• NEW! LOWEST RATES EVER -- SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY THE VERY BEST PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, eight years young! For a low subscription fee, you can download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive, member-only, After The Paracast bonus podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! Flash! Take advantage of our lowest rates ever! Act now! It's easier than ever to susbcribe! You can sign up right here!

    Subscribe to The Paracast Newsletter!

Global Warming Happy Fun-Time

Forums New posts

Free episodes:

pixelsmith said:
In case you didnt read far enough in my posts before you replied here are the two links again.
Sceptical Real Climate Science
Skeptics Handbook « JoNova: Science, carbon, climate and tax
Click to expand...

As for this site:

Joanne Nova aka JoNova (real name Joanne Codling), born circa 1967, is an Australian right wing communicator who mainly writes to promote anti-science views of climate in books and a denialist weblog, joannenova.com.au. She has no evident academic background in climate science; her degree (B.Sc.) is in molecular biology. Nova is based in Perth, Western Australia

Career

Nova runs the Australian company Science Speak,[2] the main aim of which is to promote AGW denialism.
For four years, Nova worked for the Shell Questacon Science Circus, based in Canberra, Australia. The Science Circus is an outreach program run by Questacon, the Australian National Science and Technology Centre. The program is sponsored by Shell Oil, with additional support from Australian National University. She has also worked for Foxtel, a cable television company part owned by Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation.
Books: Skeptic's Handbook I and II

Nova is the author of The Skeptic's Handbook, a publication that purports to give climate skeptics "the tools [they] need to cut through the red-herrings, and avoid the traps." [3] The main contention of The Skeptic's Handbook is the claim that CO2 does not drive global warming. The handbook has been thoroughly debunked by John Cook's Skeptical Science website,[4] and also by DeSmogBlog.[5][6][7] Since then Jo Nova has written a "Skeptic's Handbook II", which mainly attacks climate science with political arguments, such as "global bullies want your money".[8] Throughout the Skeptic's Handbook II, Nova adopts positions that are not falsifiable, hence unscientific; an example is "There is no consensus, there never was, and it wouldn’t prove anything even if there had been." The Handbook is a grab-bag of catchphrases and polemic.
Shaky on climate science

Nova has been called out by climate bloggers for her shaky grasp of science, particularly over the Tropospheric Hot Spot. Both Cook and Lambert show that she is wrong on this question, inter alia.[9]

That doesn't mean I won't read it, but c'mon she's a former Faux News employee, her program is funded by Shell Oil (ROFL wonder why they would want to debunk global warming?Hmmmm) and I think the rest of the stuff speaks for itself. Got anything better?
 
Is that it? If there's nothing else, then you've utterly failed at convincing me. So far, you've presented two debunked theories for the causes of global warming, and two websites, one full of half truths and erroneous information, the other is full of the same but on top of that is run by an employee of the oil industry who doesn't have a degree in climatology. If that wasn't enough, you have the unmitigated gall, to put yourself on a pedestal and claim, as you glare down from your perch above the rest of us, that we're the ones whose beliefs are based on faith rather than science, which I think I've clearly shown to be total and utter BS.

The reality is, the only thing you've postulated that hasn't already been totally disproved, is that there's a vast conspiracy among scientists to hide the truth that anthropogenic global warming is a hoax. If that's what you believe, that's fine, but it is just that, a belief, not only can you not prove it, but you can't call it science, the only place it's validated is in your mind. I hope there's more, otherwise this is the complete disappointment that I predicted it would be, you haven't convinced me and I doubt you've convinced anyone else reading this thread that your theory that anthropogenic global warming is a hoax is quite simply, a belief, nothing more.
 
Great posts Muadib. I'll take the word of actual CLIMATE scientists on this topic over that of politicians. Pixel pointed me the the Watts Up website a while ago - it's part of a libertarian think tank - not too useful in this type of debate.
 
face in palm shaking my head.... did you find out who cleared CRU? did you find out who got to decide what was reviewed as evidence? lmao.. you think you know so much and you do not know anything. LMAO!
 
wow i have never met such an ignorant gullible person in all my life. dig a little deeper dude.
 
you are exactly like Angel, he couldnt or wouldnt read a scientific document if his life depended on it.
 
Sigh. You're right, everyone is ignorant but you. You are the single shining beacon of hope out there bringing the light of information to the ignorant masses. Please. I debunked your links, I debunked your theories, it's pretty apparent that you have nothing else. You can't even put together a cohesive argument, you just keep asking silly little questions and making vague assertions. If there's information you want me to address, how about you provide it and I will address it. Sum it up. It's not hard. Let me just be clear what I think of your little IPCC conspiracy idea, it doesn't mean jack. I don't care who runs the IPCC or if he writes porn or sends cock pics to Hannah Montana, the totality of the scientific evidence for anthropogenic global warming does not live or die because the guy who runs the IPCC writes porn. I'll take the word of actual climate scientists over your political think tank BS and oil employees any day. At this point, I'd say it's pretty clear that you aren't worth my time.
 
pixelsmith said:
face in palm shaking my head.... did you find out who cleared CRU? did you find out who got to decide what was reviewed as evidence? lmao.. you think you know so much and you do not know anything. LMAO!
Click to expand...

As far as this crap goes, it's in the article I posted from skepticalscience, you accuse me of not reading what you've said when in fact it's the other way around as I've refuted everything you said and you've done nothing but make assertions that it's all a giant conspiracy. Let me sum it up like you seem unable to do:

The most comprehensive inquiry was the Independent Climate Change Email Review led by Sir Muir Russell, commissioned by UEA to examine the behaviour of the CRU scientists (but not the scientific validity of their work). It published its final report in July 2010. This inquiry was no whitewash: it examined the main allegations arising from the emails and their implications in meticulous detail. It focused on what the CRU scientists did, not what they said, investigating the evidence for and against each allegation. It interviewed CRU and UEA staff, and took 111 submissions including one from CRU itself. And it also did something the media completely failed to do: it attempted to put the actions of CRU scientists into context.
The Review went back to primary sources to see if CRU really was hiding or falsifying their data. It considered how much CRU’s actions influenced the IPCC’s conclusions about temperatures during the past millennium. It commissioned a paper by Dr Richard Horton, editor of The Lancet, on the context of scientific peer review. It asked IPCC Review Editors how much influence individuals could wield on writing groups. And it reviewed the university's FoI processes and CRU's compliance with them. Many of these are things any journalist could have done relatively easily, but few ever bothered to do.
The Review also commented on the broader context of science in the 21st century. To paraphrase from Chapter 5: the emergence of the blogosphere requires significantly more openness from scientists. However, providing the details necessary to validate large datasets can be difficult and time-consuming, and how FoI laws apply to research is still an evolving area. Meanwhile, the public needs to understand that science cannot and does not produce absolutely precise answers. Though the uncertainties may become smaller and better constrained over time, uncertainty in science is a fact of life which policymakers have to deal with. The chapter concludes: “the Review would urge all scientists to learn to communicate their work in ways that the public can access and understand”.
The Review points out the well-known psychological phenomenon that email is less formal than other forms of communication: “Extreme forms of language are frequently applied to quite normal situations by people who would never use it in other communication channels.” The CRU scientists assumed their emails to be private, so they used “slang, jargon and acronyms” which would have been more fully explained had they been talking to the public. And although some emails suggest CRU went out of their way to make life difficult for their critics, there are others which suggest they were bending over backwards to be honest. Therefore the Review found “the e-mails cannot always be relied upon as evidence of what actually occurred, nor indicative of actual behaviour that is extreme, exceptional or unprofessional.” [section 4.3]
So when put into the proper context, what do these emails actually reveal about the behaviour of the CRU scientists? The report concluded (its emphasis):
Climate science is a matter of such global importance, that the highest standards of honesty, rigour, and openness are needed in its conduct. On the specific allegations made against the behaviour of CRU scientists, we find that their rigour and honesty as scientists are not in doubt.​
In addition, we do not find that their behaviour has prejudiced the balance of advice given to policy makers. In particular, we did not find any evidence of behaviour that might undermine the conclusions of the IPCC assessments.​
But we do find that there has been a consistent pattern of failing to display the proper degree of openness, both on the part of the CRU scientists and on the part of the UEA, who failed to recognize not only the significance of statutory requirements but also the risk to the reputation of the University and indeed, to the credibility of UK climate science. [1.3]​
These general findings are more or less consistent across the various allegations the Review investigated. Its specific findings are summarized in the following rebuttals: "Did CRU tamper with temperature data?", "What does Mike's Nature trick to 'hide the decline' mean?", "Climategate and the peer-review process", "Were skeptic scientists kept out of the IPCC?", and "Climategate and the Freedom of Information (FOI) requests".
The science is unchanged by Climategate

If you don't want to read all that just read the last part, I made it real big so it's easy for you. So are you going to post some specific science that I haven't refuted or that isn't refuted by years of climate science, like you asked me to do in the beginning of this farce? Obviously, the same rules don't apply to you, you think you can get by on vague assertions of conspiracy, vague assertions of your intellectual superiority, and nonsense.
 
Global warming is man made alright. There chemspraying the globe. Think all those wispy feathery clouds are natural? Guess again. I've been watching this geo engineering allot lately. These chemtrails alter the weather and they have really been working hard on the toxic dumping lately. It's an all out assault on all of us. It's sick. But the good thing is if we all get stiffed with a sufficient amount of carbon taxes, Al Gore and the likes of him will make it all better. For all those who believe in the mad made global warming BS (geo engineering aside) wake up.
 
GeoShift said:
Global warming is man made alright. There chemspraying the globe. Think all those wispy feathery clouds are natural? Guess again. I've been watching this geo engineering allot lately. These chemtrails alter the weather and they have really been working hard on the toxic dumping lately. It's an all out assault on all of us. It's sick. But the good thing is if we all get stiffed with a sufficient amount of carbon taxes, Al Gore and the likes of him will make it all better. For all those who believe in the mad made global warming BS (geo engineering aside) wake up.
Click to expand...

Do you have any scientific evidence to provide or is it just your opinion? I have no issue if that's the case, as we're all entitled to our opinions, just realize that actual science disagrees with you. I do agree, however, that taxes are not the way to solve the problem.
 
Some more global warming info for all you global warming skeptics out there, this time CSI, the Center for Skeptical Inquiry. The article was written by David Morrison, if you go to the website, he endorses skepticalscience.com, the website I've used to refute Pixels BS. Strange how even the skeptics agree that anthropogenic global warming is a reality. Something to think about. I might even call it (gasp) a consensus. A particularly relevant section has been highlighted by me.

For the past decade I have followed the growing evidence for climate change and global warming, talking to colleagues who are atmospheric scientists and attending presentations by leading scientists at professional meetings such as the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) and the American Geophysical Union (AGU). Rarely in that time did I meet anyone who seriously disagreed with the growing consensus about global warming and the threats it imposes. This past October, however, I found these ideas disputed by both fellow skeptics and some in the audience we were speaking to. This was a shock, and it made me look again at the claims of the warming dissenters. I would like to share some of what I learned.
There is a lot of misinformation and disinformation about global warming on the Internet, driven in part by political and economic issues. These political and economic aspects are complex, and relatively few scientists understand them in detail. It is important to remember that climate is long term by definition; trends in climate require at least a decade to reveal themselves. Thus we can understand the climate trends in the 1990s pretty well but not yet in the 2000s.
One of the goals of the deniers seems to be to sow confusion and give the impression that the science behind global warming is weak. This disinformation campaign is at least partly successful; polls (for example, the 2009 Pew/AAAS poll, SI, November/December 2009) show that about half the people in the United States think there is substantial disagreement among scientists, when actually there has been a consensus on this topic for about a decade. The scientific case becomes stronger all the time, but public acceptance is lagging. Most of the counterarguments don’t make scientific sense, or else they are based on information that is obsolete. It is fine to be skeptical, but we need to be concerned when skepticism drifts into denial.
This is not the place to make the case for global warming; that is done very well in the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. See especially the IPCC Summary for Policymakers and Frequently Asked Questions posted at www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/ar4-wg1.htm. Instead, I list below (in bold) some “red-flag” arguments from global warming deniers that can help you spot disinformation.
    1. We should not worry about carbon dioxide since the main greenhouse gas is water vapor. This statement misrepresents the heating process. It is the carbon dioxide (and methane) that controls the thermal structure of the atmosphere. Water vapor content is highly variable and essentially follows the carbon dioxide, providing a positive feedback that amplifies the effects of carbon dioxide.
    2. What we are seeing are “natural variations” caused primarily by variations in solar output. This is false; we have been monitoring solar energy for a quarter century, and the variations are taken into account in all the climate models. Most of the temperature variations up to the beginning of the twentieth century can be traced to small changes in solar output, plus long-term cyclical changes in Earth’s orbit and short-term cooling associated with large volcanic eruptions. There are also heating and cooling events associated with El Nino and other shifts in the circulation of the ocean and atmosphere. Since mid-century, however, the rapid heating from carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is overwhelming these “natural” cycles.
    3. The apparent increase in temperature is an artifact caused by the fact that much of the data are from cities, which are warmer than their surroundings. This is also wrong; the “heat island” effect has been corrected in plots of global temperatures. A great deal of scientific effort is going into understanding and combining the various measurements of temperature to produce a consistent data set, combining direct measurements on the ground and from space with indirect “proxy” information, for example from isotopic measurements that track temperature very closely. Also, of course, there are large-scale effects of rising temperature that are easily seen, such as retreat of glaciers, melting on the Greenland and Antarctic icecaps, and loss of sea ice in the Arctic.
    4. While temperatures seem to have been rising in the lower atmosphere (the troposphere), they are dropping in the stratosphere. People who say this don’t realize that this is the expected signature of greenhouse warming (because greenhouse gases in the troposphere impede the flow of radiant heat from Earth’s surface to the stratosphere). If there were an external cause, such as increased energy from the Sun, both troposphere and stratosphere would be heating. Today’s computational models allow greenhouse warming to be distinguished from other causes and reveal the primacy of greenhouse warming over the past several decades.
    5. Human activity and volcanic eruptions both add to the cloud cover and cause more sunlight to be reflected from the atmosphere. This largely counteracts any heating from the greenhouse effect. Atmospheric pollution, both natural (from volcanoes) and human-caused (from smoke and other aerosols), does influence temperature, reflecting sunlight and reducing the warming we would have from increased greenhouse effect alone. Without these contributions to cooling, the added greenhouse heating would be significantly greater than what we measure. There are also temperature increases caused by darkening of the surface, because more sunlight is absorbed. As the ice melts in the Arctic Ocean, the dark water absorbs a great deal more sunlight, an effect that will accelerate future global warming.
Morrison-fig-1.jpg

    1. The warming trend during the 1990s is no big deal; temperatures are actually lower than they were in the medieval warm period. This is wrong; over at least the past few thousand years, temperatures have never been as high as they are today. By the middle of the twentieth century the temperature passed the record highs from about a thousand years ago, and they have been rising ever since, taking us into unknown climate territory.
Morrison-fig-2.jpg

  1. While there was warming in the 1990s, this has stopped and the world is now beginning what may be a long-term cooling cycle. This is a misinterpretation of the temperature measurements. There are always short-term fluctuations in global temperature superimposed on the the overall warming trend. Those who say the temperature has plateaued or is cooling over the past decade start with the anomalously high temperature in 1998, reflecting a major El Nino event that year. If you adopt such a high temperature excursion as your baseline, of course the values tend to be lower for the next several years (called the regression to the mean). But putting aside the temperature spike in 1998, temperatures during the past decade have continued the warming trend of the 1990s.
  2. More carbon dioxide is good, since it makes plants grow better. This might be true if we could increase carbon dioxide without greenhouse heating, but high temperatures are not good for most plants. In addition, the increase in carbon dioxide acidifies the oceans, which can destroy coral reefs or have deleterious effects on zooplankton, on which much ocean life depends. Over much of the Earth, localized long-term droughts caused by global warming will have a major negative effect on plants.
  3. There is no consensus; many scientists disagree about global warming. This is not true at all. Dissenters have published hardly any peer-reviewed scientific papers in the past decade. The dissenters are mostly not climate scientists, and they have offered no alternative models to explain the data. The national academies of science in all of the industrialized countries have endorsed the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which represents a strong scientific agreement on both the reality of global warming and the challenges it implies.
  4. How can we trust climate scientists when numerous e-mails from the U.K. climate scientists show that they have distorted their data and actively suppressed dissenting opinions? These stolen e-mails from a British climate center reveal how real scientists work, warts and all. People write things in personal e-mails that they would never want published. There is no evidence, however, of fudging or suppressing the climate data. There appear to have been efforts to influence editors of scientific journals not to publish papers by global-warming deniers. At one level this is exactly what scientists normally do: vet papers through the peer-review process to weed out poor science. If the actions go further and represent impropriety, that will be revealed by the current investigation. But there is nothing in this controversy that undercuts the overwhelming scientific consensus about human-caused global warming.
Finally, let me comment on the role of the skeptic. (See also Stuart Jordan, “The Global Warming Debate: Science and Scientists in a Democracy,” SI, November/December 2007, and Jordan’s response to several global warming disputers in “Response to ‘Assessing the Credibility of CFI’s Credibility Project,’” SI, January/February 2010.) Note that I have said nothing about future warming trends, rises in sea level, or warming-induced increases in the severity of storms. As the saying goes, it is difficult to make predictions, especially about the future. It is certain that warming will continue since temperatures are dominated by the increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. In spite of promises, there has been no reduction in the rate of CO2 production, and even if governments take drastic action we will continue to pump out lots of greenhouse gases at least through the middle of this century. In addition, the climate system itself has inertia, and the warming lags the CO2 concentration by ten to fifteen years. There are also major uncertainties about feedback effects, especially from warming in the polar regions, which might accelerate melting ice and contribute to release of CO2 and methane from the tundra. Scientists have tried to model these processes, and their simulations agree for the next ten to twenty years. Beyond that, the models diverge, however, due both to uncertainties in the computations and to differences in the assumptions made. It is reasonable to be skeptical about specific predictions, especially after 2030, but that should not blind us to what is happening to our planet now.
 
I just wanted to add this, before you post anymore dumb questions or silly conspiracy theories or allusions to your supposedly superior intellect. I've met my burden of proof, I've provided several articles which are full of information that is backed up by scientific peer reviewed studies, and they prove that contrary to your assertions, global warming is real, anthropogenic, and that there is a consensus among scientists that this has been true for a long time.

Therefore, since you're the one arguing against said consensus, the burden of proof is now fully on you. This burden is not met by your rantings about the guy who owns the IPCC or your harebrained, crackpot conspiracy theories. It isn't met by your assertions about CRU as they are one small part of the totality of evidence and they were cleared of wrongdoing, not to mention their science was never in question. Go ahead and try to meet this burden with actual scientific information, and since we're both amateurs, you can sum it up by posting an article with links or something of the sort, if you can even find a peer reviewed paper that backs your position, which I seriously doubt. What I've posted is simply a small piece of the total evidence for AGW, mountains of evidence can be found in research from across the globe, and searched via PNAS, AAAS/Sciencemag, Nature, ACS, and lots more. You simply can't say the same thing about your position.

I'm not going to spend a month reading some dumb global warming deniers website only to be as completely underwhelmed by their conclusions as I have been by yours. I'll go with the people who have actually dedicated their lives to understanding this issue, something which neither you (clearly) nor I have done. Like I've said their evidence is scientific, peer reviewed and utterly convincing, I don't think you can say the same for your sources. Thanks and I honestly hope I don't hear from you unless you have actual science to present, because at this point I think you're pretty much making a fool of yourself positing that it's all a huge conspiracy carried out by a ton of scientists, in multiple countries around the world, over decades of research, but by all means continue to do so if that makes you happy. I have things to do today, so I probably won't be on until around 5 or 6 EST, unless something changes, and if you really want to keep at it, I'll be happy to cover what you post then, unless it's more conspiracy crap with nothing behind it but your opinion or the opinions of fellow deniers, oil employees, or BS political think tanks. Thanks.
 
To me the question of man-made global warming is moot. Its only purpose seems to be political.

While it seems undeniable that human beings are responsible for making our own environment toxic in more ways than you can shake a stick at and that we should do our best to reverse that trend, shouldn't we be perhaps just as concerned with preparation for what seems to be irreversible climate changes regardless of their origin?

I mean regardless of whether we muster up some miracle of human insight, commitment, and technology to counter our own bad influence (is that really going to happen?) we still have the undeniable cycle of climate change of the planet itself. We know ice ages come and go. We know beyond any shadow of a doubt another will occur and that we have no real clue as to when. Reducing our carbon footprint is going to do absolutely nothing to help that. The seed banks and other things like that make me think someone is thinking along those lines.

I think we'll still be arguing over the question of man-made global warming when the next catastrophic natural event rolls around and resets the whole game.
 
We can bring this down a notch? Maybe...
The Global Warming Phenom does appear to be happening. So, naturally we have some questions.
Here are some questions I ask in order to put some perspective on the bigger issue of Global Warming:
1.) If the Earth is warming what are the other planets in our Solar System doing?
2.) Are Solar Cycles affecting the Earth and how?
3.) What are the historical effects of Global Warming?
4.) What are the historical effects of high or higher CO2 levels and what were those levels?
5.) What are the historical levels of CO2 and in what way do we think that affected the Earth’s climate? (Almost the same as Question 4)
6.) Is Global Warming caused by rising CO2 or is rising CO2 caused by Global Warming? (I like this one)
7.) Is Global warming bad?
8.) Is Global cooling bad?
9.) What would be worse Global Cooling or Global Warming? (My guess is that global cooling would be bad)
10.) What in the hell is Ben & Jerry's "Fish" Ice Cream? (Just tossed that one in there because I'm curious)
11.) Are the CO2 levels directly affected by specific human activity?
12.) If so (Question 11), what can we do about how we treat our planet in regards to stabilizing atmospheric conditions?
13.) What other "things" can cause CO2 levels to rise other than humans polluting?
There are more questions, but before I peruse other areas of scientific discovery let us address and most probably debate these first few questions.
I eagerly await some responses.

Many Thanks.
 
Back
Top