Reply With Quote
If the Kock Bros and BigCarbon are for it (AGW denial), then you know they're lying and it's BAD for humanity.
I thought this was an interesting article.
http://www.economist.com/news/scienc...-gas-emissions
I'd hardly call it a "denier" article.
So, why is it listed on "reality drop" (https://realitydrop.org/) with a button under it for "Destroy Denial"?
If the Kock Bros and BigCarbon are for it (AGW denial), then you know they're lying and it's BAD for humanity.
Lol @ this from http://climaterealityproject.org/press/
The Climate Reality Project and Arnold Worldwide Introduce Reality Drop
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: February 28, 2013
CONTACT: Bill Rigler, The Climate Reality Project, +1-917-415-0612, [email protected]
Wendi Smith, Arnold Worldwide, +1-617-587-8131, [email protected]
New Interactive Tool Incorporates Innovative Online Game Mechanics to Rebut Climate Change Denial
Long Beach, CA (February 28, 2013) — The Climate Reality Project and Arnold Worldwide today announced the global launch of Reality Drop (www.realitydrop.org), an innovative social media tool that educates users about the reality of climate change and uses modern gaming techniques to combat professional climate deniers.
Developed through a collaboration with the website Skeptical Science, Reality Drop curates hundreds of online news articles daily for articles that demand a response—whether it’s a misleading quote from a climate denier or a heated debate raging in the comments section. Reality Drop also catalogs more than one hundred of the most pervasive and topical climate myths, and distills complex science into simple and succinct rebuttals that can be shared on social networks or on comment threads beneath news articles. Reality Drop makes it easy for users to find the best science-based response, to apply accessible and easy-to-understand language, add their voice to the conversation—and help cool the argument.
Comment bot, built by bots, for like-minded bots
Are you on the leader board yet? What rank are you?
https://realitydrop.org/#about
interesting article, D.
"OVER the past 15 years air temperatures at the Earth’s surface have been flat"
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/fea...012-temps.html
As Scientists Predicted, Global Warming Continues
Most of manmade global warming is ending up in the ocean, just as scientists had predicted (see “Global Warming Has Accelerated In Past 15 Years“). And while recent “observations support predictions of extreme warming” this century, even sophisticated media outlets, like “The Economist,” get the story wrong (see “Memo To Media: ‘Climate Sensitivity’ Is NOT The Same As Projected Future Warming, World Faces 10°F Rise“). Former Hurricane Hunter Jeff Masters has a good chart-filled piece reviewing the latest temperature observations.
One often hears the statement in the media that global warming stopped in 1998, or that there has been no global warming for the past 16 years. Why pick 16 years? Why not some nice round number like 20 years? Or better yet, 30 years, since the climate is generally defined as the average weather experienced over a period of 30 years or longer?
Temperatures at Earth’s surface undergo natural, decades-long warming and cooling trends, related to the La Niña/El Niño cycle and the 11-year sunspot cycle. The reason one often hears the year 1998 used as a base year to measure global temperature trends is that this is a cherry-picked year.
An extraordinarily powerful El Niño event that was the strongest on record brought about a temporary increase in surface ocean temperatures over a vast area of the tropical Pacific that year, helping boost global surface temperatures to the highest levels on record (global temperatures were warmer in both 2005 and 2010, but not by much.) But in the years from 2005 – 2012, La Niña events have been present for at least a portion of every single year, helping keep Earth’s surface relatively cool.
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/201...ing-continues/
So Darrin not only denies AGW, but GW?
lol thinkprogress
lol skepticalscience
The Climate Reality Project, founded and chaired by former Vice President and Nobel Laureate Al Gore, is dedicated to unleashing a global cultural movement demanding action on the climate crisis. Despite overwhelming international scientific consensus on climate change, the global community still lacks the resolve to implement meaningful solutions. The Climate Reality Project exists to forge an unwavering bedrock of impassioned support necessary for urgent action. With that foundation, together we will ignite the moral courage in our leaders to solve the climate crisis.Maggie L. Fox, President and CEO, ..... She served as the Deputy Executive Director of the Sierra ClubBoard of Directors
The Honorable Al Gore
Chairman of the Board
Vice President of the United States, 1993-2001; Nobel Peace Prize Laureate, 2007
Theodore Roosevelt IV
Secretary of the Board
Managing Director, Barclays Capital
Rosina Bierbaum, Ph.D.
Professor and former dean at University of Michigan School of Natural Resources and Environment
The Honorable Sherwood Boehlert
U.S. House of Representatives, 1983-2006; Former Republican Chairman, House Science & Technology Committee
Don Henry
CEO, Australian Conservation Foundation
Cindy Horn
Co-founder, Environmental Media Association; Philanthropist
Orin S. Kramer
General Partner, Boston Provident L.P.
Larry Schweiger
President and CEO, National Wildlife Federation
James Gustave (Gus) Speth
Professor, Vermont Law School
Kevin Wall
CEO, Control Room; Founder and Producer, Live Earth
lol boutonsbot
Darrin, I thought you had given up on the 'it's not warming' take and dissembled to downplaying. You doubling down instead now?
So the low end estimates done by legitimate scientists in Oslo conclude 1.9 degrees. The high end is 3. The author left out ENSO and BEST which is a pretty glaring omission for what is supposed to be a comprehensive discussion in which he made a big issue of the top down modeling approach. It seemed a rehash to me. Then again you think LED's are riveting.
And cherrypicking a quote and making fun of boutox about his other links does little justice to the NASA link that is the study from which it is pulled and goes to great lengths to qualify and add much more to the cherry picked statement.
No, just making fun of boutons.
Are you going to "Destroy Denial" using the AGW spambot created by your friends at SkepticalScience? https://realitydrop.org/
AL GORE!!!
What did you find interesting about the article, Darrin?
That climate may be less sensitive to CO2 than thought. Isn't that the point of the article?
So you found the article interesting because it said what you wanted it to? Ok.
For each of those articles they pointed to with a lower climate sensitivity (which most still overlap the IPCC's except at the very lower and unlikely range) how many studies do you think there are that say something different? Your confirmation bias is impressive.
Quan ies of wrong don't make it correct in science.So you found the article interesting because it said what you wanted it to? Ok.
For each of those articles they pointed to with a lower climate sensitivity (which most still overlap the IPCC's except at the very lower and unlikely range) how many studies do you think there are that say something different? Your confirmation bias is impressive.
CO2... less climate sensitivity...
Back Carbon... more sensitivity...
What have I been saying people?
Too bad they didn't mention the large increase in solar from ~1900 to ~1950, and it's long lag period.
That was also the period of continued Industrial Revolution output of vastly increasing CO2 production from transport, industry, coal burning. How do you separate the two (as if you cared)?
Well, I may be guilty of that (as I'm sure most people are), but if the climate is not all that sensitive to CO2, it is great news -- except for those who spent their careers building confirmation bias astroturfing spambots.So you found the article interesting because it said what you wanted it to? Ok.
For each of those articles they pointed to with a lower climate sensitivity (which most still overlap the IPCC's except at the very lower and unlikely range) how many studies do you think there are that say something different? Your confirmation bias is impressive.
Yes, the lower sensitivity temperature has with CO2, the less money carbon credits are worth.
Obviously its great news if the climate is less sensitive to GHG emissions. Its also great news if I win the lottery tomorrow or if gold starts raining from the sky. You don't seem to get how this conformation bias thing works, Darrin. When a substantive overview of all the research out there is gathered together it does not point to the climate being less sensitive. Are there studies that say it is? Yes. Are there far more studies that point to the opposite being true? Yes.
Furthermore, you're grabbing onto the notion that a 2 degree rise in global temps isn't a bad thing. It is. 2 degrees averaged over the globe means about 4-5 degrees over land. Right now with a 1 degree increase there are some huge changes happening that are going to have expensive and bad consequences. At 5 degrees you're going to see an incredible amount of change that is going to cost us quite a bit of money.
But sure, just go ahead and keep finding things you want to believe "interesting".
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
