in their current models. It's been pointed out to him yet he continues to repeat the same shit with the same shitty numbers.

Your argument is a non sequitur to my statement. Why are you so fucking stupid?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

LOL...

I understand, as I see most of your posts as BS as well.

Now, under the assumption you are asking for support of the warming formula, let me start with this, which you can verify with a calculator or Excel:

The AR4 claims a 1.66 W/m^2 warming for the period of 1750 to 2004(5?). The use the increase in CO2 from 278 to 379 ppm.

5.35 x ln(379/278) = 1.66

The AR5 claims 1.82 W/m^2 for the range of 278 to 391 ppm for 1750 to 2011.

5.35 x ln(391/278) = 1.82

I don't recall where in the AR4 or AR5 the formula is listed, but they do refer to the study, Myhre et al 1998, and it is is the TAR, table 6.2, the first of three CO2 formulas:

http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x262/Wild_Cobra/Global%20Warming/IPCCformulasedited.jpg


He still cannot justify his numbers. He is passing off the aggregate average of forcing measurements over 250 years that IPCC lists with a +/-10% degree of error and is trying to pass it off as the exact number they use in their current models. It's been pointed out to him yet he continues to repeat the same shit with the same shitty numbers.


Your argument is a non sequitur to my statement. Why are you so fucking stupid?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

mistake

[DarrinS]

If current trends continue, in the next few years, we will have to admit that something is fundamentally wrong with climate models. A 20 year pause in warming doesn't occur in any of the simulations.

[Wild Cobra]

mistake

All I see in a lack of comprehension on your part.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

If current trends continue, in the next few years, we will have to admit that something is fundamentally wrong with climate models. A 20 year pause in warming doesn't occur in any of the simulations.

You have no basis for said claim. As usual you are talking out of your ass about something you have no way of knowing.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

All I see in a lack of comprehension on your part.

You say that with everyone. The (lowest) common denominator is you.

[Winehole23]

WC has backtracked. He now admits there is such a thing as AGW, even goes so far (hilariously, again) to claim no one denies it. Now he's just bickering over the extent, when he used to blame the sun and soot.

[Nero5]

It is the first to use a more definitive method.

OK, this implies two things:
1. you have read the original study and have the ability to understand the science - is this true or have you just read about it?
2. you have read the vast majority of the other studies to be able to say that this is the first and can prove the definitive bit - and I remain EXTREMELY skeptical of this.

BTW 10 years? Really?

[DarrinS]

If current trends continue, in the next few years, we will have to admit that something is fundamentally wrong with climate models. A 20 year pause in warming doesn't occur in any of the simulations.




You have no basis for said claim. As usual you are talking out of your ass about something you have no way of knowing.

I should've quoted the guy



Storch: If things continue as they have been, in five years, at the latest, we will need to acknowledge that something is fundamentally wrong with our climate models. A 20-year pause in global warming does not occur in a single modeled scenario. But even today, we are finding it very difficult to reconcile actual temperature trends with our expectations.

A very interesting interview

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/interview-hans-von-storch-on-problems-with-climate-change-models-a-906721.html

[DarrinS]

So, assuming you missed the question, why is action taken to limit CO2 emissions bad? Or is it certain actions you don't approve of?


It's not bad per se, but it would be like using tape on the ground to designate a smoking area.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I should've quoted the guy



A very interesting interview

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/interview-hans-von-storch-on-problems-with-climate-change-models-a-906721.html

You should have quoted someone who worked on models and not a meteorologist. How would this guy know?

[DarrinS]

You should have quoted someone who worked on models and not a meteorologist. How would this guy know?


He's a climate scientist. Appears that he's published quite a few papers.

http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=DajJGCIAAAAJ&hl=en

[FuzzyLumpkins]

He's a climate scientist. Appears that he's published quite a few papers.

http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=DajJGCIAAAAJ&hl=en

I didn't see the exhaustive work analyzing the slopes of climate models. Please point me to the work where he would have made a determination on 'all climate models.'

He is saying he proved a negative. i am curious to see where he did it.

[DarrinS]

I didn't see the exhaustive work analyzing the slopes of climate models. Please point me to the work where he would have made a determination on 'all climate models.'

He is saying he proved a negative. i am curious to see where he did it.



I see papers on climate modeling. I don't know what list you're looking at.


It's funny that you NOW have to shit on this guy, since you reflexively shit on my post that paraphrased him. :lmao

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I see papers on climate modeling. I don't know what list you're looking at.


It's funny that you NOW have to shit on this guy, since you reflexively shit on my post that paraphrased him. :lmao

Now you are dissembling again. You are waving your hands at "A 20-year pause in global warming does not occur in a single modeled scenario." That means he claims to have examined all of them exhaustively. Please point me to the exhaustive work and not your red herring. Mostly what I see is a whole ton of work mitigating forcings.

[DarrinS]

Now you are dissembling again. You are waving your hands at "A 20-year pause in global warming does not occur in a single modeled scenario." That means he claims to have examined all of them exhaustively. Please point me to the exhaustive work and not your red herring. Mostly what I see is a whole ton of work mitigating forcings.


I've already made my point.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I prefer BEST's analysis. It is critical certainly but not the latest buzz phrase being smeared across the Koch funded web denial industry.

http://static.berkeleyearth.org/graphics/ar4-gcms-versus-be-dataset.png

http://berkeleyearth.org/graphics/model-performance-against-berkeley-earth-data-set#ar4-gcms-vs-be-dataset

IT shows pretty clearly that they are having issues modeling regional climates in a whole system particularly in central asia and the north pole where they are colder and warmer than actual measurements respectively.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I've already made my point.

And I refuted it and presented an alternate source to evaluate the performances of climate models as opposed to your throwaway line from a news interview. Funny how that works and as usual this is the part where you run away from the actual argument.

[boutons_deux]

Why People "Fly from Facts"

Does that exchange sound familiar: a debate that starts with testable factual statements, but then, when the truth becomes inconvenient, the person takes a flight from facts.

As public debate rages about issues like immunization, Obamacare, and same-sex marriage, many people try to use science to bolster their arguments. And since it’s becoming easier to test and establish facts—whether in physics, psychology, or policy—many have wondered why bias and polarization have not been defeated. When people are confronted with facts, such as the well-established safety of immunization, why do these facts seem to have so little effect?

Our new research (http://psycnet.apa.org/psycinfo/2014-48913-001/), recently published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, examined a slippery way by which people get away from facts that contradict their beliefs. Of course, sometimes people just dispute the validity of specific facts. But we find that people sometimes go one step further and, as in the opening example, they reframe an issue in untestable ways. This makes potential important facts and science ultimately irrelevant to the issue.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-people-fly-from-facts/?WT.mc_id=SA_WR_20150304

[DarrinS]

I prefer BEST's analysis. It is critical certainly but not the latest buzz phrase being smeared across the Koch funded web denial industry.



http://berkeleyearth.org/funders


Koch funded :lmao

[FuzzyLumpkins]

http://berkeleyearth.org/funders


Koch funded :lmao

Are you really going to act ignorant of the evolution of Mann and BEST relative to the debate as a whole? koch funded them when the question was still open in 2010. When they started putting out their reports with their findings the funding ended. It is very clear on that page where there has been nothing since the startup.

Now compare Koch and Dr Soon and the deception which you yourself should be familiar with. You too like to misrepresent yourself.


It's been noted you have abandoned your argument of having proven a negative as per usual.

[DarrinS]

It's been noted you have abandoned your argument of having proven a negative as per usual.

Are you really this stupid?

I had a hunch that (1) I could find a statement from a climate scientist that was slightly critical of the science, (2) I could alter the words slightly and post it as my own thought, and (3) that you would reflexively pounce on it because I posted it.

You didn't disappoint.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Are you really this stupid?

I had a hunch that (1) I could find a statement from a climate scientist that was slightly critical of the science, (2) I could alter the words slightly and post it as my own thought, and (3) that you would reflexively pounce on it because I posted it.

You didn't disappoint.

So you are going to go with the "I was just trolling" as your excuse? Because at this point you have lost the argument and just sound petulant. "I meant to to lose the argument because I didn't know wtf i was talking about in the first place" is what that reads like.

[SnakeBoy]

If current trends continue, in the next few years, we will have to admit that something is fundamentally wrong with climate models. A 20 year pause in warming doesn't occur in any of the simulations.

Real climate scientists have already acknowledged that fact.


SPIEGEL: How long will it still be possible to reconcile such a pause in global warming with established climate forecasts?

Storch: If things continue as they have been, in five years, at the latest, we will need to acknowledge that something is fundamentally wrong with our climate models. A 20-year pause in global warming does not occur in a single modeled scenario. But even today, we are finding it very difficult to reconcile actual temperature trends with our expectations.

SPIEGEL: What could be wrong with the models?

Storch: There are two conceivable explanations -- and neither is very pleasant for us. The first possibility is that less global warming is occurring than expected because greenhouse gases, especially CO2, have less of an effect than we have assumed. This wouldn't mean that there is no man-made greenhouse effect, but simply that our effect on climate events is not as great as we have believed. The other possibility is that, in our simulations, we have underestimated how much the climate fluctuates owing to natural causes.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/interview-hans-von-storch-on-problems-with-climate-change-models-a-906721.html


That won't shake the alarmist's from their dogma though.

[SnakeBoy]

Of course the trend doesn't mean much when you stop staring at the tree directly in front of you.

http://coacheshotseat.com/coacheshotseatblog/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/GreenlandIceCores15000.png

[SnakeBoy]

There are currently 8 users browsing this thread. (3 members and 5 guests)
SnakeBoy, FuzzyLumpkins, boutons_deux


lol Fuzzy and Boo googling a response for the last 15 minutes.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

And of course we should fixate on these particular core measurements to the most varying climate region on Earth.

I will say that it is so adorable that the both of you get the same mailer. Yoni swooped right in on the same brain with Storch. Sophists looking for a nut.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

lol Fuzzy and Boo googling a response for the last 15 minutes.

I went to go feed my cat and put in an order for 50% off Papa John's. You?

[SnakeBoy]

I went to go feed my cat and put in an order for 50% off Papa John's. You?

I was busy sobbing uncontrollably thinking of the bleak future of mankind.

[Wild Cobra]

WC has backtracked. He now admits there is such a thing as AGW, even goes so far (hilariously, again) to claim no one denies it. Now he's just bickering over the extent, when he used to blame the sun and soot.

I still say the sun and soot do cause more forcing. Your statement is incorrect in that I never said CO2 does not cause forcing. I have always maintained, and still do, that forcing changes from CO2 are less than forcing changed from these other two components.

Careful..

Your confirmation bias is showing...

[Wild Cobra]

OK, this implies two things:
1. you have read the original study and have the ability to understand the science - is this true or have you just read about it?
2. you have read the vast majority of the other studies to be able to say that this is the first and can prove the definitive bit - and I remain EXTREMELY skeptical of this.

BTW 10 years? Really?

I understand just fine what it is saying. Their results are that CO2 only producing 2/3rds the direct forcing as previously thought.

As for other studies, I have read hundreds over the years, and have a subscription to Nature Climate Change.

This topis is not new at all for me like it obviously is for you.

[Wild Cobra]

http://berkeleyearth.org/funders


Koch funded :lmao

Yep. Look at the three groups who funded more than Koch...


Totals:
Anonymous Foundation ($500,000) - seems to be some global group.
William K. Bowes, Jr. Foundation ($375,000) - Bowes in a rich capitalist. Probably funding things that pay off more, like carbon trading...
The Ann & Gordon Getty Foundation ($250,000) - Gordon Getty is a large contributor to Nancy Pelosi, Willie Brown, Gavin Newsom, and John Kerry.
U.S. Department of Energy under Contract No. DE-AC02-05CH11231 ($188,587) - Presidential directed political interests...
Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation ($150,000) - educational donations of several types.
Fund for Innovative Climate and Energy Research (created by Bill Gates) ($100,000) - We know how liberal he is!
Energy Foundation ($50,000) - Avid supporter of alternate energy
The Lee and Juliet Folger Fund ($40,000) - arts and education donations
private individuals, totaling $14,500

Koch's donations are just under 9% of these totals.

[Wild Cobra]

Berkly Earth does not claim anthropogenic warning is primary, but it, like other groups asking for funding, seem to be calling for such funds to prove so:


Is it time now to end global warming skepticism?

In its first phase, Berkeley Earth addressed the concern: was the temperature rise on land improperly affected by the four key biases (station quality, homogenization, urban heat island, and station selection)? The answer turned out to be no, but they were questions worthy of investigation.

Berkeley Earth has now found that the best explanation for the warming seen over the past 250 years is human greenhouse gas emissions. While this does not prove that global warming is caused by greenhouse gas emissions, it does set the bar for alternative explanations.

Berkeley Earth has not addressed issues of satellite data, tree ring and proxy data, or climate model accuracy. Scientists at Berkeley Earth remain skeptical of many elements of "climate change" - including attribution of hurricanes, tornadoes, and other extreme weather events to global warming.

http://berkeleyearth.org/faq

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I still say the sun and soot do cause more forcing. Your statement is incorrect in that I never said CO2 does not cause forcing. I have always maintained, and still do, that forcing changes from CO2 are less than forcing changed from these other two components.

Careful..

Your confirmation bias is showing...


Yes, the relationship is logarithmic. Something the believers of the liars just don't seem to understand.

It is based on the data I have gathered, and comparing it against other people's assessments. I like to use other people's work against them. Here is a chart Al Gore uses:

http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x262/Wild_Cobra/Global Warming/ppmCO2.jpg

Here is one I flipped upside-down from RealClimate dot org:

http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x262/Wild_Cobra/Global Warming/TransLongPathsflipped.jpg

This chart takes is a calculation (by the alarmists) that shows CO2 levels to trap about 33.5% (66.5% transmission) of the IR radiation it is capable of capturing at the current level being tested. It shows It shows about 36.3% at two times the CO2 and about 40.4% at 4X. I used this to show a doubling of CO2 cannot increase temperatures by 3 C. If Using the doubling equals 3 C increase theory, I would have to believe that 100% of the 32 C greenhouse effect is by carbon dioxide, and being done by CO2 trapping 33.5% of the heat it is capable of. The 36.3% would represent a 34.67 C greenhouse effect. Short of the 3 C, but hard to get accuracy reading a digitized chart. Even Al Gore shows a doubling of CO2 to be only 1 C. The original graph is found here (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/06/a-saturated-gassy-argument-part-ii/#more-456):

http://www.realclimate.org/images/TransLongPaths.jpg



Here is the first article that prompted me to be a "Denier:"

THE ACQUITTAL OF CARBON DIOXIDE
by Jeffrey A. Glassman, PhD (http://www.rocketscientistsjournal.com/2006/10/co2_acquittal.html)

Yep, then the truth is not on there side, they lie. Here is an interesting article I just found:

Watts Up With That? (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/09/04/even-doubling-or-tripling-the-amount-of-co2-will-have-little-impact-on-temps/#more-2769)

Parts of the article:








CARBON DIOXIDE CO2
BEST ESTIMATES OF THE LOCATION of CO2 as carbon (C)

Giga tonnes Gt (BILLION tonnes)
Atmosphere 750 Gt
Oceans – surface 1,000 Gt
Oceans – intermediate / deep 38,000 Gt
Vegetation (soil, detritus) 2,200 Gt

There is a whole bunch more shit of you comparing the ocean to a soda fizzing and that the causation was warming causes CO2. What is up with you fuckers lying about what you have claimed?

[Wild Cobra]

There is a whole bunch more shit of you comparing the ocean to a soda fizzing and that the causation was warming causes CO2. What is up with you fuckers lying about what you have claimed?

Please show me where I said the ocean "fizzes."

You are a complete moron, so I don't expect you to understand.

I also never said warming is the causation for current CO2 levels. Another complete lack of understanding on your part.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Please show me where I said the ocean "fizzes."

You are a complete moron, so I don't expect you to understand.

I also never said warming is the causation for current CO2 levels. Another complete lack of understanding on your part.


The ocean is like a soda, going flat.

I suggest you do some real studying on the effects of temperature for a solutions ability to absorb gas, and the related equilibrium.

I will maintain my contention that temperature drives CO2. CO2 does not drive temperature.

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=163637&page=59&p=5458330&highlight=ocean%20soda#post5458330

[Wild Cobra]

My reference to a soda going flat has been thoroughly explained time and again. I never refereed to the ocean as "fizzing." only that a soda fizzes because it loses CO2 as it warms, and the ocean losses CO2 equilibrium as it warms as well.

My words there were about CO2 levels being almost as low as before are after equalization. The ocean already absorbs maybe half of the extra CO2 we emit. My claim is the oceans would absorb even more CO2 that we emit if it wasn't warming. This has been more thoroughly explained by me. Your ability to cherry pick is amazing. I have a high school buddy whose parents probably still owns a large cherry orchard. Need a job?

You really don't see the nuances, do you?

As long as you continue to jump with insults based on your ignorance and bias, you will always be one of the jesters of these forums.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I still say the sun and soot do cause more forcing. Your statement is incorrect in that I never said CO2 does not cause forcing. I have always maintained, and still do, that forcing changes from CO2 are less than forcing changed from these other two components.

Careful..

Your confirmation bias is showing...


The ocean is like a soda, going flat.

I suggest you do some real studying on the effects of temperature for a solutions ability to absorb gas, and the related equilibrium.

I will maintain my contention that temperature drives CO2. CO2 does not drive temperature.

Your statement is incorrect in that I never said CO2 does not cause forcing.

CO2 does not drive temperature.

[Wild Cobra]

Your statement is incorrect in that I never said CO2 does not cause forcing.

CO2 does not drive temperature.

LOL...

Nothing wrong with what I said.

Temperature changes CO2 levels more than CO2 levels change temperature. Temperature drives CO2 levels in the long term equilibrium, but CO2 still has forcing as a greenhouse gas.

You really fail to follow what I say, don't you.

Solar is the driving force of the earths temperatures. CO2 is a feedback mechanism for radiative forcing that starts from the sun.

My God, your ignorance has you thinking you are a genius!

[FuzzyLumpkins]

LOL...

Nothing wrong with what I said.

Temperature changes CO2 levels more than CO2 levels change temperature. Temperature drives CO2 levels in the long term equilibrium, but CO2 still has forcing as a greenhouse gas.

You really fail to follow what I say, don't you.

Solar is the driving force of the earths temperatures. CO2 is a feedback mechanism for radiative forcing that starts from the sun.

My God, your ignorance has you thinking you are a genius!

You are responding to quotes of yourself, dolt. Everything in that post was from you.

[Nero5]

I understand just fine what it is saying. Their results are that CO2 only producing 2/3rds the direct forcing as previously thought.

As for other studies, I have read hundreds over the years, and have a subscription to Nature Climate Change.

This topis is not new at all for me like it obviously is for you.


You know for once you have surprised me, from all of your previous posts I would never have guessed you were literate enough for such a journal.

[Wild Cobra]

You are responding to quotes of yourself, dolt. Everything in that post was from you.

But I constantly have to point out how you misconstrue them, you idiot.

[Wild Cobra]

You know for once you have surprised me, from all of your previous posts I would never have guessed you were literate enough for such a journal.

Have anything intelligent to say, or are you a Fuzzy II???

[DarrinS]

ISIS may have roots in climate change.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/03/04/1368214/-ISIS-may-have-roots-in-climate-change


STFU :lmao

[Wild Cobra]

ISIS may have roots in climate change.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/03/04/1368214/-ISIS-may-have-roots-in-climate-change


STFU :lmao

The warmers should rejoice over this news. If the fossil fuel warming is causing problems for the producers, their logic would be that maybe they will stop pulling it from the ground and selling it.

I can hear their happiness now!

[RandomGuy]

It's not bad per se, but it would be like using tape on the ground to designate a smoking area.

???

You will have to elaborate. I do not have enough information to determine whether I should accept your argument or not.

[RandomGuy]

He still cannot justify his numbers. He is passing off the aggregate average of forcing measurements over 250 years that IPCC lists with a +/-10% degree of error and is trying to pass it off as the exact number they use in their current models. It's been pointed out to him yet he continues to repeat the same shit with the same shitty numbers.

I'll need to take a look at it. I suspect ferreting out the bad logic will require spending more time than I currently have.