Ice age coming in 2030

[InRareForm]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/11733369/Earth-heading-for-mini-ice-age-within-15-years.html

[SnakeBoy]

There's a link to a good article in the comments

http://www.rationaloptimist.com/blog/what-the-climate-wars-did-to-science.aspx

[boutons_deux]

rightwingnuts, Fox, Repugs, BigCarbon love it, and keep on fucking up the planet for profit, do everything to retard, block clean energy.

[boutons_deux]

http://www.ras.org.uk/news-and-press/2680-irregular-heartbeat-of-the-sun-driven-by-double-dynamo

[Clipper Nation]

:lol I guess the "global warming" scam stopped working, so they have to go back to the "global cooling" scam now?

[Spurminator]

:lol I guess the "global warming" scam stopped working, so they have to go back to the "global cooling" scam now?

The two things are unrelated. You obviously didn't read the article, but don't bother because it has some big words and it'll probably just make you angry go smash.

[Jacob1983]

Bring it on. How much will a ticket be for the Snowpiercer?

[boutons_deux]

U.K. tabloids, conservative media, and others are (mis)reporting (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/11733369/Earth-heading-for-mini-ice-age-within-15-years.html) that the Earth will enter a “mini ice age” in the 2030s. In fact, not only is the story wrong, the reverse is actually true.

The Earth is headed toward an imminent speed-up in global warming, as many recent studies have made clear, like this June study (http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/06/05/3666286/global-warming-speed-up/) by NOAA. Indeed, a March study (http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/03/10/3631632/climate-change-rate/), entitled “Near-term acceleration in the rate of temperature change,” makes clear that a stunning acceleration in the rate of global warming is around the corner — with Arctic warming rising 1°F per decade by the 2020s!

Also, right now, we appear to be in the midst of a long-awaited jump in global temperatures. Not only was 2014 the hottest year on record, but 2015 is in the process of blowing that record away (http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/06/16/3670166/may-2015-global-temperatures/). On top of that, models say a massive El Niño is growing, as USA Today reported last week (http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2015/07/09/el-nino-california/29921633/). Since El Niños tend to set the record for the hottest years (since the regional warming adds to the underlying global warming trend), if 2015/2016 does see a super El Niño then next year may well crush the record this year sets.

Whatever near-term jump we see in the global temperatures is thus likely to be followed by an accelerating global warming trend — one that would utterly overwhelm any natural variations such as a temporary reduction in solar intensity. A recent study (http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2015/150623/ncomms8535/abs/ncomms8535.html) concluded that “any reduction in global mean near-surface temperature due to a future decline in solar activity is likely to be a small fraction of projected anthropogenic warming.”

That’s true even for one as big as the Maunder Minimum, which was linked to the so-called Little Ice Age.

The “Little Ice Age” is a term used to cover what appears to have been two or three periods of modest cooling in the northern hemisphere between 1550 and 1850.

I know you are shocked, shocked to learn that unreliable climate stories appear in U.K. tabloids, the conservative media (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jul/12/mini-ice-age-likely-from-2030-to-2040-european-sci/), and those who cite them without actually talking to leading climate scientists. Often there is a half truth underlying such stories, but in this case it is more like a nano-truth.

This won’t cause the world to enter a mini ice age — for three reasons:



The Little Ice Age turns out to have been quite little.
What cooling there was probably was driven more by volcanoes than the Maunder Minimum.
The warming effect from global greenhouse gases will overwhelm any reduction in solar forcing, even more so by the 2030s.


http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/07/13/3679662/global-warming-speed-up-not-ice-age/

and for you puck-for-brains, a hocky stick!

http://d35brb9zkkbdsd.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/PAGES2k_MBH99.jpg

[InRareForm]

Well whatever happens in 2030, it's not going to be good "hot or cold"

[Big Dog]

U.K. tabloids, conservative media, and others are (mis)reporting (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/11733369/Earth-heading-for-mini-ice-age-within-15-years.html) that the Earth will enter a “mini ice age” in the 2030s. In fact, not only is the story wrong, the reverse is actually true.

The Earth is headed toward an imminent speed-up in global warming, as many recent studies have made clear, like this June study (http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/06/05/3666286/global-warming-speed-up/) by NOAA. Indeed, a March study (http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/03/10/3631632/climate-change-rate/), entitled “Near-term acceleration in the rate of temperature change,” makes clear that a stunning acceleration in the rate of global warming is around the corner — with Arctic warming rising 1°F per decade by the 2020s!

Also, right now, we appear to be in the midst of a long-awaited jump in global temperatures. Not only was 2014 the hottest year on record, but 2015 is in the process of blowing that record away (http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/06/16/3670166/may-2015-global-temperatures/). On top of that, models say a massive El Niño is growing, as USA Today reported last week (http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2015/07/09/el-nino-california/29921633/). Since El Niños tend to set the record for the hottest years (since the regional warming adds to the underlying global warming trend), if 2015/2016 does see a super El Niño then next year may well crush the record this year sets.

Whatever near-term jump we see in the global temperatures is thus likely to be followed by an accelerating global warming trend — one that would utterly overwhelm any natural variations such as a temporary reduction in solar intensity. A recent study (http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2015/150623/ncomms8535/abs/ncomms8535.html) concluded that “any reduction in global mean near-surface temperature due to a future decline in solar activity is likely to be a small fraction of projected anthropogenic warming.”

That’s true even for one as big as the Maunder Minimum, which was linked to the so-called Little Ice Age.

The “Little Ice Age” is a term used to cover what appears to have been two or three periods of modest cooling in the northern hemisphere between 1550 and 1850.

I know you are shocked, shocked to learn that unreliable climate stories appear in U.K. tabloids, the conservative media (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jul/12/mini-ice-age-likely-from-2030-to-2040-european-sci/), and those who cite them without actually talking to leading climate scientists. Often there is a half truth underlying such stories, but in this case it is more like a nano-truth.

This won’t cause the world to enter a mini ice age — for three reasons:



The Little Ice Age turns out to have been quite little.
What cooling there was probably was driven more by volcanoes than the Maunder Minimum.
The warming effect from global greenhouse gases will overwhelm any reduction in solar forcing, even more so by the 2030s.


http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/07/13/3679662/global-warming-speed-up-not-ice-age/

and for you puck-for-brains, a hocky stick!

http://d35brb9zkkbdsd.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/PAGES2k_MBH99.jpg
I doubt you even read the fucking links you post you socially deranged libtard.

[boutons_deux]

I doubt you even read the fucking links you post you socially deranged libtard.

give your brilliant summary, or eat shit, asshole

[Big Dog]

give your brilliant summary, or eat shit, asshole
I'm willing to stand for the opposite of whatever you stand for. And that's in every issue imaginable in the political arena. Your views and shitful pussy ass SJW takes are a microcosm of how the liberal agenda has fucked up the fabric of American society.

[cantthinkofanything]

Haha boutons. Eat shit.

[boutons_deux]

I'm willing to stand for the opposite of whatever you stand for. And that's in every issue imaginable in the political arena. Your views and shitful pussy ass SJW takes are a microcosm of how the liberal agenda has fucked up the fabric of American society.

:lol Big Dog Shit is an ideological and therefore WRONG, fact free, but full of lies, as rightwingnuts always are.

You People drag science, climate int the political arena.

You People suck down the Exxon/BigCarbon self-serving, profit-protecting LIES about AGW.

Your ideology of opposing whatever views I have is of course more proof that you're ALWAYS wrong.

"fabric of society" :lol You People have been dividing America into polarized extreme right / everybody else for 40 years, not the left.

Even your own Repug assholes, extremists vs Repug establishment, can't quit screwing each other.

"fucked up the fabric of society: :lol typical rightwingnut fantasy :lol

[Wild Cobra]

:lol I guess the "global warming" scam stopped working, so they have to go back to the "global cooling" scam now?
No, I doubt it. I'll bet the alarmists will fight this tooth and nail, to their graves.

2030 is a bit soon for the ice age I think. I believe that's when we should notice the hiatus has ended, and when we start to cool. It will still take decades to get as cold as before.

[pgardn]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/11733369/Earth-heading-for-mini-ice-age-within-15-years.html

Ahh the Daily Torygraph

Not a source I would personally trust. Just like the Guardian on climate change, they take money to print certain stories, especially when it comes to this particular issue. If this site was up for another 15 years I would make a big bet on this story and work being a fail.

[boutons_deux]

Ahh the Daily Torygraph

Not a source I would personally trust. Just like the Guardian on climate change, they take money to print certain stories, especially when it comes to this particular issue. If this site was up for another 15 years I would make a big bet on this story and work being a fail.

Another Murdoch toilet paper.

[DarrinS]

Ahh the Daily Torygraph

Not a source I would personally trust. Just like the Guardian on climate change, they take money to print certain stories, especially when it comes to this particular issue. If this site was up for another 15 years I would make a big bet on this story and work being a fail.


http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2015-07/13/mini-ice-age-earth-sunspots

[wontstartdumbthreads]

http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2015-07/13/mini-ice-age-earth-sunspots

Northumbria University

haha...is that where Bilbo Baggins will attend college?

[Clipper Nation]

I'm willing to stand for the opposite of whatever you stand for. And that's in every issue imaginable in the political arena. Your views and shitful pussy ass SJW takes are a microcosm of how the liberal agenda has fucked up the fabric of American society.
robinlopez.gif

[wontstartdumbthreads]

robinlopez.gif

hahaa. yeah. good call.

https://31.media.tumblr.com/68ec8c7b7a8bda9530c219e1268571e7/tumblr_n4eh71ZUr91roz7s1o1_500.gif

[boutons_deux]

conservative LIE of mini ice age totally debunked. :lol

In a July 9 press release (https://www.ras.org.uk/news-and-press/2680-irregular-heartbeat-of-the-sun-driven-by-double-dynamo), the British Royal Astronomical Society stated that professor Valentina Zharkova and her colleagues had created a model that suggests "solar activity will fall by 60 per cent during the 2030s to conditions last seen during the 'mini ice age' that began in 1645." That line was quickly distorted by conservative media outlets on both sides of the Atlantic, such as the UK's Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/11733369/Earth-heading-for-mini-ice-age-within-15-years.html) and The Washington Times (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jul/12/mini-ice-age-likely-from-2030-to-2040-european-sci/), which claimed the scientists had found that the earth is likely heading for a "mini ice age."

Zharkova herself did not help matters when she hesitantly answered, "Yes, indeed" when asked during a July 13 interview (http://www.radionz.co.nz/national/programmes/morningreport/audio/201762133/uk-scientist-suggests-a-mini-ice-age-be-upon-us) with Radio New Zealand whether she was "saying we've got 15 years before there's an ice age?" Zharkova, who is a professor of mathematics (https://www.northumbria.ac.uk/about-us/our-staff/z/professor-valentina-zharkova/) at Northumbria University in England, clarified later in the interview that she doesn't "do atmospheric research" and "can't say for sure" what impact the phenomenon she has predicted, known as a grand solar minimum, will have on the earth's climate relative to global warming.

However, studies that specifically researched the potential climate impact of a grand solar minimum have found that it would be very small compared to the continued warming that will occur as a result of man-made climate change, a fact that appeared in several publications before CNN.com posted its article.

In 2013, The Guardian's Dana Nuccitelli cited several studies on the impact a grand solar minimum would have on global temperatures, concluding (http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2013/aug/14/global-warming-solar-minimum-barely-dent), "A new grand solar minimum would not trigger another [Little Ice Age]; in fact, the maximum 0.3°C cooling would barely make a dent in the human-caused global warming over the next century." More recently, The Washington Post reported (http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/07/14/news-about-an-imminent-mini-ice-age-is-trending-but-its-not-true/) on July 14 that "several other (http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2015/150623/ncomms8535/full/ncomms8535.html) recent (http://www.pik-potsdam.de/~stefan/Publications/Journals/feulner_rahmstorf_2010.pdf) studies (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S167492781450007X) of a possible solar minimum have concluded that whatever climate effects the phenomenon may have will be dwarfed by the warming caused by greenhouse gas emissions."

Similarly, blog posts by Slate's (http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2015/07/14/global_cooling_no_were_not_headed_for_a_mini_ice_a ge.html)Phil Plait (http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2015/07/14/global_cooling_no_were_not_headed_for_a_mini_ice_a ge.html) and the website ...and Then There's Physics (https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2015/07/12/mini-ice-age/) each cited one of those studies, which was published in Nature Communications and found (http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2015/150623/ncomms8535/full/ncomms8535.html) that "[a]ny reduction in global mean near-surface temperature due to a future decline in solar activity is likely to be a small fraction of projected anthropogenic warming."

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2015/07/14/cnn-advances-debunked-claim-that-changes-in-sun/204412

LIES! you hear them FIRST from right-wing hate media!

[DarrinS]

thinkprogress and mediamatters really upset. I better visit dailykos and vox

[boutons_deux]

thinkprogress and mediamatters really upset. I better visit dailykos and vox

nobody's upset. All are habituated to right-wing lies. This is just another distracting LIE totally debunked.

[DarrinS]

nobody's upset. All are habituated to right-wing lies. This is just another distracting LIE totally debunked.


I'm not saying it's the troof, but I'm also not posting big, bold red-fonted shit from tp and mm

[Spurminator]

Again, thing is, falling solar activity and MMGW are not mutually exclusive. As usual, both sides of the partisan spectrum seem to be missing the point.

[TeyshaBlue]

:lol @ debunked

[SnakeBoy]

Well whatever happens in 2030, it's not going to be good "hot or cold"

In 2030 people will just be predicting climate apocalypse in 2045.

[pgardn]

conservative LIE of mini ice age totally debunked. :lol

In a July 9 press release (https://www.ras.org.uk/news-and-press/2680-irregular-heartbeat-of-the-sun-driven-by-double-dynamo), the British Royal Astronomical Society stated that professor Valentina Zharkova and her colleagues had created a model that suggests "solar activity will fall by 60 per cent during the 2030s to conditions last seen during the 'mini ice age' that began in 1645." That line was quickly distorted by conservative media outlets on both sides of the Atlantic, such as the UK's Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/11733369/Earth-heading-for-mini-ice-age-within-15-years.html) and The Washington Times (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jul/12/mini-ice-age-likely-from-2030-to-2040-european-sci/),which claimed the scientists had found that the earth is likely heading for a "mini ice age."

Zharkova herself did not help matters when she hesitantly answered, "Yes, indeed" when asked during a July 13 interview (http://www.radionz.co.nz/national/programmes/morningreport/audio/201762133/uk-scientist-suggests-a-mini-ice-age-be-upon-us) with Radio New Zealand whether she was "saying we've got 15 years before there's an ice age?" Zharkova, who is a professor of mathematics (https://www.northumbria.ac.uk/about-us/our-staff/z/professor-valentina-zharkova/) at Northumbria University in England, clarified later in the interview that she doesn't "do atmospheric research" and "can't say for sure" what impact the phenomenon she has predicted, known as a grand solar minimum, will have on the earth's climate relative to global warming.

However, studies that specifically researched the potential climate impact of a grand solar minimum have found that it would be very small compared to the continued warming that will occur as a result of man-made climate change, a fact that appeared in several publications before CNN.com posted its article.

In 2013, The Guardian's Dana Nuccitelli cited several studies on the impact a grand solar minimum would have on global temperatures, concluding (http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2013/aug/14/global-warming-solar-minimum-barely-dent), "A new grand solar minimum would not trigger another [Little Ice Age]; in fact, the maximum 0.3°C cooling would barely make a dent in the human-caused global warming over the next century." More recently, The Washington Post reported (http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/07/14/news-about-an-imminent-mini-ice-age-is-trending-but-its-not-true/) on July 14 that "several other (http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2015/150623/ncomms8535/full/ncomms8535.html) recent (http://www.pik-potsdam.de/~stefan/Publications/Journals/feulner_rahmstorf_2010.pdf) studies (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S167492781450007X) of a possible solar minimum have concluded that whatever climate effects the phenomenon may have will be dwarfed by the warming caused by greenhouse gas emissions."

Similarly, blog posts by Slate's (http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2015/07/14/global_cooling_no_were_not_headed_for_a_mini_ice_a ge.html)Phil Plait (http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2015/07/14/global_cooling_no_were_not_headed_for_a_mini_ice_a ge.html) and the website ...and Then There's Physics (https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2015/07/12/mini-ice-age/) each cited one of those studies, which was published in Nature Communications and found (http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2015/150623/ncomms8535/full/ncomms8535.html) that "[a]ny reduction in global mean near-surface temperature due to a future decline in solar activity is likely to be a small fraction of projected anthropogenic warming."

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2015/07/14/cnn-advances-debunked-claim-that-changes-in-sun/204412

LIES! you hear them FIRST from right-wing hate media!




The Guardian, a liberal paper, has also been accused of being overly concerned with putting climate change articles in for $. NPR did a little expose on it. It does not necessarily mean they are wrong or correct.

There re are some guys here in town who work for SW research making detection devices to gather various data about the sun. They write grants to get them put up in satellites. They think this mini ice age is bunk.

[DarrinS]

Well, we've got 15 years to gather wood.

[TeyshaBlue]

:lol moonbatmatters

[Jacob1983]

Isn't there a difference between the hottest year on record and the hottest year ever? The hottest year on record is the hottest year that had temperatures recorded and written down. The hottest year ever is the hottest year ever. Since brilliant scientists don't have records of temperature readings from millions of years then how can we truly trust them? I laugh when people say "it's the hottest year ever" because it's incorrect. Have you been around since the beginning of existence?

[Wild Cobra]

conservative LIE of mini ice age totally debunked. :lol

In a July 9 press release (https://www.ras.org.uk/news-and-press/2680-irregular-heartbeat-of-the-sun-driven-by-double-dynamo), the British Royal Astronomical Society stated that professor Valentina Zharkova and her colleagues had created a model that suggests "solar activity will fall by 60 per cent during the 2030s to conditions last seen during the 'mini ice age' that began in 1645." That line was quickly distorted by conservative media outlets on both sides of the Atlantic, such as the UK's Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/11733369/Earth-heading-for-mini-ice-age-within-15-years.html) and The Washington Times (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jul/12/mini-ice-age-likely-from-2030-to-2040-european-sci/), which claimed the scientists had found that the earth is likely heading for a "mini ice age."

Zharkova herself did not help matters when she hesitantly answered, "Yes, indeed" when asked during a July 13 interview (http://www.radionz.co.nz/national/programmes/morningreport/audio/201762133/uk-scientist-suggests-a-mini-ice-age-be-upon-us) with Radio New Zealand whether she was "saying we've got 15 years before there's an ice age?" Zharkova, who is a professor of mathematics (https://www.northumbria.ac.uk/about-us/our-staff/z/professor-valentina-zharkova/) at Northumbria University in England, clarified later in the interview that she doesn't "do atmospheric research" and "can't say for sure" what impact the phenomenon she has predicted, known as a grand solar minimum, will have on the earth's climate relative to global warming.

However, studies that specifically researched the potential climate impact of a grand solar minimum have found that it would be very small compared to the continued warming that will occur as a result of man-made climate change, a fact that appeared in several publications before CNN.com posted its article.

In 2013, The Guardian's Dana Nuccitelli cited several studies on the impact a grand solar minimum would have on global temperatures, concluding (http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2013/aug/14/global-warming-solar-minimum-barely-dent), "A new grand solar minimum would not trigger another [Little Ice Age]; in fact, the maximum 0.3°C cooling would barely make a dent in the human-caused global warming over the next century." More recently, The Washington Post reported (http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/07/14/news-about-an-imminent-mini-ice-age-is-trending-but-its-not-true/) on July 14 that "several other (http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2015/150623/ncomms8535/full/ncomms8535.html) recent (http://www.pik-potsdam.de/~stefan/Publications/Journals/feulner_rahmstorf_2010.pdf) studies (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S167492781450007X) of a possible solar minimum have concluded that whatever climate effects the phenomenon may have will be dwarfed by the warming caused by greenhouse gas emissions."

Similarly, blog posts by Slate's (http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2015/07/14/global_cooling_no_were_not_headed_for_a_mini_ice_a ge.html)Phil Plait (http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2015/07/14/global_cooling_no_were_not_headed_for_a_mini_ice_a ge.html) and the website ...and Then There's Physics (https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2015/07/12/mini-ice-age/) each cited one of those studies, which was published in Nature Communications and found (http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2015/150623/ncomms8535/full/ncomms8535.html) that "[a]ny reduction in global mean near-surface temperature due to a future decline in solar activity is likely to be a small fraction of projected anthropogenic warming."

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2015/07/14/cnn-advances-debunked-claim-that-changes-in-sun/204412

LIES! you hear them FIRST from right-wing hate media!



That's not debunking the idea. Just saying the sources didn't start any of it.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

For some reason I am not buying that solar thermodynamics can be predicted by combining two wave forms with any degree of precision or accuracy.

Darrin's take in all of this is particularly amusing in light of his takes on how they try to model climate. I no longer care if his hypocrisy is from feigned stupidity or the real thing any more.

[boutons_deux]

That's not debunking the idea. Just saying the sources didn't start any of it.

Zharkova made statement she wasn't qualified to make, and your right-wing hate media blew up into a anti-AGW mini-age starting in 15 years. total rightwing media bullshit

[TeyshaBlue]

I see snakeboys link was studiously ignored.

http://www.rationaloptimist.com/blog/what-the-climate-wars-did-to-science.aspx

[DarrinS]

For some reason I am not buying that solar thermodynamics can be predicted by combining two wave forms with any degree of precision or accuracy.

Darrin's take in all of this is particularly amusing in light of his takes on how they try to model climate. I no longer care if his hypocrisy is from feigned stupidity or the real thing any more.


Really? What's my take on this?

[boutons_deux]

"Despite avalanches of money being spent on research to find evidence of rapid man-made warming, despite even more spent on propaganda and marketing and subsidising renewable energy, the public remains unconvinced."

so fucking what? 40%+ of Americans don't accept Darwinian evolution, believe the Bible is unquestionable God's Word, is 100% accurate science AND history.

"The big difference is that these scientists who insist that we take their word for it, and who get cross if we don’t, are also asking us to make huge, expensive and risky changes to the world economy and to people’s livelihoods."

bullshit. the AGW/GHG scientists aren't ask people to "believe" their "word for it". They aren't Bible humping pastors duping suckers into believing End Times, creationism, etc.

"Yet they are not prepared to debate the science behind their concern."

bullshit. 1000s of scientists have Ms of datapoints, current and going back 1000s of years. Let the "other side" (mostly paid whores for BigCarbon (Exxon has known for at least 35 years that CO2 is a AGW GHG) present its data.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I see snakeboys link was studiously ignored.

http://www.rationaloptimist.com/blog/what-the-climate-wars-did-to-science.aspx

I read up through the guilt by association, the unsubstantiated claim that 'mountains of evidence are being ignored,' the cherry picked stupid thing said by scientist, and the HANSEN/GORE! part but then lost interest for it being the same stupid shit.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Really? What's my take on this?

to mitigate and trivialize the issue for your corporate overlords of course.

[pgardn]

I see snakeboys link was studiously ignored.

http://www.rationaloptimist.com/blog/what-the-climate-wars-did-to-science.aspx


Climate science has become a dirtier business because political groups are throwing money at it, both sides. And most of the dire predictions are blown up by the press.

I read it. It's not unusual. It happens in cancer research as well. Once big money infects an area in science we are more likely to get people in on it working only for profit and not for accuracy. Peer review needs to be cleaned up and funded to counter other interests, like the biased news groups.

[boutons_deux]

Climate science has become a dirtier business because political groups are throwing money at it, both sides. And most of the dire predictions are blown up by the press.

I read it. It's not unusual. It happens in cancer research as well. Once big money infects an area in science we are more likely to get people in on it working only for profit and not for accuracy. Peer review needs to be cleaned up and funded to counter other interests, like the biased news groups.

AGW is dirtied, is denied by financed by BigCarbon, throwing $100Ms at it for self-protection.

there's nothing on the pro-AGW side that corresponds

[pgardn]

AGW is dirtied, is denied by financed by BigCarbon, throwing $100Ms at it for self-protection.

there's nothing on the pro-AGW side that corresponds

When The Guardian gets paid to put out Global Warming pieces and they have a larger readership than the conservative paper then one side got a cheap price for advertising.

[DarrinS]

to mitigate and trivialize the issue for your corporate overlords of course.

So, you think this ice age claim is something that should be taken seriously?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

So, you think this ice age claim is something that should be taken seriously?

oversimplifications of the simple minded. i no longer care if the stupidity is feigned or legitimate.

do you think that climate scientists ignore solar cycles and variability in their models?

[boutons_deux]

When The Guardian gets paid to put out Global Warming pieces and they have a larger readership than the conservative paper then one side got a cheap price for advertising.

who pays the Guardian to promote AGW?

[pgardn]

who pays the Guardian to promote AGW?

Read about the Guardians's outgoing editor.

[DarrinS]

oversimplifications of the simple minded. i no longer care if the stupidity is feigned or legitimate.

do you think that climate scientists ignore solar cycles and variability in their models?


I don't care who creates the models. If they don't comport with reality, they are shit. Same goes for this ice age prediction.

[DarrinS]

I see snakeboys link was studiously ignored.

http://www.rationaloptimist.com/blog/what-the-climate-wars-did-to-science.aspx



A lot of truth bombs in there. I can see why Fuzzy and boobot hate it.

[boutons_deux]

I don't care who creates the models. If they don't comport with reality, they are shit. Same goes for this ice age prediction.

the AGW models ARE matching reality, but you refuse them as shit

[Wild Cobra]

Zharkova made statement she wasn't qualified to make, and your right-wing hate media blew up into a anti-AGW mini-age starting in 15 years. total rightwing media bullshit
Yes, it is bullshit. If the solar cycle continues as predicted, Maunder Minima type conditions are probably 50 years or so away. Not 15.

[TeyshaBlue]

I read up through the guilt by association, the unsubstantiated claim that 'mountains of evidence are being ignored,' the cherry picked stupid thing said by scientist, and the HANSEN/GORE! part but then lost interest for it being the same stupid shit.
The unsubstantiated claim was lifted from a book linked in the statement. Sounds like it could be valid....guess I'd have to read the book to establish the validity of the statement. That he bothered to link it lends some credence in my mind. Not knowing much about the subject, I found the structure and basis of his statements at least somewhat compelling. I was just wondering why nobdy would weigh in on them.

[TeyshaBlue]

Read about the Guardians's outgoing editor.

Cant be found in the moonbat rss feed.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I don't care who creates the models. If they don't comport with reality, they are shit. Same goes for this ice age prediction.

And we've discussed this too. BEST is doing a very good job championing the models that do match observations don't you think? EVery GISS/IPCC report on them I have read/seen uses correlation to judge. And taking any uncertainty and presenting it as completely worthless is a hallmark of the people youre shilling for. It's not like you are creative.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

The unsubstantiated claim was lifted from a book linked in the statement. Sounds like it could be valid....guess I'd have to read the book to establish the validity of the statement. That he bothered to link it lends some credence in my mind. Not knowing much about the subject, I found the structure and basis of his statements at least somewhat compelling. I was just wondering why nobdy would weigh in on them.

When making a case for important data being skipped, actual examples are incredibly compelling and should be easy to obtain given that hyperbole. Instead we get a generalization when discussing a new discovery, fact, or logic? I know how to lie and mislead as well. That is a good way to do it. He doesn't even have to take personal responsibility for saying it.