Politics of Global Warming

[Tyger]

Heres a perfect example of how you used that 'private' thread to take the p1ss totally. You made a post about deep ocean warming and cited some professor, and you were quickly shot down with the nasa argo float data, which nasa said shows zero temperature rise.

What 'private thread'? I'm not aware of arguing climate change on any 'private thread'. Care to explain the reference?

That was in the none private thread, so you made 5 postings in a row about the same professor, saying the same things,. And still saying the same to his students, proudly trumpeting his false science and conclusions, and viewing it as some kind of victory, who would want their kids taught science by him ?, i mean really, is he a victory for climate change.

The 'none private thread' - what is that? Though I recognize the posts you're talking about so it must be the 'New World: Climate Change' thread. That is not a 'private thread'.

BTW when I started that thread there were the beginnings of good conversation (that had been shut off in the climate change thread you and Pixel were sand-bagging), until you and Pixel showed up on the new thread and that was the kiss of death. Posters just left rather than be subjected to your animus and hectoring posts. That's a fact.

Just as blatant as you like,run away to 'your' thread and make not one post but 5 **** you posts in a row.

Haven't a clue what you're sputtering about. Sorry.

Goggs is blind to it

Poor guy.

and your pester power wins

Does it? How's that? Do you mean bullies can't bully anymore? How sad.

grown-ups dont pester.

Well, as a 'teenage female" I guess I can name it: grown-ups don't pester, they troll and stalk, big time. Scary.

Where you can make 5 posts about deep ocean warming, if i post a link to nasa argo. You freak out, pester Goggs, Goggs deletes it, because somehow argo is about the ''science''.

You want to debate the science. Do so - on a debate thread. Pixel even started a special thread to refute all the 'bad stuff' I post on the New World: Climate Change thread. Why not use that thread?

Your post was deleted, yes, because I asked, because you were continuing to sand-bag the thread after agreeing not to, and because it was posing an argument outside of the topic of the thread. To answer your post would have meant to derail the thread. Besides I'm not into that. I'm interested in seeing 'what is there'. People can make up their own minds. I myself post to links that refute previous links I've posted. It's all of a piece. It's not an argument. You want to make it an argument - about who's right and who's wrong. It don't work that way. Sorry, chum.

Whereas sciency vids or quoting professors talking about psuedo-science isnt against your rules, it has its own magical category. You do see it is you trying to stifle debate, and for good reason, nothing you post pass's the sophistry sniff test.

Your opinions to which you are entitled, and which I have heard again-and-again-and-again-and-again. I think I've got the drift by this point, manxman. You don't like my point of view, and you are bound and determined to savage me in post-after-post-after-post.

BTW it's not me who has stifled debate, but you and Pixel. In order to post in peace I had to start a new thread, but you both followed me over there. It's creepy behavior by any standards. Creepy. No way around it. Creepy.

All 5 posts just junk science, presented as well researched fact, when posted with the full knowledge it was false assertion, pure sophistical bullsh1t, nor is it the only example, same as the 1000 word postings about SS, and how wonderfully balanced it is, just pure taunting nonsense, and again Goggs is blind to the taunting. I mean SS balanced, fringe activism balanced, its an insult to the intelligence. Like saying the british nationalist party has a balanced view on immigration. They do, if you agree with them, most people do not.

No one is taunting you. Skeptical Science is hardly 'fringe activism'. Fact is, the world is leaving you in the dust. I would say you are the 'fringe'. Climate Change is upon us. It is happening, and being a 'normal' person, albeit a 'teenage female', I am interested in getting the full scope of all the ideas about it. I am not keen to have my right to explore those ideas stifled under the guise of 'right thinking'. Methinks you, as an old man, have lost your sense of adventure into the unknown. You're afraid. I am not.

 

[Open-Minded-Earthling]

Could this be why I received a $1200 dollar electric bill last year for the month of February? We switched providers in the fall of that year to save money on electric bill. That provider jack up it's rates in the winter months putting our 1000 sq ft. ranch home in the thousands to heat last winter. We are still paying it off.

Btw, what was your thermostat set at [or the range if changed] for how long each day? Can you share with us the electric company that charges such high rates?

Were you always having to keep it at that setting, since someone was at home all the time? I'm just trying to understand how high it had to be set for X-hours a day. Sometimes, people are gone most of the day, and can turn it down during work hours too. Etc. Etc.

For such a small place it sure seems excessively high.

 

[manxman]

Yep thats got to be £800 a month, frightening, our new station is gas not oil as thought.


How does this stack up against your charges in America per unit.

Right i know most people in the UK are paying around 12p a unit, ours is the most expensive in the uk.

16.1p net = 18p with charges, around 50% dearer than 80 miles across the water.

How much a unit with you guys ?.

 

[Tyger]

"First, Big Oil came for our democracy, and we did nothing. Now, Big Oil is aiming to take over Canada's democracy too. Will our neighbors in the Great White North catch on in time?" - Thom Hartmann

Big Oil Came for America and Now Canada is Next...

TEXT: "Published on Feb 20, 2015: First, Big Oil came for our democracy, and we did nothing. Now, Big Oil is aiming to take over Canada's democracy too. Will our neighbors in the Great White North catch on in time?"

 

[Tyger]

An article from just over a year ago - not really that long ago but it's amazing how quickly events move and how quickly information becomes dated. Records are being broken left and right - and here in the winter of 2015 the eastern US is dealing with another Polar Vortex weather system.

As the following article demonstrates, it's a far from clear story playing out.

Obama and Climate Change: The Real Story
The president has said the right things about climate change – and has taken some positive steps. But we're drilling for more oil and digging up more carbon than ever
By Bill McKibben December 17, 2013
LINK: Page 3 of Obama and Climate Change: The Real Story | Rolling Stone

TEXT: "Two years ago [2011] on a gorgeous November day, 12,000 activists surrounded the White House to protest the proposed Keystone XL pipeline. Signs we carried featured quotes from Barack Obama in 2008: "Time to end the tyranny of oil"; "In my administration, the rise of the oceans will begin to slow."

"Our hope was that we could inspire him to keep those promises. Even then, there were plenty of cynics who said Obama and his insiders were too closely tied to the fossil-fuel industry to take climate change seriously. But in the two years since, it's looked more and more like they were right – that in our hope for action we were willing ourselves to overlook the black-and-white proof of how he really feels.

"If you want to understand how people will remember the Obama climate legacy, a few facts tell the tale: By the time Obama leaves office, the U.S. will pass Saudi Arabia as the planet's biggest oil producer and Russia as the world's biggest producer of oil and gas combined. In the same years, even as we've begun to burn less coal at home, our coal exports have climbed to record highs. We are, despite slight declines in our domestic emissions, a global-warming machine: At the moment when physics tell us we should be jamming on the carbon brakes, America is revving the engine.

"You could argue that private industry, not the White House, has driven that boom, and in part you'd be right. But that's not what Obama himself would say. Here's Obama speaking in Cushing, Oklahoma, last year, in a speech that historians will quote many generations hence. It is to energy what Mitt Romney's secretly taped talk about the 47 percent was to inequality. Except that Obama was out in public, boasting for all the world to hear: "Over the last three years, I've directed my administration to open up millions of acres for gas and oil exploration across 23 different states. We're opening up more than 75 percent of our potential oil resources offshore. We've quadrupled the number of operating rigs to a record high. We've added enough new oil and gas pipeline to encircle the Earth, and then some. . . . In fact, the problem . . . is that we're actually producing so much oil and gas . . . that we don't have enough pipeline capacity to transport all of it where it needs to go."

"Actually, of course, "the problem" is that climate change is spiraling out of control. Under Obama we've had the warmest year in American history – 2012 – featuring a summer so hot that corn couldn't grow across much of the richest farmland on the planet. We've seen the lowest barometric pressure ever recorded north of Cape Hatteras, North Carolina, and the largest wind field ever measured, both from Hurricane Sandy. We've watched the Arctic melt, losing three quarters of its summer sea ice. We've seen some of the largest fires ever recorded in the mountains of California, Colorado and New Mexico. And not just here, of course – his term has seen unprecedented drought and flood around the world. The typhoon that just hit the Philippines, according to some meteorologists, had higher wind speeds at landfall than any we've ever seen. When the world looks back at the Obama years half a century from now, one doubts they'll remember the health care website; one imagines they'll study how the most powerful government on Earth reacted to the sudden, clear onset of climate change." [Click link to read full article.]

 

[Tyger]

Interview from February 10, 2015 with Kevin Kamps by Thom Hartmann.

If anyone doubts that nuclear energy costs big money, listen to this. Nuclear energy is massively subsidized by the government as well as taxes on the consumer (double dipping there). (Same has always been the case for the oil and coal industries - they are not 'cheap' energy).

Nuclear Watch:World Kevin Kamps Nuclear Energy Debate USA new NP + fukushima 2/11/2015

TEXT: "Published on Feb 10, 2015: Kevin Kamps on the newly-approved nuclear plant bordering Lake Erie and the dangers with increased nuclear energy."

 

[Open-Minded-Earthling]

Referring to this: "Actually, of course, "the problem" is that climate change is spiraling out of control. Under Obama we've had the warmest year in American history – 2012 – featuring a summer so hot that corn couldn't grow across much of the richest farmland on the planet. We've seen the lowest barometric pressure ever recorded north of Cape Hatteras, North Carolina, and the largest wind field ever measured, both from Hurricane Sandy. We've watched the Arctic melt, losing three quarters of its summer sea ice. We've seen some of the largest fires ever recorded in the mountains of California, Colorado and New Mexico. And not just here, of course – his term has seen unprecedented drought and flood around the world. The typhoon that just hit the Philippines, according to some meteorologists, had higher wind speeds at landfall than any we've ever seen.
======================

There really needs to be a graph showing and tracking the extremes in weather and climate conditions from around the world and in critical regions prone to famine and drought vs average climate change periods and cycles. Why?

Seeing is believing. Get hard science graphs that plot the "extreme measurement" increases and intensity over time vs previous long-term periods, and it could convince people on "the fence" that this is a real danger to humanity and the harmful extinction and reduction of species. There ought to be some natural cycles that are recorded in nature that will clear-out "the noise" patterns to tune-in a very definite increase in extremes of climate and weather intensities that will plot well outside the norms and ranges for what we should be experiencing now.

 

[Tyger]

Referring to this: "Actually, of course, "the problem" is that climate change is spiraling out of control. Under Obama we've had the warmest year in American history – 2012 – featuring a summer so hot that corn couldn't grow across much of the richest farmland on the planet. We've seen the lowest barometric pressure ever recorded north of Cape Hatteras, North Carolina, and the largest wind field ever measured, both from Hurricane Sandy. We've watched the Arctic melt, losing three quarters of its summer sea ice. We've seen some of the largest fires ever recorded in the mountains of California, Colorado and New Mexico. And not just here, of course – his term has seen unprecedented drought and flood around the world. The typhoon that just hit the Philippines, according to some meteorologists, had higher wind speeds at landfall than any we've ever seen.
======================

There really needs to be a graph showing and tracking the extremes in weather and climate conditions from around the world and in critical regions prone to famine and drought vs average climate change periods and cycles. Why?

Seeing is believing. Get hard science graphs that plot the "extreme measurement" increases and intensity over time vs previous long-term periods, and it could convince people on "the fence" that this is a real danger to humanity and the harmful extinction and reduction of species. There ought to be some natural cycles that are recorded in nature that will clear-out "the noise" patterns to tune-in a very definite increase in extremes of climate and weather intensities that will plot well outside the norms and ranges for what we should be experiencing now.

There is another poster - Dissection Stalker - who has said much the same thing on another thread - New World: Climate Change New World: Climate Change | Page 14 | The Paracast Community Forums though in Dissection Stalker's case its about the predictions - making a time line and ticking off the events as they occur, or if they occur.

The premise of that thread is that climate change is occurring, no debate, for clarity sake. It looks at what the world coming will be like - determined as much by facts and unfolding natural events as by beliefs stemming from how to proceed in the face of it all.

Anyway, on that thread all the evidence of the world-wide changes that I find is being gathered, but one has to read and sift through the articles and videos to assemble the facts, the extremes, etc. Wander over and take a look.

It'd be great if you could do those graphs.

 

[Tyger]

BUSTED...Koch Brothers caught funding climate deniers

TEXT: "Published on Feb 25, 2015: Kert Davies, Climate Investigations Center joins Thom Hartmann. New documents show that one of America's top climate change deniers has received over a million dollars from Big Oil and the Koch Brothers. What does that say about how far Big Oil is willing to go to promote lies about climate change and global warming?"

As one commenter states and interesting speculation: "I think what most aren't getting it. That it's been said 30 years ago that the caps hold more oil, gold and minerals than the whole world. The Koch Brothers knows this and want the caps to melt. The video that was shown several years ago stating this said due to the ice and harsh conditions there won't be a way to get to it....."

 

[Tyger]

Merchants of Doubt is the film being spoken about with such high praise in the above link, based on the book of the same name.

Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming – by Naomi Oreskes Erik M. Conway

TEXT: " Merchants of Doubt should finally put to rest the question of whether the science of climate change is settled. It is, and we ignore this message at our peril." - Elizabeth Kolbert

"Brilliantly reported andwritten with brutal clarity." - Huffington Post

"Merchants of Doubt was one of the most talked-about climate change books of recent years, for reasons easy to understand: It tells the controversialstory of how a loose-knit group of high-level scientists and scientific advisers, with deep connections in politics and industry, ran effective campaigns to mislead the public and deny well-established scientific knowledge over four decades. The same individuals who claim the scienceof global warming is "not settled" have also denied the truth about studies linking smoking to lung cancer, coal smoke to acid rain, and CFCs to the ozone hole. "Doubt is our product," wrote one tobacco executive. These "experts" supplied it."

 

[Tyger]

Here is the top-rated Amazon review of the above book: 'Merchants of Doubt'.

I have read many books that infuriated me, and I was glad for the experience. It's good to get pissed off at injustice, fictional or real, and come away energized, eager to do your small part in correcting whatever wrong the book exposed. But although "Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming" is brilliantly reported and written with brutal clarity, it has left me with a different reaction --- frustration that lobbyists and "experts" have blocked all meaningful steps to avert environment disaster. And will continue to do so, not just until millions are afflicted with skin cancer and the wheat fields are bone dry and the poor are fighting in the streets for water. No. In the very last minute of the very last hour of humanity's very last day on earth, a scientist on the payroll of an oil or coal company --- most likely a scientist who has no expertise in environmental matters and whose scientific contributions ended decades ago --- will be saying there's "still doubt" about global warming.

Naomi Oreskes is a real scientist and historian. She's Professor of History and Science Studies at the University of California, San Diego; her books include "Plate Tectonics: An Insider's History of the Modern Theory of the Earth," cited by Library Journal as one of the best science and technology books of 2002. A few years ago, she tired of the Bush administration's insistence that "most" scientists disagree with the notion of global warming, so she did what a real scientist does --- she read every single piece of science written on the subject to see what "most" scientists said about it.

Not one of them called it a "theory." Her conclusion:

"No scientific conclusion can ever be proven, absolutely, but it is no more a 'belief' to say that Earth is heating up than it is to say that continents move, that germs cause disease, that DNA carries hereditary information or that quarks are the basic building blocks of subatomic matter. You can always find someone, somewhere, to disagree, but these conclusions represent our best available science, and therefore our best basis for reasoned action."

Her new book, written with science journalist Erik Conway, is about the absence of reasoned action --- and not just when the issue is global warming. The real shocker of this book is that it takes us, in just 274 brisk pages, through seven scientific issues that called for decisive government regulation and didn't get it, sometimes for decades, because a few scientists sprinkled doubt-dust in the offices of regulators, politicians and journalists. Suddenly the issue had two sides. Better not to do anything until we know more.

Truth in science is a process: research, followed by scientific writing, followed by peer review. In this way, mistakes are corrected, findings refined, validity confirmed. But the interests of scientists on the payroll of, say, R.J. Reynolds Tobacco wasn't truth. "They were not interested in finding facts," Oreskes and Conway write. "They were interested in fighting them."

Here's the absolute stunner --- some of the scientists who were on the payroll of tobacco companies turn out to be the very same scientists now working for oil and coal companies to create confusion about global warming.

Why you may ask, would scientists who once had impressive reputations pose as "experts" on topics which they have no history of expertise?

Frederick Seitz and Fred Singer --- the most visible of the tobacco-causes-cancer and man-causes-global-warming deniers --- were both physicists. Long ago, Seitz helped built the atomic bomb; long ago, Singer developed satellites. Both were politically conservative. Both supported the War in Vietnam and politicians who were obsessed with the Soviet threat. Both were patriots who believed that defending business had something to do with defending freedom. And both were beneficiaries of the strategy that John Hill, Chairman and CEO of the Hill & Knowlton public relations firm, laid out for tobacco executives in 1953: "Scientific doubts should remain." The way to encourage doubt? Call for "more research" --- and fund it.

You can imagine what this did to media coverage in our country. As early as the 1930s, German scientists had shown that cigarettes caused lung cancer. (No one smoked around Hitler.) By the early 1960s, scientists working for American tobacco companies agreed --- nicotine was "addictive" and its smoke was "carcinogenic." But the incessant call for more research and "balanced" journalism kept the smoking controversy alive until 2006, when a federal judge found the tobacco industry guilty under the RICO statute (that is, guilty of a criminal pattern of fraud.) Fifty years of doubt! Impressive.

"The tobacco road would lead through Star Wars, nuclear winter, acid rain and the ozone hole, all the way to global warming," Oreskes and Conway write. The lay reader may want to read the tobacco stories, skim the middle chapters, and then re-focus on global warming, the subject of the book's second half. There you can thrill to the argument that the sun is to blame. Revel in the attacks on environmental scientists (they're all Luddites, and some are probably pinkos). See politics trump science. (The attack on Rachel Carson, who first alerted us to the dangers of DDT, is especially potent. In a novel, Michael Crichton had a character say, "Banning DDT killed more people than Hitler....It was so safe you could eat it.")

Fifty-six "environmentally skeptical" books were published in the 1990s --- and 92% of them were linked to a network of right-wing foundations. As late as 2007, 40% of the American public believed global warming was still a matter of scientific debate. (It's not just Americans who are now addled. Just today, in the New York Times, I read that "only 26 percent of Britons believe that `climate change is happening and is now established as largely manmade,' down from 41 percent in November 2009. A poll conducted for the German magazine Der Spiegel found that 42 percent of Germans feared global warming, down from 62 percent four years earlier.")

I'm just dancing on the surface of this book's revelations. There's so much more, and it's all of a piece --- as the director of British American Tobacco finally admitted, "A demand for scientific proof is always a formula for inaction and delay, and usually the first reaction of the guilty."

Well said, as far as it goes. When I finished "Merchants of Doubt," I felt a little more strongly about that guilt. I try to have compassion for the failings of others, hoping that they might have compassion for my failings, but I have trouble thinking that these scientists and the CEOs who hired them were misguided or confused or even blinded by the incessant need for profit. I now think there really is such a thing as Evil. In their book, Oreskes and Conway do a great public service --- they give us their names of the villains and tell us their stories.​

 

[Tyger]

Looking forward to seeing the film.

LINK: Merchants of Doubt (2014) - IMDb

 

[Tyger]

Right-Wing Media Rush To Defend Industry-Funded Climate Denier Willie Soon
February 24, 2015 DENISE ROBBINS
LINK: http://mediamatters.org/blog/2015/02/24/right-wing-media-rush-to-defend-industry-funded/202648

TEXT: "Conservative media have been quick to rush to the defense of climate science denier Willie Soon, a scientist at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics who has recently come under fire for accepting over $1.2 million from the fossil fuel industry without disclosing this conflict of interest in most of his scientific papers. Among the most impassioned defenses of Soon was an article penned by a writer at the Daily Caller with connections to some of the organizations that funded Soon's research.

"Documents obtained by Greenpeace and the Climate Investigations Center detail the extensive and problematic relationship between the fossil fuel industry and Soon, one of the contrarian scientists often citedby prominent climate science deniers like Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK). The documents reveal that Soon described many of his scientific papers, which largely focus on the claim that the sun is primarily responsible for recent global warming, as "deliverables" produced in exchange for money from fossil fuel interests. The revelations, which were recently covered by several media outlets, reveal a potentially serious breach of scientific ethics in at least eight of the papers Soon has published since 2008, and the Smithsonian Institution has directed the organization's Inspector General to investigate Soon's ethical conduct.

"Several right-wing media outlets are already aggressively defending Soon. Shortly after the initial reports, the Daily Caller published an article criticizing the "attack campaign" against Soon by "firm believers in global warming." The article's author, PG Veer, dismissed the criticisms of Soon, claiming that opponents "are looking for conflicts of interest" rather than challenging Soon on "the facts."

"Yet Veer himself is a former fellow at the Charles Koch Institute, which was created from the Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation -- one of the organizations that provided money for Soon's research. Veer currently works for the Franklin Center, which has received significant funding from Donors Trust, another organization that bankrolled Soon.

"Breitbart has also carried Soon's water, defending him in at least five different articles so far. Columnist James Delingpole defended Soon for "telling the truth" about climate change, writing that the latest news is a "continuation of a vendetta which has been waged for years against an honest, decent, hardworking -- and incredibly brave -- scientist who refuses to toe the official (and increasingly discredited) line on man-made global warming."

"The site also published two op-eds from co-authors of Soon's latest study -- one asserting that the left is "panic[king]" over their paper's "threat to global warming alarmism," and another claiming that "attacks on independent researchers" like Soon and the "misrepresentation of climate research results" are "an evil every bit as pernicious as direct scientific fraud." Breitbart also published letters from Soon's colleagues "defending his professional integrity," and a column criticizing Pennsylvania Democrat Joe Sestak for tweeting a link to the New York Times story on Soon, which the Breitbart author dubbed a "hit piece."

"While Breitbart would have readers believe that Soon has produced "impeccable science," Soon's research has been thoroughly panned by climate scientists for its flaws. His argument that solar activities are primarily responsible for climate change is widely rejected and conflicts with the overwhelming scientific consensus than human activities are to blame. As the head of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies Gavin Schmidt noted, the sun likely accounts for at most 10 percent of recent global warming, meaning that "[t]he science that Willie Soon does is almost pointless."

"It has become increasingly clear that the only point of Soon's research is to "deliver" on climate science denial for his fossil fuel benefactors."

 

[Tyger]

It is conceded that Senator Imhofe's point seemed to be that because it was cold outside - unseasonably cold outside - enough to form a snowball (which he threw in the Senate) - that there then is the 'proof' that the globe is not warming.

Inhofe Tosses a Snowball

TEXT: "Published on Feb 26, 2015: James Inhofe disprove global warming with a snowball, you bet."


This is the response of Senator Whitehouse -

You Can Believe the Senator With a Snowball or Every Major American Scientific Society

TEXT: "Published on Feb 26, 2015: February 26, 2015- In this speech on the Senate floor, Sen. Whitehouse rebuts Sen. Inhofe's earlier speech on climate change."

 

[Tyger]

The politics of Climate Change in the US -

FIVE WAYS THE GOP-LED CONGRESS PLANS TO ATTACK THE ENVIRONMENT
LINK: Five ways the GOP-led Congress plans to attack the environment

TEXT: "[...] Here are five key environmental issues that advocates expect to become even more heated with the GOP in charge of both the House and Senate: [each numbered item has text with it in the link]
1. CARBON POLLUTION STANDARDS
2. WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES
3. GROUND-LEVEL OZONE
4. THE REINS ACT
5. KEYSTONE XL"

 

[manxman]

You Can Believe the Senator With a Snowball or Every Major American Scientific Society

More political Sophistry, one simply cannot believe politically motivated department driven data, the corruption is systematic, i have dozens of examples of departmental corruption.

The science for the most part [around 80%] is pure, but it is all based on wholesale noaa/giss compiled data, over 80% of climate science is dependent on manipulated and corrupted daily wholesale data.

But mainly any student or scientist has to sign a separate dis - claimer before they can work in any American funded climate science that they first consent to ''climate change theory being a ''real'' phenomenon.

No job in American funded climate research, unless they are already committed to the theory of climate change being a given.

No different than offering 'science' jobs to UFO researchers, on the understanding some UFO's are alien, their job is to 'identify them' out of all the noise, climate science is the same, identify trends in noise, NOT doubt the trends are there, they dont hire people who ''admit'' to doubting the trends are there, even tho between them ALL they still have not been able to define one single climatic event as caused by man-made co2.
Many a bullshit headline has claimed to have found a link that 'proves' the disaster was manmade, the reality is 30yrs of empty hype,

The planet hasnt warmed any in nearly 20yrs, the IPCC admit it probably wont warm in the next 10yrs either.

To me thats just the IPCC acknowledging the rhythmical 30/40yr sun cycle.

The IPCC now have to bullshit their political groups way thru the next 10yrs or more, until the sun starts another 30/40yr gentle warming cycle.
Sso hiding the cooling cycle we are in now, is what climate fraud is all about.

I would imagine ALL senators know how deeply politically corrupt climate science is, and will just play/spin whichever side of climate sophistry suits them.

 

[Tyger]

Part of the problem discussing this with you, manxman, is that there is no common ground. You have conveniently made every person who has spoken with the warming (and AGW) pov suspect. You will claim that they have dicey backgrounds that would impact their integrity (that's a matter of opinion). Plus you wholesale trash the science. Not helpful. It relegates you to the periphery. No real exchange can occur.

The planet hasn't warmed any in nearly 20yrs, the IPCC admit it probably wont warm in the next 10yrs either.

Let’s Call It: 30 Years Of Above Average Temperatures Means The Climate Has Changed
February 26, 2015 | by Richard B Rood
LINK: Let’s Call It: 30 Years Of Above Average Temperatures Means The Climate Has Changed | IFLScience

TEXT: "If you’re younger than 30, you’ve never experienced a month in which the average surface temperature of the Earth was below average. Each month, the US National Climatic Data Center calculates Earth’s average surface temperature using temperature measurements that cover the Earth’s surface. Then, another average is calculated for each month of the year for the twentieth century, 1901-2000. For each month, this gives one number representative of the entire century. Subtract this overall 1900s monthly average – which for February is 53.9F (12.1C) – from each individual month’s temperature and you’ve got the anomaly: that is, the difference from the average.

"The last month that was at or below that 1900s average was February 1985. Ronald Reagan had just started his second presidential term and Foreigner had the number one single with “I want to know what love is.”

"These temperature observations make it clear the new normal will be systematically rising temperatures, not the stability of the last 100 years. The traditional definition of climate is the 30-year average of weather. The fact that – once the official records are in for February 2015 – it will have been 30 years since a month was below average is an important measure that the climate has changed. [see graphic in link at this point in article]

[...]

"You can interpret variability over land as the driver of the ups and downs seen in the global graph. There are four years from 1976 onwards when the land was below average; the last time the land temperature was cool enough for the globe to be at or below average was February 1985. The flirtation with below-average temps was tiny – primarily worth noting in the spirit of accurate record keeping. Looking at any of these graphs, it’s obvious that earlier times were cooler and more recent times are warmer. None of the fluctuations over land since 1976 provide evidence contrary to the observation that the Earth is warming.

"Some of the most convincing evidence that the Earth is warming is actually found in measures of the heat stored in the oceans and the melting of ice. However, we often focus on the surface air temperature. One reason for that is that we feel the surface air temperature; therefore, we have intuition about the importance of hot and cold surface temperatures. Another reason is historical; we have often thought of climate as the average of weather. We’ve been taking temperature observations for weather for a long time; it is a robust and essential observation. [see graphic in link at this point in article]

[...]

"We live at a time when the Earth is definitively warming. And we know why: predominately, the increase of greenhouse gas warming due to increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Under current conditions, we should expect the planet to be warming. What would be more important news would be if we had a year, even a month, that was below average.

"The variability we observe in surface temperature comes primarily from understood patterns of weather. Many have heard of El Niño, when the eastern Pacific Ocean is warmer than average. The eastern Pacific is so large that when it is warmer than average, the entire planet is likely to be warmer than average. As we look at averages, 30 years, 10 years, or even one year, these patterns, some years warmer, some cooler, become less prominent. The trend of warming is large enough to mask the variability. The fact that there have been 30 years with no month below the 20th century average is a definitive statement that climate has changed.

"There are other reasons that this 30-year span of time is important. Thirty years is a length of time in which people plan. This includes personal choices – where to live, what job to take, how to plan for retirement. There are institutional choices – building bridges, building factories and power plants, urban flood management. There are resource management questions – assuring water supply for people, ecosystems, energy production and agriculture. There are many questions concerning how to build the fortifications and plan the migrations that sea-level rise will demand. Thirty years is long enough to be convincing that the climate is changing, and short enough that we can conceive, both individually and collectively, what the future might hold.

"Finally, 30 years is long enough to educate us. We have 30 years during which we can see what challenges a changing climate brings us. Thirty years that are informing us about the next 30 years, which will be warmer still. This is a temperature record that makes it clear that the new normal will be systematically rising temperatures, not the ups and downs of the last 100 years.

"Those who are under 30 years old have not experienced the climate I grew up with. In thirty more years, those born today will also be living in a climate that, by fundamental measures, will be different than the climate of their birth. Future success will rely on understanding that the climate in which we are all now living is changing and will continue to change with accumulating consequences."

Article originally appeared here: Let's call it: 30 years of above average temperatures means the climate has changed

 

[Tyger]

@manxman I notice you have nothing to say about Willie Soon. It has been stated many times that the denialist 'scientists' and spokespersons are being funded by corporate interests to produce a certain pov, basically lying outright. Here is some more evidence. Any comment?

 

[manxman]

@Tyger

Firstly i was not addressing you, i will use @Tyger if ever i feel the need to address you in person, otherwise you can take it i am addressing the sophistry in a posting not the author, or just the thread/forum in general.

Common ground comes with common sense.

Let’s Call It: 30 Years Of Above Average Means The Climate Has Changed

More sophistry no matter who is making claims based on it, most sophistical articles or debate starts with a first sentence false assumption, then make more false assumption based on it, that leads to the erroneous conclusions you seem to crave, as the post above.


Global average surface temperatures for the last 30yrs have grown at 0.06c av per decade, 0.18c in 30yrs, not even one 20th of a degree, and stalled in any rise for the last 18yrs and theres nothing unusual about it.

And the base data for the period was corrupted upwards by giss to start with, before they base their honest modelling science on it.



Global mean surface temperature
over the past 20 years (1993–2012)
rose at a rate of 0.14 ± 0.06 °C
per decade (95% confidence interval)

1
.
This rate of warming is significantly
slower than that simulated by the climate
models participating in Phase 5 of
the Coupled Model Intercomparison
Project (CMIP5).

http://www.stat.washington.edu/peter/statclim/fyfeetal.pdf



And this is just incase the heat is hiding in troposphere, no it wasnt there either

Only a 0.001c global average temperature rise in those 30yrs to 2009.

1 one hundredth of a degree.

Latest Global Average Tropospheric Temperatures - Jennifer Marohasy




So you see the articles are see thru to me, as i know this stuff, and it doesnt bother me the sun doing its thing, or politicians and journalists doing their ''thing''on some huge american social engineering experiment they will dismally fail to implement on a world wide basis.

You seem to think volume equals validity.


Let’s Call It: 30 Years Of Above Average Temperatures Means The Climate Has Changed


See how easy sophistry flows.

Has it ? How ?.

Please provide peer reviewed papers/proof to show any weather that has been attributed to any co2, never mind manmade co2.

Any climatic changes in the last 30yrs have been natural, i will wager by sophistical logic that i will have to ''prove'' the weather was natural.

Climate Science as Culture War | Stanford Social Innovation Review

Why do such large numbers of Americans reject the consensus of the scientific community? With upwards of two-thirds of Americans not clearly understanding science or the scientific process and fewer able to pass even a basic scientific literacy test, according to a 2009 California Academy of Sciences survey, we are left to wonder:

How can half the country review science, when they cannot even spell it, ?.

Did they ever stop and think that maybe it was lunatic fringe claims coming out of their congressmens/womans mouths that might have soured ordinary joes to global warming theory.

 

[Tyger]

You Can Believe the Senator With a Snowball or Every Major American Scientific Society:More political Sophistry, one simply cannot believe politically motivated department driven data, the corruption is systematic, I have dozens of examples of departmental corruption.

You make many assertions but have no links to back up those assertions.

The science for the most part [around 80%] is pure, but it is all based on wholesale noaa/giss compiled data, over 80% of climate science is dependent on manipulated and corrupted daily wholesale data.

More assertions with no link connecting to the data. Who has determined that 80% is 'pure'? What 80% ? Then another statement made that 80% of the science is based on corrupted data - how does that work? 80% of the science is pure but 80% is corrupt - care to unravel that one?

But mainly any student or scientist has to sign a separate dis - claimer before they can work in any American funded climate science that they first consent to ''climate change theory being a ''real'' phenomenon.

Another assertion. You must supply your source for such claims.

No job in American funded climate research, unless they are already committed to the theory of climate change being a given.

Another assertion with no back-up. Who is your source for this information? I am well aware that were I to take employ at a US government lab I would have to sign an agreement that the results of my research would belong to the government. At no place in that document would I be committing to any particular theory, and I say that categorically. Believe it or not, the government is interested in fair research (in my experience).

However, it is in the realm of possibility that if you are applying to study Black Holes, it would be assumed that one accepts the theory of Black Holes, and the people one would be working with would have a passing acquaintance with Black Hole Theory, else one would be working at cross purposes.

Is it possible that you are scrambling the politics of the Master's and PhD candidates? One does have to find a professor willing to work with one, and that usually means finding a university department open to one's proposed dissertation topic.

No different than offering 'science' jobs to UFO researchers, on the understanding some UFO's are alien, their job is to 'identify them' out of all the noise

Disagree. Not the way science works. Any such job would be bogus - with an agenda. Not worth the bother.

climate science is the same

No it isn't - and here you betray your ignorance of the scientific method. Scientists design experiments to disprove, not prove assumptions. As once mentioned, scientists are a very contentious group, always vying to unsettle the apple cart. It's in that atmosphere of healthy debate that the facts have become unmistakeable and the theory is successfully predicting future events.

identify trends in noise, NOT doubt the trends are there, they dont hire people who ''admit'' to doubting the trends are there, even tho between them ALL they still have not been able to define one single climatic event as caused by man-made co2.

Not at all. With all of this you simply are demonstrating that you haven't a clue what goes on in scientific research. Further, it is clear that if you have read all the links supplied on the numerous climate change threads, you understood none of what you read. If you had read - and understood what you read - you could not be making the bizarre assertion about a single climactic event caused by man-made CO2. You just don't understand and I'm not here to educate you. You have to do that for yourself.

Many a bullshit headline has claimed to have found a link that 'proves' the disaster was manmade, the reality is 30yrs of empty hype

I'm not aware of any such headline. It doesn't work that way. Care to supply the headline(s)?

The planet hasnt warmed any in nearly 20yrs, the IPCC admit it probably wont warm in the next 10yrs either.

It has. Saying it hasn't doesn't change the facts.

To me thats just the IPCC acknowledging the rhythmical 30/40yr sun cycle.

You are entitled to your opinion, but there is no evidence that the sun has anything to do with what we are seeing unfold.

The IPCC now have to bullshit their political groups way thru the next 10yrs or more, until the sun starts another 30/40yr gentle warming cycle. So hiding the cooling cycle we are in now, is what climate fraud is all about.

You are aware that you are spouting Willie Soon's corporate paid-for propaganda? His specialty was the sun explanation.

I would imagine ALL senators know how deeply politically corrupt climate science is, and will just play/spin whichever side of climate sophistry suits them.

Quite the reverse, the US Congress has members who are well aware of the damage that is being wrought by continuing to dance to the piper's tune. We are going to turn it around and get the situation on track - eventually. Otherwise, the prognosis is grim.