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

[Wild Cobra]

Yes, the greenhouse gas concentration will likely settle to between 500 to 600 ppm. We will enjoy bountiful crops because plants consume CO2, and the more their is, the faster they can grow.

[boutons_deux]

Yes, the greenhouse gas concentration will likely settle to between 500 to 600 ppm. We will enjoy bountiful crops because plants consume CO2, and the more their is, the faster they can grow.

Droughts, and excessive ground water pumping, caused by global warming will reduce crops, no matter how much CO2 the crops would like to suck up.

As Rick Blaine said to Ilsa Lund: "We'll always have CO2" and "Here's lookin' at you, slapped "

but we won't always have enough water.

[Wild Cobra]

Droughts, and excessive ground water pumping, caused by global warming will reduce crops, no matter how much CO2 the crops would like to suck up.

As Rick Blaine said to Ilsa Lund: "We'll always have CO2" and "Here's lookin' at you, slapped "

but we won't always have enough water.

Droughts are cyclical, and not caused by CO2, but rather land use changes, affecting the transpiration of water from the ground into the atmosphere.

Haven't you learned anything other than what the preachers of climatology tell you?

L. Ron Hubbard would be proud!

[boutons_deux]

House Anti-Science Committee Attempts to Suppress Climate Change Studies

The House of Representatives Committee on Science, Space, and Technology wants to know what government scientists say about climate change. Not what they say in public, of course - you don't need a subpoena to read the many reports the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has published on the pressing problem of global warming.

No, the congressional body tasked with overseeing the nation's scientists thinks that climate change is some kind of elaborate prank NOAA is playing on the nation, and that surely their internal e-mails look something like this:

From: Candace Climate, PhD

To: Gary Greenhouse, MSc

Re: Moo Ha Ha

I can't believe those fools bought your methane report! I mean, cow farts changing the weather? That Al Gore will believe anything! ROTFL, man. ROTFL.

To uncover this tomfoolery, the committee has subpoenaed NOAA, asking for all e-mails and other records from US scientists involved in a recent study showing that the so-called "pause" in global warming is a myth.

The episode is obviously an embarrassment to Congress, and many journalists have pointed out as much.

Phil Plait of Slate calls it a "fishing expedition" by politicians who don't understand "even the most basic ideas about global warming."

Over at Vox, David Roberts calls the investigation "an effort to suppress inconvenient scientific results and score partisan political points."

This is all true, but it's worth stepping back a bit to recognize that this is pretty standard stuff from the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, which seems to draw people with extreme anti-science agendas.

Earlier this year, it proposed a budget that would gut NASA's earth science funding by up to $500 million. Go back further and you'll see that the group regularly tries to intimidate scientists who say things the members don't like.

Congress may as well change the name to the Committee on Bullying Scientists. (With the number of times the name has already changed, it's only a matter of time before this one gets its turn.)

http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/ite...change-studies

[Wild Cobra]

LOL...

Truthout.

You love your agenda blogs...

LOL...

Now if grants went equally to scientists doing studies on both sides of this issue, I would be less concerned. However, since more than 99% of money granted go to scientists on the AGW agenda side, I say cut off the funds, since it's not even close to equal.

[boutons_deux]

Record Levels of CO2 Herald the Future of Climate Change

The Earth's climate has changed. After nearly two centuries of fossil fuel-burning, concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere have reached 400 parts per million, especially boosted by the seemingly ever-accelerating amount of combustion in the last few decades according to the World Meteorological Organization. Atmospheric CO2 concentrations of 0.04 percent may not seem like much but it is enough to have already raised average global temperatures by a full degree Celsius, according to theU.K.'s Met Office, with more warming on the way as the greenhouse gas lingers invisibly in the atmosphere, trapping heat, or mixing into the ocean, rendering its waters more acidic.

In fact, the world has not seen CO2 concentrations this high in at least hundreds of thousands of years. Roughly 35 billion metric tons of CO2 are spewed into the atmosphere annually—and rising. The waters of the global ocean have become 30 percent more acidic in the last few decades and the world has not been this warm in thousands of years. This year is likely to be the hottest one since record keeping began, thanks to an El Nino weather pattern that’s taking place in addition to global warming. The top 10 warmest years have all occurred since 1998, which was the year of the last major El Nino.

Worse, farming, forest-clearing and other activities have contributed to emissions of other greenhouse gases, such as methane and nitrous oxide, the latter more commonly known as laughing gas, which is no laughing matter in the atmosphere.




http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...A_EVO_20151116

[boutons_deux]

The Secrets in Greenland’s Ice Sheet

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/11/15...ce-sheets.html

a long artlcle, too long you ignorant AGW deniers

the scientific disagreement in the article about the Greenland/Antarctic melts: "bad" vs "very bad"

[pgardn]

Droughts are cyclical, and not caused by CO2, but rather land use changes, affecting the transpiration of water from the ground into the atmosphere.

Haven't you learned anything other than what the preachers of climatology tell you?

L. Ron Hubbard would be proud!

Transpiration is a term reserved for plants releasing water.
So you are into saving the forests of the world?

[Wild Cobra]

Transpiration is a term reserved for plants releasing water.
So you are into saving the forests of the world?

And how many fewer plants do you have where it's covered by concrete, asphalt, and buildings?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

LOL...

Pundits spinning away.

I would ask you to read the letter in nature, but it's paywalled. I don't think this graphic is:



Go here please:

http://www.debatepolitics.com/enviro...post1065149880

I don't feel like repeating what I wrote in a different forum.

It's been shoved in your face several times how your overhead shots do not capture the depth of the ice sheet. The papers detailing this from the survey teams have also been shown to you. That you say stupid makes you a moron but this puts in you the Darrin class of sophist piece of .

Good job, dip !

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I also think its hilarious that you guys think the increased sea ice comes from anything other than those glaciers thinning and moving out to see as the melt spreads. MOAR SEA ICE MUST MEAN ITZ MOAR KOLDR!

[pgardn]

And how many fewer plants do you have where it's covered by concrete, asphalt, and buildings?

This was not my question.

[Wild Cobra]

This was not my question.

Save the forests from what? Managed care-taking of sustainable wood harvests?

I'm only pointing out once again that we have altered the way water responds in regional areas due to our construction. If forests are cut and replaced, it not a problem in my opinion. Not like covering 98% of urban areas with asphalt, concrete, and buildings. We dramatically alter the micro-climate. We have some pretty large urban areas. People seldom think of all the other ways both man and nature influence change, and want to blame CO2 for everything.

[boutons_deux]

Study looks at the role of corporate funding in climate change discussion

A computer analysis of 20 years of data found that corporate funding influenced both the content and specific language used to encourage public skepticism of climate change.

Writing in the Nov. 23 online edition of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Yale University sociologist Justin Farrell said the analysis offers a new level of understanding about the role of corporate money in polarizing a public discussion. Farrell is an assistant professor of sociology at the Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies.

Farrell's analysis is based on two data sets. The first is a social network of 4,556 individuals with ties to 164 organizations that have been skeptical of climate change. The second data set is a compendium of every text those organizations produced about climate change from 1993 to 2013. The latter includes 40,785 texts such as policy statements, press releases, website articles, conference transcripts, published papers, and blog articles.

A good deal of research already exists about how polarization affects individual at udes and behavior relating to climate change, Farrell explained. Yet there is little data about the underlying organizational factors at play.

"We've never had this level of data," Farrell said. "The text analysis is entirely computational, and it shows an ecosystem of influence."

The study mentions several themes that became more dominant among climate change "contrarians" that received corporate funding. One was the idea that climate change is cyclical in nature; another prevalent theme was the positive benefits of carbon dioxide.

"They were writing things that were different from the contrarian organizations that did not receive corporate funding," Farrell said. "Over time, it brought them into a more cohesive social movement and aligned their messages."

The study employed a recently developed approach to topic modeling—a computer-assisted content analysis process —that factors in metadata such as the year a text was written and its link to corporate funding. The process enables reliable content analysis on massive collections of text, with topics emerging from the data as algorithms learn the hidden patterns within a database.

http://phys.org/news/2015-11-role-co...iscussion.html

AGW deniers are dupes of corporate paymasters and their s.

[Wild Cobra]

Study looks at the role of corporate funding in climate change discussion

A computer analysis of 20 years of data found that corporate funding influenced both the content and specific language used to encourage public skepticism of climate change.

Writing in the Nov. 23 online edition of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Yale University sociologist Justin Farrell said the analysis offers a new level of understanding about the role of corporate money in polarizing a public discussion. Farrell is an assistant professor of sociology at the Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies.

Farrell's analysis is based on two data sets. The first is a social network of 4,556 individuals with ties to 164 organizations that have been skeptical of climate change. The second data set is a compendium of every text those organizations produced about climate change from 1993 to 2013. The latter includes 40,785 texts such as policy statements, press releases, website articles, conference transcripts, published papers, and blog articles.

A good deal of research already exists about how polarization affects individual at udes and behavior relating to climate change, Farrell explained. Yet there is little data about the underlying organizational factors at play.

"We've never had this level of data," Farrell said. "The text analysis is entirely computational, and it shows an ecosystem of influence."

The study mentions several themes that became more dominant among climate change "contrarians" that received corporate funding. One was the idea that climate change is cyclical in nature; another prevalent theme was the positive benefits of carbon dioxide.

"They were writing things that were different from the contrarian organizations that did not receive corporate funding," Farrell said. "Over time, it brought them into a more cohesive social movement and aligned their messages."

The study employed a recently developed approach to topic modeling—a computer-assisted content analysis process —that factors in metadata such as the year a text was written and its link to corporate funding. The process enables reliable content analysis on massive collections of text, with topics emerging from the data as algorithms learn the hidden patterns within a database.

http://phys.org/news/2015-11-role-co...iscussion.html

AGW deniers are dupes of corporate paymasters and their s.

A one sided review without testing the funding the alarmists give.

Sounds like the results were determined before the study started.

[boutons_deux]

The GOP is the world’s only major climate-denialist party. But why?

Of all the major conservative parties in the democratic world, the Republican Party stands alone in its denial of the legitimacy of climate science. Indeed, the Republican Party stands alone in its conviction that no national or international response to climate change is needed. To the extent that the party is divided on the issue, the gap separates candidates who openly dismiss climate science as a hoax, and those who, shying away from the political risks of blatant ignorance, instead couch their stance in the alleged impossibility of international action.

That's about right. But it's worth digging a little deeper into just why and how much the GOP is an outlier on this issue. We can glean some insights from a large-scale survey of global opinion on climate change released last month by the Pew Research Center.

Partisan differences over the urgency of climate change are not unique to the US

There's no doubt that the climate issue is split along partisan lines in the US.

http://www.vox.com/2015/12/2/9836566...ate-denial-why

why? Repugs are cheap s, turning any trick their BigCorp johns

[Wild Cobra]

Study looks at the role of corporate funding in climate change discussion

A computer analysis of 20 years of data found that corporate funding influenced both the content and specific language used to encourage public skepticism of climate change.

Writing in the Nov. 23 online edition of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Yale University sociologist Justin Farrell said the analysis offers a new level of understanding about the role of corporate money in polarizing a public discussion. Farrell is an assistant professor of sociology at the Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies.

Farrell's analysis is based on two data sets. The first is a social network of 4,556 individuals with ties to 164 organizations that have been skeptical of climate change. The second data set is a compendium of every text those organizations produced about climate change from 1993 to 2013. The latter includes 40,785 texts such as policy statements, press releases, website articles, conference transcripts, published papers, and blog articles.

A good deal of research already exists about how polarization affects individual at udes and behavior relating to climate change, Farrell explained. Yet there is little data about the underlying organizational factors at play.

"We've never had this level of data," Farrell said. "The text analysis is entirely computational, and it shows an ecosystem of influence."

The study mentions several themes that became more dominant among climate change "contrarians" that received corporate funding. One was the idea that climate change is cyclical in nature; another prevalent theme was the positive benefits of carbon dioxide.

"They were writing things that were different from the contrarian organizations that did not receive corporate funding," Farrell said. "Over time, it brought them into a more cohesive social movement and aligned their messages."

The study employed a recently developed approach to topic modeling—a computer-assisted content analysis process —that factors in metadata such as the year a text was written and its link to corporate funding. The process enables reliable content analysis on massive collections of text, with topics emerging from the data as algorithms learn the hidden patterns within a database.

http://phys.org/news/2015-11-role-co...iscussion.html

AGW deniers are dupes of corporate paymasters and their s.

I found yesterday, maybe the day before, His work is also published in Nature Climate change. He did a fine job, but did so with blinders on. To be a true study, he should have looked at the influence of the money going to the warmers as as well, but he didn't.

The verdict was planned.

Plus, which came first? the chicken or the egg? There was no attempt to find out if donations drove the research, or if the research drove the donations.

You liberal pansies are so easily duped.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I found yesterday, maybe the day before, His work is also published in Nature Climate change. He did a fine job, but did so with blinders on. To be a true study, he should have looked at the influence of the money going to the warmers as as well, but he didn't.

The verdict was planned.

Plus, which came first? the chicken or the egg? There was no attempt to find out if donations drove the research, or if the research drove the donations.

You liberal pansies are so easily duped.

Here you go again with this stupidity. We know that there is a trillion dollar corporate industry with a propaganda campaign that has been detailed in greater and greater detail as time goes by. There is no such analog on the other side. Grant money is overseen by the NSF and similar ins utions as well as congress which is packed with people well do ented to be paid well by the same industry we just mentioned.

Easily duped? You're an idiot. just because some other place picked up the work does not mean the peer review process included at Physics becomes invalidated. There are problems with that system sure but it again has to do with corporate interference from known sources like petro companies not your mystical climate moneybags.

[MannyIsGod]

2015 was the hottest year ever. It wasn't even close. We broke the record by a gigantic margin on all the surface data sets that is far outside the margin of error for each.

-El Nino was as strong as the one in 1998, but with the backdrop of AGW, temps were MUCH higher than they were in 1998. That's the whole point about AGW. Next large El Nino will once again smash the record.

-2016 has a reasonable chance of breaking the record for the 3rd consecutive year. The first part of the year will be very warm as El Nino continues, but it will break down at some point this year. If we transition into a La Nina then the odds of another record go down, but it might not matter if we are able to maintain record warmth early. If we fail to get into actual La Nina territory then we will break the record and it will likely be by a rather large margin once again.

-Darrin loved talking about how the models were under peforming. Well, I tried over and over to explain to him that it was just natural variability. With 2015 in the books, it can no longer be claimed the models are off. That being said, it still doesn't mean much. They could go cool again in a few years if we get more La Ninas than El Ninos. But they could very well run hot if the opposite happens. Which is why the long term trend is what matters.

Not sure how much longer the deniers can keep at it. Reality is starting to be quite obvious. But then again, these are the people that think EVERYTHING is a conspiracy so w/e.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/21/sc...=top-news&_r=1


Enjoy keeping those heads buried in that sand.

[Wild Cobra]

I wonder what percentage they assigned 2016 with?

It doesn't matter if it's the hottest year or not. The question still remains, how much is natural vs. how much is AGW.

[DarrinS]

All it takes is an El Niño to renew your faith and bring you back from your hiatus. Welcome back, Manny.

[RandomGuy]

A one sided review without testing the funding the alarmists give.

Sounds like the results were determined before the study started.

Ah. Your conspiracy theory about the scary scientists and their public funding.

Do companies that produce burnable hydrocarbons have a direct interest in denying that the use of their products is harmful, even if that is not true?

[RandomGuy]

I found yesterday, maybe the day before, His work is also published in Nature Climate change. He did a fine job, but did so with blinders on. To be a true study, he should have looked at the influence of the money going to the warmers as as well, but he didn't.

The verdict was planned.

Plus, which came first? the chicken or the egg? There was no attempt to find out if donations drove the research, or if the research drove the donations.

You liberal pansies are so easily duped.

The study was on whether corporate funding of skepticism had an effect on the language of that skepticism. Why would you include studies of funding for "warmers"?

That is akin to saying "for this cancer study to be a true study of how cancer causes death, it would have had to have studied heart disease causes death too".

Seriously? This is the kind of stupid you say because you are too lazy to read.

[RandomGuy]

I wonder what percentage they assigned 2016 with?

It doesn't matter if it's the hottest year or not. The question still remains, how much is natural vs. how much is AGW.

Find a natural explanation for it then.

That much warming should have a readily found explanation. Get cracking geenyus.

[DarrinS]

Find a natural explanation for it then.

That much warming should have a readily found explanation. Get cracking geenyus.

You mock, but it's actually a VERY important question. Maybe Manny knows how much to attribute to El Nino and how much to attribute to SUV's and cow farts?