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

LOL...

Time, 1974 he mentions:

http://content.time.com/time/magazin...944914,00.html

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nero5

http://www.smh.com.au/technology/sci...26-13q7b5.html

---

Seems plausible

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

DarrinS dodges again.

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarrinS

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:

Quote:

---

“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.”

---

Anyone see the new nature Study?

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal...ture14240.html

Bad news for warmers!

from the link, 1st paragraph:

Quote:

---

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.

---

Quote:

---

bad news for warmists!

---

:lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

:lol

---

Just proves you don't understand the study.

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

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.

Quote:

---

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

---

Quote:

---

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

---

so?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

Quote:

---

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

Quote:

---

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

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

so?

---

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

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.

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.

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

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.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FuzzyLumpkins

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FuzzyLumpkins

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

---

How about Berkley Lab's response:

Quote:

---

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...fect-increase/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

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:

---

Originally Posted by FuzzyLumpkins

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.