Setting up the Global Warming lies to come

[B-Man]

GMO Fight Exposes Green Hypocrisy.

 

“When they’ve got scientific evidence on their side, green campaigners spew hate speech about the evil science deniers on the other side. But the moment a scientific consensus attacks some cherished green myth (organic good, GMO bad, for example), they spew hate speech against scientists as corporate shills.”

 

.

[meazza]

The echo chamber rolls on.....can't believe the scientific community hasn't stumbled on to this thread and apprpriately modifed their views.....November 2013 hottest air temp on record by the way

 

My freezing ass over the last week begs to differ.

 

 

http://montreal.ctvnews.ca/environment-canada-one-more-day-of-brutal-cold-weekend-will-warm-up-1.1614248

 

Intensely frigid temperatures blew away many records for extreme cold in Quebec on Thursday, with bone-chilling temperatures persisting overnight and continuing Friday morning.

 

On. Jan 2, most temperatures across the province felt colder than -30 C with the wind-chill, and in some areas plummeted into the almost unfathomably freezing territory of-50 C.

[DC Tom]

The echo chamber rolls on.....can't believe the scientific community hasn't stumbled on to this thread and apprpriately modifed their views.....November 2013 hottest air temp on record by the way

 

Weather is not climate.

 

 

My freezing ass over the last week begs to differ.

 

 

http://montreal.ctvn...rm-up-1.1614248

 

[/size][/font][/color]

 

Ditto.

[John Adams]

 

My freezing ass over the last week begs to differ.

 

http://montreal.ctvn...rm-up-1.1614248

 

[/size][/font][/color]

 

Neither his hundred years of warming nor your cold weekend prove much.

[Koko78]

Neither his hundred years of warming nor your cold weekend prove much.

 

You mean the warming that stopped in 1997? That warming?

Edited January 5, 2014 by Koko78

[meazza]

Neither his hundred years of warming nor your cold weekend prove much.

 

Exactly.

[John Adams]

You mean the warming that stopped in 1997? That warming?

 

No.

[TH3]

Quoting "there's no reasonable consensus on WHAT impact humans might or might not be happening.

 

Yet now we're supposed to believe that changes that took thousands of years in the past will now take place in 10 and primarily due to humans? And we're supposed to believe this based on a tiny spec of data relative to the planet's lifecycle? That's just silly and naive.

 

T. When your cause's #1 spokesman has been proven to be full of sh-- and the only 'solutions' being proposed by politicians are nothing but more money grabs against US taxpayers, how can you still claim it's about science or be surprised when people who aren't lemmings refuse to jump on the bandwagon?

 

And finally, if you aren't prepared to offer a solution, than what's the point of the debate? And the only solution (assuming you believe humans are the problem), is obviously to dramatically reduce the number of humans. And if you're too PC to suggest a solution for that, then you're simply burying your head in the sand anyway" Unquote

 

1. There IS reasonable consensus - at least from what I see there is.

2. Well - the change in temperature IS the notable aspect - temperature changes that have taken 1000's of years now are occurring in 100...why is that?

3. I don't have a cause - I am just an observer - Al Gore is not my guy - nor is the GW "industry". In no way am I suggesting that human kind change its ways...it can't - I don't believe that temp changes are the end of the earth's goodness...after all temp change has been part of earth since year one. I think humans have the most to lose as the temp changes...but that's the way it goes. I DO think that if the effects of carbon acidification in the oceans continue (as they are now seeing in the shellfish industry) - that is going to be a real bummer.

4. I don't propose reducing the human population - please don't put words in my mouth.

5. I also can't stand ridiculous stances on GM foods - after all - they have been genetically modified for eons - how are we to feed everyone adequately? You are not going to do it with free range chickens and maize.

 

My "solution"? Nobody wants to hear anyone else's "solution"....as I said before - humans are just animals with a decision making time horizon of the next 3-5 years really - let alone a lifetime or our kids lifetimes. After all we don't seem to have any qualms spending our kids money (and that's on both parties). Sooner or later it will become more evident that we are sick of paying people to rebuild their homes on the ocean front....sooner or later the climate will move planting zones northward....but none of this will happen so quickly or saliently that humankind will find it necessary or a worth it to stop using fossil fuels - unless something else is cheaper and easier to use.

[DC Tom]

1. There IS reasonable consensus - at least from what I see there is.

2. Well - the change in temperature IS the notable aspect - temperature changes that have taken 1000's of years now are occurring in 100...why is that?

 

1) Consensus is politics, not science.

2) If you knew anything about the science, you'd know it's virtually impossible to say that within the bounds of error.

 

Now shut up and go play outside, little man.

[B-Man]

I suggest that industrialized nations be mandated to transfer a large amount of their wealth to the poorer nations of the world.

 

 

That should help the environment.

 

 

 

 

.

[Cinga]

That "consensus" bull crap was from the original Oregon petition that had something like 17,000 signatures, but many proved to be duplicates, fraudulent, or were politicians or students and not scientists at all.... Over the years, some of the supposed signatories have sued because of never even hearing about it, but their names appeared on it.....

 

How 'bout this though.... 32,000 REAL scientists, here in the US alone who disagree with the theory of Climate Change.....

 

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2008/05/are_32000_scientists_enough_to.html

[OCinBuffalo]

The echo chamber rolls on.....can't believe the scientific community hasn't stumbled on to this thread and apprpriately modifed their views.....November 2013 hottest air temp on record by the way

Echo chamber? Yes, when discussing the obvious, you'll often find agreement.

 

Ok turd, here's the reality and you will deal with it:

 

The entire AGW theory, is now being "saved" by 2 speculations. Consider that. IF the theory could stand on it's own, and was so "settled" with so much consensus, why the need for 2 speculations?

 

Again, I ask: what would you be saying differently had

1. the data we have supported the models(what didn't happen)

2. the data we have not supported the models(what did happen)

 

???????

 

Falsifiable. That's a science term. Tell us: what falsifies the AGW theory?

 

Meanwhile, the only thing left for turds like you to cling to is:

Speculation #1: We don't understand the ocean(especially the bottom), so, it's possible that the warming is being absorbed there, and, at some point, the bottom won't be able to "hold" any more warming, and then...the warming that's been "hiding" there...will explode upon us...thereby validating the models. In this way, the models will have been right all along, it's just that they didn't account for the bottom of the ocean's amazing capacity for storing warming.

 

Speculation #2: Pollution creates particulates in the atmosphere. Those partilculates are blocking sunlight, thus, keeping the warming down, thus the models aren't wrong, they just didn't account for the amazing capacity for particles in the atmosphere both blocking sunlight from coming in, and keeping what does get in from getting out, at the same time.

 

Both of these speculation are retarded...to any thinking person. However, #1 is practically unprovable one way or the other. #2 is just silly. You can't say pollution is causing, and stopping, something, at the same time.

 

But again, if there is a consensus, that's rooted in science, and not politics, what exactly is the consensus?

 

Is the consensus that the models are right?

No. Can't be. The models are wrong. The empirical data proves that.

 

That only leaves the speculations. Is there a consensus on those? I hope not. A whole lot of scientists are going to be seriously embarrassed if they are hanging their hats on either.

 

So, what is the "consensus" predicated upon?

 

Finally, explain this:

 

 

Go ahead. Tell me that I made this up.

Edited January 6, 2014 by OCinBuffalo

[OCinBuffalo]

Heh....and, as I peruse RCP?

 

What just happens to come up? This: http://www.weeklysta...268.html?page=1

 

Important parts:

And with that, Lindzen began his meteoric rise through the nascent field. In the 1970s, while a professor at Harvard, Lindzen disproved the then-accepted theory of how heat moves around the Earth’s atmosphere, winning numerous awards in the process.

Hmmmm. 1970s.

 

By the 1980s, global warming was becoming a major political issue. Already, Lindzen was having doubts about the more catastrophic predictions being made. The public rollout of the “alarmist” case, he notes, “was immediately accompanied by an issue of Newsweek declaring all scientists agreed. And that was the beginning of a ‘consensus’ argument. Already by ’88 the New York Times had literally a global warming beat.”

Shocker. I tell ya.

 

Lindzen wasn’t buying it. Nonetheless, he remained in the good graces of mainstream climate science, and in the early 1990s, he was invited to join the IPCC, a U.N.-backed multinational consortium of scientists charged with synthesizing and analyzing the current state of the world’s climate science. Lindzen accepted, and he ended up as a contributor to the 1995 report and the lead author of Chapter 7 (“Physical Climate Processes and Feedbacks”) of the 2001 report.

Oh wait? Here's a guy that's not only won awards in his field for being right, but, was actually invited to and to lead part of the IPCC?

 

How did that happen?

 

Lindzen doesn’t deny that the climate has changed or that the planet has warmed. “We all agree that temperature has increased since 1800,” he tells me. There’s a caveat, though: It’s increased by “a very small amount. We’re talking about tenths of a degree [Celsius]. We all agree that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. All other things kept equal, [there has been] some warming. As a result, there’s hardly anyone serious who says that man has no role. And in many ways, those have never been the questions. The questions have always been, as they ought to be in science, how much?”

Ah.....I believe we have found the famous "consensus".

 

Now, is there a consensus about "how much"? Nope. There can't be. Not with the models failing so badly. And, remember, it's "models" not "model". If there was truly a consensus on "how much", there would be "model", and it would be: right.

 

The models also rely on what Lindzen calls “fudge factors.” Take aerosols. These are tiny specks of matter, both liquid and solid (think dust), that are present throughout the atmosphere. Their effect on the climate—even whether they have an overall cooling or warming effect—is still a matter of debate. Lindzen charges that when actual temperatures fail to conform to the models’ predictions, climate scientists purposely overstate the cooling effect of aerosols to give the models the appearance of having been accurate. But no amount of fudging can obscure the most glaring failure of the models: their inability to predict the 15-year-long (and counting) pause in warming—a pause that would seem to place the burden of proof squarely on the defenders of the models.

Yes, let's use that:

 

Baskin, the burden of proof now falls squarely on you. Prove that the models are right.

 

While we are waiting for Baskin to do that, let's ask ourselves, how did we get here?

He says it mostly comes down to the money—to the incentive structure of academic research funded by government grants. Almost all funding for climate research comes from the government, which, he says, makes scientists essentially vassals of the state. And generating fear, Lindzen contends, is now the best way to ensure that policymakers keep the spigot open.

Hmmm......

 

Seems I've been saying something quite similar(because it's F'ing obvious) for quite some time now....

 

“The idea was, to engage the public you needed an event .  .  . not just a Sputnik—a drought, a storm, a sand demon. You know, something you could latch onto. [Climate scientists] carefully arranged a congressional hearing. And they arranged for [James] Hansen [author of Storms of My Grandchildren, and one of the leading global warming “alarmists”] to come and say something vague that would somehow relate a heat wave or a drought to global warming.”

Also, like I've been saying: Climate Scientists have grocery bills, and kids to feed, and clothes to buy, like everybody else.

 

Spare me this "higher purpose" crap. This is about $, and always has been.

 

The hilarity: when they start questioning the motives of other people, using $ as the motivator.

 

But Lindzen, plainly, is different. He can’t be dismissed. Nor, of course, is he the only skeptic with serious scientific credentials. Judith Curry, the chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at Georgia Tech, William Happer, professor of physics at Princeton, John Christy, a climate scientist honored by NASA, now at the University of Alabama, and the famed physicist Freeman Dyson are among dozens of scientists who have gone on record questioning various aspects of the IPCC’s line on climate change. Lindzen, for his part, has said that scientists have called him privately to thank him for the work he’s doing.

Yet, we have had no shortage of clowns trying to dismiss the guy.

 

One frustrating feature of the climate debate is that people’s outlook on global warming usually correlates with their political views. So if a person wants low taxes and restrictions on abortion, he probably isn’t worried about climate change. And if a person supports gay marriage and raising the minimum wage, he most likely thinks the threat from global warming warrants costly public-policy remedies. And of course, even though Lindzen is an accomplished climate scientist, he has his own political outlook—a conservative one.

Look, I think you all can see what's happening here. The simple fact is: this is 100% a political issue.

 

There's nothing scientific going on here. What is happening? Using "science" to try to impose socialism and wealth redistrubution.

 

Ever since the Berlin Wall came down, and the world has had it's object lesson in why the free market is only answer(just ask Bono, now, of all people), the supporters of Communism/socialism have realized they CANNOT impose their ideas via the ballot box, or the courts.

 

Thus, they need a scare tactic. They need a deceptive contraption. They need something that they can claim affects us all, and something they can claim is above all reproach, such that anyone who "denies" it can be correctly called all sorts of names. This way, they can get their real goal, socialism, while being able to claim that all the downsides of it of necessary.

 

This way, socialism is merely the lesser of 2 evils.

 

Global Warming was their ticket. It was perfect. It was exactly what they needed.

 

And, because it is so perfect, they are unwilling to let it go.

Edited January 6, 2014 by OCinBuffalo

[TH3]

So I am a "little man" and a "turd"....sheesh...name calling...really?

 

1. There are few independent media sources - The Weekly Standard is not one of them - in fact I am not sure who is. The guy has a point that academia is funded to a point - by people who support the researchers views. Lindzen is just another one of them - he gets his $ the same way.

2. I don't get what you guys are trying to posit - are you saying the earth is not warming?

Are you saying it is warming but it is not man? Are you saying it is warming and a large part of the scientific and political community is taking advantage to fund their studies and push for vast geopolitical and socialist changes in worldwide structure?Are you saying it is not warming but nevertheless a large part of the scientific and political community is taking advantage to fund their studies and push for vast geopolitical and socialist changes in worldwide structure?

3. A picture is not evidence of anything - you know that - 2013 was the hottest ground temp in the US - November was the hottest air temperature on Earth on record. As smart guys you should know how to draw lines on a graph and to get good information - one doesn't draw a line for the last 20 percent of the data - but rather draw a line for a trend for 100 percent of the data - kind of makes the 15 year "pause" less of a point.

4. Further - everyone knows that water holds much more energy than air - I think air is 2 percent of the climate energy and water is 98 - and both are components of climate - so one has to add water temp to the total energy contained in our climate - so add both of those components and the trend is unchanged.

 

Everyone can read data etc...and everyone can choose to mix in politics to explain the current state of affairs.

 

I see it as this: The earth has warmed - the data shows this and we all have seen anecdotal evidence of warming - I live in southern Erie county and did not use my snow blower once last year - this year of course is different - nevertheless - farmers can tell you that the growing season is 2-3 weeks longer than 20 years ago. The shellfish industry can measure the Ph levels and see how it is reducing the strength of the shells of their harvest - and you can directly show how the new levels of CO2 are changing the oceans acidity. Not rocket science - high school science.

 

One can say the earth always warms and cools and choose to classify this warming as nature. One can also choose to say that this warming is particularly fast with past warming and cooling trends and research it. Well - humans have pretty much doubled the CO2 concentration in the last 100 years - you can calculate this by how much coal and oil we have used and you can measure it. And - again - a high school science project of an aquarium with differing before/after CO2 levels will show a mimic of our own atmosphere.

 

Now one can chose to view this through a political prism - I have no answer for that

[B-Man]

 

I may buy several for tonight and tomorrow............................

 

 

Cheaper than firewood.

 

.

[TH3]

 

I may buy several for tonight and tomorrow............................

 

 

Cheaper than firewood.

 

.

 

Oooh - got me but good....Told you I am not an advocate of Al Gore or the movement to stop fossil fuel use....I just believe that CO2 use is warming the planet, the planet will survive just fine, rising temps will cause some problems for the human race - but those problems are far less than stopping the use of fossil fuels/CO2 with the caveat that acidification of the oceans could really really suck

Edited January 6, 2014 by baskin

[3rdnlng]

 

 

Oooh - got me but good....Told you I am not an advocate of Al Gore or the movement to stop fossil fuel use....I just believe that CO2 use is warming the planet, the planet will survive just fine, rising temps will cause some problems for the human race - but those problems are far less than stopping the use of fossil fuels/CO2 with the caveat that acidification of the oceans could really really suck

 

So, you're pretty sure that human use of CO2 is warming the planet?

[TH3]

So, you're pretty sure that human use of CO2 is warming the planet?

 

I am not a climate scientist but: Humans have burned everything they can cut down, dig up and suck out of the ground from day 1. This process has lead to making pretty much every humans life quantum leaps better than 100 years ago when oil was first distilled. This burning has almost doubled CO2 concentrations in out atmosphere. Double the CO2 concentration in an aquarium - put it in the sun and the temp goes up more than the norm. This correlates with what we see in our climate both on an observant basis and on an anecdotal basis. This all seems logically "proven" to me.

 

Stop using fossil fuels = turn back the clock 100 years and reduce the human population through starvation >> not going to happen so worthless to even discuss. That is why I think Al Gore and and GW "movement" are off. Grant them that humans and CO2 are causing global warming...OK...what are the alternatives and the results?.

 

There is no result right now that results in greater benefit to humans than continuing to use fossil fuels.

 

The ideal solution to me - and everyone - would be cost competitive non CO2 energy. I think the Federal govt is mistaken to fund solar companies etc that build non cost competitive solutions - all it does is create angst for this technology and it makes no sense as they have no viable business model. That being said - I would be for Fed $ research and development for future energy solutions. We do this for many things - health care....

 

I think ultimately if you could fully develop nuclear power and add higher efficiency solar power panels (which don't exist yet) with high density energy storage (which also doesn't exist yet) - you have the energy volume access and might have a chance to saw off the cost and ease of use of fossil fuels. Until then - fossil fuels are the way to go.

Edited January 6, 2014 by baskin

[3rdnlng]

 

 

I am not a climate scientist but: Humans have burned everything they can cut down, dig up and suck out of the ground from day 1. This process has lead to making pretty much every humans life quantum leaps better than 100 years ago when oil was first distilled. This burning has almost doubled CO2 concentrations in out atmosphere. Double the CO2 concentration in an aquarium - put it in the sun and the temp goes up more than the norm. This correlates with what we see in our climate both on an observant basis and on an anecdotal basis. This all seems logically "proven" to me.

 

Stop using fossil fuels = turn back the clock 100 years and reduce the human population through starvation >> not going to happen so worthless to even discuss. That is why I think Al Gore and and GW "movement" are off. Grant them that humans and CO2 are causing global warming...OK...what are the alternatives and the results?.

 

There is no result right now that results in greater benefit to humans than continuing to use fossil fuels.

 

The ideal solution to me - and everyone - would be cost competitive non CO2 energy. I think the Federal govt is mistaken to fund solar companies etc that build non cost competitive solutions - all it does is create angst for this technology and it makes no sense as they have no viable business model. That being said - I would be for Fed $ research and development for future energy solutions. We do this for many things - health care....

 

I think ultimately if you could fully develop nuclear power and add higher efficiency solar power panels (which don't exist yet) with high density energy storage (which also doesn't exist yet) - you have the energy volume access and might have a chance to saw off the cost and ease of use of fossil fuels. Until then - fossil fuels are the way to go.

 

This is all well and good but it contradicts your prior statement that human use of CO2 is warming the planet. Would youplease just pick a side and stick with it?

[DC Tom]

This is all well and good but it contradicts your prior statement that human use of CO2 is warming the planet. Would youplease just pick a side and stick with it?

 

No it doesn't. He's saying CO2 is warming the planet, but that's a good thing.